Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

there are Roman Catholics who are also voodooists as well as a number of other religions

Jon Miller

Finally, an explanation for those mysterious needle-pricks I keep experiencing.

[Berzerker]

Some cultures, including some native americans, put higher value on gays (in the case of certain NA tribes, they are seen to be blessed by 2 spirits, both male and female).

Because their creator is male and female in one so to speak - the duality of nature.

Drach -

Berzerker, you still have the issue of what is good for the society as a whole with polygamy. I went over this in a post that came after the one you quote, and I personally feel the arguements I presented there are more telling.

I don't care about society, I care about the individuals who comprise society. Taking away their freedom is not good for them, that's all I need to know.

Additionally, I represented my arguement from the standpoint of someone defending gay marriage to people saying that opens the door for polygamy, marrying animals, etc.

I could care less if you marry an animal, just make sure it consents This isn't about opening a door to polygamists, this is about the double standard many homosexuals employ to deny polygamists the right to marry who they want while demanding that right for themselves.

As for the emotional health arguements, society does have a concern in individual emotional health and should try to not encourage activities which are physically or emotionally damaging.

That's totalitarianism when the "concerns" becomes law as they usually do. A state that has the authority to prevent me from hurting myself has the authority to run my life...

Polygamy leaves society with a lot of males that can't date or get married because there aren't enough women. Additionally, there will be a great deal more genetic similarity in a few generations, because there are far fewer fathers and many more children. This is an inherent aspect of polygamy, and neither the feeling of frustration on the non-married males nor the genetic cost is worth it.

We're going to debate evolution and neither of us is an expert? I could counter that assertion with nature. Consider the alpha wolf or any other species with dominant males or females. And there just aren't that many people who want to practice polygamy anyway so suggesting this would harm the gene pool is way off base.

Errr. and this addresses my point how? I was talking about how widespread acceptence of polygamy would result in wives being viewed as commodities and status symbols much more so than they are today.

Ah, and you know this because you are a polygamist with multiple wives you view as commodities? People don't have to get married if all they want is a commodity.

Quantity of wives would override the quality of the relationship. Sure, it might be stable, but stability is not everything.

That's the beauty of freedom, if the quality is lacking then divorce is available.

Simply speaking, polygamy is not something a society should endorse.

So a more stable form of marriage shouldn't be allowed because you think polygamists marry commodities. Umkay...

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't care about society, I care about the individuals who comprise society. Taking away their freedom is not good for them, that's all I need to know.

When you don't care about society, then you miss an important facet of human nature, and you cannot give individual need their due. There are reasons why we need laws, why we need organizations; some freedoms simply should not be had. In this case, I am merely advocating that society should not support or encourage polygamy. It is bad for society and hence it is bad for the individuals that make up society.

If people want to live in a polygamous relationship on their own, then they are free to. They should not be supported in this by the law or government in any way, unlike a normal marriage (or gay marriage).

Originally posted by Berzerker
I could care less if you marry an animal, just make sure it consents This isn't about opening a door to polygamists, this is about the double standard many homosexuals employ to deny polygamists the right to marry who they want while demanding that right for themselves.

There are vast differences between Polygamy and Gay Marriage, just because you refuse to see them because you refuse to look at the big picture is not my problem or is it the problem of the gay community.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's totalitarianism when the "concerns" becomes law as they usually do. A state that has the authority to prevent me from hurting myself has the authority to run my life...

Right, education must be totalitarian then, because of concerns about public well-being and edification. Social Security is totalitarian because it stems from a concern about the elderly....

This isn't about you hurting yourself, this is about the institution of polygamy hurting other people, hurting the people as a whole. Again, if you refuse to look at things from the big picture perspective, then you can't see that. You need to learn that the dynamics of the individuals taken seperately are not the same as the dynamics of the individuals taken collectively; Groups act different than individuals.

Originally posted by Berzerker
We're going to debate evolution and neither of us is an expert? I could counter that assertion with nature. Consider the alpha wolf or any other species with dominant males or females. And there just aren't that many people who want to practice polygamy anyway so suggesting this would harm the gene pool is way off base.

Evidence from the fossil record and anthropology tends to indicate we are not polygamous by nature. In any case, we are smart enough to control whatever baser instincts we might have, especially if a better environement is the result.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, and you know this because you are a polygamist with multiple wives you view as commodities? People don't have to get married if all they want is a commodity.

Read history. Then ponder economics and psychology and realize that the rich would have most of the wives and being able to have multiple wives would decrease the need to be all that selective about each one; and the rich are not always that selective even now. Marriage with a prenuptual agreement would merely would be used as a way to cement the commodity status. Sure, you *can* get out of it, but that is no justification for encouraging such a system.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So a more stable form of marriage shouldn't be allowed because you think polygamists marry commodities. Umkay...

Again, you are thinking too small. Sacrificing societal stability for marriage stability would not be a good idea; and even the marriage stability is not certain.

-Drachasor

[Patroklos]

By me

Your inferiority complex satiated yet? I guess struggling with homosexuality is the least of you worries, seeing the problem logic is giving you

By you:

Clearly that's not all you're struggling with. Reading comprehension and logic seem to be challenging you as well ...

And I guess you struggle with originality as well.

And how exactly does pwning you when you make a statment like "gays are the most diverse group," or in other words being right, place me in the mid teens.

You made an irrational comment (that was not sarcastic), got called out, deal with it.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And I guess you struggle with originality as well.

Yeah, all the time people tell me "Hey, you write just like Patroklos."

And how exactly does pwning you when you make a statment like "gays are the most diverse group," or in other words being right, place me in the mid teens.

You made an irrational comment (that was not sarcastic), got called out, deal with it.

You really want to continue this? It had little to do with my point. Okay then: if you've got an example to back yourself up with, let's have it. Strictly speaking, you haven't come up with one yet, so it looks like you cannot back up your "stupid" and "irrational" remarks after all.

So, let's have it. Either you can name a minority that's more diverse, or you can't. If you can't I'd suggest dropping it instead of wasting more time on this trivia.

[Patroklos]

I don't have to name one that is more diverse because my position is that your are no more diverse than alot of minorities. And I gave you six that are either equal or greater. In fact I gave them too you twice, and then someone gave you another (RC's).

You made a wild and retarded claim, it is up to YOU to support it, especially since you now have seven counter examples.

This pissing contest is a prime example of why you don't have legal rights, because you piss away your momentum on stupid things like dictionary definitions and this crap.

[Drachasor]

As I said before, this "most diverse group" thing is wholly irrelevent. Gays don't deserve nor do they need special treatment. They simply deserve the basic rights and protections everyone else gets; which includes being able to for a marriage-like bond with another person.

Now, I admit I favor gay marriage, but right now that isn't a feasible solution to the problem. Too many people have knee-jerk reactions to it. You can however, get all the benefits of a marriage via a domestic union, and the majority of the population supports giving gays this right.

Let the States decide on Gay Marriage individually for now. In 5 to 10 years there will probably be popular support for it across the nation. It's not an ideal solution, but it is the only one the gay community has for the time being, imho.

-Drachasor

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't have to name one that is more diverse

You are right, you don't have to name one, but if you can't then it appears you cannot support your "stupid" and "irrational" comments.

ecause my position is that your are no more diverse than alot of minorities.

Have you been reading my posts?

Before you chimed in, I personally suggested examples such as women and the physically handicapped. I later pointed out how these groups support my claim, as they are also connected by weak shared links not strongly connected to their beliefs and actions, and that this is why they a poor time of selecting leadership and agendas. Do you disagree with some part of this?

And I gave you six that are either equal or greater.

Some are about equal -- and these have the same leadership & agenda issues I described for gays. However, you still haven't named even one that is more diverse (much less with acknowledged leadership and an agenda).

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drachasor
As I said before, this "most diverse group" thing is wholly irrelevent.

I agree, it's far beside the points made.

What should gays' next steps be for civil unions/marriage?

How should they deal with the Bush adminsitration?

Okay, now you go back to debating Berzerker.

[Patroklos]

Some are about equal -- and these have the same leadership & agenda issues I described for gays. However, you still haven't named even one that is more diverse (much less with acknowledged leadership and an agenda).

Alright, maybe the third time will be the charm.

Your Position: Gays are the most diverse group.

My Position: No they are not any more diverse than anyone else.

I never maintained gays were less diverse, that is your inability to read acting up, so I don't have to show any group that is more diverse, simply equally.

Provided you with at least six examples, which you were pwned on when you said those biggoted things about them. Then you provided two of your own, I guess so you could say you pwned yourself??? (maybe you think this saved you face or something?)

In any case you have abandoned your original position, though trying to muddle it with leadership which I didn't even take issue with in the first place, which is commendable because it was stupid. Your problem now is you still deny the examples that should have brought you to this end.

I guess since you provided two more equally damning to you examples of your own (females and disabled) I am just wondering why you hate blacks, asians, amish, six toed, red haired people and apolytoners? Does their diversity count less than females and the disbled?

[Last Conformist]

Patroklos

My Position: No they [=gays] are not any more diverse than anyone else

You talk of absurd positions? That one implies claiming that gays are not a more diverse group that, say, heterosexual golf-players living in LA who prefer decaf.


Whoever said that women are a minority, BTW, needs to take a closer look at the demographics.

[mindseye]

Patroklos, this is becoming pointless. Let's hit (REWIND), return to the original post, and see if we can reach some sort of common ground, or at least have a more civil discussion.

Originally posted by Patroklos

Originally posted by mindseye

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 think you are wrong. I think it does not apply to all other minorities. For example, blacks do not include people from every conceiveable race - gays do. Roman Catholics do not include people from every conceiveable religion - gays do. Compared with gays, minorities like blacks and Roman Catholics have factors in common (race, religion) which more stongly affect their beliefs and actions. In this respect, they are less diverse than gays.

In subsequent discussion (see Imran's comments) I agreed that there are some groups that technically are equally diverse, at least in terms of membership criteria (after all, the group gays does not include heterosexuals).

However, the group heterosexuals does not include many beliefs not already found in gays -- adding them to gays wouldn't really make gays much more diverse. Compare with blacks vs. asians, or Roman Catholics vs. Evangelicals. There are much greater distinctions in beliefs and actions, in this respect blacks and Roman Catholics are less diverse than gays.

I then went on to explain that most of the groups we think of as minorities are linked by a factor (e.g. race, religion, place of residence, income, etc.) which has a much stronger influence on the way they think and act than the factor which gays share (i.e. "who they fall in love with"). Because "who you fall in love with" is so much weaker than, say, sharing a political ideology, race or religion, it means that gays face a difficult obstacle in getting behind a leadership or forming an agenda due to their unusually vast diversity of viewpoints compared with most other minorities.

I went on to point out that other very diverse groups linked by factors of weak influence in fact have the very same problems gays do. I cited woman, whites and red-heads as examples. Like gays, these groups also have weak or little leadership and no agenda. Why? The factor that connects them influences their beliefs and actions too weakly.

Okay, that's my argument. Do you have some problem with any part of it? If not, let's shake and move on. If you do, point it out, I'll try to address it as best I'm able.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Whoever said that women are a minority, BTW, needs to take a closer look at the demographics.

I live in CHINA.

EDIT: Add original quote (bolding added):

Originally posted by mindseye

I've been trying to think of some kind of group or affiliation within the US that is more diverse than gays. Women? (...)

[Berzerker]

Your Position: Gays are the most diverse group.

My Position: No they are not any more diverse than anyone else.

Gays cannot be the most diverse group, I suspect that was a mis-statement. If their numbers are large enough they may match the diversity we can find in other very large groups. Of course it's irrelevant, but it was mindseye's argument.


Drach -

When you don't care about society, then you miss an important facet of human nature, and you cannot give individual need their due.

Their due is to be free, that is exactly what I "give" them.

There are reasons why we need laws, why we need organizations; some freedoms simply should not be had.

And you get to decide which ones we don't get to have?

In this case, I am merely advocating that society should not support or encourage polygamy. It is bad for society and hence it is bad for the individuals that make up society.

That's illogical, you presume it is bad for society and then claim it must therefore be bad for individuals. Polygamists get to decide if it's good or bad for them, not "society". Many argue guns are bad for society, but to the guy who just saved his own life by wielding a gun at an attacker, guns were good for him.

If people want to live in a polygamous relationship on their own, then they are free to. They should not be supported in this by the law or government in any way, unlike a normal marriage (or gay marriage).

That doesn't make sense, why would it be bad for society if polygamists get to have the state recognise their marriage? Seems that recognition would help with what happens to the children of such a marriage should it be dis-solved, you know, inheritance, custody, etc... That's why the government here got involved with marriage...

There are vast differences between Polygamy and Gay Marriage, just because you refuse to see them because you refuse to look at the big picture is not my problem or is it the problem of the gay community.

But there is no difference in the rationale being used for both, that people have the right or freedom to marry whom they want. That is the argument gays use until someone like O'Reilly or Hannity starts them down the path of "do you support polygamists' right to marry" at which point the liberal, plagued with inconsistent thinking, announces that polygamists shouldn't be free, just heterosexual and homosexual monogamists...

Right, education must be totalitarian then, because of concerns about public well-being and edification. Social Security is totalitarian because it stems from a concern about the elderly....

You said polygamists should not be allowed to marry, try to stick to the issue. And you justified this by claiming polygamy is emotionally damaging (generalisation alert). So I pointed out that a system that can ban any activity based on emotional harm has total authority. You said nothing to refute me...

This isn't about you hurting yourself, this is about the institution of polygamy hurting other people, hurting the people as a whole.

That sounds so much like the argument offered up by drug prohibitionists, so I'll ask this: if I marry two women, how does that hurt other people?

Again, if you refuse to look at things from the big picture perspective, then you can't see that. You need to learn that the dynamics of the individuals taken seperately are not the same as the dynamics of the individuals taken collectively; Groups act different than individuals.

So what? I want to know why me marrying one woman doesn't hurt others but me marrying 2 women does hurt others.

Evidence from the fossil record and anthropology tends to indicate we are not polygamous by nature. In any case, we are smart enough to control whatever baser instincts we might have, especially if a better environement is the result.

Are homosexuals smart enough to control whatever baser instincts they may have, especially if a better environment is the result? And where is this evidence?
Polygamists have outnumbered homosexuals and in some places, even monogamists. Does that mean homosexuality and monogamy are unnatural when they
are less prevalent that polygamy? Sex is natural, polygamy, like monogamy, is just one way of ensuring the survival of the species. And isn't that among the basest of instincts?

Read history. Then ponder economics and psychology and realize that the rich would have most of the wives and being able to have multiple wives would decrease the need to be all that selective about each one; and the rich are not always that selective even now.

Strange, history shows that polygamy was practiced in the earliest and greatest civilisations. Kings typically had many wives and children... You've just reduced women to gold digger status. It's true women tend to seek out better mates for producing children, but that only shows that polygamy is natural. The survival of the fittest is better served by the healthiest procreating with the healthiest, not wasting their existence on poor mates. If that ain't natural or instinctive, then what is it?

Marriage with a prenuptual agreement would merely would be used as a way to cement the commodity status. Sure, you *can* get out of it, but that is no justification for encouraging such a system.

Pre-nuptials limit what new spouses can get from the rightful owner, you don't think that's justified?

Again, you are thinking too small. Sacrificing societal stability for marriage stability would not be a good idea; and even the marriage stability is not certain.

Societal stability suffers when marriage stability increases? And how does societal stability suffer if polygamists had their marriages recognised by the state?

P.S. here's a quote I thought you might like, Drach

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

I guess it's time to put that back in my sig

[Drachasor]

Polygamy is bad for the following reasons:

1. It lessens the number of people that can realisticly hoped to be married, hence it increases the number of males with few ties to society.

2. There would be an increased tendency for women to be treated as objects by the marrying males. This would not happen all of the time, it would just be more likely to happen.

Hence, the State should not *encourage* the practice of polygamy, because it isn't in the interest of society or the individuals that make it up to have more violent crime and more unhappiness. While a few individuals would have more wives, that doesn't balance the other very negative factors.

This is different from gay marriage or heterosexual marriage, as the propery justification for marriage should be "people should be able to marry whomever they want so long as it doesn't cause harm to society or individuals". Polygamy simply does. It worked better in olden days because those young energetic men went out to fight where the wonded often died. Hence there were a lot more women than men, but this simply isn't true today and so the practice of such a gender-biased kind of marriage wouldn't work well. This is a different situation than the drug war because of how it deals with people; in this sense, though not wholly in the moral sense, it is more comparable to slavery.

-Drachasor