Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:You seem to only mention the male/male side of homosexuality. Consistently. Strange.

He's also ignoring the idea that we're talking about marriage, while he's talking about sex. It's an odd thing, isn't it, people are talking about the legal right to marry, and fateweaver thinks purely in terms of men having sex with men....

Fateweaver wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.

That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.

Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.

But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand. Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives. Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.

Alright buddy, you get one girl first and then we will have a big discussion.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right

Well, the idea of rights by itself is tenuous. They're a concept, a construct. They're fictitious and only as genuine as their recognizance by a governing body. But under the circumstances (and i know this isn't what you were speaking to directly), the constitution of the US recognizes that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." the ERA.

It follows that if Peter can marry Mary, but he can't marry Mark. Then the only reason is one of sex, which is unconstitutional under this amendment.

The ERA was a proposed amendment, it never passed. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the most legitimately pressing are the extensive repercussions regarding not only marriage (which may not actually be involved), but also things like Selective Service, and the military.

Didn't marriage stop being a sacred institution when the last nail was put in it's coffin by a variety of really really bad marriage-focused reality TV shows?

I think anyone with an IQ low enough to agree to go on a reality show (especially any sort of "bridezilla", "The bachlor" style feth) should be sterilized and have THEIR right to get married legally revoked...

Besides gay weddings are very stylish and the receptions usually have really great music.

Go to Wikipedia and do a search on the word "marriage"... interesting reading about the concept.

hemingway wrote:

Fateweaver wrote: They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?

I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.

who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.

No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.

Having said that they are completely separate. I can have no problem with gay marriage (which I don't other than why? you had a good thing there now you're going to ruin it with marriage... so sad ) while at the same time vowing to open up with a shotgun on any NAMBLA member I come across.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Didn't marriage stop being a sacred institution when the last nail was put in it's coffin by a variety of really really bad marriage-focused reality TV shows?

I think anyone with an IQ low enough to agree to go on a reality show (especially any sort of "bridezilla", "The bachlor" style feth) should be sterilized and have THEIR right to get married legally revoked...

Besides gay weddings are very stylish and the receptions usually have really great music.

Yea, the concept of marriage has been butchered for some time now. The positive of marriage is that its generally a more stable environment for kids (reality shows excepted of course). Hence gay marriage is more stable for munchkins than "life partners." So its a good thing.

Ensure the Gay marriage enjoys the same healthy level of tax as hetero marriage. Use the resources gained for upkeep of public resources.

Simple.

I dont have a problem with gay marriage either way, what I have a problem with is the courts overturning Californias gay marriage ban for the 3rd time..

Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.

that's just opportunism and, like you said, unrelated to the issue. they've been saying it for years, it's not like they just started saying 'hey, what about us?' yesterday.

historically pederasty and polygamy go back at least 3000 years (more, if you take china into account). the kibosh on them is a relatively new idea, and you don't have to go back too many generations before you find you have a great-grandparent who nowadays would be considered a pedophile. food for thought.

hemingway wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.

that's just opportunism and, like you said, unrelated to the issue. they've been saying it for years. they didn't just start yesterday.

historically pederasty and polygamy go back at least 3000 years (more, if you take china into account). the kibosh on them is a relatively new idea, and you don't have to go back too many generations before you find you have a great-grandparent who nowadays would be considered a pedophile. food for thought.

No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.

It should all be calleda civil partnership, not a marriage, the reason behind this is because the actual definition of the word marriage is uniting a man and a woman in all that holy stuff. (General studies finally came in use !! UK college students should know what I mean)

There is nothing wrong with SSM, if they want be joined together in the same way as a marriage then let them, I think it's a freedom of choice everyone should be allowed to have, regardless of sexual preference.

And to Mr. Fateweaver, you seem to talk about multiple female companions all the time, maybe you should change your brand of christianity to Mormorism, I hear you get up to 4 wives there. (or 4 men, since you like them so much)

Well there's my 2 cents in this fruit machine

See ya laters

Frazzled wrote:No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.

so we agree that it's been a short time that pederasty has fallen out of vogue? because dickens didn't live that long ago. but appealing to english victorian morality isn't much of an argument. those same people shamelessly photographed and displayed nude children, presumably to show their 'innocence'. you got caught with photos like that now, you'd be chemically castrated and sent to protective custody.

Wolf wrote:It should all be calleda civil partnership, not a marriage, the reason behind this is because the actual definition of the word marriage is uniting a man and a woman in all that holy stuff.

This is also what I believe, in so many words, but at the same time, in the context of modern western society 'marriage' as a fundamentally religious concept has already been so bastardised that it hardly seems to matter who marries who or what these days.

Catyrpelius wrote:I dont have a problem with gay marriage either way, what I have a problem with is the courts overturning Californias gay marriage ban for the 3rd time..

You'd have thought they would learn by now.

I'm just glad this is no longer an issue in Canada, and that right won out.

I understand where Fateweaver is coming from because I used to come from that same place. Someone can be opposed to something without being a horrible racist homophobic nazi (commonly called "traditional conservative"). With that out of the way, the only reason I changed my mind was because of feelings I had developed and I decided that my own experiences (both life and spiritual) led me to believe that nothing was wrong with it. The only thing telling me that it was wrong was some text on a page in a book that already seemed off at some points, if not still a good book overall. That's really the key here, as long as FW believes in scriptural RaW, he can't believe otherwise and I can respect that as you take a lot of flack for it. One thing I might say to appeal to him though is that just because something is different or one rule changes it doesn't mean a bunch of other stuff will happen. Just because a burger restaurant also starts serving veggie burgers, does that mean they'll be serving nothing but salad in the next week? Not really. People like the idea of one person being with another person.

And as far as the whole "I was born this way" argument, I think it's a pretty crappy one. Pedophiles, rapists, cheaters, Koreans; anyone can use that as an excuse. I think the much stronger argument is "why not?" If the only answer, like in my experience, is that an old book says not to and that book doesn't write our laws (even if principals within it were their basis), then why does it get to be a factor? Really it comes down to what more people want in the long run. If America/a state isn't ready, the laws won't change for a long time. If they are, we'll see it happen.

hemingway wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.

so we agree that it's been a short time that pederasty has fallen out of vogue? because dickens didn't live that long ago. but appealing to english victorian morality isn't much of an argument. those same people shamelessly photographed and displayed nude children, presumably to show their 'innocence'. you got caught with photos like that now, you'd be chemically castrated and sent to protective custody.

No we don't agree and nor would I give a when it went out of favor. Slavery, child prostitution, and stoning homosexuals to death is still much in favor in many parts of the world, and I could care less than nothing for their world view.
As a note Dicken was railing against it at the time (may have been illegal). I am sure others were as well, but as I don't give a fig for English literature after say Shakespeare so I wouldn't know.

Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.

No, its a terrible argument as there is no reason to presume that something that might pass in the future will pass because something else happens now.

To put it another way, if social acceptance of all forms of marriage are equal, then there is no reason to assume that NAMBLA (which no longer exists) will win its cause after the various groups supporting homosexual marriage. In other words, you have to presume that there is some rigid hierarchy of 'deviance' from the social norm in order to presume that there is a wrote order to the process, which itself would invalidate the idea of slippery slope; as that relies on the idea that there is no necessary distinction between homosexual marriage and pedophilia.

And hey, lets not forget that NAMBLA and polygamy advocacy groups rose up in concert with the push to legalize gay marriage. They were both manifestations of the 2nd wave of the sexual liberation movement.

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that they are completely separate.

Yes, that's why the slippery slope argument is nonsense. As I said before, if the slippery slope holds, then marriage between men and women put us on the slipper slope to marriage to between members of the same sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.

Pedophilia has been railed against, and supported, since the times of Ancient Greece. Pretending that NAMBLA is either a manifestation of something new, or at all as close to 'mainstream' as the gay marriage debate is self-delusional.

The discussion of Gay Rights is always two or three pages away from the grim spectre of pedarasty.

I love the internet.

Monster Rain wrote:The discussion of Gay Rights is always two or three pages away from the grim spectre of pedarasty.

I love the internet.

At least it's not the grim spectre of terrorism!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The discussion of Gay Rights is always two or three pages away from the grim spectre of pedarasty.

I love the internet.

At least it's not the grim spectre of terrorism!

And that's exactly where you're wrong. First you allow gay marriage, then you have Bin Laden as president!

Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia?



Last I checked Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophila is not and thus is child abuse.

So how are they even remotely the same?

Don't answer that, I understand perfectly well why people try to play the "fear card" when they have run out ways to defend an irrational position...

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The discussion of Gay Rights is always two or three pages away from the grim spectre of pedarasty.

I love the internet.

At least it's not the grim spectre of terrorism!

And that's exactly where you're wrong. First you allow gay marriage, then you have Bin Laden as president!

OMG! Queerosexuals are terrorists! Quick, someone call Glen Beck!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The discussion of Gay Rights is always two or three pages away from the grim spectre of pedarasty.

I love the internet.

At least it's not the grim spectre of terrorism!

And that's exactly where you're wrong. First you allow gay marriage, then you have Bin Laden as president!

... well now you've gone and done it, there's no realistic way I can bring Hitler in now. Thanks a bunch.

Frazzled wrote:
No we don't agree and nor would I give a when it went out of favor. Slavery, child prostitution, and stoning homosexuals to death is still much in favor in many parts of the world, and I could care less than nothing for their world view.

you're acting as though i'm endorsing it. i'm just saying that pederasty going out of fashion as well as marriage for love are both pretty new conventions.

Not to mention "No Fault" Divorce.

Platuan4th wrote:

OMG! Queerosexuals are terrorists! Quick, someone call Glen Beck!

rubiksnoob wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

OMG! Queerosexuals are terrorists! Quick, someone call Glen Beck!

Its about time, I was in California on that same day.

You know, when on the same day that Americans voted in their first mixed race president, many Black Americans voted to make gays stand up at the back of the bus.

How you can claim to have equality and harp on about the consititution whilst banning people from doing what they want to do is absolutely mind boggling.

If it only affects you and your partner, i dont give a gak what you get up to in your house, and all the homophobic nonsense they were flinging around in the commercials over there before this bill was passed was ridiculous.

Equality for everyone sounds fair in my book. A good decision.