| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2008 11:14:44 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why is polygamy necessarily a bad thing? I can see how it might be bad when viewed in the form it has previously taken, where women are more like cattle, but I don't see any moral argument that justifies monogamy between a man and a woman as the sole basis for a successful union. |
You think you would be comfortable with sharing your wife, body and mind, with another man? |
That's for an individual to decide, right? I'm not comfortable sharing my deodorant with another person, but I know some people that do it all the time. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:16:54 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Past precedent when it comes to societal change is not the same thing as legal precedent, in any way, shape, or form. If it was, we'd all still be living in caves. I can't believe you'd even make that comparison.
|
You're kidding, right? If we are not arguing the legal definition of marriage, then what are we arguing? Am I simply saying that two men don't have the right to live together, have a party to declare their love, bicker over who left the mess in the sink, and then go to bed? I'm pretty sure nobody is stopping Louis or Mousie from doing any of that.
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
Well, considering I mostly got into this because I'm pissy about the Canadian Election, I'll get out of it too.
Just one thought though, wasn't polygamy quite an acceptable practice throughout christian history? Just sayin' ;) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:21:54 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mick:
How much tax income would state and federal governments loose if we legalized gay marriages nationwide? I wonder if that might have anything to do with so many states passing laws against it. I'm not saying that it has, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit. |
Actually wasn't there up until recently a "marriage penalty"? The deduction that was allowed for a married couple was less than two times an individual deduction. I think it's gone now though. |
Sorry, but I'm not up to date on the current tax laws (is anybody?). My understanding is that it depends on the tax bracket of the couple. Lower income couples receive a benefit, and higher income couples are penalized.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:36:36 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Just one thought though, wasn't polygamy quite an acceptable practice throughout christian history? Just sayin' ;) |
If you said "judeo-christian" you might be more online. I think by the time Christians were running around polygamy was becoming less accepted in hebrew culture. I think it still existed, but it was less of the norm. Paul certainly talks about only having one wife as a sign of maturity.
The biggest arguments against polygamy, that I can see, are social. A) Polygamy favors the socially well off. This leaves fewer women for the less favorable men. B) It's unclear in my book whether polygamists are more or less able to provide for their children. I would think it would be harder, but that may not bear out in studies. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:39:09 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why is polygamy necessarily a bad thing? I can see how it might be bad when viewed in the form it has previously taken, where women are more like cattle, but I don't see any moral argument that justifies monogamy between a man and a woman as the sole basis for a successful union. |
You think you would be comfortable with sharing your wife, body and mind, with another man? |
You mean if I had a wife that is...
Anyway, what's comfortable for me isn't the issue, is it? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:35:35 AM · #131 |
I think we need to get this conversation back on track and talk about the Gay Agenda
as posted by PJangel in the other thread:
Hey I just found my copy of "The Gay Agenda"
The Gay Agenda
I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
(Ran across this and just had to post it again... that's some funny stuff! LOL!!)
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 08:55:20 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by "posthumous":
So let's be clear about this. You're not arguing for a definition of marriage. You're saying that the culture declares homosexuality to be WRONG, a deviation. You're free to make that claim about our culture. And, shamefully, a vote might be evidence that you are right. But a simple majority does not constitute a culture, or a society. Look up "tyranny of the majority." |
I respectfully disagree and take some mild offense in the way you paint me. My main argument is that society gets to decide how it will view legal unions. I then said any decision is valid because they are all arbitrary. I mentioned nothing about homosexuality being wrong. I resent that and ask that you clarify yourself or point out where I said such a thing. |
Painting you?? I'm painting the attitudes of the society you describe, the society that wants marriage defined as between a man and a woman. That was never the legal definition of marriage. Many people assumed that men would marry women and vice versa, but there was no need to codify it until people of the same sex wanted to get married.
I'm just logically extrapolating from your definition. There is no reason to declare marriage as "between a man and a woman" unless you think homosexuality is wrong. If you understood homosexuality you would know that marrying someone of the opposite sex is not an option. If you knew homosexuals in committed relationships you would understand that they are already married and just need the state to give them the rights that heterosexual couples have.
To say homosexuals are fine and dandy but cannot marry each other doesn't make sense. That's my point. You are absolutely correct that cultures shift over time. You can argue that this culture is anti-homosexual and therefore is justified in legislating against homosexuality. What I object to is hiding that stance in a more benign-sounding defense of marriage. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 08:57:42 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
I'll take a crack at the moral argument. There is a moral imperative to provide care for someone with whom you are in a committed relationship. This means providing both financial and medical support. Financial support translates into life insurance and provisions in your will. Medical support translates into health insurance and the ability to make medical decisions. I'm sure we could think of others. It is wrong of the government to deny these rights (or allow private entities to deny them) to people based on their sexual orientation as it denies that natural moral imperative that any committed couple feels. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:22:56 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
I'll take a crack at the moral argument. There is a moral imperative to provide care for someone with whom you are in a committed relationship. This means providing both financial and medical support. Financial support translates into life insurance and provisions in your will. Medical support translates into health insurance and the ability to make medical decisions. I'm sure we could think of others. It is wrong of the government to deny these rights (or allow private entities to deny them) to people based on their sexual orientation as it denies that natural moral imperative that any committed couple feels. |
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. Let me be clear. If a homosexual couple is afforded fewer rights than my hypothetical straight domestic partners, then I think that is discriminatory and wrong. What I disapprove of is the muddying of the term marriage to mean something it has not for millenia.
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.
Message edited by author 2008-10-15 11:26:28. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:28:04 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
I'll take a crack at the moral argument. There is a moral imperative to provide care for someone with whom you are in a committed relationship. This means providing both financial and medical support. Financial support translates into life insurance and provisions in your will. Medical support translates into health insurance and the ability to make medical decisions. I'm sure we could think of others. It is wrong of the government to deny these rights (or allow private entities to deny them) to people based on their sexual orientation as it denies that natural moral imperative that any committed couple feels. |
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. Let me be clear. If a homosexual couple is afforded fewer rights than my hypothetical straight domestic partners, then I think that is discriminatory and wrong. What I disapprove of is the muddying of the term marriage to mean something it has not for millenia. |
So you're upset by etymology?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:32:39 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
I'll take a crack at the moral argument. There is a moral imperative to provide care for someone with whom you are in a committed relationship. This means providing both financial and medical support. Financial support translates into life insurance and provisions in your will. Medical support translates into health insurance and the ability to make medical decisions. I'm sure we could think of others. It is wrong of the government to deny these rights (or allow private entities to deny them) to people based on their sexual orientation as it denies that natural moral imperative that any committed couple feels. |
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. Let me be clear. If a homosexual couple is afforded fewer rights than my hypothetical straight domestic partners, then I think that is discriminatory and wrong. What I disapprove of is the muddying of the term marriage to mean something it has not for millenia. |
Just because a group isn't clamoring for rights doesn't mean that they aren't deserving of them. And heterosexual couples who are in domestic partnerships have legal recourse to those rights under the current marriage laws in the US. Homosexual couples do not. That's the big difference. Once group is denied rights that I have argued are a moral obligation while another group is not. And to Spazmo's point, what's in a word? Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:57:12 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. |
You think the percentage of homosexuals who want the right to be married is small? Or you think the percentage of homosexuals who think they might someday want to get married is small? Or you think the percentage of homosexuals who happen to be ready to propose to someone at this very moment is small? I will give you great odds that the first two are NOT small. The third is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:09:32 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I see you already did. My point remains: a simple majority does not constitue a culture, especially in what is supposedly a "free country" that btw should not be legislating against polygamy. Seatbelts save lives. What does oppressing homosexuals save? |
The textile industry? Too many gay marriages and we have too many couples sharing clothes. It would probably devestate the economy. ;) |
Sorry, but gays -- especially those likely to get married, are (with some justification) often stereotyped as clothes-horses, and are likely to provide a significant boost to the textile/clothing industry (twin tuxedos, anyone?).
The 11,000 "gay marriages" which have already taken place since June have provided a significant boost in business for caterers, florists, jewelers, rental halls, and a wide range of other business associated with the wedding industry. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:14:27 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You think the percentage of homosexuals who want the right to be married is small? Or you think the percentage of homosexuals who think they might someday want to get married is small? Or you think the percentage of homosexuals who happen to be ready to propose to someone at this very moment is small? I will give you great odds that the first two are NOT small. The third is irrelevant. |
Yes, don't forget those who think "I want to get married someday." The fact that someone may or may not find a spouse is not the key to the right.
Message edited by author 2008-10-15 12:15:40. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:34:29 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. Let me be clear. If a homosexual couple is afforded fewer rights than my hypothetical straight domestic partners, then I think that is discriminatory and wrong. |
I don't know about the area where you live, but common-law marriages are pretty much a thing of the past here in Pennsylvania really matter like health care, taxes, and decision making in the event of a marriage are not something that anyone wants to assume are in place.
In the case of a civil suit upon death, yes, sometimes a life partner who stood by the other may have grounds to sue, but no guarantees either.....and I would pretty much assume that would be in the case of a hetero relationship.
Somehow, with the legal climate what it is now, I doubt very seriously that many judges would rule in favor of a gay life partner over a blood relative, regardless of whether or not the relative was estranged bfore the death.
Also, in most cases, the common-law situation is by choice......the couple has no restrictions on not getting married, they just chose not to do so.
This is not really a pertinent point.....perhaps specious????.....LOL!!!....8>)
(Grinnin' & Duckin'!!!) |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:35:54 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. |
I don't have any all encompassing numbers, but most of the long term couples that I know most definitely want the comfort and security of the legal institution. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:38:10 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you're upset by etymology? |
Really upset! We have enough bugs and insects in the world already! |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:39:51 PM · #143 |
| Again, just asking. In a place where same-sex marriage is either not recognized or not legal, would a legal document like a will, etc hold up? It would, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:46:40 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. |
I don't have any all encompassing numbers, but most of the long term couples that I know most definitely want the comfort and security of the legal institution. |
The only info I was able to come up with was some data from Europe where the % was between 1 and 6% of homosexuals were married. I can certainly admit collecting that data is fraught with metholodogical difficulties, but I would speculate it isn't off by a huge factor. The site where I found it, however, was complaining because the same study found the homosexual population to be about 2% which he found to be "intellectually frivilous". Frankly I think that's probably a fairly accurate number.
So, assuming these numbers are roughly accurate, we are talking about 0.1% of the population. Now I agree that small groups shouldn't be neglected just because they are small, but it does put things somewhat into perspective doesn't it? If 60% of the population wants to define marriage as "one man and one woman" and 0.1% is affected, why must we neglect the will of the 60%? I know 'humous has already brought up the tyranny of the majority, but what if 0.1% of the population really feels they are affected by defining marriage as "two consenting adults"? Is the answer for them to simply "get over it because you are a bigot"?
I do want to step aside and say I hope I am coming across as civil in this debate. My personal opinion is much softer than I'm presenting here, but I do like to argue, as mentioned, as a way to help form my opinions. Hopefully we can keep the tone up. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:47:37 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Mick:
...
 Mousie
Enjoy your wedding. I wish you both the best of luck. |
I've just read this thread and see no need to put my own two cents in as my case and opinion have both already been stated. But I'd like to echo the quote here in saying best of luck and all the happiness about for the both of you. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:48:37 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you're upset by etymology? |
Really upset! We have enough bugs and insects in the world already! |
That would be entomology. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:50:02 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you're upset by etymology? |
Really upset! We have enough bugs and insects in the world already! |
That would be entomology. |
I believe he was being sarcastic/humorous. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:58:19 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I believe he was being sarcastic/humorous. |
Thanks karmat. :) Entomology was my absolute favorite class I took in undergrad. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:58:53 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Again, just asking. In a place where same-sex marriage is either not recognized or not legal, would a legal document like a will, etc hold up? It would, wouldn't it? |
Probably, but who wants to run around with a binder of Powers of Attorney, health care directives and the like.
Take this scenario: You're on a vacation with your spouse and they have a serious accident. All that you have to say is, "I'm his wife." and you can give consent for treatment, receive information from the doctors, attend their bedside, comfort and care for one of the people dearest to you.
If you were part of a homosexual couple, the scenario would play out quite differently and, in all likelihood, until you produced a health care POA or other directive, you would be denied access to any of those things and would be powerless to advocate for your spouse. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 12:59:21 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you're upset by etymology? |
Really upset! We have enough bugs and insects in the world already! |
That would be entomology. |
I believe he was being sarcastic/humorous. |
I know. ;) |
|
