Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Wittlich]

Touche' UR!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's an old Chinese saying that translates roughly to, "A lucky doctor gets to treat a patient when the disease has almost run its course."

I'll take it .

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

Berzerker,

You seem to be making rather tortured presumptions regarding my "giving a fair hearing" to polygamy. My meaning (which I had hoped was obvious) is that I can hardly decide my opinion on a given issue without first acquiring accurate information (i.e. "a fair hearing").

You don't know what polygamy is? Sounds like you are already informed on the subject. If you want a right protected and I say I will give you a fair hearing, that presumes I have the authority to decide in the first place. That's the thing about rights, they don't need to be justified to me or you. That's the primary reason I vote Libertarian, they know we don't need permission to exercise our rights from politicians or those who would give us a fair hearing.

From what I know about how polygamy is currently implemented, it seems that it usually involves a very young woman becoming the "spirit wife" of a much older, already married man. This raises concerns on my part that these young women are being socially and religiously coerced into a relationship that they may not have freely entered into under other conditions.

That does indeed happen, monogamous marriages see plenty of injustice too but we don't give people a fair hearing on that, if we see the injustice we do something about it. I know of a polygamous family in
S Utah and everyone was an adult when they married. They are a strange mixture of Mormonism and the hippie movement and politically libertarian. Some people just find the arrangement easier and the women in that situation were asked if it was exploitive and they said it was empowering because more adults in the mix allowed for more free time and greater security.

It is simply multiple spouses and typically a means of surviving difficult times so thine seed does not cease to exist. Sure, most cases of polygamy are "sexist". Among humans the women give birth and nurture while the males propagate. More wives, more children who survive. Is that sexist?

Perhaps this is not a fair assessment, which is why I feel the advocates of polygamy need a chance to make their case before I can decide if I personally support it or not. How you can object to my wanting to form an informed opinion is beyond me.

You didn't say you wanted an informed opinion, you said you'd give polygamists a fair hearing. Now read slowly because you aren't getting my point - your opinion shouldn't matter, there is no need for you to give others a fair hearing as to whether or not their freedom should be allowed. The injustice you cite is not a product of polygamy, it's a product of paternalism and Mormonism.

As for your other arguments, until you can show that the initial marriage of a polygamist is somehow significantly different than a "standard" hetero marriage, I'm afraid your arguments hold little or no water.

Mindseye, why don't homosexuals just marry the opposite sex? Oh, that's not their "nature"? Well, polygamy is the polygamist's nature. Forcing polygamists to marry only one person runs counter to their nature just as forcing homosexuals to marry the opposite sex runs counter to their nature.

An additional point that I somehow neglected to make earlier is that polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

How do you know? "Polygamy" seems to be quite prevalent in nature.

Generally, our society does not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of factors (e.g. birth) over which the individual has no responsibility.

Then you explain why Jesse Jackson said he gets nervous when a group of young black men are behind him and not white men. We all discriminate and often arbitrarily, and if one day we discover murderers, pedophiles or rapists are "born" that way, we will discriminate against them. So we don't look at "birth", we look at freedom. Does your conduct violate anyone's freedom?

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

If gays are found everywhere in sufficient numbers, their diversity is equal to any other group with sufficient numbers.

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.

So denying 3 or 4 people their freedom is okay, but not 2? I don't see the logic there...

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.

"Society" does not exist to prevent you from making decisions that negatively effect your emotional health.
So if we find a monogamous heterosexual parent stricken with favoritism, then people shouldn't be allowed to have children because the unfavored child suffers emotionally?

There is the fact that we don't have infinite numbers of women and men, so polygamy is inherently unequal and exclusionary.

Most relationships are unequal and exclusionary; and don't worry, we aren't going to run out of people or genetic diversity because of polygamists. Hell, that's a weird argument for homosexual marriage and against polygamy.

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.

It seems logical to me that polygamist marriages are more stable, not less. We don't have numbers for polygamist "divorces" obviously but I don't see how it could be worse than the monogamists.

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.

Age of consent says alot...

[Drachasor]

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.

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.

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.

Most relationships are unequal and exclusionary; and don't worry, we aren't going to run out of people or genetic diversity because of polygamists. Hell, that's a weird argument for homosexual marriage and against polygamy.

You missed my point, which I elaborated on later. 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.

Homosexuality occurs in about equal rates, more or less, so this isn't an issue. It is also a pretty small phenomenon and many wouldn't produce heirs anyhow.

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.

It seems logical to me that polygamist marriages are more stable, not less. We don't have numbers for polygamist "divorces" obviously but I don't see how it could be worse than the monogamists.

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

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

-Drachasor

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I'm trying. Hey, I married a buddhist so at lest I am trying to be more tolerant...

And a woman of another race. Lincoln's in an interracial relationship.

[Patroklos]

What a dumb-ass

Blacks:

Nope. "Blacks" are restricted to members of a single race. "Gays" includes all races.

However, though blacks don'ty span race (though in acuality "melotos" of almost all kinds are considered black") they do span sexual gender preferance, so minus one plus another


Whites:

Nope. Same reason.

See above

Asian:

Nope. Same reason.

see above

Amish:

Nope. "Amish" restricted to members of a single religion. "Gays" includes members of all religions plus atheists.

Nice, biggot. Amish communities embrace all kinds of different faith because it is an unoganized community. None are the same, and several regional entities have extremly different views. Nice steriotype though

Red Haired:

Nope. Includes only red-haired people. "Gays" includes people of all hair colors - even bald!

I actually didn't have to exclude "gay" to include this minority, so they are most deffinetly more divese than the gay horde.

Six Towed:

Nope. No representation by five-toed people. "Gays" include people of every possible toe quantity.

So this makes them equally diverse, though I would bet actual numbers would give the extra endowed more diversity

Apolytoner:

Nope. "Gays" includes Apolytoners and non-Apolytoners alike.

Same as the last

Any other ideas? So far you haven't thought of a single group more diverse than gays.

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

I am currently struggling with drunkeness, sorry for typos

[St Leo]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I do oppose adoption by gay-couples btw.
In nature gay-couples do not get children. Keep it that way. If nature says that it's better for a child to have a father and a mother, don't mess up with that.

In nature, your teeth fall out by the time you are thirty. Are we allowed to mess with that?

[Patroklos]

In nature, gay people are breeded out (actually probobly beaten to death by the other tribesmen), are we aloud to deal with that?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In nature, gay people are breeded out (actually probobly beaten to death by the other tribesmen), are we aloud to deal with that?

1. Recognizing the rights of gays does not necessarily increase their chances of reproducing.

2. Actually, I would expect neolithic nomads to have been a fair bit more tolerant.

[Last Conformist]

Gays breeded out? Why, pray tell, are they still around by the millions?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In nature, gay people are breeded out (actually probobly beaten to death by the other tribesmen), are we aloud to deal with that?

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).

I have no problem if you want to do that.

[Nubclear]

Gays are a fabulous group of secret research clones.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by mindseye


Nope. Roman Catholics includes no members of other religions. Gays include members of all religions and atheists.

Next?

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

Jon Miller

[Robert]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's an old Chinese saying that translates roughly to, "A lucky doctor gets to treat a patient when the disease has almost run its course."

Does a person have the disease, even when he doesn't have the signs of that disease himself, but he explains why other people do have it, and why the treatment of the docters isn't working?

St Leo: In nature, your teeth fall out by the time you are thirty. Are we allowed to mess with that?

So, teeth falling of is the same as being gay?
Teeth fall of because your body is degrading, becoming ill, becoming rotten and bad.
As far as I can see gays are healthy normal people.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am currently struggling with drunkeness, sorry for typos

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

You also seem to be a little short of civility, but I'll chalk that up to the likelihood your are in your mid-teens.