Moral Issues--Abortion & Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ZEB wrote:
(seriously I would like an answer to this one)[/quote]

You are - on purpose - selectively ignoring some of the things I said - instead of addressing them - just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

I’m sorry, but playing blind doesn’t make you right.

If you want to continue discussing this, you’ll need to address two points:

  • One, that I just said that I’d be OK with polygamous marriages as long as it was an exception clearly written in the marriage certificate. My point about social problems was explained and solved by that possibility

  • Two, the genetic problem with incest and the intrinsic power that parents have over children that can potentially create extremely dangerous situations, much like sexual harassment, but to an even higher degree

102

Hspdr,

“Currently, a lot of people marry - or enter a civil union - for security.”

No they don’t. I am married and I know plenty of married folks. Not one of them married for the utility of 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.”

It is a contract, one that encourages stable relationships for childbirth and childrearing.

“If one was freely allowed to be polygamous, wouldn’t that completely obliterate that?”

Of course not. Polygamy is based on consent - the wives, or husbands, know full well what they’re signing on to.

“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?”

See, you’re failing to see your own argument. The idea here is consenting adults, same as homosexuals. A wife couldn’t be any more forced into a polygomous marriage than she could be forces into a bilateral marriage with one husband. In your scenario, your wife has a choice to opt into the polygamy, but is not compelled.

It most certainly would impact your wife negatively if you decided to marry multiple women when she didn’t want you to. It would also impact her if you decided to marry a man and end your marriage to her.

“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.”

Reason supported by law? Do you have any idea how easy it is to get divorced? If you have something as vague as ‘irreconcilible differences’, you can walk.

“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?”

A bit of a stretch. I suspect marriages between multiple partners can be just as secure as bilateral arrangements - again, assuming you believe in the consenting adults rule. Moreover, one of the factors that bind relationships even tighter is the birth of children - something nature has not afforded and will never afford homosexuals. Polygamists can have all kinds of kids, broods of them - it is arguable that the more kids, the more the social glue between the family members. Between the natural bond of family and the incentive to stay together because of draconian alimony and child support requirements, there’s an argument that polygamy is no less ‘secure’ than traditional marriage.

"Again, gay marriage does not harm anyone (execept for moral insult) "

I am morally insulted if I find two people having sex in the middle of a public sidewalk. Should we do away with that moral insult legislation?

I think you’ll find that separating ‘social engineering’ and ‘moral insult legislation’ to be inseparable in many regards, certainly not distinguishable with any precision.

103

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
(…)
[/quote]

Is it now a conservative policy to selectively read a post, and spin the selection, and take it out of context just enough just for the sake of disagreement? I mean, I can’t believe you “accidentally” skipped the part where I say I’m comfortable with a polygamous marriage as long as it’s made clear that it’s polygamous (and is given an option for a bigamous wedding)?

Your message served no other purpose but to harass me, even though it must be obvious to you that you are basically providing material that reaches the same conclusion as I did, which is polygamy should be OK as long as it’s CLEARLY consensual!

Do you get off at telling me that I’m really a moralist like you? Do you like me so much you and Zeb are that desperate to think I’m really in your team? Sheeeesh…

Now I understand with there are 10,000 different protestant sects in this country - they’re probably all selectively forgetting certain parts of the Bible just for the heck of it…

104

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
(seriously I would like an answer to this one)

You are - on purpose - selectively ignoring some of the things I said - instead of addressing them - just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

I’m sorry, but playing blind doesn’t make you right.

If you want to continue discussing this, you’ll need to address two points:

  • One, that I just said that I’d be OK with polygamous marriages as long as it was an exception clearly written in the marriage certificate. My point about social problems was explained and solved by that possibility

  • Two, the genetic problem with incest and the intrinsic power that parents have over children that can potentially create extremely dangerous situations, much like sexual harassment, but to an even higher degree
    [/quote]

Actually, if you look closely you will see that my post was up before you decieded that polyogmous marriage is fine and dandy.

Secondly, I answered your question regarding the incest marriage issue. You only need to scroll back and look. Hey…I’ll save you some time and tell you again: 1. Both people would agree to undergo an operation that would prohibit them from ever having children. (this would be verified by the attending physisician). 2. Both of the people involved in the incest marriage would be adults hence there would be no “harassment” or excessive power over one of the individuals.

When you are finished with the answer to the above I have more questions relative to “moral” laws.

105

Hspdr,

“Is it now a conservative policy to selectively read a post, and spin the selection, and take it out of context just enough just for the sake of disagreement?”

No, and the ellipses merely means that I broke punctuation.

“I mean, I can’t believe you “accidentally” skipped the part where I say I’m comfortable with a polygamous marriage as long as it’s made clear that it’s polygamous (and is given an option for a bigamous wedding)?”

I didn’t skip it - you made several points before the whole “UNLESS - and I just thought about this…” and I was addressing the arguments you made there, specific to those comments about why polygamous relatiponships were inherently problematic, troublesome to society, dangerous to marriage, etc. Next time, if you don’t want someone to respond to comments, don’t include them in your post.

“Your message served no other purpose but to harass me…”

Clearly not, I am debating with you. Geez, there is no shortage of think skin around here - odd for a website called Testosterone Nation. There was nothing offensive about what I wrote. In fact, it’s the opposite - I am legitimately interested in your point of view. Shouldn’t that be obvious?

“…even though it must be obvious to you that you are basically providing material that reaches the same conclusion as I did, which is polygamy should be OK as long as it’s CLEARLY consensual!”

Yes, I am, as a Devil’s Advocate. There are many gay marriage advocates that don’t think polygamists should have a right to marriage, and I want to find out why because I think they make that argument inconsistently.

If you actually support polygamy and polyandry as well, I commend you - I still don’t.

“Do you get off at telling me that I’m really a moralist like you? Do you like me so much you and Zeb are that desperate to think I’m really in your team? Sheeeesh…”

I don’t recall telling you you were a moralist - but I do think that there is a dilemma in trying to explain what qualifies as ‘social engineering’ and what qualifies as ‘moral legislating’. You seem to be comfortable with the former, but not the latter - and in many instances, I can’t tell a whit’s difference between the two.

“Now I understand with there are 10,000 different protestant sects in this country - they’re probably all selectively forgetting certain parts of the Bible just for the heck of it…”

Yawn.

106

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.

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

Thanks. An ACTIVE polygamist (?) today has all of those rights. They have a legal civil marriage to one partner, as well as a right to these for ALL children, so no laws today can prevent a polygamist from having at least most of these rights. At any rate, I think a civil union would be defined as a social union between any two mutually exclusive individuals. You can call them civic partners or civil pairs. Again, the degree to which unions of this type would be allowed can be regulated by the legisature as they see socially pragmatic. In the description of a civil partnership that I gave, everyone has an equal right to 1 mutially exclusive civil partnership. Again, its a comprimise. Should we do it to make 1% of the population happy? Thats for lawmakers to decide, but it would prevent the law from perverting the term marriage. That’s already been done by divorce rates, multiple sex partners, adultery, and all sorts of other “in fact occurrances” in society that laws have proven to be ineffectual in regulating.

107

ZEB and pals: This is not a complex and difficult issue. Ask yourself something:
Does a thing hurt anybody in any way long-term or short-term? If the answer is no, then we don’t need a law against it.

Gay marriage does not need to be legislated against, and yet 38 states effectively did just that last year.

As to the polygamy thing: ask the question above. Quite obviously, the answer is yes. If I had more than one wife, I would want to kill myself. I said this already, ZEB, and I was only half-kidding. Fully serious now: I would think it damaging to a woman to be considered chattel by the populace at large and not be the equal of her husband to the point where he wanted/needed to get another wife. And vice/versa for a woman wanting another husband. You see, this is what extra-marital affairs/relationships are for. You get all the benefits of marriage, and get some sauce on the side at the same time. If you want to get your freak on, be a swinger, man!

I think thunder mentioned that marriage isn’t about security… you’re dead wrong, man. Whether you realize it or not, you are married as a part of a contract which restricts your and your wife’s behavior for the purpose of providing a measure of security to you both. Giving this security to queers will not hurt anybody, or lead to the ruination of our way of life. I know y’all are gonna bust on me with the whole civil union BS, but if it’s the same friggin’ thing (legally or otherwise) as marriage, then just CALL IT THAT. The name thing here is stopping a lot of you. Any questions?

108

(Raises hand) Yea, you state that you gay marriage does not hurt anyone short or long term. Then you go on to state that Polygemy does in fact hurt women treating them like “chattel.” I have to disagree with you ole’ buddy!

By allowing gays to marry you are then taking them out of the heterosexual marriage circle and thus denying a woman a chance to in fact marry one…for security purposes of course, as you claim that is quite important.

Also, when you do not allow a healthy heterosexual man to have more than one wife (or one woman more than one husband) you are denying a basic right to a much larger group than that of homosexuals. Furthermore, you are still claiming that you would lose your mind if you had more than one wife. Yet, there are many men who could handle more than one wife, and indeed would find try happiness in this situation.

As far as women being treated like “chattel” that would not be the case. There would be a polygemy law in the marriage vow so that she would be well aware that her soon to be husband might be taking on another wife, (vice versa for women). I hope you are not going to state that women would not understand this contract (or vice versa).

Now why would you want to deny the happiness that this group so richly deserves?

Also, as previously stated incest marriage could also work with the right predetermined rules.

I just didn’t think that you would want to deny anyone their chance at happiness and any financial considerations that marriage can bring.

109

Lothario,

“I think thunder mentioned that marriage isn’t about security…”

To clarify, I wasn’t saying that marriage wasn’t about security - I was saying that people don’t get married with security as their primary motive.

110

Zeb,

“By allowing gays to marry you are then taking them out of the heterosexual marriage circle and thus denying a woman a chance to in fact marry one…for security purposes of course, as you claim that is quite important.”

Well-stated.

111

Gay is the new black.

And since it’s no longer acceptable to divide the country overtly along racial lines, this is the new hotness in hate.

As a former conservative, i find it despicable.

112

[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Raises hand) Yea, you state that you gay marriage does not hurt anyone short or long term. Then you go on to state that Polygemy does in fact hurt women treating them like “chattel.” I have to disagree with you ole’ buddy!

By allowing gays to marry you are then taking them out of the heterosexual marriage circle and thus denying a woman a chance to in fact marry one…for security purposes of course, as you claim that is quite important.[/quote]
Yeah, but anybody getting married takes them out of the “pool” for everybody else. Hetero or otherwise.

[quote]Also, when you do not allow a healthy heterosexual man to have more than one wife (or one woman more than one husband) you are denying a basic right to a much larger group than that of homosexuals. Furthermore, you are still claiming that you would lose your mind if you had more than one wife. Yet, there are many men who could handle more than one wife, and indeed would find try happiness in this situation.[/quote] But think about the children, ZEB! It sucks to have a part-time dad who spends his time between different wives, man! :slight_smile:
Seriously now, I think you missed the point I was making…

Ah! That’s better. Here we get to the heart of the marriage vow and what it means. The whole point of getting married is the fact that it’s a contract that guarantees a certain amount of security, right? And I can see how it would be easy to argue “hey, let’s just spread my security around…” But in order for this to hold any water, we have to define what that security is. The security is quite obviously financial, and to a lesser obvious degree, emotional. It’s one thing to go around and have a bunch of girlfriends and pay for them to live somewhere, etc. It’s another thing entirely to agree to a contract which states: “I hereby promise to spend one half of my time here with you, and one half of my time with my other wife.” Something like this is what you would have to do to uphold the emotional security part of the marriage contract with two wives. Getting a third one nullifies it and makes it nothing because then you would have to change the fifty percent to thirty-three, and so on and so forth. So you see, you can’t have an open-ended let’s have as many wives/husbands that we want, and still have a level of emotional security involved. There is NO security until you put some kind of “cap” in place for the number of wives/husbands that are going to be involved. To make things a whole lot easier, why don’t we just set that cap at one like most of us do, and if we want more relationships, have them out of wedlock? It just simplifies the whole thing, doesn’t it?

[quote]Also, as previously stated incest marriage could also work with the right predetermined rules.

I just didn’t think that you would want to deny anyone their chance at happiness and any financial considerations that marriage can bring.
[/quote]

Incest is long-term harmful.

113

[quote]futuredave wrote:
Gay is the new black.

And since it’s no longer acceptable to divide the country overtly along racial lines, this is the new hotness in hate.

As a former conservative, i find it despicable.[/quote]

Look ZEB! Somebody who’s homophoborepugnant!

114

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lothario,

“I think thunder mentioned that marriage isn’t about security…”

To clarify, I wasn’t saying that marriage wasn’t about security - I was saying that people don’t get married with security as their primary motive.[/quote]
Okay, cool. But I would postulate that it is at least a sub-conscious thing that perhaps isn’t said out loud, but it is still the reason. I love you, let’s spend the rest of our lives together, let’s get married… these are all things which are rooted in “You promise to behave a certain way, and I’ll promise to behave a certain way… deal?” It IS about security, pal. Make sense?

115

lothario:

You have been off base in the past but never quite as much as you are right now!

Your entire premise is that one man can only show so much “emotional love and support” to one or two women at best. That is ridiculous on its face.

The idea that “love” can only be shown or given to a few is nonsense! You define it as “financial and emotional.” I know a few guys who have five, six even as many as eight children. They love each of them the same and take care of each of them in a proper manner both financially and emotionally! Your premise does not hold water.

Let’s move on…You ended by stating that “incest is long-term harmful.” I want you to produce studies to back this statement up! I am not talking about children keep that in mind as you search the net. I am talking about two adults. One happens to be the parent of the other, but they are both adults.

What you are doing in essence is pushing your morals onto the rest of us! I think you are “incestaphobic.”

116

[quote]futuredave wrote:
Gay is the new black.

And since it’s no longer acceptable to divide the country overtly along racial lines, this is the new hotness in hate.

As a former conservative, i find it despicable.[/quote]

Oh my! You’re right. I too am going to become a leftist immediately! As a conservative with strong libertarian leanings I have been consumed all along with hate for everyone who isn’t me! Thank you, THANK YOU for showing me the way, kind sage. Especially now that I can see clearly that homosexuality is a RACE! Of course it is! Now that hating Black people is a crime, I have had to transfer my dark, hateful thoughts to those with “alternative” sexual preferences. Excuse me, I mean people of different sexual races. Get a grip, dude!

117

[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:

You have been off base in the past but never quite as much as you are right now!

Your entire premise is that one man can only show so much “emotional love and support” to one or two women at best. That is ridiculous on its face.[/quote]

No, I suppose that you could clone yourself to give more than 100% of yourself, ZEB. Good point.

[quote]The idea that “love” can only be shown or given to a few is nonsense! You define it as “financial and emotional.” I know a few guys who have five, six even as many as eight children. They love each of them the same and take care of each of them in a proper manner both financially and emotionally! Your premise does not hold water.[/quote] Missing the point… again. I have two kids, but this is not the same as having two wives. You DO know the difference, right?

[quote]Let’s move on…You ended by stating that “incest is long-term harmful.” I want you to produce studies to back this statement up! I am not talking about children keep that in mind as you search the net. I am talking about two adults. One happens to be the parent of the other, but they are both adults.[/quote] Who needs studies? Go to West Virginia. (j/k WV folks… I couldn’t help myself!)

[quote]What you are doing in essence is pushing your morals onto the rest of us! I think you are “incestaphobic.”
[/quote]
ZEB… are you arguing FOR incest? I know you’re doing the devil’s advocate thing here, but… wow. Let’s deconstruct for just a second:

The whole premise of this is for you to find some reason to not approve of gay marriage besides you own personal hangups against queers. Drawing on this, you try to bring in “other” forms of marriage to show the preposterousness of gay marriage. You have reduced yourself to arguing for the equality of incest marriages.

I do not approve of incest as it is quite the social problem, unlike homosexuality, which is not. I will not find you studies on this matter on the internet, as I am assuming that adequate ones do not exist. I will also assume that no one has done scientific double-blind studies to determine the exact detriment of jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but I could be wrong about that, too.

Plain and simple: Gays are not going to hurt anybody by getting married.

118

On what lothario1132 wrote:

They are not going to hurt anyone by getting married? Neither are these other groups I have introduced into the debate. How is incest among two adults “quite the social problem?” Your hate for these people prohibits you from accepting their lifestyle. The funny part is you mask your hate with poor attempts at humor. “Clone yourself” “move to West Virginia.” Bla, bla, bla. You simply don’t have a good answer as to why one “different” form of marriage should be legalized and the others not!

This entire matter is about change. If one group gets preferential treatment, why not another group? You have still not given me any real answers, other than, “Incest is wrong.” Oh is it really? They used to say that about homosexuality a few years back. “Polygamy is wrong.” Not according to certain religious sects around the world.

Since you admit that there are no studies which prove Polygamy and incest (adults only) is wrong, then it must be fine (there are no studies which prove gay marriage to be harmful either and you back that). It is only being prohibited becaue of certain moralists attempting to push their lifestyle and personal morals onto the rest of the world.

I want you to tell me where we stop? You seem to think homosexuals getting married is fine. You draw the line at anything after that. When someone else comes along and wants to push the line further, you object, yet have given me no good reason as to the objection, other than it strikes you as wrong.

Are you latently incestuous?

Funny huh?

119

ZEB,

I think you misunderstand my idea of civil partnerships/unions whatever. I do not intend to equate them to marriage or connect them necessarily with sex.

For example, if my wife and mother were both tragically killed, I think it might be reasonable for the state to allow us to live in the same house and take care of each other and receive tax and insurance breaks.

But all in all, my real stance here is

  1. that the sanctity of marriage is better preserved when it is removed from the compass of the federal government and

  2. If that happened, and the state wanted to allow any two people to form a civil union (like the one described above) I could live with it. I might even support it.

120

On what mertdawg wrote:

Then you should also support Polygamy and (adult) incest, and the many other possible “unions”. Why would the rights of homosexuals be more important than the rights of all of the other groups of people who would like the same benefits from civil unions, or marriage?