"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[ponderingturtle]

The reason to oppose gay marriage, I would say, apart from the absurdity of the whole proposition -- but then again human beings accept all kinds of absurdities -- is what I said before: that many people's real cause in supporting gay marriage is to undermine marriage in general, not because gay marriage itself does it, but because they will then demand polygamy -- as they do right now -- and then incest and pedophilia or zoophilia be legalized, too.

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage. This is perhaps unfair to gays, but the unfairness is small (and more or less formal, as opposed to actual) compared to the damage prevented by having the "down with marriage" crowd get a huge victory, let alone the potential damage to equality of the sexes if polygamy is legalized.

So why not fight against this by going back up the slope and strip women of their rights? Once marriage is no longer a union between equals gay marriage makes no sense. You still need to come up with an argument against polygyny.

 

[KingMerv00]

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage.

If you allow gays to get civil unions, polygamists will want civil unions too. Why do you want to destroy civil unions?

If you think civil unions are equal in all but name to marriage, You are seriously ignorant of the law.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Turn the "way back machine" a few years...

The reason to oppose gay inter-racial marriage, I would say, apart from the absurdity of the whole proposition -- but then again human beings accept all kinds of absurdities -- is what I said before: that many people's real cause in supporting gay inter-racial marriage is to undermine marriage in general, not because gay inter-racial marriage itself does it, but because they will then demand polygamy gay marriage -- as they do right now -- and then incest and pedophilia or zoophilia be legalized, too.

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays non-whites, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay inter-racial relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage. This is perhaps unfair to gays non-whites, but the unfairness is small (and more or less formal, as opposed to actual) compared to the damage prevented by having the "down with marriage" crowd get a huge victory, let alone the potential damage to equality of the sexes races if polygamy gay marriage is legalized.

Turn the machine a few more years back, and the words change from "inter-racial" to "inter-faith"

It's the same biggotted argument, just recycled for the current boogyman.

 

[crimresearch]

Turn the "way back machine" a few years...



Turn the machine a few more years back, and the words change from "inter-racial" to "inter-faith"

It's the same biggotted argument, just recycled for the current boogyman.

Often with the twist from 'Now I'm no bigot, buuuuut...' to 'You can't make me admit I'm a bigot'.

 

[crimresearch]

If you allow gays to get civil unions, polygamists will want civil unions too. Why do you want to destroy civil unions?

If you think civil unions are equal in all but name to marriage, You are seriously ignorant of the law.

'Ignorant' would imply that the differences haven't been spelled out repeatedly.

 

[JJM 777]

tolerating equality must lead to tolerance for crimes...

A problem in this approach is what I already said in my previous post: "crimes" are defined by local governments, and the decisions of local governments vary by country and historical era, so you cannot assume your contemporary local definition of "crime" to be used as universally as you seem to wish.

Besides, I haven´t spoken of homosexuality and anything else in the same context.

how do you get I am not promoting a "tolerate everything" view

Because I am not promoting a view that pedophilia (as defined in DSM-IV: sexual attraction between an adult and a physically prepubescent person) should be legal, for example. So I am not promoting a view that everything should be tolerated.

As for sexual attraction between an adult and a physically post-pubescent person (over 12 or something), in this thread I haven´t expressed any precise views about that either. Just for reference, I would like to point out that some highly respected democratic societies with a multi-million population, such as Japan, Spain and Argentina, have an age of consent 13:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Argentina

We are discussing what is and isn't allowed under the law

Sorry I didn´t notice that. Neither did I notice, which of the 200 legislations in the world everyone here is referring to.

 

[Kumar]

Need of the time can better be related to it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The reason to oppose gay marriage, I would say, apart from the absurdity of the whole proposition -- but then again human beings accept all kinds of absurdities -- is what I said before: that many people's real cause in supporting gay marriage is to undermine marriage in general, not because gay marriage itself does it, but because they will then demand polygamy -- as they do right now -- and then incest and pedophilia or zoophilia be legalized, too.

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage. This is perhaps unfair to gays, but the unfairness is small (and more or less formal, as opposed to actual) compared to the damage prevented by having the "down with marriage" crowd get a huge victory, let alone the potential damage to equality of the sexes if polygamy is legalized.

Evidence? The polls that I've seen seem to show it is more of a generational thing. And the anti-marriage people (some on this forum) I've met are against gay marriage and in favour of civil unions.

 

[crimresearch]

A problem in this approach is what I already said in my previous post: "crimes" are defined by local governments, and the decisions of local governments vary by country and historical era, so you cannot assume your contemporary local definition of "crime" to be used as universally as you seem to wish.

Besides, I haven´t spoken of homosexuality and anything else in the same context.


Because I am not promoting a view that pedophilia (as defined in DSM-IV: sexual attraction between an adult and a physically prepubescent person) should be legal, for example. So I am not promoting a view that everything should be tolerated.

As for sexual attraction between an adult and a physically post-pubescent person (over 12 or something), in this thread I haven´t expressed any precise views about that either. Just for reference, I would like to point out that some highly respected democratic societies with a multi-million population, such as Japan, Spain and Argentina, have an age of consent 13:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Argentina


Sorry I didn´t notice that. Neither did I notice, which of the 200 legislations in the world everyone here is referring to.

You seem to be quite proud of what you don't notice.

 

[KingMerv00]

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage.

I just realized a particular absurdity here.

Giving gay people marriages damages the institution so they should only get civil unions...but civil unions are identical to marriage. How does simply changing the name protect marriage? What if we called civil unions "shmarriage" instead? What about marriage 2.0? At want point does the name cause harm?

 

[crimresearch]

Evidence? The polls that I've seen seem to show it is more of a generational thing. And the anti-marriage people (some on this forum) I've met are against gay marriage and in favour of civil unions.

Or perhaps some are promoting a re-run of 'seperate but equal' by a different name. Civel unions are no more equal than were segregated schools.

 

[crimresearch]

A problem in this approach is what I already said in my previous post: "crimes" are defined by local governments, and the decisions of local governments vary by country and historical era, so you cannot assume your contemporary local definition of "crime" to be used as universally as you seem to wish.

Besides, I haven´t spoken of homosexuality and anything else in the same context.


Because I am not promoting a view that pedophilia (as defined in DSM-IV: sexual attraction between an adult and a physically prepubescent person) should be legal, for example. So I am not promoting a view that everything should be tolerated.

As for sexual attraction between an adult and a physically post-pubescent person (over 12 or something), in this thread I haven´t expressed any precise views about that either. Just for reference, I would like to point out that some highly respected democratic societies with a multi-million population, such as Japan, Spain and Argentina, have an age of consent 13:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Argentina


Sorry I didn´t notice that. Neither did I notice, which of the 200 legislations in the world everyone here is referring to.

So what countries make it legal to have sex with an 8 year old? Because that's what 'child molesters' is meant to convey in the propaganda being used against gay marriage, and parroted on the topic of poly marriage.

And of those how many have gay marriage on the table.

Staying on topic and in context means the countries that share legal definitions relevant to this thread.

And in those definitions lies the debunking of the 'If you allow this, then you have to allow that' fallacy.

 

[Weird Science]

So why not fight against this by going back up the slope and strip women of their rights?

Nah, establishing polygamy will take care of that.

In practice, anyway.

P.S.

Hi kids! Can you name the logical fallacy ponderingturtle had just committed? It's a really easy question.

 

[Weird Science]

Evidence? The polls that I've seen seem to show it is more of a generational thing.

The problem isn't with younger people being more open to gay marriage, but with political activists exploiting that to push for polygamy -- as in this very thread.

Let us take, for instance, illegitimacy. Younger people are more tolerant of it. But nevertheless, its normalization lead to enormous damage to society (especially in the black community). Similarly with abortion, etc.

So the fact that the young are more tolerant of some change is not at all inconsistent with the result being further damage to society.

P.S.

One minor point that irks me, although it hardly should determine whether one should be for or against gay marriage, is that the same people who declare gay, or polygamous, marriage to be a union of love and respect and joy, would scream bloody murder if anybody describe "Regular" marriage in such terms. DO make up your mind, mate...

 

[JJM 777]

sex with an 8 year old? Because that's what 'child molesters' is meant to convey in the propaganda

I wonder who and where has specified that "child" means a person whose age is 8 or under. It is much more common to see it mean any person under 18 years of age. "A person under 18 manufactured a Nike shirt?" Child labour. "A person under 18 years had sex with an adult?" Pedophilia. Consult your local tabloid magazine, there you see.

used against gay marriage, and parroted on the topic of poly marriage.

I am not sure how we ended up here -- actually you ended up there and assumed that I must be there too.

Let me make a statement: I am in favour of legalising marriages between any n number of persons, be they of any gender they want.

 

[catsmate]

most of the poly groups I know are D Female led,

Very true.

 

[catsmate]

Quick question, how would divorce from a poly-marriage incur more expense to society than a divorce from a monogamous marriage?

Well it seems to me hat there's be more paperwork/organisation; instead of one linkage there would be three to modified.

 

[crimresearch]

I wonder who and where has specified that "child" means a person whose age is 8 or under. It is much more common to see it mean any person under 18 years of age. "A person under 18 manufactured a Nike shirt?" Child labour. "A person under 18 years had sex with an adult?" Pedophilia. Consult your local tabloid magazine, there you see.


I am not sure how we ended up here -- actually you ended up there and assumed that I must be there too.

Let me make a statement: I am in favour of legalising marriages between any n number of persons, be they of any gender they want.

Your trolling is pathetic. A child of 8 has to be proven a child by some definition?

And 'we' ended up here when the tired old meme raised its head and you jumped in with your 'of course a child is able to consent' verbage.

 

[Marduk]

I just realized a particular absurdity here.

Giving gay people marriages damages the institution so they should only get civil unions...but civil unions are identical to marriage. How does simply changing the name protect marriage? What if we called civil unions "shmarriage" instead? What about marriage 2.0? At want point does the name cause harm?

whats wrong with polygamarriage


News just in, the church has just realised that setting Adam and Eve as the benchmark for marriage is based on the premise that they were actually married. They weren't, so new policy will be written up so that a normal marriage will now consist of one Alpha male to equate with Adam, one Alpha female to equate with Lillith and one submissive female to equate with Eve. Anyone not immediately putting this lifestyle into effect will be shunned as abominations before the Lord (and WeirdScience), Inheritence issues will now be solved by allowing one sibling to murder the others in the time honoured religious tradition.
Lets put sanctity back in marriage, the way its meant to be, using the bible as a guide, as those iron age goat herders obviously had all the answers for the modern world. Women will once a month need to find a hut to be unclean in as well, oh yes, no more sticking Fadge mice up there and calling it civilised. Thats out too.

 

[Rairun]

most of the poly groups I know are D Female led,

Even though I identify as poly, your descriptions are very different from anything I've experienced. This quote in particular, along with bookitty's previous comment about your relationship (in which she hoped it was a fair representation of most), really stood out to me. I don't actually know any polyamorous people who engage in D/s dynamics--though, to be fair, I don't know a lot of poly people.

Do you think most poly groups are led by a dominant person, or is it you who tend to gravitate towards the ones who are? Basically, I'm just curious to know if there's a big overlap between the poly and BSDM communities. That hadn't been my impression so far.