Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.

It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.

The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now.

And why should there be?

If someone introduces a carrot as his wife, where is the problem?

The whole idea that marriage must be defined by the state somehow is because it has legal consequences. That is the price of letting governments meddle in private affairs to begin with.

Take government out of this and anyone can marry anything if he finds a priest, rabbi, or spiritual advisor to do it.

Who fucking cares.

[/quote]

On the other thread, you indicated that you thought polygamy would carry with it destabilizing social consequence. Once the polygamists and especially Muslim polygamists get their way, we may find out first hand.

I’m not willing to risk it, but apparently others are. I’m of the “if its not broke, don’t fix it camp.”

[Edit: Here’s what you said:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2195998&pageNo=7

[quote]To answer your initial question, polygamy is the cultural norm, monogamy is an aberration.

What is also quite common in polygamous societies is to raid other villages to kill men and take their women.

The natural state seems to be a situation where the strongest and most determined men have all the women and the weak masturbate.

That is not exactly a model for a peaceful society and though it seems to be a male fantasy actually very few men would benefit whereas women would have won the lottery because they´d get a man, how ugly or stupid they may be.[/quote]]

And I would agree. I think the West as it is now in this regard is better than going back to ancient Near Eastern marital values for the reasons you alluded to.

62

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Ultimately, however, I do not think it is about any of these things. Instead of allowing the issue to resolve itself calmly over time, the gay rights crowd is ramming it down everyone’s throats. Gay marriage, in the final analysis, is more about forcing the legal system to recognize homosexuality than it is about benefits
[/quote]

That can’t work. What group has gained more rights in America by sitting down and waiting quietly?

No race can prosper till it learns there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. - Booker T. Washington

63

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.

It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.

Absolutely. Clearly the bestiality argument is ridiculous on its face. But let’s springboard off of that into what I think is a legitimate discussion.

Isn’t a law prohibiting adult incest a violation of the California constitution now?[/quote]

Obviously bestiality is ridiculous, but wasn’t there a time when people believed gay marriage was just as ridiculous?

There are a ton of people around whose rights are violated because they don’t fit in the societies norm. And lets be honest, the only reason gays are accepted now is because of intense activism on their part.

Whether I support gay marriage or not, I find inconsistencies in law to be a much bigger issue. I will concede that gays do not violate the rights of others, whereas pedophiles do violate the rights of children. But what about adult incest? And of course, what about polygamy?

64

[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
But what about adult incest? And of course, what about polygamy?[/quote]

Incest is potentially damaging to any offspring that may be produced.

There is nothing wrong with polygamy. Show me even a religious reason why polygamy is wrong and I can probably shoot that down.

65

"Incest is potentially damaging to any offspring that may be produced. "

Fine. But then you can as well forbid retarded people to marry as well.

All people can marry anyone (1) willing who’s of the right age (i.e, 18), in my book, and benefit from it in certain forms.

If your (18 year old) cow can speak and you both love each other very much, consider yourself a lucky sodomist.

66

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
But what about adult incest? And of course, what about polygamy?

Incest is potentially damaging to any offspring that may be produced.

There is nothing wrong with polygamy. Show me even a religious reason why polygamy is wrong and I can probably shoot that down.[/quote]

I’m sure Allah would agree with you.

67

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m sure Allah would agree with you.[/quote]

I take it you’re not a fan of polygamy?

I’m not Muslim btw. But I’m sure that wouldn’t matter to you. Any chance to attack the religion, huh?

68

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The fact is, that prior to this law, California already had a Domestic Partners law that allowed ALL the same rights as a civil marriage. So from a human rights standpoint, this law was not needed. The only thing different is that now they can use the word “Married”.

Since most religions consider marriage to be a religious institution, and most all religions do not accept homosexuality, the issue is the use of the word marriage.

It’s about the word marriage and an attempt by one group of society (gays) to try and force another (Christians) to redefine the meaning of marriage. It is this attempt to redefine marriage that has Christians and others pissed off.

That is the issue!

So what you’re saying is that the problem lies with people who think they own the word? Last I checked, English didn’t “belong” to anyone. Language is public property.[/quote]

Not really the word, the concept of marriage. They are trying to change the meaning or concept of marriage being one man and one woman as stated in the bible.

69

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Fine. But then you can as well forbid retarded people to marry as well.[/quote]

That depends. Is being retarded a passable gene? I don’t think so.

70

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m sure Allah would agree with you.

I take it you’re not a fan of polygamy?

I’m not Muslim btw. But I’m sure that wouldn’t matter to you. Any chance to attack the religion, huh?[/quote]

I don’t think we want a society that emulates theirs. Call me old fashioned.

71

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Not really the word, the concept of marriage. They are trying to change the meaning or concept of marriage being one man and one woman as stated in the bible.[/quote]

Please tell me where the Bible says that marriage is one man and one woman. Seriously, I can’t find it.

I’m scared.

72

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
But what about adult incest? And of course, what about polygamy?

Incest is potentially damaging to any offspring that may be produced.
[/quote]

So is two stupid people having sex, but no one seems to have a problem with that!

[quote]
There is nothing wrong with polygamy. Show me even a religious reason why polygamy is wrong and I can probably shoot that down.[/quote]

Bro, if you were married you would know how really wrong it could be. Imagine PMS time with three woman all at the same time!

73

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Imagine PMS time with three woman all at the same time![/quote]

I had to.

74

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Not really the word, the concept of marriage. They are trying to change the meaning or concept of marriage being one man and one woman as stated in the bible.

Please tell me where the Bible says that marriage is one man and one woman. Seriously, I can’t find it.

I’m scared.[/quote]

Genesis 2
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

75

Should heterosexual male roommates be able to marry? Why not? Curious how some pro gay marriage types would possibly deny such an arangement. Maybe noone here would. Just curious.

Edit: Would like to see this tackled. The only way I can see denying same sex heterosexual marriage (if you’re pro gay marriage) is if you’re nosy about what two consenting adults DON’T DO (in this case, with each other) in the bedroom. Begin!

76

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Genesis 2
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”[/quote]

Can you explain how that means one man and one woman?

“The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such.”

It seems like polygamy was established for PC reasons rather than the word of God.

77

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Fine. But then you can as well forbid retarded people to marry as well.

That depends. Is being retarded a passable gene? I don’t think so.[/quote]

My parents would beg to differ.

78

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Genesis 2
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

Can you explain how that means one man and one woman?

“The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such.”

It seems like polygamy was established for PC reasons rather than the word of God.[/quote]

You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:

The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.

79

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
But what about adult incest? And of course, what about polygamy?

Incest is potentially damaging to any offspring that may be produced.
[/quote]

I expected someone to say that. So require them to sign a document saying their baby will be aborted if a pregnancy does occur. Don’t support abortion? Then why is it O.K for doctors to force this document upon women who use accutane?

80

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:

The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick. [/quote]

Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.

"[quote][i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):

[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.

Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:

Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]

"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i][/quote]"