Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Gays cannot be the most diverse group (...) Of course it's irrelevant, but it was mindseye's argument.

It was?

The original post:

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? The handicapped/physically-challenged? Californians?

The only one I can think of is "Americans". When was the last time "Americans" agreed on an agenda? WWII?

And, from a post right on this page:

Originally posted by mindseye

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.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye - I was quoting Patroklos

Drach -

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.

Unmarried men are good for war, married men are not.
That may be why homosexuality exists, nature's way of producing men who remain unattached and available for help. But according to your argument, single people are bad for the country. Try selling that one...

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.

Do you have proof or are you still relying on the Mormons? That is a highly patriarchal religion, that's what you see. I want to know why I'd view a 2nd wife as an object.

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.

If it's just a few, how can you make such dire predictions? Is there alot of crime among polygamist communities out west? I'd love to see you explain why we don't see crime running rampant among polygamists...

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.

That's pathetic, you say polygamy causes more crime and then based on that nonsense, you say they can't be free. Btw, why don't liberals use that very argument when confronted with the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy? I'll tell you why, because the conservative they are debating will drive a Mack truck right through that loophole you've provided.
Harm to society as measured by Drach's societal harm meter Hell, you're using the very argument white racists use about blacks - they cause more crime, therefore they are bad for society.

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.

Yup, us modern folk don't wage as many wars. You're forgetting that women can have multiple husbands.

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.

How it deals with people? You mean like not blaming one person for the mis-deeds of another? That's the basis for the drug war, punish all drug users for the mis-deeds of some drug users. Isn't that what you advocate for polygamists, punish all because of some?

Oh yeah, what's more comparable to slavery? You deciding what other people can do?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Unmarried men are good for war, married men are not.

Are they?
For an offensive war maybe,
but what about a defensive war,
where they fight to defend their homes and family.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mindseye - I was quoting Patroklos

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "but it was mindseye's argument".

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Unmarried men are good for war, married men are not.
That may be why homosexuality exists, nature's way of producing men who remain unattached and available for help. But according to your argument, single people are bad for the country. Try selling that one...

Whether large numbers of single men (who are not single by choice) may be a problem for society is something the Chinese gov't is becoming increasingly concerned about as it faces this exact situation. Major concerns are crime and unrest.

As of 2000, the sex ratio at birth for China is 118 male : 100 female. Most countries have a ratio of about 105:100.

The imbalance began recently enough that it is only beginning to reach the population of marrying age, but it has the potential of becoming a major issue here. So, at least on this question, maybe we'll soon see some hard evidence one way or the other from China.

Relevant? Depends on the expected rate of polygamous (and counter-balancing polyandrous) marriage.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mindseye - I was quoting Patroklos

Drach -

Unmarried men are good for war, married men are not.
That may be why homosexuality exists, nature's way of producing men who remain unattached and available for help. But according to your argument, single people are bad for the country. Try selling that one...

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that single men that have no reasonable prospect of getting a girl are bad for the country. Especially if this group of people includes a decent cross-section of the male community in terms of energy and demeaner.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Do you have proof or are you still relying on the Mormons? That is a highly patriarchal religion, that's what you see. I want to know why I'd view a 2nd wife as an object.

Merely based on economics and human psychology. The more you can have of something and the easier to horde it, the more you think about having more and hording more. The fact that the rich would get the most wives would also play into this. There is already an attitude of trophy-wives among some of them, but this would only encourage that sort of thinking.

It isn't the "second wife is an object" mentality, that wouldn't happen per se. It's more of the "I want more and can get more" mentality.

Originally posted by Berzerker
If it's just a few, how can you make such dire predictions? Is there alot of crime among polygamist communities out west? I'd love to see you explain why we don't see crime running rampant among polygamists...

If the State endorses it, then there is a good danger of it becoming more than just a few. It isn't a big issue if there is the very, very rare individual among millions upon millions. It is when it becomes an accepted societal practive and supported by the government that you run into problems. That's when you can get the problems with males, and that's when you'd start to see a shift in attitudes about what marriage and relationships with the opposite sex are about.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's pathetic, you say polygamy causes more crime and then based on that nonsense, you say they can't be free. Btw, why don't liberals use that very argument when confronted with the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy? I'll tell you why, because the conservative they are debating will drive a Mack truck right through that loophole you've provided.
Harm to society as measured by Drach's societal harm meter Hell, you're using the very argument white racists use about blacks - they cause more crime, therefore they are bad for society.

Polygamy is different from gay marriage, as I already indicated. Practices that result in a net loss to society should not be encouraged. Your comparison to white racists is unwarrented and innaccurate. Higher crime rates among blacks is because of the poor state of inner-cities and the like, and this can be fixed. Even if it couldn't be fixed, they are still human beings and have the rights and priviledges thereof. Human beings and the practices of human beings are two very different things.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yup, us modern folk don't wage as many wars. You're forgetting that women can have multiple husbands.

We don't wage as many wars. It is a fact. States attacking States is virtually dead, especially compared to 100 or more years ago (hence even 50 or more years ago). Other "wars" are a lot less costly in life.

Women having multiple husbands would not help much. For one, you'd still have the object-oriented problem. For another, it has never proven very popular historically, so it is unlikely to balance out the males with multiple wives. Additionally there are fewer women in positions of wealth and power in the world and there is more of a social stigma against women with multiple husbands than men with multiple wives. This just plays into my main points on this.

Originally posted by Berzerker
How it deals with people? You mean like not blaming one person for the mis-deeds of another? That's the basis for the drug war, punish all drug users for the mis-deeds of some drug users. Isn't that what you advocate for polygamists, punish all because of some?

Oh yeah, what's more comparable to slavery? You deciding what other people can do?

Unlike the drug war, polygamy would not benefit from government regulation. It's really that simple. Hence the government should not support it. If illegal drugs were like that, and people simply didn't use them if they were illegal, then they should remain illegal. They are not like that, however. This is like slavery in that slavery is also a practice that doesn't benefit from being legalized and regulated.

Of course, living a polygamous life-style is already legal, the State merely doesn't give you any special benefits compared to an equal number of single people living together. This is how it should remain.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drachasor

I am saying that single men that have no reasonable prospect of getting a girl are bad for the country.
(...)
The fact that the rich would get the most wives would also play into this.

Indeed, and one of these amplifies the other, if the experience of China is any indication.

If there are insufficient available women, the guys who miss out are generally the guys with the lowest income and status (the unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, etc.).

Unfortunately, this is a group already more prone to crime, violence and unrest than the general male population. Adding to this group romantic and sexual frustration, simultaneously subtracting from it the stabilizing influences of marriage and child-rearing is not a good social recipe.

This is just beginning to be born out in China. There are reports of "bachelor villages" beginning to appear in the poorest areas of the country, along with growing reports of female kidnappings and wife-buying.

[DinoDoc]

Back in the closet you!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Back in the closet you!

[Last Conformist]

That may be why homosexuality exists, nature's way of producing men who remain unattached and available for help.

That sounds alot like group selection, or even teleology ... care to elaborate?

[Jon Miller]

In many areas where homosexuality exists in nature, there does not exist the social structures that would make in beneficial in that manner. Therefore I think right now (although I am completely open to changing my point of view) that homosexuality is a common, but not evolutionary beneficial, mutation.

Jon Miller

[Donegeal]

Ok, this thread has gotten to long to read for the info I want.

Could any of you recomend a forum to me that is just as far to the right as this one is to the left? I am looking for logical reasons why ANYONE (much less the Republicans that I favor) would support such a ban. I honestly cannot think of a good reason whatsoever.

Give me a site so I can stir up some fun (and most likely funny comments) with my Republican Party.

[Berzerker]

Drach -

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that single men that have no reasonable prospect of getting a girl are bad for the country.

And forcing people to marry whom they don't want to marry is good for the country?

Merely based on economics and human psychology. The more you can have of something and the easier to horde it, the more you think about having more and hording more.

Which brings me back to my question: if I marry a second woman, why do I view her as an object?

The fact that the rich would get the most wives would also play into this. There is already an attitude of trophy-wives among some of them, but this would only encourage that sort of thinking.

Are you gonna ban divorce and trophy wives? Adultery? Mistresses? And how are the rich going to get most of the women? That's never happened before so I have to ask again - where's your proof? Frankly, how are you going to stop women from marrying for money and why would you want men who aren't rich to marry these women?

It isn't the "second wife is an object" mentality, that wouldn't happen per se. It's more of the "I want more and can get more" mentality.

So the people who aren't hording will be punished because of those who do? That's moral?

If the State endorses it, then there is a good danger of it becoming more than just a few. It isn't a big issue if there is the very, very rare individual among millions upon millions. It is when it becomes an accepted societal practive and supported by the government that you run into problems. That's when you can get the problems with males, and that's when you'd start to see a shift in attitudes about what marriage and relationships with the opposite sex are about.

Once again you are not answering my question: if polygamy increases crime, why aren't polygamist communities the most crime ridden? Telling me there aren't enough polygamists ignores that in polygamist communities, there are plenty of polygamists.

Polygamy is different from gay marriage, as I already indicated. Practices that result in a net loss to society should not be encouraged.

So drug use should be banned. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, prostitution, not being a Christian, all banned?
You see, Christians can use your argument as an excuse to promote their religion via the state because they believe Christians are better for "society" than atheists.

Your comparison to white racists is unwarrented and innaccurate.

You are using the same argument. Polygamy increases crime (no proof, just your speculations), therefore polygamy should be banned. Blacks commit more crimes, therefore blacks should not be allowed in the country. Their argument and yours is based on punishing the innocent because of the guilty...

Higher crime rates among blacks is because of the poor state of inner-cities and the like, and this can be fixed.

Yeah, we've been fixing it for decades. I think liberalism causes crime, therefore liberalism shouldn't be legal. That's the loophole you've created with your "societal harm" argument...

Even if it couldn't be fixed, they are still human beings and have the rights and priviledges thereof. Human beings and the practices of human beings are two very different things.

Polygamists are human too...

We don't wage as many wars. It is a fact. States attacking States is virtually dead, especially compared to 100 or more years ago (hence even 50 or more years ago). Other "wars" are a lot less costly in life.

Since WWII the USA has been in 4 major wars and a host of smaller conflicts via proxy states. That's about 1 major war a decade, and you think we're less violent?

Women having multiple husbands would not help much. For one, you'd still have the object-oriented problem.

That problem is your invention.

For another, it has never proven very popular historically, so it is unlikely to balance out the males with multiple wives.

That's because Christians frowned on polygamy, so blame them.

Additionally there are fewer women in positions of wealth and power in the world and there is more of a social stigma against women with multiple husbands than men with multiple wives. This just plays into my main points on this.

So now polygamists will be punished because bigots don't like them? So you hear how much you sound like a Christian fundie?

Unlike the drug war, polygamy would not benefit from government regulation. It's really that simple.

But chasing polygamists around and breaking up their families is good for "society"?

If illegal drugs were like that, and people simply didn't use them if they were illegal, then they should remain illegal.

Polygamy and drugs are illegal and people still violate those laws.

Of course, living a polygamous life-style is already legal, the State merely doesn't give you any special benefits compared to an equal number of single people living together. This is how it should remain.

It isn't legal, polygamists are jailed. And the state has no business in compelling us to afford benefits to married people at all.

Mind -

Indeed, and one of these amplifies the other, if the experience of China is any indication.

If there are insufficient available women, the guys who miss out are generally the guys with the lowest income and status (the unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, etc.).

Unfortunately, this is a group already more prone to crime, violence and unrest than the general male population. Adding to this group romantic and sexual frustration, simultaneously subtracting from it the stabilizing influences of marriage and child-rearing is not a good social recipe.

This is just beginning to be born out in China. There are reports of "bachelor villages" beginning to appear in the poorest areas of the country, along with growing reports of female kidnappings and wife-buying.

China has forced abortions which induces imbalances in gender populations. More single men means more crime, but it also means more men available to work or wage wars with fewer complications. You guys preach this nonsense about societal harm and ignore the societal harm that would be caused by sending married men off to die in wars leaving behind widows and children.

The gay marriage movement needs different spokespeople because right now y'all sound like a bunch of selfish hypocrites - freedom for homosexuals, not for polygamists.

[Berzerker]

Drach, should homosexuality be illegal because of all the pathologies homosexuals exhibit? Those pathologies cause "societal harm". That's your criterion...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker
China has forced abortions which induces imbalances in gender populations. More single men means more crime, but it also means more men available to work or wage wars with fewer complications. You guys preach this nonsense about societal harm and ignore the societal harm that would be caused by sending married men off to die in wars leaving behind widows and children.

The gay marriage movement needs different spokespeople because right now y'all sound like a bunch of selfish hypocrites - freedom for homosexuals, not for polygamists.

Which doesn´t take into account that nowadays the trend goes towards women which also have jobs and aren´t restricted anymore to just bearing and raising children and running the household.
Women nowadays also (most of the times) have their own jobs and often enough try to work their way up (sometimes making more money than their husbands ). You can even find women in Army, Navy or Airforce

So the argument that a higher rate of men within the population would be beneficial for the workforce is nonsense, as most of the jobs could also be done by women.
If (what nowadays is common) both parents work, one of the parents dying in war means also a less grave impact than in former days (where the woman normally didn´t work) as there is still someone within the family who earns money.