|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
gay marriage and str8 marriage both involve 2 spouses and 2 spouses only.
I don't see why that's so hard to get your head around.
It's not hard for me to get my head arround at all. It does however have nothing to do with my point. My point has to do solely with the legal merit. You can't say we demand the right to marry whome ever you want then out of the other side of your mouth say that another group can't. A homosexual may want to marry another man the same ass a man may want to marry more than one woman and more than one woman may want to marry the same man. You simply keep resorting back to teh simple fact that both gay marraige and hetero marriage have something in common wich is that they both involve 2 people, well hetero marraige and poygymy both involve two genders, there's a comparrison. Are you saying that you now WANT government to make a value judgement saying that even though a man truly loves two women and those woment both truly love him and they all want to get married they shouldn't be permitted to?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I thought Wednesday pointed out that the study from which this argument spewed first was a bunch of bunk. If you guys want to discuss the merits of legalizing polygamy then you should start a thread for it.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
True, which makes them worlds apart on many different levels, but I agree with wbam that the legal plights are the same.
Many in America want marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman. Those in support of gay marriage have a problem with the man/woman part. Polygamy supporters have a problem with the one/one part.
Acceptance of the gay marriage legal position does not and should not logically constitute acceptance of the polygamist position.
I never said it should. I said the legal plights are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
they're similair. not exactly the same, but i could see how allowing one could lead to the arguement for allowing the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I thought Wednesday pointed out that the study from which this argument spewed first was a bunch of bunk. If you guys want to discuss the merits of legalizing polygamy then you should start a thread for it.
I think the point is that you can't argue for one w/out also arguing for teh other.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You CAN argue for one without arguing for the other. However, if you are going to be intellectually consistent you pretty much have to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You can't say we demand the right to marry whome ever you want then out of the other side of your mouth say that another group can't. A homosexual may want to marry another man the same ass a man may want to marry more than one woman and more than one woman may want to marry the same man. You simply keep resorting back to teh simple fact that both gay marraige and hetero marriage have something in common wich is that they both involve 2 people, well hetero marraige and poygymy both involve two genders, there's a comparrison. Are you saying that you now WANT government to make a value judgement saying that even though a man truly loves two women and those woment both truly love him and they all want to get married they shouldn't be permitted to?
The only thing I don't think I'm getting is how homosexual marriage will automatically allow polygamists a legal springboard. Hasn't the government already made a value judgement regarding marriage?
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Ok, so the government decides to impose a legal age limit on marriage. They decide you have to be at least 18 to get married. You guys are doing the equivalent of saying, "Oh but if you make it 18 then 17 & 16 year olds will also argue that they should be able to get married. Maybe we shouldn't let 18 year olds get married"
This type of argument has been used against expanding the vote to women to interracial marriage. Why is this a valid argument now?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
at 18 you are considered an adult. therefore allowed to smoke, marry, vote, and join the military.
though, you can actually get married before 18 already if your parents permit.
there are other ways too believe. so there are already special allowances for that.
and the point it while gay marriage is the marriage of consenting adults, it can be used as a valid point in an arguement for polygamy. if a gay man can marry another as consenting adults, why can't a man and 2 wimmins marry if they all want it. also as consenting adults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
big_pimp_tim said:
...
and the point it while gay marriage is the marriage of consenting adults, it can be used as a valid point in an arguement for polygamy. if a gay man can marry another as consenting adults, why can't a man and 2 wimmins marry if they all want it. also as consenting adults.
It's more than just consenting adults. Brother & sisters can't marry reguardless of age. Nor can a marriage be used legally as a business transaction for somebody to get legal residency. Our government already makes some legal judgements about consenting adults & marriage.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
|
|
graemlin protector 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,025 |
well, inbeeding is illegal for the problems it causes the offspring. simple as that. gay marriage and polygamy doesn't have that problem. and people do marry to get legal residency. it's illegal, only if it's a sham marriage. because it is not a marriage in the sense of the word, not 2 people who love each other and therefore abusing that right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Ok, so the government decides to impose a legal age limit on marriage. They decide you have to be at least 18 to get married. You guys are doing the equivalent of saying, "Oh but if you make it 18 then 17 & 16 year olds will also argue that they should be able to get married. Maybe we shouldn't let 18 year olds get married"
Age issues aren't equivalent to either political or psychological issues. They are definitely related in that many pre-18 year-olds could be more mature than someone who actually is 18. But, because there is no true age of mental maturity, it's set at 18. i.e. It's being "better safe than sorry"...Although, this view could change if enough youngsters feel like sticking their oars in--And don't dare tell me it can't happen. Anyway, marriage between homosexuals doesn't go within the 'better safe than sorry' category since it's a question of financial/logcial efficiency and not controversey over maturity.
And, actually, there is no universal marriage requirement as far as age is concerned. last I heard, the Kansas standard is 13 years.
Quote:
This type of argument has been used against expanding the vote to women to interracial marriage. Why is this a valid argument now?
And that makes the issues totally comparable.....Oh wait....No it doesn't.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
It's more than just consenting adults.
Then why do you and the majority of your constituent voice only concentrate on the "consenting adults" argument if it really is more complicated than the simple use of that statement makes it seem?
Quote:
Brother & sisters can't marry reguardless of age.
Yes. Due to health concerns. One could make the same argument for homosexuals.
Quote:
Nor can a marriage be used legally as a business transaction for somebody to get legal residency.
Yes it can. It's not condoned, but it's allowed.
Quote:
Our government already makes some legal judgements about consenting adults & marriage.
All of which have proved negotiable.
Last edited by Pariah; 2006-01-17 5:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST FUCK WHO WE WANT AND BE HAPPY!?! 
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Because you touch yourself at night........
......Seriously though. This isn't about fuckin'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
This type of argument has been used against expanding the vote to women to interracial marriage. Why is this a valid argument now?
And Hitler enforced speed limits in Nazi Germany.... what's your point?
This is a sad attempt to assign guilt by association.
Either you're saying government should make no value judgments in regards to marraige or they should make value judgemtns but make an exception for one group... which is it?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Because you touch yourself at night........
......Seriously though. This isn't about fuckin'.
Yeah, sorry about that. Just wanted to outburst to lighten the mood since it's gotten ridiculously tense in here.
Marriage for everyone and none for some!
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Abortions for some and tiny American flags for others!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Abortions for some and tiny American flags for others!
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I think everyone's assuming I agreed with how wbam feels, which I don't. I only agree with what he said in that one single post. Quote:
the G-man said:
You CAN argue for one without arguing for the other. However, if you are going to be intellectually consistent you pretty much have to do so.
No, you don't. Outside the one man/one woman amendment proposal, the two have very little in common. I could very easily argue for gay marriage or polygamy while arguing against the other without losing consistency. Jim Jackson is doing it right now.
In fact, if gay marriage supporters fought to get a "one man or woman/one man or woman" amendment instead, the two fronts would lose pretty much ALL shared legal ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I could very easily argue for gay marriage or polygamy while arguing against the other without losing consistency. Jim Jackson is doing it right now.
No. He's not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
That's your view, and I'm not surprised. I'd suspect it's the view of anyone who subscribes to the faulty slippery slope theory. However, slippery slopes aren't assured in the real world, and Jim is sticking to an intellectually consistent, real world argument. You might not agree, but that makes his argument no less sound.
It would do you good to remember that.
That isn't to say that I personally agree with Jim, however. I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
When someone uses the philosophy that equates homosexuality between consenting adults to polygamy
If polygamy also involves consenting adults, then why is it wrong to equate it to homosexuality?
Both involve consenting adults.
Both involve sexual relations.
Both involve, potentially, the right to marry whomever you choose.
I can see why you might take a burn to comparisons with incest or pedophilia, but why polygamy?
Then why is it wrong to equate same-sex marriage to interracial marriage?
Both involve consenting adults
Both involve sexual relations.
Both involve the right to marry whomever you choose.
I can see why you might want to equate same-sex marriage and polygamy, but then, by your points, the equation extends to interracial marriage as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Actually, proponents of same sex marriage do, in fact, equate it to interacial marriage, as a basis for why it should be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
That's your view, and I'm not surprised. I'd suspect it's the view of anyone who subscribes to the faulty slippery slope theory. However, slippery slopes aren't assured in the real world, and Jim is sticking to an intellectually consistent, real world argument. You might not agree, but that makes his argument no less sound.
Thank you.
Quote:
That isn't to say that I personally agree with Jim, however. I don't.
Ok.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Then why is it wrong to equate same-sex marriage to interracial marriage?
Both involve consenting adults
Both involve sexual relations.
Both involve the right to marry whomever you choose.
To equate the two is to say there is a fudemental difference between races. There isn't. Asside from meletonin levels we are the same. I could marry a black woman and produce beatifull healthy children. The one difference some may point to is cultural differences wich I would say is negligable (as a whole). I would generally have more in common with a black woman from Seattle then I would a white woman from France.
Men and women however are fundamentally different and you can't substitute one for the other without fundementally changing the dynamic of the relationship.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Fundamentally different how? Are you talking about a physical difference or psychological? Neither matter here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
That's your view, and I'm not surprised. I'd suspect it's the view of anyone who subscribes to the faulty slippery slope theory. However, slippery slopes aren't assured in the real world, and Jim is sticking to an intellectually consistent, real world argument. You might not agree, but that makes his argument no less sound.
Consistent? Yes. Intellectually consistent? No.
The most he's been doing is tossing out academics without addressing other peoples' assertions to how he's misinterpreting them.
"What we have here is a game of show and tell. He's telling me everything, but he doesn't want to show me nuthin'."
Quote:
It would do you good to remember that.
Last edited by Pariah; 2006-01-17 9:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Fundamentally different how? Are you talking about a physical difference or psychological? Neither matter here.
Why doesn't it matter?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Because polygamy is also physically and psychologically different from same-sex marriage. So either all three can be bundled together, no none at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Our differences in this topic appear, to me, to be paradigmatic in the sense of Thomas Kuhn and his theories about scientific revolutions.
We're all pointing to what we feel are the relevant issues while believing the other(s) are focusing on irrelevant or less-relevant issues.
To me, marriage should be based not on gender or race or religion or ethnicity, but on number. What's crucial in a marriage is that it's between two and only two people.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
To me, marriage should be based not on gender or race or religion or ethnicity, but on number. What's crucial in a marriage is that it's between two and only two people.
That makes sense as a position, but it hasn't been the position put forth by the proponants of same sex marraige. You're saying that there should be restrictions on consenting adults getting married, but those restrictions should have nothing to do with gender. The prominant position coming from proponants of same sex marriage is that marraige is a civil right and shouldn't be denied to any consenting adult.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I guess I don't give a shit what you say "proponents" are saying.
*I* am saying what I said.
You will need to show me where a well-established position on same-sex marriage explicitly says that the *number* of consenting adults in any marriage is irrelevant.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
I guess I don't give a shit what you say "proponents" are saying.
*I* am saying what I said.
I'll accept that, but G-MAn didn't post the article to show what your position could lead to, but rather what the popular position would.
Quote:
ou will need to show me where a well-established position on same-sex marriage explicitly says that the *number* of consenting adults in any marriage is irrelevant.
I never said they said it was irrelevent, nor have they sait it was relevent. What they've said is that marraige is a civil right that shouldn't be denied to consenting adults. How then could you deny that civil right if 3 consenting adults want to marry each other.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I never said they said it was irrelevent, nor have they sait it was relevent. What they've said is that marraige is a civil right that shouldn't be denied to consenting adults. How then could you deny that civil right if 3 consenting adults want to marry each other.
In a polygamist situation, are all the wives married to each other, or are they each singly and only married to the man?
Are there millions and millions of potential polygamists who wish make polygamy legal? We know there are millions of gays. It's a legit question, I'm not asking it to be cheeky.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
In a polygamist situation, are all the wives married to each other, or are they each singly and only married to the man?
I'm not exactly sure to be honest, but I think they are all married to the man, but the arument could be, why should a woman be kept from marrying the man she "loves" just because he's allready married if he and his current wife both consent?
Quote:
Are there millions and millions of potential polygamists who wish make polygamy legal? We know there are millions of gays. It's a legit question, I'm not asking it to be cheeky.
I didn't take it as cheeky. I'm really not sure how many "closet" polygimists are out there. You may want to look at adultureres as "closet" polygimists after all they were born with teh desire to love multiple women. I don't think however that if you're going to make a civil rights argument you want to do so on teh basis of numbers. It's an arbitrary precident. Do you base civil rights on a percentage of people or a round number like a million?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
In a polygamist situation, are all the wives married to each other, or are they each singly and only married to the man?
I'm not exactly sure to be honest, but I think they are all married to the man, but the arument could be, why should a woman be kept from marrying the man she "loves" just because he's allready married if he and his current wife both consent?
There is an argument to be made that women who are willing to do this are, in fact, debasting themselves, lowering their status as an equal within the marriage just "to get their man."
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
To me, marriage should be based not on gender or race or religion or ethnicity, but on number. What's crucial in a marriage is that it's between two and only two people.
What about love? I know some of you are married or were in the past. Did you consider any of the above when deciding to tie the knot?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I don't see how that can be brought into any kind of practical discussion about definitions of marriage. I mean, it's nice and all, but we're talking legal definitions and civil recognition.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
