Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Mormons are still doing it, right? I honestly think polygamy should be legalized for men in all 50 states. But that's just me.

Yeah right, like having more than one wife is actually a good idea. Obviously you have never been married!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Mormons are still doing it, right? I honestly think polygamy should be legalized for men in all 50 states. But that's just me.

Nice generalization...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

BS. Who said there have to be children in a polygamous marriage? A lot of gay couples have no plans for kids, and certainly aren't going to produce any within a monogamous homosexual marriage. And regarding your fears of women being treated as property, what if three men wanted to marry each other? How would you prevent them?

 

[daniel1113]

Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument for Gays getting married yet?

If so, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Mormons are still doing it, right? I honestly think polygamy should be legalized for men in all 50 states. But that's just me.

Yeah right, like having more than one wife is actually a good idea. Obviously you have never been married!

No, I'm not married yet and I really don't want to. But sooner or later, my gf, parents, or both are going to pressure me. I know marriage can be dreadful, which is why I don't understand why gays want to go through with that torture.

Nevertheless, if a man can be have eight wives and they speak only when spoken to, it would be a God-send.

 

[Romans828]

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

LOL, look at the cultures that support gay marriage (officially zero at last count)

Gay marriage is not favored by the majority of Americans, therefore its logical to assume we don't want it legalized. Laws of a given country SHOULD reflect the wishes of the majority (all things being equal).

We could pass a law outlawing yellow cars (if we collectively wanted to).

There is nothing magic about what is and isnt the "law", the democracy defines the law.

The SAME logic that stretches gay marriage into a civil rights issue, can be very easily applied to polygamy and bestiality.

What your saying is "dont worry about those two things" because MOST people will find it wrong and fight against it. Well HELLO most people find gay marriage wrong too, but its starting to happen anyway.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument for Gays getting married yet?

If so, I'd like to hear it.

A gay couple that has been together their whole lives is not afforded many of the privilages that a married heterosexual couple has.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

If any Democrat is selected they are gone. I mean he is a better pick than Howard Dean, but Good Lord can't they do a little better. That's almost as bad as the Republicans throwing up Bill Simon to run against Gray Davis

If it was someone like John McCain then Kerry would be outclassed but we are talking about the Dub here, not some wily individual like Clinton who had a way with words

It offends the uptight and anal retentive and therefore must be evil and banned.

Are you talking about Gay Marriage?

We have a born again bible thumper in charge

Good enough?

Nothing wrong with being a Christian, most Americans are Christian. The deal is that our leader shouldn't pander to the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right![/quote]


Born again ones are the worst of the lot. Why should it be federally mandated that two people that love one another can't be married simply because a certain interest group see's it as bad? Didn't they already try that with interracial marriages being deemed illegal as well as the prohibition of alcohol at one point?

Congress shall make no law.....

Also see the 10th amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

If any Democrat is selected they are gone. I mean he is a better pick than Howard Dean, but Good Lord can't they do a little better. That's almost as bad as the Republicans throwing up Bill Simon to run against Gray Davis

If it was someone like John McCain then Kerry would be outclassed but we are talking about the Dub here, not some wily individual like Clinton who had a way with words

It offends the uptight and anal retentive and therefore must be evil and banned.

Are you talking about Gay Marriage?

We have a born again bible thumper in charge

Good enough?

Nothing wrong with being a Christian, most Americans are Christian. The deal is that our leader shouldn't pander to the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right!

Born again ones are the worst of the lot. Why should it be federally mandated that two people that love one another can't be married simply because a certain interest group see's it as bad? Didn't they already try that with interracial marriages being deemed illegal as well as the prohibition of alcohol at one point?

Congress shall make no law.....

Also see the 10th amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "[/quote]

Unfortunately, the Federal government and the Supreme Court have done all they can to make this amendment just words on a piece of paper.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

If any Democrat is selected they are gone. I mean he is a better pick than Howard Dean, but Good Lord can't they do a little better. That's almost as bad as the Republicans throwing up Bill Simon to run against Gray Davis

If it was someone like John McCain then Kerry would be outclassed but we are talking about the Dub here, not some wily individual like Clinton who had a way with words

It offends the uptight and anal retentive and therefore must be evil and banned.

Are you talking about Gay Marriage?

We have a born again bible thumper in charge

Good enough?

Nothing wrong with being a Christian, most Americans are Christian. The deal is that our leader shouldn't pander to the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right!

Born again ones are the worst of the lot. Why should it be federally mandated that two people that love one another can't be married simply because a certain interest group see's it as bad? Didn't they already try that with interracial marriages being deemed illegal as well as the prohibition of alcohol at one point?

Congress shall make no law.....

Also see the 10th amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "[/quote] I agree with you!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument for Gays getting married yet?

If so, I'd like to hear it.

A gay couple that has been together their whole lives is not afforded many of the privilages that a married heterosexual couple has.

Sure they are, just not the same as a married heterosexual couple.

However, even that can be worked out in most cases.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument for Gays getting married yet?

If so, I'd like to hear it.

A gay couple that has been together their whole lives is not afforded many of the privilages that a married heterosexual couple has.

Sure they are, just not the same as a married heterosexual couple.

However, even that can be worked out in most cases.

Umm, I specifically said married for a reason.

And those rights cannot be worked out easily.

My girlfriends aunt is gay. When her partner of many years was dying in the hospital, she was not allowed the same visitation rights that her partners family was, which should would have been if they were married. Instead of being allowed to stay by her side, her partner died rather lonely in a hospital bed. Now tell me that's fair?

 

[DealMonkey]

While this issue has been dissected ad nauseum around here recently, I wanted to throw my towel in with this final thought.

Gay marriage is more-or-less a battle over cultures and in the multi-cultural U.S., which culture is the defacto one. Beyond that, it's being used as a political hot-potato; a wedge issue to divide the already deeply divided country. I don't see Kerry taking up any kind of differing policy on gay marriage -- only that he probably wouldn't go as far as to organize a constitutional amendment to pander to social conservatives. So the effectiveness of gay marriage as a wedge issue is minimal, although it does serve to distract voters from real, more pressing issues in the national arena.

The bottom here is: Does everyone in this country, regardless of race, creed, sexual preference, gender, etc. have the same rights and privileges as everyone else? Frankly, I see no reason to deny any group so long as they simply seek to be regarded as equal under the law and have no ill intent nor causing any harm to others. Social conservatives need to realize that we are a secular, multi-racial, multi-cultural nation and that their beliefs about homosexuality are fine within the context of their own lives or their family's lives, but what gives social conservatives the mandate to define what the "approved" culture is for our country?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

I believe that the Prophet instituted bigamy as a way for women and children to obtain a husband and support in a time when huge numbers of husbands and men had been killed. The idea was basically OKing a social charity to relieve suffering. I remember there was some king of optimum like two or four because, as conjur says, it gets bad the other way too. The ideal was and I think still is one wife. I think bigamy was probably just the best solution for that particular situation. Women's roles is society have changed since then. Marriage seems to be on the way out since women really don't need men. It will likely remain for the backward religious types and advanced people of maturity who marry for love. The reason bigamy won't get legalized now is most likely that tax payers won't want to pay full social security to 800 grooms over one accidental death of a woman and insurance companies the same. But basically otherwise who cares. I bet there's lots of it in Utah.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

SImple my ass, if gay partners are allowed to adopt children, then your reason that multi partners relationships shouldn't be allowed to, prevails more. Do you not think that it is best for a child to have a loving MOTHER and FATHER? If gays are allowed to "marry" then "marry" needs to be redefined as anything goes, animals, ghosts, multiple partners, multiple personalities, dead people, children. Who is to say anyone should be offended be not being able to get married. Its about equal rights, right? then live by you own words.

KK

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Simple solution, Legalize polyandry also. I think your first point is rather moot as plenty of parents ignore their children now, at least with three people in the household or more there will be a better chance the child will get attention. Your second point is dated as it is the new millenium, everyone is a bread winner now, so why not have two of the members of the family work and the third staying home to care for the children, with two full time incomes and one to watch the kids you save thousands on day care alone which would raise the standard of living for the whole family.

Look at the history of many cultures, our own included, only until recently have women been treated with true respect and even that is suspect....are you saying that people who desire a polygamous or polyandrous marriage shouldn't be given that "right"?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

as i pointed out in another thread, slippery slope usually doesn't have the exact same arguments for each step on down the line. saying that the income tax is the first step to communism is a slippery slope argument. but there is no argument given as to why it would happen. this is opposed to consenting adults doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, which works very well for polygamy and incest and whatever else.

 

[DoubleL]

Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

God make one that is convincing to me

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Simple solution, Legalize polyandry also. I think your first point is rather moot as plenty of parents ignore their children now, at least with three people in the household or more there will be a better chance the child will get attention. Your second point is dated as it is the new millenium, everyone is a bread winner now, so why not have two of the members of the family work and the third staying home to care for the children, with two full time incomes and one to watch the kids you save thousands on day care alone which would raise the standard of living for the whole family.

Look at the history of many cultures, our own included, only until recently have women been treated with true respect and even that is suspect....are you saying that people who desire a polygamous or polyandrous marriage shouldn't be given that "right"?

As I said, look at the history of polygamy. It's generally been much to the detriment of women. It's been condoned in societies where women were treated as property. It might have made sense back in our hunter/gatherer days, but not in this day and age.

Also, not every family has two incomes. In those that do, the second income is usually just enough to cover the cost of the extra childcare expenses. As for more parents in the houseshold, what makes you think 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. wives will be living in the same household? Yeah, that will go over real well with today's modern woman. Let's just make them all into concubines and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Besidis, I find it rather hypocritical of someone who opposes same-sex marriage to be condoning polygamy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


I believe that the Prophet instituted bigamy as a way for women and children to obtain a husband and support in a time when huge numbers of husbands and men had been killed. The idea was basically OKing a social charity to relieve suffering. I remember there was some king of optimum like two or four because, as conjur says, it gets bad the other way too. The ideal was and I think still is one wife. I think bigamy was probably just the best solution for that particular situation. Women's roles is society have changed since then. Marriage seems to be on the way out since women really don't need men. It will likely remain for the backward religious types and advanced people of maturity who marry for love. The reason bigamy won't get legalized now is most likely that tax payers won't want to pay full social security to 800 grooms over one accidental death of a woman and insurance companies the same. But basically otherwise who cares. I bet there's lots of it in Utah.

I think it's funny that the Mormon church only supported polygamy if those involved kept it quiet (don't ask, don't tell.) It was those who were boisterous of their multiple wives were excommunicated.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

God make one that is convincing to me

Really? Where did God make that argument? Is this the same God that made homosexuals?

 

[BigToque]

The only justifiable arguement I've ever heard is this:

"Marriage" by definition is religious. The union of one man and one woman is an act that is supposed to unite the man and woman into one. "Marriage" is a term used solely for people who are married in the eyes of God. Anything else should just be called a "union" or some other name that means the same thing. "Marriage" is reserved to God.

To be totally honest I would agree with this. I would deny a gay couple to call themselves "married" because they cannot be "married". However, I totally support a legal government recognised union that gives the people in that union all the benefits that a "married" couple would have. Again however, I'll say that I deny them the status "married".

Btw, in terms of what I believe in regards to beliving in God or believing that the universe is a magfificant and wonderful fluke... I'm in the middle. I tend to sway towards not believing in God, but I'll still say that I'm in the middle.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stefan
The only justifiable arguement I've ever heard is this:

"Marriage" by definition is religious. The union of one man and one woman is an act that is supposed to unite the man and woman into one. "Marriage" is a term used solely for people who are married in the eyes of God. Anything else should just be called a "union" or some other name that means the same thing. "Marriage" is reserved to God.

Bullsh*t!

If marriage is religious, by definition, show me that definition.

What about atheists getting married?

What about people getting married *outside* of a church with no pastor/minister/priest/etc?

What about pre-arranged marriages?

What about our colonial history and the social/economic factors behind marriages?

 

[Gaard]

If gays are allowed to "marry" then "marry" needs to be redefined as anything goes, animals, ghosts, multiple partners, multiple personalities, dead people, children.

Is this agreed upon by all who oppose gay marriages?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Simple solution, Legalize polyandry also. I think your first point is rather moot as plenty of parents ignore their children now, at least with three people in the household or more there will be a better chance the child will get attention. Your second point is dated as it is the new millenium, everyone is a bread winner now, so why not have two of the members of the family work and the third staying home to care for the children, with two full time incomes and one to watch the kids you save thousands on day care alone which would raise the standard of living for the whole family.

Look at the history of many cultures, our own included, only until recently have women been treated with true respect and even that is suspect....are you saying that people who desire a polygamous or polyandrous marriage shouldn't be given that "right"?

As I said, look at the history of polygamy. It's generally been much to the detriment of women. It's been condoned in societies where women were treated as property. It might have made sense back in our hunter/gatherer days, but not in this day and age.

Also, not every family has two incomes. In those that do, the second income is usually just enough to cover the cost of the extra childcare expenses. As for more parents in the houseshold, what makes you think 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. wives will be living in the same household? Yeah, that will go over real well with today's modern woman. Let's just make them all into concubines and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Besidis, I find it rather hypocritical of someone who opposes same-sex marriage to be condoning polygamy.

But what if the woman wants more than a husband, maybe a female also. Or the same with the guy, what if he wants a husband to go along with his wife. Who the heck are you to deny these people of their rights? And don't go citing past examples as they have no bearing here. This a new age, not the caveman times you like to think it is.

KK