Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Patroklos]

Unlike most minorities, homosexuality cuts across every conceivable social boundry: age, gender, race, religion, nationality, income, class, political ideology - you name it. There is nothing we have in common except that we fall in love with people of the same gender.

That is a stupid comment.

The same thing applies to all minorities, I simply take gay, throw it back into the list, and pull out one of the other ones and viola. Unless you are a bigot and think all other minorities are somehow monotone.

[Patroklos]

What is odd, is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to establish stable relationships that are legally recognized, and then they are critcized for not "settling down." (although a significant number of gays and lesbians do settle down in spite of lack of legal recognition)

Juses Christ! If you all would shut up for two seconds you wouel already have your civil unions completely equal to marriage in every way!

I wish I could understand this hatred of the dictionary. an imaginary political goal, that you hold over achieving one of your greatest REAL goals.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Patroklos

That is a stupid comment.

The same thing applies to all minorities, I simply take gay, throw it back into the list, and pull out one of the other ones and viola. Unless you are a bigot and think all other minorities are somehow monotone.

Great, then it should be easy for you to give one example of a minority group more diverse than gays.

How about it?

[DanS]

That's easy. Roman Catholics.

[Patroklos]

Alright.....

Unlike most minorities, homosexuality cuts across every conceivable social boundry: age, gender, race, religion, nationality, income, class, political ideology - you name it. There is nothing we have in common except that we fall in love with people of the same gender.

Blacks:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

Whites:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

Asian:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

[Patroklos]

Amish:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Race -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

Red Haired:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Race -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

Six Towed:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Race -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

Apolytoner:

Age -
Gender -
Religion -
Nationality -
Income -
Class -
Race -
Political Ideology -
Sexual Preferance -

.....

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by mindseye
Great, then it should be easy for you to give one example of a minority group more diverse than gays.

How about it?

Is it that big of a deal?

Gays are a diverse group, that's all that really matters. If there are more diverse groups out there that doesn't take away anything from gays.

-Drachasor

[Patroklos]

Gays are a diverse group, that's all that really matters. If there are more diverse groups out there that doesn't take away anything from gays

I think he is a sadist and gets off on being the MOST discriminated.

Odd what people will compete over.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That is a stupid comment.

The same thing applies to all minorities, I simply take gay, throw it back into the list, and pull out one of the other ones and viola. Unless you are a bigot and think all other minorities are somehow monotone.

Where has mindseye said or implied that all other minority groups are monotonous? He is simply saying that among minority groups, on a scale of diversity, gays and lesbians are one of the most diverse minority groups.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drachasor
The whole "gay marriage leads to polygamy" line of reasoning is flawed on numerous levels. For one, Gay Marriage *still* requires two and only two people, just like heterosexual marriage. Just because you are allowing any two people who willingly agree and care for each other to get married does not somehow mandate allowing more than two people to be bound together by marriage.

Indeed, there are many arguements against this that in no way infringe upon gay marriage. There is the very real potential of favortism in a polygamist marriage which doesn't lead to emotional health. There is the fact that we don't have infinite numbers of women and men, so polygamy is inherently unequal and exclusionary. Also, polygamy tends to make people be considered as objects more; when you have a marriage between two people, then there is much more incentive to make a meaningful relationship, but when you can get many people to marry you, then it encourages a "quantity" thinking rather than a "quality" one. There are other reasons on top of these as well.

Of course, I will say the polygamy reasoning is more sensible than the bestiality/children/object marriage reasoning that some also use. That isn't saying much though.

-Drachasor

Wow -- as I read this latest page of this thread, I was going to post similar thoughts on polygamy.

Polygamous relationships, in my opinion, is an outward expression of sexist exploitation of women as you have already alluded to. And as you have already said for me, I also tend to think that polygamous relationships might be less emotionally healthy than monogamous relationships.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
Polygamous relationships, in my opinion, is an outward expression of sexist exploitation of women as you have already alluded to.

Hmmmm... I guess you are assuming that the relationship consists of one guy and multiple women... However, it could be a single woman and multiple guys... would you consider that sexist exploitation of men

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming


Hmmmm... I guess you are assuming that the relationship consists of one guy and multiple women... However, it could be a single woman and multiple guys... would you consider that sexist exploitation of men

Well . . . . .


historically at least, polygamous relationships consisted of one man with multiple women because men have traditionally held political power in different cultures and civilizations. Thus, it is likely that this pattern has continued today, with the norm being that most polygamous relationships is of one man with multiple women.







saved from being pwned

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... I guess you are assuming that the relationship consists of one guy and multiple women... However, it could be a single woman and multiple guys... would you consider that sexist exploitation of men

Both are exploitation to an extent, in all probability.

In terms of either one of these though, there is the issue of greatly decreased genetic diversity, which is bad for a population. Greatly decreased access to potential mates and dating also increases unrest and isn't good for the health of society as a whole.

There are many angles this can be approached from.

To say nothing of how this screws the poor and middle class.

It simply is far, far, far different from gay marriage.

-Drachsor

[Last Conformist]

The argument that civil unions are bad because they reduce commitment basically reduces to that people do not want commitment. So rather than being about love, one has difficulty in avoiding concluding, marriage is about coercing people into following some set of moral norms. That's scarily reminicent of the feminist line of marriage as a means of structural violence against women.

(ObStabAtTheCommies: A couple Swedish Leftist politicians have expressed both support for gay marriage and hostility towards heterosexual marriage. Go figure.)

As for polygamy, that's simply not an issue here, and I don't really have much of an opinion on it. Offhand, I don't see any reasons of principle is shouldn't be legalized, tho I expect there to be something of a legal nightmare concerning inheritance rights and guardianship of any children.

@Ming: Believe it or not, but polyandrist marriages have been construed as sexist repression of women.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker

While polygamists cannot marry as many as they wish, at least they can marry someone whom they wish. Gays cannot marry anyone whom they wish.

Sure they can, the opposite sex. The majority placed a restriction on homosexuals and the majority placed a restriction on polygamists - both restrictions deny the essence of being a homosexual or a polygamist. Why do so many homosexuals support the latter restriction while condemning the former?

Nope.
There´s a big difference:
Polygamists are allowed to marry at least one person they really love.
They cannot marry all the persons they love, but at least one of them.
Homosexuals on the other hand aren´t even allowed to marry one person they love (as, per definition, they only love persons of the same gender).
Their only choice would be to marry a person of the other sex which they don´t love, which makes the marriage somehow useless for them.

(whereas for a polygamist the marriage is still of use, as at least one of his inofficial wifes can be declared officially his wife)