Agreed, but not many people think that way. Just look at the poll results. I fail to see how you can support one, but not the other. To me, that's no different than the discrimination that we "conservative bastards" show towards gay marriage.
Agreed, but not many people think that way. Just look at the poll results. I fail to see how you can support one, but not the other. To me, that's no different than the discrimination that we "conservative bastards" show towards gay marriage.Originally posted by: oreagan
As long as everyone involved is a fully consenting adult, I don't have a problem with gay marriage, polygamy, or gay polygamous marriages. "Fully consenting adult" is an important distinction though - it's why it's still completely wrong to allow pedophilia, bestiality or the other things conservatives often try to link with gay marriage. A child and an animal cannot truly consent.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'm for gay marriage, but not polygamy. But hey - does this position make any sense?
The reason I'm against polygamy is partly because it is not an accepted norm and I believe it degrades women - I think it is a dangerous social behavior.
But isn't this the same reasoning that gayhaters use in their opposition to gay marriage? They believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior, much like polygamy is. Why does the reasoning work for polygamy, but not for gay marriage?
So...I'm wondering how many of the people who support gay marriage out there also support polygamy and their reasoning behind their opinions.
Maybe the conservative slippery slope argument is right?
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'm for gay marriage, but not polygamy. But hey - does this position make any sense?
The reason I'm against polygamy is partly because it is not an accepted norm and I believe it degrades women - I think it is a dangerous social behavior.
But isn't this the same reasoning that gayhaters use in their opposition to gay marriage? They believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior, much like polygamy is. Why does the reasoning work for polygamy, but not for gay marriage?
So...I'm wondering how many of the people who support gay marriage out there also support polygamy and their reasoning behind their opinions.
Maybe the conservative slippery slope argument is right?
This is an interesting argument. The only societies where polygamy seems to work is where the men are in control and the women are to some degree oppressed or brainwashed (or perhaps culturally influenced) to maintain positions of secondary status to men. Wouldn't polygamy suggest, however, that men would be free to have as many wives as they wanted and wives would be free to have as many husbands as they wanted? It needn't be that there be any more equality on that front. Now the problem here, is that it creates all sorts of confusion on both a legal and political front.
If woman A decides to marry men B and C, but men B and C decide to marry in exericse of their right to polygamy women D and E and woman D decides to marry man B as well as C...you get where I'm going - this can create a tangle of legal and familial relations which could presumably be confusing, disastrous, and cause more havoc than good by allowing those people the freedom to intermarry. So the simplest solution would be to ban it altogether and make single-partner marriages the norm. While I don't think polygamy is necessarily 'dangerous' behavior in a social context, where it does work it certainly does work with surprising results - but I don't see it working in American society with equality between the sexes, without many problems.
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is a completely separate issue without the aforementioned legal tangles and/or difficulties. I really don't see the relationship between the two, although people think there issome sort oflink.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Yes, this is exactly why i don't support polygamy but i support gay marriage. But you have to see that the reasoning behind legalizing either is exactly the same; the only thing that is different is what you believe the societal norms are. Conservatives think that religion determines these norms. I don't think religion should determine what the norms are (especially just one single religion); I think that we should take a liberal approach similar to Mill's: if something does not harm society and is not dis-useful, it should be acceptable. IMHO, gay marriage would not harm society, and no conservative can come up with an adequate argument (not based on religion) that gay marriage would harm society.
I think it would be terribly naive to beleive that the national allowance of homosexual marriage would not cause some legal tangles/difficulties. Perhaps not as many as polygamy, but anytime you change a long-standing tradition, you have a period of upheaval and uncertainty. But if we are willing to accept the changes and deal with the problems that arise, why couldn't we do the same thing for multi-partner, or other non-traditional marriages?Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is a completely separate issue without the aforementioned legal tangles and/or difficulties. I really don't see the relationship between the two, although people think there issome sort oflink.
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Yes, this is exactly why i don't support polygamy but i support gay marriage. But you have to see that the reasoning behind legalizing either is exactly the same; the only thing that is different is what you believe the societal norms are. Conservatives think that religion determines these norms. I don't think religion should determine what the norms are (especially just one single religion); I think that we should take a liberal approach similar to Mill's: if something does not harm society and is not dis-useful, it should be acceptable. IMHO, gay marriage would not harm society, and no conservative can come up with an adequate argument (not based on religion) that gay marriage would harm society.
I don't really see a link between the two, aside from the fact that they might potentially be 'socially destructive.' The problem is that the term is so general and isn't particular in any way as opposed to saying directly, for example, "Gay marriage is a threat to the nuclear family and is based on sexual attraction and is therefore bad for society."
I do not honestly consider polygamy a threat - in fact, the only thing preventing me from favoring its legalization is that a.) I do not see a broad-based movement crossing multiple boundaries, both religious and racial, to legalize polygamy and b.) I do not see how it is legally/bureaucratically or socially feasible in American society. I don't DENY that it can't work, because it certainly does overseas and throughout history. If someone could prove to me that it does reasonably, I wouldn't see any harm in it.
The problem with equivocating polygamy and gay marriage is that one is solely concerned with the issue of equal treatment between homosexuals and heterosexuals and accomodation of their life preferences whereas the issue of polygamy asks us to consider something in a completely separate dimension, to expand the notion of social and legal relationships as a whole past exclusive relationships to those encompassing SEVERAL or more 'exclusive' relationships. The issue of equality with respect to sexual orientation never enters the picture - it's a different issue entirely.
You raise interesting issues with this thread.Originally posted by: totalcommand
Polygamy does harm the society but not the individual.
WhiskyOriginally posted by: Zysoclaplem
You can hardly place gay marriage to blame for things to come. Remember, without heterosexual marriage, there would be no gay marriage issue.
Again, no. Marriage is a "legal contract" between ONE man and ONE woman. If you are so in favor of ripping out the man/woman requirement, why not just rip out the number of parties involved requirement as well? What's the difference?Originally posted by: Isla
Personally, I support the domestic partnership of ONE PAIR of adults, period. This is because a marriage is a legal contract between two people, not the formation of a corporation.
Sign me up! I like the sound of, "If it's Tuesday, it must be Perknose."Originally posted by: Isla
Otherwise, I'd have me a mess of husbands!
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
See, I don't see how you can't see the similarities. Those that support gay marriage argue that marriage is arbitrarily defined as "one man, one woman" and say that's not fair to them. They say there is no reason why it should not just be "one adult, one adult," as this would be more equal. But if so, why don't they recognize the arbitrary use of "one" and the discrimination against those who are attracted to more than one person (no matter the sex)? It's the same thing to me. If we are going to change the rules to allow people to marry based on their "lifestyles," why not go ahead and change it 100%? Why should homosexuality be accepted as "normal, not deviant" behavior, but not polygamy? Or incest?Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here's my feeling on the issue. I'm not too keen on being in a gay marriage (since I'm not gay and all that), and personally I don't like polygamy. I plan on having a more "traditional" kind of marriage.
That being said, I see nothing that gives me a right to tell OTHER people how to run their personal lives. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't think it's my place, or anyone else's place, to tell them what they can and can't do.
i pretty much agree.
i think that the polygamy thing is one of the weakest points to make.
mostly becuase its a different issue. "slippery slope" doesnt really have anything to do with the current arguement, it just brings up a new one. so...lets cross that bridge when we come to it.
i know oreilly loves to bring up how ill try and marry my cat once gay marriage is legalized but...come on, lets take this one step at a time.
if the traditional definition of marriage is between man and woman and simply making it between man and man or woman and woman or (easier) adult and adult...well, thats easy.
but then to assume, well, we let two people of the same gender get married so now that means we have to let 5 people or mixed genders all get married to one another...i dont really see the connection.
I think it's a perfectly valid argument. And the fact that I have never seen a rational explanation from a gay marriage advocate just bolsters by belief. The only thing I ever see is eye-rolling about how "that's a stupid argument" or "there the conservatives go talking about marrying their pets again." Where is the rational, logical justification for supporting gay marriange, but being opposed to other definitions of marriage?
Originally posted by: Stunt
For my stance: I am pro-gay rights, no religious affiliation atm, against polygamy, most family members are presbyterian and two gay aunts (not with each other...for you witty little...)
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
See, I don't see how you can't see the similarities. Those that support gay marriage argue that marriage is arbitrarily defined as "one man, one woman" and say that's not fair to them. They say there is no reason why it should not just be "one adult, one adult," as this would be more equal. But if so, why don't they recognize the arbitrary use of "one" and the discrimination against those who are attracted to more than one person (no matter the sex)? It's the same thing to me. If we are going to change the rules to allow people to marry based on their "lifestyles," why not go ahead and change it 100%? Why should homosexuality be accepted as "normal, not deviant" behavior, but not polygamy? Or incest?Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here's my feeling on the issue. I'm not too keen on being in a gay marriage (since I'm not gay and all that), and personally I don't like polygamy. I plan on having a more "traditional" kind of marriage.
That being said, I see nothing that gives me a right to tell OTHER people how to run their personal lives. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't think it's my place, or anyone else's place, to tell them what they can and can't do.
i pretty much agree.
i think that the polygamy thing is one of the weakest points to make.
mostly becuase its a different issue. "slippery slope" doesnt really have anything to do with the current arguement, it just brings up a new one. so...lets cross that bridge when we come to it.
i know oreilly loves to bring up how ill try and marry my cat once gay marriage is legalized but...come on, lets take this one step at a time.
if the traditional definition of marriage is between man and woman and simply making it between man and man or woman and woman or (easier) adult and adult...well, thats easy.
but then to assume, well, we let two people of the same gender get married so now that means we have to let 5 people or mixed genders all get married to one another...i dont really see the connection.
I think it's a perfectly valid argument. And the fact that I have never seen a rational explanation from a gay marriage advocate just bolsters by belief. The only thing I ever see is eye-rolling about how "that's a stupid argument" or "there the conservatives go talking about marrying their pets again." Where is the rational, logical justification for supporting gay marriange, but being opposed to other definitions of marriage?
It is not a perfectly valid argument, regardless of what you may think. No eye-rolling either, I promise.
Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. To sum up what you said, "Once we change the definition of marriage to include more than 'one man with one woman', adding all additional lifestyle choices to the definition will be the logical conclusion." Please let me know if I'm wrong here.
Slippery slope arguments are generally wrong because they assume there are never additional factors in the decision further down the "slope". As people have pointed out, there are considerations with polygamy that aren't present with gay marriage that would allow some people to support one and not the other. Supporting gay marriage does not obligate you to support anything else because there are reasons to be against other kinds of marriage that would not apply to gay marriage.
The classic example of this kind of argument is if we legalize pot, pretty soon everyone will be doing heroin and we'll all be drug-addicts. This argument ignores that many people would have reasons for not doing heroin that do not apply to pot (serious physical addiction is always a good one). This is almost always true with slipperly slope arguments because no two situations are the same. People can support spanking children without thinking they should be beaten with a rubber hose. People can support spending $20,000 a year on college and not support spending $40,000 a year on college. People can support keeping religion out of public schools without thinking all Christians should be shot.
Stunt:
The problem with this issue is that state and religeon merged. A no-no under today's diverse population.
I say separate it. Ban marriages from being a government issue altogether.
Make all couples adhere to civil unions. This way gays cannot argue that the government is limiting their rights.
It would be up to gays to go to the church to get married.
This gets the government out of the whole issue...I don't think anyonw cares if their government knows they are wedded by the church, or in a long term relationship... Marriage once again will be exclusively church 'turf'.
This is the ONLY way i can think of to keep all happy...The state recognizes gay long term relationships, and the church can keep what they created.
For my stance: I am pro-gay rights, no religious affiliation atm, against polygamy, most family members are presbyterian and two gay aunts (not with each other...for you witty little...)
Close. My argument is that some are in favor of lifting the "man/woman" clause of traditional marriage to allow a minority lifestyle segment of the population to participate in the system to gain the recognition and benefits of said system. And if we allow a certain minority to change this based on the cry of "equality," how can anyone, especially those in that minority, object to a 3rd or 4th party minority clamoring for the same treatment. It's not so much a "slippery-slope" argument, as it is outright hypocrisy.Originally posted by: Rainsford
It is not a perfectly valid argument, regardless of what you may think. No eye-rolling either, I promise.
Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. To sum up what you said, "Once we change the definition of marriage to include more than 'one man with one woman', adding all additional lifestyle choices to the definition will be the logical conclusion." Please let me know if I'm wrong here.
Mostly agreed. But what are these reasons? I haven't seen any, other than the standard "eww... that's just wrong" argument that some use for homosexual marriage as well.Slippery slope arguments are generally wrong because they assume there are never additional factors in the decision further down the "slope". As people have pointed out, there are considerations with polygamy that aren't present with gay marriage that would allow some people to support one and not the other. Supporting gay marriage does not obligate you to support anything else because there are reasons to be against other kinds of marriage that would not apply to gay marriage.
Hmm.. I agree with everything you say here. I just fail to see how exactly this relates to the topic at hand. To me, I see your objections as more like, "I support the idea of interracial marriage, as long as no Hispanics are involved!" Once you open up an idea like changing marriage to accept alternate lifestlye choices, how can you arbitrarily set a limit on how far you will go? I agree that in the sake of decency, we should limit it to CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS, but after that, who sets the limits and for what reason?The classic example of this kind of argument is if we legalize pot, pretty soon everyone will be doing heroin and we'll all be drug-addicts. This argument ignores that many people would have reasons for not doing heroin that do not apply to pot (serious physical addiction is always a good one). This is almost always true with slipperly slope arguments because no two situations are the same. People can support spanking children without thinking they should be beaten with a rubber hose. People can support spending $20,000 a year on college and not support spending $40,000 a year on college. People can support keeping religion out of public schools without thinking all Christians should be shot.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I think it would be terribly naive to beleive that the national allowance of homosexual marriage would not cause some legal tangles/difficulties. Perhaps not as many as polygamy, but anytime you change a long-standing tradition, you have a period of upheaval and uncertainty. But if we are willing to accept the changes and deal with the problems that arise, why couldn't we do the same thing for multi-partner, or other non-traditional marriages?Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is a completely separate issue without the aforementioned legal tangles and/or difficulties. I really don't see the relationship between the two, although people think there issome sort oflink.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'm not arguing that gay marriage and polygamy are different. I'm arguing that the reasoning behind legalizing gay marriage could easily be applied to legalizing polygamy.
People supporting gay marriage say the following:
Homosexual partners deserve the same legal treatment as married couples because they share a similar bond as married couples do. Basically, equal protection under the law.
These same arguments can easily be applied to polygamy:
There can be a bond between one person and multiple people, so they deserve the same legal treatment as monogamous married couples = equal protection under the law.
So, the arguments for either gay marriage or polygamy are very similar, and I think they are definitely linked. There is no difference in my mind between one and several when using the equal protection amendment.
I'm arguing that the difference between the two comes from the potential cons:
Gay marriage does not harm society or the individual.
Polygamy does harm the society but not the individual.
"I don't really see a link between the two, aside from the fact that they might potentially be 'socially destructive.'" Thus, I think that the socially destructive part is the only place where they are not linked.
The harm of either to society is very much open to debate, which is why i think conservatives have such success in saying that legalizing gay marriage would be the same as legalizing polygamy.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Close. My argument is that some are in favor of lifting the "man/woman" clause of traditional marriage to allow a minority lifestyle segment of the population to participate in the system to gain the recognition and benefits of said system. And if we allow a certain minority to change this based on the cry of "equality," how can anyone, especially those in that minority, object to a 3rd or 4th party minority clamoring for the same treatment. It's not so much a "slippery-slope" argument, as it is outright hypocrisy.Originally posted by: Rainsford
It is not a perfectly valid argument, regardless of what you may think. No eye-rolling either, I promise.
Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. To sum up what you said, "Once we change the definition of marriage to include more than 'one man with one woman', adding all additional lifestyle choices to the definition will be the logical conclusion." Please let me know if I'm wrong here.
Mostly agreed. But what are these reasons? I haven't seen any, other than the standard "eww... that's just wrong" argument that some use for homosexual marriage as well.Slippery slope arguments are generally wrong because they assume there are never additional factors in the decision further down the "slope". As people have pointed out, there are considerations with polygamy that aren't present with gay marriage that would allow some people to support one and not the other. Supporting gay marriage does not obligate you to support anything else because there are reasons to be against other kinds of marriage that would not apply to gay marriage.
Hmm.. I agree with everything you say here. I just fail to see how exactly this relates to the topic at hand. To me, I see your objections as more like, "I support the idea of interracial marriage, as long as no Hispanics are involved!" Once you open up an idea like changing marriage to accept alternate lifestlye choices, how can you arbitrarily set a limit on how far you will go? I agree that in the sake of decency, we should limit it to CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS, but after that, who sets the limits and for what reason?The classic example of this kind of argument is if we legalize pot, pretty soon everyone will be doing heroin and we'll all be drug-addicts. This argument ignores that many people would have reasons for not doing heroin that do not apply to pot (serious physical addiction is always a good one). This is almost always true with slipperly slope arguments because no two situations are the same. People can support spanking children without thinking they should be beaten with a rubber hose. People can support spending $20,000 a year on college and not support spending $40,000 a year on college. People can support keeping religion out of public schools without thinking all Christians should be shot.
Also, thanks for the rational discussion and lack of eye-rolling.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'm for gay marriage, but not polygamy. But hey - does this position make any sense?
The reason I'm against polygamy is partly because it is not an accepted norm and I believe it degrades women - I think it is a dangerous social behavior.
But isn't this the same reasoning that gayhaters use in their opposition to gay marriage? They believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior, much like polygamy is. Why does the reasoning work for polygamy, but not for gay marriage?
So...I'm wondering how many of the people who support gay marriage out there also support polygamy and their reasoning behind their opinions.
Maybe the conservative slippery slope argument is right?