Moral Issues--Abortion & Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

lothario:

Actually, you better reread those “other threads.” I replaced the word “homophobic” with the word “homorepugnant” because I honestly feel that certain people maybe in fact repulsed by homosexual acts. They then oppose them because of this.

However, no where did I say that I was repulsed by this. No where did I state that I was “homorepugnant.” Maybe a course in reading comprehension would help you out pal!

As far as answering my former post, well…you didn’t! When I question
“where do we draw the line if we in fact change marriage after 5000 years.” I don’t think saying “More than one wife is hell on earth.” Is a good answer. It is your usual flippant answer, which is, by the way, usually inappropriate, meaning it doesn’t answer the question. I guess that’s okay seeing as how it is you…

If you would now like to tell me at what point we draw the line on the following potential forms of marriage I would appreciate it. Othewise, I would suggest that you are the one with the “hangup.” You want to be open and politically correct" yet you make absolutely no sense regarding your reasons for this stance. It is “cool” though, huh?

Now answer the following if you would like:

Would you be in favor of group (several men and several women) marriage? If so can the group adopt (if there was a desire)? Would you be in favor of a human marrying an animal" If so can they adopt a child? Are you in favor of one individual marrying several people of the same sex (group homosexual marriage)? If so can they also raise children in your society?

The reason that I am askig these questions is simple. There are many people who live in our society who would like to enjoy these types of marriages and are not allowed to do so under our current laws. In fact, I would suggest to you that there are more heterosexual males who would like more than one wife than there are homosexuals who currently want to marry. Granted they don’t have the strong political lobby that gay people have. However, none the less their desires are real, or do you only accept those with desires who happen to have political clout? In your own words “to each his own right?”

Now get busy and craft an answer that actually makes sense! I don’t mind your attempts at humor, but this time show the forum that you can be more than a clown.

I’m waiting…

Zeb

82

[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:
Would you be in favor of group (several men and several women) marriage? If so can the group adopt (if there was a desire)? Would you be in favor of a human marrying an animal" If so can they adopt a child? Are you in favor of one individual marrying several people of the same sex (group homosexual marriage)? If so can they also raise children in your society?

The reason that I am askig these questions is simple. There are many people who live in our society who would like to enjoy these types of marriages and are not allowed to do so under our current laws. In fact, I would suggest to you that there are more heterosexual males who would like more than one wife than there are homosexuals who currently want to marry. Granted they don’t have the strong political lobby that gay people have. However, none the less their desires are real, or do you only accept those with desires who happen to have political clout? In your own words “to each his own right?”

Now get busy and craft an answer that actually makes sense! I don’t mind your attempts at humor, but this time show the forum that you can be more than a clown.

I’m waiting…

Zeb

[/quote]

I don’t see you doing anything with my responses here. You do know that there are hundreds of thousands of heterosexual men who have more than wife in american today and I’m not talking about Mormons. And there’s nothing that any law can do to stop it. They can adopt. They can get tax breaks if there creative. They are not recognized by the state as being in a polygamous marriage. That’s all. There are hundreds of thousands of homosexuals living as married couples, many with kids. If a pair of lesbians live together, and one can get a court to legaly recognize them as a man, they can get married and get a tax break. No unusual “marriage” between consenting adults and or animals, vegetables, ghosts, demons, cartoon characters. blow up dolls etc. can be effecively legislated against (again, the good ol relative morals created by 10,000 protestant denomonations). So it comes down to
1: social engineering (ie tax breaks) which is a liberal idea in the first place. If you to not fight the liberal concept of social engineering through tax laws then why do you care if there imposed with conservative SYMBOLISM anyway?

2: saving the children (which in principle would be impossible anyway based on my explanation of the inability of america to legilate these practices and occurrances. And in practice can not be shown to harm children (in the case of homosexuals).

  1. saving the word symbolic word “marriage”, which again as I have stated before, the nature of the liberal justice system ultimately consigns all mere symbols to oblivion.
83

Mertawg:

Really? Last time I checked polygamy was illegal.

Since you like the theme that moral laws are bad and that there is no “proof” that any sort of union is harmful then why not really broaden this argument? In fact, why not allow any sort of, unnatural unions? How about a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her son? Nothing wrong with that in your world, right? That is afterall only a moral taboo.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Since you like the theme that moral laws are bad and that there is no “proof” that any sort of union is harmful then why not really broaden this argument? In fact, why not allow any sort of, unnatural unions? How about a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her son? Nothing wrong with that in your world, right? That is afterall only a moral taboo.
[/quote]

Heeeeeyyyy, wait a minute. Incest IS proven to be extremely risky and potentially create huge health problems. It is not only a moral taboo - if people with that many common genes have children, the changes of those children having genetic defects is exponentially higher than with people who do not share that much genetic material.

One can argue that’s their problem, but it’s not because if we had a huge PREVENTABLE increase of people with genetic defects it would put a completely unnecessary burden on the health system - and go against the other many economic and social reasons smart governments promote genetic DIVERSITY.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, has never been shown to have any similar adverse consequences (social, economical, genetic). Gay couples cannot naturally have their own biological children!

85

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Really? Last time I checked polygamy was illegal.
[/quote]

You’re being anal here…

Yes, you cannot marry more than one person, so technically you cannot be polygamous in any of the US.

However, mertdawg was talking to the fact that there’s no law stopping you for living, dating, having sex with, whatever, with multiple women. You can have kids with multiple women, even, and you won’t go to jail for any of that.

You’ll only go to jail if you defraud the Feds or a State and lie in order to marry multiple women.

Now, in regards to the question: is it imposing a moral standard for the government to not allow polygamy? Not necessarily - although I don’t have any of the references to these studies at hand, I’ve read before that there are very good social engineering reasons against polygamy - both to prevent lack of genetic diversity reasons (although at a less serious degree than incest) and to prevent some men getting all the women and leaving others in the dry, which could have serious social consequences, ranging from depression to violence.

So even left-wing liberals - who, like me, believe in social engineering by the government - would have a case against it.

I can try and dig up those studies if you want, or you can Google for them yourself.

86

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Mertawg:

Really? Last time I checked polygamy was illegal.
[/quote]
As is a) adultery; b) oral sex; c) sex of any kind between two individuals both under the age of 15. So none of those things happen in america right. Pick an answer:

The NATURAL LAW definition of marriage is a man and a woman who engage in sexual intercourse
with each other willingly. Please explain the logic of anti-polygamy laws in light of the number of americans with multiple sex partners.

Its called "So Zeb don’t feel guilty for everyone elses filth, cause he fought for symbolism.

I don’t think that moral laws are bad, but relative protestantism has made them unenforceable-consigned them to oblivion.

87

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Since you like the theme that moral laws are bad and that there is no “proof” that any sort of union is harmful then why not really broaden this argument? In fact, why not allow any sort of, unnatural unions? How about a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her son? Nothing wrong with that in your world, right? That is afterall only a moral taboo.

Heeeeeyyyy, wait a minute. Incest IS proven to be extremely risky and potentially create huge health problems. It is not only a moral taboo - if people with that many common genes have children, the changes of those children having genetic defects is exponentially higher than with people who do not share that much genetic material.

One can argue that’s their problem, but it’s not because if we had a huge PREVENTABLE increase of people with genetic defects it would put a completely unnecessary burden on the health system - and go against the other many economic and social reasons smart governments promote genetic DIVERSITY.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, has never been shown to have any similar adverse consequences (social, economical, genetic). Gay couples cannot naturally have their own biological children![/quote]

hspder:

Then we have a very easy fix for this problem without denying anyone the right to marry their son or daughter. The interested parties simply undergo an operation that prevents them from having children. This of course will be verified by the attending physician, and the proper paper work will follow. Can they adopt children? I don’t think it has been proven that this type of relationship harms children…right?

There…now at least these couples will not be denied the right to true happiness, or any financial considerations that other married couples might derive.

88

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Really? Last time I checked polygamy was illegal.

You’re being anal here…

Yes, you cannot marry more than one person, so technically you cannot be polygamous in any of the US.

However, mertdawg was talking to the fact that there’s no law stopping you for living, dating, having sex with, whatever, with multiple women. You can have kids with multiple women, even, and you won’t go to jail for any of that.

You’ll only go to jail if you defraud the Feds or a State and lie in order to marry multiple women.

Now, in regards to the question: is it imposing a moral standard for the government to not allow polygamy? Not necessarily - although I don’t have any of the references to these studies at hand, I’ve read before that there are very good social engineering reasons against polygamy - both to prevent lack of genetic diversity reasons (although at a less serious degree than incest) and to prevent some men getting all the women and leaving others in the dry, which could have serious social consequences, ranging from depression to violence.

So even left-wing liberals - who, like me, believe in social engineering by the government - would have a case against it.

I can try and dig up those studies if you want, or you can Google for them yourself.[/quote]

hspder:

Not so fast! Homosexuals can also date and have as much sex with the same sex as they like. However, they are denied all of the benefits that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy.

Therefore, let’s not be so smug as to think that homosexual couples are the only “non-traditional” group of people who want and deserve the many benefits of marriage.

Currently polygamists do not enjoy the same rights of marriage that we now offer to a married heterosexual couple? Are you stating that this group does not in fact deserve these rights? Why is their happiness any less important than a homosexual couples happiness?

Why are there some (a minority) who want to bend the rules of marriage for one group, but not another? I would bet that there are more heterosexual men who would take on another wife (or two, or three etc) than there are homosexuals who want to marry.

89

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Mertawg:

Really? Last time I checked polygamy was illegal.

As is a) adultery; b) oral sex; c) sex of any kind between two individuals both under the age of 15. So none of those things happen in america right. Pick an answer:

The NATURAL LAW definition of marriage is a man and a woman who engage in sexual intercourse
with each other willingly. Please explain the logic of anti-polygamy laws in light of the number of americans with multiple sex partners.

Its called "So Zeb don’t feel guilty for everyone elses filth, cause he fought for symbolism.

I don’t think that moral laws are bad, but relative protestantism has made them unenforceable-consigned them to oblivion.

[/quote]

mertawg:

And your post is called “dodging the question” and you do it pretty well.

I will ask you the same question that I posed to the previous poster: Why should a polygamists (or father daughter, mother son) be denied all of the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy?

Answer the above question, without launching into a tirade about “protestanism.” I could not care less about the religious aspect of this discussion, stop assuming that I do. I simply would like to know why larger groups of people should be denied the same rights that some are advocating for homosexual couples.

90

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The NATURAL LAW definition of marriage is a man and a woman who engage in sexual intercourse with each other willingly.
[/quote]

Errr, I hate to disagree here, mertdawg, but where did you find a NATURAL LAW definition of marriage? Is there such a thing? Or are you just calling “marriage” to “intercourse”?

If you’re thinking about the times where we did not really have moralistic values, marriage could be seen as the glue that kept the guys around protecting the tribes and hunting for food, while women raised their kids and scoured for fruit and vegetables.

So marriage was always more than just sex.

However, you might still have a point there in regards to polygamy, since it is true that monogamy is essentially a Christian invention (Jews were “allowed” to be polygamous for a long time, and almost all other religions still “allow” it too).

My argument against polygamy, though, is one of social engineering (which doesn’t mean I think it should be forbidden - just not sponsored by, say, tax cuts), but I’ll readily agree that for a right-wing person the argument against polygamy is purely moralistic.

91

The polygamy-polyandry argument for marriage may even be stronger - after all, they’ve done it before and actually had the right taken away from them. Gay marriage is a concept that has no historical basis in the West and doesn’t result naturally - ie, doesn’t create a family unit through nature.

If any member of an alternative group is in line to enjoy a civil liberation of their lifestyle, it is a Mormon polygamist, who not only can claim that his arrangement is much more parallel to traditional marriage, but also that it is rooted in his religion, which is presumably protected by the First Amendment.

Now, I don’t support polygamy or polyandry, and I think their arguments weak - but they are stronger than that for gay marriage.

As for restricting polyandry for the public policy reasons to promote ‘genetic diversity’ - that is the worst defense in the history of defenses. Outside of incest, communities aren’t exactly clamoring in city hall or state legislatures that their town isn’t sufficiently diverse from a genetic point of view. I have never heard of such lunacy, and it isn’t a priority anywhere. Silliness. And that is a smokescreen as to the real reason polygamy is outlawed - it’s not genetic diversity concerns, it’s about moral and cultural concerns. Lincoln referred to the “last relics of barbarism” - slavery and bigamy.

Gay marriage advocates desperately want to distance themselves from the polygamy/polyandry movement, and I don’t blame them. Unfortunately, the arguments used to advance gay marriage - that consenting adults shouldn’t have their relationships determined by majoritarian attitudes that aren’t tolerant of those choices - apply to exactly polygamists and polyandrists. Hell, even the polygamists can procreate, thereby arguing there union is much more ‘natural’.

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertawg:

And your post is called “dodging the question” and you do it pretty well.

I will ask you the same question that I posed to the previous poster: Why should a polygamists (or father daughter, mother son) be denied all of the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy?
[/quote]

Please list what you mean by “all of the benefits” and I will answer plainly.

93

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Not so fast! Homosexuals can also date and have as much sex with the same sex as they like. However, they are denied all of the benefits that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy.

Therefore, let’s not be so smug as to think that homosexual couples are the only “non-traditional” group of people who want and deserve the many benefits of marriage.
[/quote]

So, are you saying that Bush is wrong in agreeing with Civil Unions of gays (that would technically give them ALL benefits of marriage except the public acceptance that comes with the name)?

Because that “happiness” may come at the cost of others - and I’m not talking just moral insult here. Same way I think letting the rich become so rich without taxing the heck out of them comes at the detriment of all the poor people, since they are being allowed to hog the intrinsically limited collective wealth.

On the other hand, a gay couple marrying does not create a disadvantage for anyone else. Unless you tell me you have the hots for a gay girl and think that she’d marry you if she couldn’t marry another girl…

(actually that reminds me of Sunday’s Boston Legal which was priceless, as usual. I love that show…)

You’re missing the point completely, so I’ll explain it again:

  • EXCEPT for “moral harm”, having a gay couple marry does not harm anyone. ANYONE. You have failed to give ONE single other reason for not letting them marry except for the moral insult you feel.

  • On the other hand, actively sponsoring polygamy and, especially, incest, is wrong, since these are two practices that can harm the society as a whole

  • Furthermore, I believe that incest must be illegal - if not because of the social/genetic harm, for the same reason that sexual harassment is (because a parent is an position of great power and influence over a child)

  • However, I believe polygamy should simply not be sponsored - i.e., polygamous families should not get tax breaks - because of social engineering reasons (the benefit of having several people under one roof does not outweigh the potential social harm) - but should not be illegal per se (you can have 100 partners living under your roof if you want, but although you cannot marry all of them you should not go to jail for it, as long it’s mutually consensual).

I hope that explains my position better…

94

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for restricting polyandry for the public policy reasons to promote ‘genetic diversity’ - that is the worst defense in the history of defenses.
Outside of incest, communities aren’t exactly clamoring in city hall or state legislatures that their town isn’t sufficiently diverse from a genetic point of view. I have never heard of such lunacy, and it isn’t a priority anywhere. Silliness.[/quote]

Although I’ll agree it’s a very, very, very debatable defense, do bear in mind that most Western countries - US included - have active policies to increase genetic diversity, like the Green Card Lottery in the US and the 30% tax reduction foreigners from certain ethnicities get in The Netherlands.

So although it’s not a priority, it is important enough to justify the investment in such initiatives.

However, since I do agree this is a very debatable argument, I’ll expand on the other one - the one about possible violence and depression.

Currently, a lot of people marry - or enter a civil union - for security. It’s a contract, with exit clauses, that allows them to gain some level of security that their partner will not abandon them and just take all their money, and the kids.

If one was freely allowed to be polygamous, wouldn’t that completely obliterate that? I mean, if it would now be perfectly normal for me to marry another two women in addition to my wife, wouldn’t that greatly impact my current wife? She’d probably want a divorce, and hence make the point of allowing polygamy… pointless - and creating a very bad situation for her, as initiator of a divorce with no reason clearly supported by law.

So, allowing polygamy would in fact erode the security of marriage to a great extent, and hence create the potential for harm for a lot of people? And possibly increase the rate of crimes of passion, depression, even divorce?

Again, gay marriage does not harm anyone (execept for moral insult) - it does not erode the security of heterossexuals, contrary to allowing polygamy, which would erode the security offered by marriage.

UNLESS - and I just thought about this - we could opt for a compromise: what if one could specify in the marriage or civil union if the contract was open - or NOT - to polygamy, with the default being NOT? That would create a situation where if and only if both the elements of the couple were specifically open to polygamy - at the time of marriage - it would be allowed…

Mormons would love that.

And now that I come to think of it I’d be 100% comfortable with it, actually…

95

Hspdr,

“On the other hand, actively sponsoring polygamy and, especially, incest, is wrong, since these are two practices that can harm the society as a whole”

Outside of moral insult - which is a broad idea that could conceivably cover public nudity - how exactly is polygamy harmful to society?

This, of course, discounting the preposterous notion that ‘genetic diversity’ is endangered by polygamy in a society as ethically plural and populated as has ever been in recorded history.

96

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Outside of moral insult - which is a broad idea that could conceivably cover public nudity - how exactly is polygamy harmful to society?
[/quote]

Read my post after that one. It explains that point and offers a condition under which polygamy wouldn’t be harmful and I would be comfortable with it.

97

Incest is defined by the states and has different definitions in different states.

98

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertawg:

And your post is called “dodging the question” and you do it pretty well.

I will ask you the same question that I posed to the previous poster: Why should a polygamists (or father daughter, mother son) be denied all of the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy?

Please list what you mean by “all of the benefits” and I will answer plainly. [/quote]

I am speaking of all of the financial benefits that marriage brings, such as family insurance and things of that nature.

99

This is silly. Most people don’t want gay people to get married. Lets leave it at that and leave them to whatever they want to call their ass pounding on their own time. They can have the benefits, but no kids. I don’t wanna have to see anymore copies of “My Two Dads” or “My Seventeen Mommies”. And listen to some weirdo in 10th grade defend it when they are obviously completely out of touch with reality. (Not just my reality… The reality that when you hear them say something and you look around and you see the punk looking at the cheerleader with the same “Is that kid fucking crazy?” look)

Abortion is a little more intriguing… But not really.

100

hspder:

In your view incest and polygamy harms society as a whole. How narrow minded and hateful of you! Sounds to me like you are “Polyphobic” and “inscestaphobic.”

How can two people (let’s say a mother and an adult son) loving each other possibly harm you? I am talking about an adult son, there is no minor invovled. Especially in light of the fact that with certain laws passed they cannot have children. Why would you be against it now? Do you have a moral problem with it? How dare you enforce your morals on others…shame, shame, shame! (seriously I would like an answer to this one)

As far as polygamists go what are you afraid of? You stated: “the potential for social harm?” That is ridiculous! How can a group of people who love each other be a harm to society? The Mormons have already proven that it can work. What are you really afraid of? Do you think they are going to grab you and force you into their “group?” Why are you denying these groups the same rights that you would grant a homosexual couple? Do they threaten you in some way?

Your arguments are no more than thinly vailed hate speech. (shaking my head) and you call yourself a liberal? HAH!