[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You’ve made a lot of sense with this post…Now if I could just stop from puking when I see two homo’s together well then I’d be on my way to fully accepting that sort of thing.
Oh well…[/quote]
Lol, puke all you want. Just understand that they have the right to consenting relationships (however strange it might seem to me or you).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thought crossed my mind today: If the reasons for restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals are (1)to encourage procreation and (2) to encourage those who procreate to stick around and raise the child(ren), why are those against gay marriage equally against polygamy?
Would an arrangment of a man and two or three women not produce children? Or even a woman and two men (though polyandry is much less common than polygyny)?
What advantage would having two people to raise a child be as compared to three to raise him or her? I can think of some advantages to having more parents (more time, more money, etc).
So, being as marriage is all about kids and the incentivizing of forming and continuing healthy social units for the raising of kids, why shouldnt the government give the same benefits to polygamous couples (provided at least one member of each sex is involved)?[/quote]
Wait a minute, are you for or against gay marriage?
Because people always use the ‘slippery slope’ argument against gay marriage and you’re pretty much walking the walk.
Are you for or against equality?
Because I don’t see how polygamy in any way represents equality.
Maybe it’s some sort of emotional detachment from the concept of marriage that I have, but I fail to see what makes gay marriages(or even polygamy) that reprehensible. As long as consent is established between all rational parties, what’s the big deal?
Marriage is a contract. You can not make a legally binding contract with something that lacks the ability to consent to it.(a child, animal, vegetable, etc.) Thus, any willing adults should be able to participate in the contract that is marriage. Forget all the religious nonsense underlying the arguments against it. All of that is irrelevant as “marriage” in this context is simply a contract. It is not some signifier of the family unit, no matter how common the two may be together. It does not equate to raising a family and spawning brood. It is ultimately just an agreement between adults.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
No actually they don’t have the right. [/quote]
Says who?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Because I don’t see how polygamy in any way represents equality.[/quote]
Not even amongst consenting adults?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Well like it or not, other religions and beliefs exist, and to argue that the law should discriminate against them is bigoted.[/quote]
This is a broad comment about a general acquiescence in then name of relativism and “multiculturalism”.
So, in that vein, let me see if I understand your “broad tolerance” right as a general matter (you didn’t confine it just to different beliefs on marriage):
There is a tribal belief system that some children aren’t even “alive” until after they have passed the two year mark of life. If said member of that belief system moved to Western civilization, and decides to “abort” a child that was 1 year old, you are suggesting we should let that individual do it without criminal penalty?
To punish him for acting in accordance with his beliefs in this situation would be “bigoted”?
I don’t mean to distract from the topic of gay marriage, but invariably some relativist dupe blurts out that gay marriage should be protected in law in Western civilization on the broad principle that “we shouldn’t discriminate against non-traditional belief systems”. Of course, said dupe never considers what absurd results that leads to as a general rule, so I ask the question.
Bigotry? Or no? If it is not, then you should reconsider your principle and perhaps do some more homework.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is a tribal belief system that some children aren’t even “alive” until after they have passed the two year mark of life. If said member of that belief system moved to Western civilization, and decides to “abort” a child that was 1 year old, you are suggesting we should let that individual do it without criminal penalty?[/quote]
No, killing something with conscious life is murder. Again, my argument is based on the fact that if it’s not harming anyone, then it’s fine. People getting morally offended does NOT constitute harming someone by the way.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Because I don’t see how polygamy in any way represents equality.
Not even amongst consenting adults?[/quote]
So if I went to the lower-class areas of town and got thirty or so ‘wives’ to cook my fried chicken and colored greens and pick my cotton, you’d be cool with that?
To be clear, I’m with thinking along Sloth’s lines here. I can see how our current arrangement benefits or benefited society and has some utility. But handing out trophies to anyone who wants one costs money and doesn’t do anyone any good. If changes to the system are to be made, they should favor less marriage, not more.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Maybe it’s some sort of emotional detachment from the concept of marriage that I have, but I fail to see what makes gay marriages(or even polygamy) that reprehensible. As long as consent is established between all rational parties, what’s the big deal?
Marriage is a contract. You can not make a legally binding contract with something that lacks the ability to consent to it.(a child, animal, vegetable, etc.) Thus, any willing adults should be able to participate in the contract that is marriage. Forget all the religious nonsense underlying the arguments against it. All of that is irrelevant as “marriage” in this context is simply a contract. It is not some signifier of the family unit, no matter how common the two may be together. It does not equate to raising a family and spawning brood. It is ultimately just an agreement between adults. [/quote]
I see polygamy and gay marriage as different. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone unless you take the view that it hurts our civilization as a broad societal matter. Which I don’t subscribe to. Theoretically, polygamy doesn’t have to hurt anyone either. But as a practical matter almost all polygamy takes the form of polyandry, multiple wives for one man. And they are usually young girls who are not mature enough to decide to be in a plural marriage or any marriage.
Who end up oppressed and suffer all of the problems of plural marriage. And receive none of the benefits, if there are any, that would ensue if it was an informed decision made by consenting adults. It ain’t Big Love. Almost all polygamy in this country has been much more like the Compound for anyone who has watched that show.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is a tribal belief system that some children aren’t even “alive” until after they have passed the two year mark of life. If said member of that belief system moved to Western civilization, and decides to “abort” a child that was 1 year old, you are suggesting we should let that individual do it without criminal penalty?
No, killing something with conscious life is murder. Again, my argument is based on the fact that if it’s not harming anyone, then it’s fine. People getting morally offended does NOT constitute harming someone by the way.[/quote]
Is this the New Millenium version of the 1960s Hippie line: ‘If it feels good, do it!’
Its seems to me that you want your cultural relativism and want to eat it too.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, killing something with conscious life is murder. Again, my argument is based on the fact that if it’s not harming anyone, then it’s fine. People getting morally offended does NOT constitute harming someone by the way.[/quote]
Wrong - that is your definition of murder based on your beliefs. You are imposing your Judeo-Christian ethic on a member of a belief system that does not make the same assumptions as you.
Your “no harm” principle is just as belief-based as someone who wants to go the other way - yet you categorically have said that we must make space for other belief systems and one cannot dominate another. You cannot reconcile your position - either restriction of some beliefs - or more specifically, public recognition of some beliefs by enactments of positive rights - can and will be restricted, or they aren’t.
If some can be - and you just said they can with your “murder” example - then your statement is facially wrong.
Again, we run into your limitations - it’s clear you are parroting the predictable “multicultural” line and you clearly haven’t thought about the consequences of such silliness as “any restriction based on beliefs is bigotry”.
Cultures set ground rules based on what the cultural values are - and marriage is no different. And, with marriage, as it has grown up under the umbrella of the Enlightenment and Western civilization, is not merely based on cultural momentum and past practices, but is also the creature of Reason.
You preach the typical “one culture isn’t better than another, so privileging one over another” line - great for freshman philosophy class and the coffee-house - absolute nonsense beyond that.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So if I went to the lower-class areas of town and got thirty or so ‘wives’ to cook my fried chicken and colored greens and pick my cotton, you’d be cool with that?[/quote]
What part of consenting did you not get?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
So if I went to the lower-class areas of town and got thirty or so ‘wives’ to cook my fried chicken and colored greens and pick my cotton, you’d be cool with that?
What part of consenting did you not get?[/quote]
The part where they are all 15 and unable to consent in any real sense of the word…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
So if I went to the lower-class areas of town and got thirty or so ‘wives’ to cook my fried chicken and colored greens and pick my cotton, you’d be cool with that?
What part of consenting did you not get?
The part where they are all 15 and unable to consent in any real sense of the word…[/quote]
If they can’t consent by law… then they can’t consent.
Duh.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
So if I went to the lower-class areas of town and got thirty or so ‘wives’ to cook my fried chicken and colored greens and pick my cotton, you’d be cool with that?
What part of consenting did you not get?
The part where they are all 15 and unable to consent in any real sense of the word…
If they can’t consent by law… then they can’t consent.
Duh.[/quote]
When the fuck did NAMBLA hear about this site…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The part where they are all 15 and unable to consent in any real sense of the word…[/quote]
Which isn’t consent in any sense of the word. Therefore is wrong.
Should I have said informed consent?