Do you oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

If you won't explain why it is OK to deny marriage rights to polygamists, so be it, that is your right to ignore that issue. But it is a valid comparison to your opponents.

Because rl stalks me so well, let me point out where she talks about this:

Quote

For the record, I support any type of marital arrangment that works, particularly when there are children involved.

Your right, RL has made it clear that she is OK with polygamy. My reply should have been directed at others are not so willing to make a stand on the issue. I contend they do not want to take a stand on it because they cannot justify denying poly marriages, but to say they are OK will not promote their cause of same sex marriage. They just want to distance themselves from what I think is a valid comparison. So, if it is OK to ignore the poly's lack of rights, why should I care that same sex marriage rights are denied?

A person that is an advocate of same sex marriage should expect to be asked where they stand on that issue, and should expect Joe citizen to see the two as very similar in nature. Does a polygamist marriage affect others? What they do in their bedroom is their business, right? If they are in a committed, loving, relationship, why should anyone object? Aren't these the same arguments used to question the reason for objection to same sex marriage?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Ummmm....what about us single people with children. I think you're marginalizing me....

That's why we are legalizing polgamy, too. Divorce will be abolished.

I mean honestly, there should never be single parent families. Just ever increasing large families.... if you get pregnant you are required to get married (to a man or woman).

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Lindsey 0]

Well, then if I screw around and get pregnant by a man other than my husband, can I also claim this second man for my chattel?

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think you're making a good argument for polygamists.

linz

Quite right. I ask for consistency, to not be a hypocrite. I contend that one should not support same sex marriage without accepting other less traditional arrangements.

But it should also be understood that polygamy is not legal, and not at all close to being accepted by the general public. Therefore same sex marriage not being legal should not be considered the same as an infringement of civil rights such as race based prejudice/discriminatory laws.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Most religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam look at homosexuality as a sin and want people who practice homosexuality to be killed.

I don’t agree with my religion on this point. I think homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as a heterosexuals, However I can see if people do not want them married in a church, synagogue, or masque as homosexuality is forbidden in those religions but I think they should be able to get married under law.

How can you be a "good Muslim" and support homosexuality at the same time?

Homosexuality & Islam

[Samurai136 0]

Well, that depends... we may need to define a "head of household" title for the new rules. Only the head of household can marry new partners into the group. Otherwise all we have created is a hippy commune where marriage means less than the current scheme.

I think this could seriously work...

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Keith 0]

Quote

My reply should have been directed at others are not so willing to make a stand on the issue. I contend they do not want to take a stand on it because they cannot justify denying poly marriages, but to say they are OK will not promote their cause of same sex marriage.

I haven't answered your question on polygamy because, a) comparing polygamy to gay relationships is comparing apples and oranges, and b) because I really haven't given polygamy much thought. I don't and never have made it a point to stick my nose in other peoples business. But to answer your question after quick thought, no I'm not for polygamy, no I am not against polygamy and no I don't understand it - I am monogamous by nature.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rwieder 0]

Wrong INMO on all counts.

Just as animals have sense enough not to smoke cigarettes or shoot drugs, they don't mate with "Same Sex Animals" either.

You don't see blue jays mating redbirds, etc...

Follow the rules of "nature" and i believe everything will be cool.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I contend that one should not support same sex marriage without accepting other less traditional arrangements.

Totally agreed.

Your question to me was (paraphrased) "why aren't gays supporting polygamy?"

I think the answer to that is simply that we (meaning all of us) support and advocate for what is near and dear to our hearts.

As for the question that GTA answered on my behalf, let me say this. I grew up on Heinlein, and so my curiosity about all the possible kinds of marriage was aroused at an early age.

The purpose of marriage is for the protection of children. I support any arrangement that does this. I do not support people who hate each other or who simply cannot get along staying together for that purpose; therefore, an institution that protects children while preventing a life of misery for their parents seems to me to be ideal.

Extended families serve a very important function, but with our increasing mobility, we are fast losing that structure of support. In addition, lifetime marriage to one person in an age when lifespans are long is probably not very practical. If we permit some form of group marriage, we may find that people are more inclined to build than to tear down.

Those who prefer to be in a monogamous one man/one woman relationship should, of course, be permitted that choice.

I just don't think it's good for the children.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Wrong INMO on all counts.

Just as animals have sense enough not to smoke cigarettes or shoot drugs, they don't mate with "Same Sex Animals" either.

You don't see blue jays mating redbirds, etc...

Follow the rules of "nature" and i believe everything will be cool.

Homosexuality exists in other animals besides humans.

the mating of a blue jay and a redbird is the mating of two different species and not at all comparable. Your example would be like a woman marrying a monkey

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Keith 0]

What rock have you been hiding under? Homosexuality in nature is a well documented fact, and cross species mating happens all the time.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rwieder 0]

Quote

Your example would be like a woman marrying a monkey

That's going on as well.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Your example would be like a woman marrying a monkey

That's going on as well.

uhhh....okay.

But Keith is right, cross species breeding does occur. However, it is not comparably to homosexulity in humans. Two men or two women are still both HUMAN.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Follow the rules of "nature" and i believe everything will be cool.

I think that's the best answer:

National Geographic News: Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate


Edited to add: Nice to see you, Richard.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[rwieder 0]

Quote

Edited to add: Nice to see you, Richard.

Yeah...Sure it is.

I didn't even follow your URL. No use, same old arguement. As long as someone can back up their arguement(s) with stats, or meaningless articles in National Geographic, i guess it's taken for gospel whatever is in the articles is true?


I saw my very first nekkid women in National Geographic. Now i know where larry Flynt took the "Left Turn"

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I didn't even follow your URL. No use, same old arguement.

And thus we see how the anti-homosexuals think: "Don't bother me with facts acquired through observation. I have beliefs and that makes information unnecessary."

Of course the "Homosexuality in animals" psuedo-argument is particularly stupid. It follows the classic pattern of the Fallacy of the Non-Disprovable:

--

Homophobe: "Fags are disgusting. Even animals don't do that! That makes it unnatural."

Reasonable person: "Actually sir, that's not true. Here's plenty of evidence..."

Homophobe: "See? Animals do it. That makes it animalistic. Humans should be above animals."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

My reply should have been directed at others are not so willing to make a stand on the issue. I contend they do not want to take a stand on it because they cannot justify denying poly marriages, but to say they are OK will not promote their cause of same sex marriage.

I haven't answered your question on polygamy because, a) comparing polygamy to gay relationships is comparing apples and oranges, and b) because I really haven't given polygamy much thought. I don't and never have made it a point to stick my nose in other peoples business. But to answer your question after quick thought, no I'm not for polygamy, no I am not against polygamy and no I don't understand it - I am monogamous by nature.

You can claim it to be an apples to oranges comparison, but I contend that the ordinary voter does not agree, and that should matter to you if you want your cause to succeed.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Edited to add: Nice to see you, Richard.

Yeah...Sure it is.

I didn't even follow your URL. No use, same old arguement. As long as someone can back up their arguement(s) with stats, or meaningless articles in National Geographic, i guess it's taken for gospel whatever is in the articles is true?

Right. Lets ignore "facts" and go with what we "feel." Facts make me feel funny and I don't like it.

Dammit. Why can't I have a longer sig line? I keep writing stuff that would be great for it.

That National Geographic article is hardly the only one on the topic. Sorry dude, you put out an idea that is EASILY debunked. No matter how much you want to "feel" it is true.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The fair thing to do in this scenario would be to remove all benefits from partnerships without children and provide them to all partnerships and singles with children.

"Fair" is a subjective term, However, what you've put up here is closest to where I am. One question...

Would you differentiate between those that generate new people and those that adopt? I haven't formed a solid opinion here, just started to consider it.

First pass, I'd still want to encourage procreation from a stable household. Contrast that to just making sure the children are raised. So that's two things to consider - encouraging procreation, and then benefits that accrue just for the presence of children in any scenario.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Right. Lets ignore "facts" and go with what we "feel." Facts make me feel funny and I don't like it.

Remove the foil hat and breathe in the free air of truthiness!!!

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Right. Lets ignore "facts" and go with what we "feel." Facts make me feel funny and I don't like it.

Remove the foil hat and breathe in the free air of truthiness!!!

Where do you think the first part of my sig comes from? Stephen Colbert baby!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Would you differentiate between those that generate new people and those that adopt?

Hell No, children are children and should be cared for regardless. Why should one child be cared for over another simply on the basis of the ability of the 'original' parents to care for them.

Quote

First pass, I'd still want to encourage procreation from a stable household.

And how would you propose this?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Keith 0]

Quote

You can claim it to be an apples to oranges comparison, but I contend that the ordinary voter does not agree, and that should matter to you if you want your cause to succeed.

Tell you what. I'll make it my lifes work to take every gun you own because your gun enthusiasm makes you no different than Dylan Klebold. How much sence does that make?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I haven't answered your question on polygamy because, a) comparing polygamy to gay relationships is comparing apples and oranges, and b) because I really haven't given polygamy much thought. I don't and never have made it a point to stick my nose in other peoples business. But to answer your question after quick thought, no I'm not for polygamy, no I am not against polygamy and no I don't understand it - I am monogamous by nature.

So, just out of curiosity... If polygamous marriages were suddenly on the ballot... would you vote to allow them or to ban them?

Personally, I don't care if others want to take on multiple husbands or wives... but I do think that that may be a valid insurance/benefit question...

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I didn't even follow your URL. No use, same old arguement. As long as someone can back up their arguement(s) with stats, or meaningless articles in National Geographic, i guess it's taken for gospel whatever is in the articles is true?

I'm sorry.

I couldn't follow this. What does one back up an argument with besides observable facts?

Are you saying the the folks at Nat Geo (and all the other biologists who have done this research) made this stuff up, and that those of us who have actually seen homosexual activities among animals are hallucinating?

Is that what you're saying?

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb