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

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, tell me this, do we need to have men marrying multiple women in order to carry on the population?

do we need to have homosexual couples marrying who biologically cannot reproduce? do straight couples need to get married when they can simply live together??

we don't really *need* anything anymore, it is more about want....and if same sex couples can marry then why should we stop a woman from having five or six husbands if everyone is willing, or a man from having five or six wives....why limit everyone to only a couple, you would cut down on housing and used land as more people would live in a household, children would never be left alone....all in all seems like a win win situation or does it?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

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!

The wording is important because that is what the argument is all about. This is not a civil rights issue. The civil unions are exactly the same as marriage except under a different name. Marriage has a long sttanding history of being wholesome and admirable. Civil unions have no such history and noone is really sure it is even going to work.
The gays want the definition of marriage to be changed to include them under the meaning. This would give their relationship the same good connotation as heterosexual marriages. If gays just wanted rights then civil unions would be enough since those are the same rights.They don't just want rights they want to change our thoughts by changing the dictionary. How very 1984'ish. Change marriage to mean a union between two people and all of a sudden homosexual unions become wholesome and admirable too. I don't buy it. Let them put in a few thousand years to get a nice track record that heterosexual unions have, then if civil unions are still doing OK we can merge the two into one term.

That same track record that now results in one of two new marriages ending in divorce?

Gotcha.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
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.

Here we go with that reading comprehension again Conjur, if you actually read what I posted you would have seen that I mentioned specifically "polyandry" to balance out polygamy, might help if you did a search on the term and got a definition....and also as I said even this society much until recently treated women badly, do you think that a society that allowed both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't balance itself out?? maybe men would be treated as property instead?

That's like saying we can have politicians and Democrats to balance each other out. Polygamy is the all-encompassing term. Polygyny (the word you were looking for) is one husband and multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman and multiple husbands (and, you must admit, is a rather rare occurrence...hence my examples in my posts allude to polygyny.)

Personally I don't believe in or condone any multi spouse union, and I don't oppose same sex unions either...I just feel your arguments are rather laughable at times boarderline pathetic.

I'm just trying to flesh out peoples' justifications for polygamy. If the government is to condone polygamy, then bigamy laws must be stricken as, technically, the two would contradict one another. I just don't see that happening.

 

[sandorski]

woot, going to file "Marriage" with the Patent Office!!!! If you want it defined, the bidding starts at $1million. Don't delay, bid today!!!!

 

[sandorski]

If we leagalize Polygamy, let's do it properly. Women should be able to have multiple Husbands. [Looking up Cindy Crawfords number, just in case!]

 

[Dari]

link

Saudis quiz 'gay wedding' guests

Saudi investigators are grilling some 50 people for allegedly attending a gay wedding in the city of Medina, a newspaper reported on Monday.

The suspects deny they were attending a gay marriage and say they took part in a ceremony to mark the wedding of a Chadian friend, Arab News said.

The accused Chadian told the police he was rehearsing for his legal marriage, which was planned for last Friday.

The incident has shocked Saudi Arabia, where gay marriage is banned.

An initial newspaper report last Friday claimed that police arrested guests at the wedding of an all-male couple from Chad.

Different stories
Police raided a rest house where the ceremony was under way after advice from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, Arab News reported.

Investigators say that invitations to last Wednesday's ceremony indicated it was a gay function and point to the suspicious behaviour of guests.

They fled the venue at the sight of police cars and left some 30 vehicles behind, according to security sources.

But one of the two Chadians involved told the police that he was rehearsing for his legal marriage, to be held at a wedding hall last Friday.

His Saudi sponsor confirmed the man's story and said he had given him money to meet the marriage expenses.

 

[Tom]

"I'm just trying to flesh out peoples' justifications for polygamy. If the government is to condone polygamy, then bigamy laws must be stricken as, technically, the two would contradict one another. I just don't see that happening. "


I don't see why ? Bigamy involves being married to more than one woman without telling the other women involved, doesn't it ? That wouldn't be the same as multiple wives where everybody knows about it.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Stefan

So, everyone in this country, who has obtained a marriage license and are considered married by today's society are not really married because it was done by a gov't official and not a priest?

What I'm saying is that as long as the marriage is done by someone who has "churchly authority", then it is a "marriage".

Don't forget that when someone gets married, two things happen.

1) The people are married in the eyes of the church
2) The people get a legal union in the eyes of the government

If you are not married by someone of "churchly authority", I don't see how any union would be called a "marriage" (if the term marriage is indeed reserved for the church - which I have no problem with if it's origins come from the church). It would be a government sanctioned union.

Oh crap. Now I have to go ahead and give my wife the bad news. All this time we thought we were married. She's gunna freak! (I hope she ain't too happy )

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I'm just trying to flesh out peoples' justifications for polygamy. If the government is to condone polygamy, then bigamy laws must be stricken as, technically, the two would contradict one another. I just don't see that happening. "


I don't see why ? Bigamy involves being married to more than one woman without telling the other women involved, doesn't it ? That wouldn't be the same as multiple wives where everybody knows about it.

You can rest assured, knowing our litigious society, that those lines will quickly become blurred as people abuse the polgyamy laws (should any be enacted.)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stefan


Why "Wow....just.........wow"?

If the term marriage came about because of God and the church, why is it wrong to make a distinction between a marriage recognized by the church and an union recognized by the government. Just because the term has been adopted by everyone doesn't mean the word no longer belongs to the church. (assuming the term marriage has it's roots in the church)

Eg. Everyone calls facial tissue "kleenex" when they ask for it. "Kleenix" is a company's product name for facial tissue.

That's one big ASSumption.

 

[Gaard]

Just because the term has been adopted by everyone doesn't mean the word no longer belongs to the church.

Fair and balanced.

 

[bozack]

so conjur,

I must thank you for clarifying the terminology for me, it has been a long time since anthro 101 and from browsing over this thread I see many who assume polygamy refers only to one man, multiple wifes, even you seem to feel that should anything be allowed that this would be the most likely scenerio...however I wouldn't be surprised if it were in fact the opposite, where polyandry was the norm...or an equal balance....

but back to my other point, you use need and necessity as justifications, however I must stress that how does any of this have to do with necessity?? sure back in older times when procreation or wealth retention were primary concerns that is fine, but in this day and age, when you can leave everything to your dog if you so desire, and when we have overpopulation issues...what possible logical justification can you give for limiting a family to just a couple...financially as I said before, it would make more sense if you had polygamous relationships where there were multiple husbands and wifes in households, then you could have your "breadwinners" and your homemakers, take up less space instead of breaking the couples up, avoid costs of daycare....etc.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually make it legal.

what authority does the state have to interfere in the private relations of consenting adults?

For protection of one or both of the parties. In order for polygamy to be legal, the bigamy laws will have to be stricken across the land. Do you really see that happening?

since the gov't doesn't have any right to tell consenting adults what they can do in their own homes why wouldn't it happen? you didn't say how consenual bigamy was injuring one of the parties

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Heterosexual monogamous marriage was instituted at the beginning of civilization (if you look at the book of Genesis it extends to the beginning of humanity) in order to provide a means in which the complementary aspects of a man and a woman could be used to provide a sheltered environment for strengthening families and raising children.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of the cornerstones of a stong society and is the superior manner in which to raise strong, moral children (so say 10,000 years of history).

Legalizing homosexual marriage violates the principle that the state recognizes marriage in order to ensure that strong families, and hence a stong society, be built. When people argue that marriage is all about love between two people, they forget why it was instituted in the first place. If marriage should be extended to any two people deeply in love, then it should also be extended to close family members and to people in love with more than one person. This doesn't happen because it would lead to a substantial degree to the dissolution of the family.

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: Stonewall
Heterosexual monogamous marriage was instituted at the beginning of civilization (if you look at the book of Genesis it extends to the beginning of humanity) in order to provide a means in which the complementary aspects of a man and a woman could be used to provide a sheltered environment for strengthening families and raising children.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of the cornerstones of a stong society and is the superior manner in which to raise strong, moral children (so say 10,000 years of history).

Legalizing homosexual marriage violates the principle that the state recognizes marriage in order to ensure that strong families, and hence a stong society, be built. When people argue that marriage is all about love between two people, they forget why it was instituted in the first place. If marriage should be extended to any two people deeply in love, then it should also be extended to close family members and to people in love with more than one person. This doesn't happen because it would lead to a substantial degree to the dissolution of the family.

BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT nanananana
I get to call you that cause Im one too lol

Just wanted to beat our left leaning friends to the punch, oh yeah your a homophobe too

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: Stonewall
Heterosexual monogamous marriage was instituted at the beginning of civilization (if you look at the book of Genesis it extends to the beginning of humanity) in order to provide a means in which the complementary aspects of a man and a woman could be used to provide a sheltered environment for strengthening families and raising children.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of the cornerstones of a stong society and is the superior manner in which to raise strong, moral children (so say 10,000 years of history).

Legalizing homosexual marriage violates the principle that the state recognizes marriage in order to ensure that strong families, and hence a stong society, be built. When people argue that marriage is all about love between two people, they forget why it was instituted in the first place. If marriage should be extended to any two people deeply in love, then it should also be extended to close family members and to people in love with more than one person. This doesn't happen because it would lead to a substantial degree to the dissolution of the family.

BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT nanananana
I get to call you that cause Im one too lol

Just wanted to beat our left leaning friends to the punch, oh yeah your a homophobe too

Put a lid on it Jesus Boy!

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Romans828

Originally posted by: Stonewall
Heterosexual monogamous marriage was instituted at the beginning of civilization (if you look at the book of Genesis it extends to the beginning of humanity) in order to provide a means in which the complementary aspects of a man and a woman could be used to provide a sheltered environment for strengthening families and raising children.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of the cornerstones of a stong society and is the superior manner in which to raise strong, moral children (so say 10,000 years of history).

Legalizing homosexual marriage violates the principle that the state recognizes marriage in order to ensure that strong families, and hence a stong society, be built. When people argue that marriage is all about love between two people, they forget why it was instituted in the first place. If marriage should be extended to any two people deeply in love, then it should also be extended to close family members and to people in love with more than one person. This doesn't happen because it would lead to a substantial degree to the dissolution of the family.

BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT nanananana
I get to call you that cause Im one too lol

Just wanted to beat our left leaning friends to the punch, oh yeah your a homophobe too

Put a lid on it Jesus Boy!

Make me

You Antichrist wanabe

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Romans828

Make me

You Antichrist wanabe

G-d hates red!

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: 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?

Most of us, yes.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: 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?

Most of us, yes.

Some important caveats - the word "consenting" and "living" need to be tacked on to that, for any semblance of logic.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stonewall
Heterosexual monogamous marriage was instituted at the beginning of civilization (if you look at the book of Genesis it extends to the beginning of humanity) in order to provide a means in which the complementary aspects of a man and a woman could be used to provide a sheltered environment for strengthening families and raising children.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of the cornerstones of a stong society and is the superior manner in which to raise strong, moral children (so say 10,000 years of history).

Legalizing homosexual marriage violates the principle that the state recognizes marriage in order to ensure that strong families, and hence a stong society, be built. When people argue that marriage is all about love between two people, they forget why it was instituted in the first place. If marriage should be extended to any two people deeply in love, then it should also be extended to close family members and to people in love with more than one person. This doesn't happen because it would lead to a substantial degree to the dissolution of the family.

Nope. Read your Bible, Monogamy was less common than you think. It wasn't even mandated or enforced.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Nope. Read your Bible, Monogamy was less common than you think. It wasn't even mandated or enforced.

I never mentioned how common polygamy was--Solomon had 700 wives I believe--I'm just qualifying the types of marriage.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

I just don't see where anyone has any justification to actually make it legal.

what authority does the state have to interfere in the private relations of consenting adults?

For protection of one or both of the parties. In order for polygamy to be legal, the bigamy laws will have to be stricken across the land. Do you really see that happening?

since the gov't doesn't have any right to tell consenting adults what they can do in their own homes why wouldn't it happen? you didn't say how consenual bigamy was injuring one of the parties

What do you mean by consensual bigamy? You do know what bigamy is, eh?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack
so conjur,

I must thank you for clarifying the terminology for me, it has been a long time since anthro 101 and from browsing over this thread I see many who assume polygamy refers only to one man, multiple wifes, even you seem to feel that should anything be allowed that this would be the most likely scenerio...however I wouldn't be surprised if it were in fact the opposite, where polyandry was the norm...or an equal balance....

Well, that could very well happen, esp. with the way women are dramatically increasing their rate of cheating on their spouses.

but back to my other point, you use need and necessity as justifications, however I must stress that how does any of this have to do with necessity?? sure back in older times when procreation or wealth retention were primary concerns that is fine, but in this day and age, when you can leave everything to your dog if you so desire, and when we have overpopulation issues...what possible logical justification can you give for limiting a family to just a couple...financially as I said before, it would make more sense if you had polygamous relationships where there were multiple husbands and wifes in households, then you could have your "breadwinners" and your homemakers, take up less space instead of breaking the couples up, avoid costs of daycare....etc.

Makes some sense but that seems like it would be an ideal situation. And how often are ideal situations reached?

I don't know if you can tell but I've been playing the devil's advocate somewhat in regards to polygamy. I really didn't have a strong stance on it and was just curious to hear others' reasons for making it accepted by the government.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur

What do you mean by consensual bigamy? You do know what bigamy is, eh?

since you happen to love the dictionary:

big·a·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-m)
n.

The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.

nowhere does it say bigamy is nonconsensual.