Why are gay marriages legal but not polygamist ones?

[vovan]

Originally posted by mapfi
I, however, see marriage as a legal institution for a psychological bond between people. Most people strive for a partner, few want to be alone. Therefore the state should provide some form of acknowledging that fact, after all the state's there to serve people. There's no need to make opposite sex a requirement.

Well, I suppose it all goes down to the definition of homosexuality and that "psychological bond" you are talking about. I give that psychological bond the name of love. You may give a different meaning to the word, but that's what I am talking about when I say "marriage should be done by love."

As for the opposite sex requirement for the official recogniotion of that "psychological bond," I think, like I said, that it should stay. It is still the case in our society that a lot of people see homosexuality as morally wrong, and, however sad it may be, as a psychological disease. I can't judge whether it is a disease or not, since I've never been gay, nor do I have the expertise of a biologist or a psychologist, but like I stated before, I do see it as a sort of unnatural deviation from the norm, and while I don't oppose homosexuality as such, I don't think it should be encouraged through official recognition.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vovansim
I can't judge whether it is a disease or not, since I've never been gay, nor do I have the expertise of a biologist or a psychologist, but like I stated before, I do see it as a sort of unnatural deviation from the norm, and while I don't oppose homosexuality as such, I don't think it should be encouraged through official recognition.

It's interesting you feel qualified to somehow dismiss the feelings of homosexuals towards one another as not being "love," but then you admit that, not being gay nor a psychologist, you basically have nothing to stand on here. Since nobody--not even scientists--knows how "love" works, to deny gays a legal right ot marry based on such a notion is ludicrous.

As for encouraging it...since homosexuals aren't "made," why would encouraging homosexuals to form lasting, stable and monogamous relationships be a bad thing? It wouldn't encourage those who weren't gay to become homosexual by magic, would it? What negative impact could encouraging gays to be married have?

And I don't mean those BS arguments from some that it "cheapens" marriage. If your marriage is cheapened by two other people getting married, then I'd wonder how strong your marriage was in the first place.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by vovansim
I do see it as a sort of unnatural deviation from the norm, and while I don't oppose homosexuality as such, I don't think it should be encouraged through official recognition.

It is not unatural, or a deviation from the norm. It can be found in many different species of animals on this planet, and especially those that are considered "higher lifeforms" such as primates, dolphins, and octopi

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I thing the real reason for the parades is as an antidote for all this verbal poison which has been poured on them.

Those "parades" do almost as much damage in reinforcing sterotypes as "meeting places" in public washrooms.

Marriage is a procedure for creating, protecting and supporting children, or its supposed to be that.

Anything else is just a taxes and job benefits grab.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Osweld
It is not unatural, or a deviation from the norm. It can be found in many different species of animals on this planet, and especially those that are considered "higher lifeforms" such as primates, dolphins, and octopi

Those animals are usually savaged by the rest of the
herd. Ask any hog farmer.

[St Leo]

Ozz, ask any primatologist.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Osweld
It is not unatural, or a deviation from the norm. It can be found in many different species of animals on this planet, and especially those that are considered "higher lifeforms" such as primates, dolphins, and octopi

Yeah, yeah, I remember that one article about lesbian japanese macaques.

It's interesting you feel qualified to somehow dismiss the feelings of homosexuals towards one another as not being "love," but then you admit that, not being gay nor a psychologist, you basically have nothing to stand on here.

If you read my post more carefully, I don't dismiss the feelings as not being love. I dismiss them as a deviation from the norm. As for me being qualified, I specifically stated that I am not. Thus, I am simply expressing my opinion. Unqualified as it may be. Just like you can't judge about straight love, I can't judge about gay love objectively. It is all subjective in this world.

As for encouraging it...since homosexuals aren't "made," why would encouraging homosexuals to form lasting, stable and monogamous relationships be a bad thing?

Statistics, Boris, statistics. In places where homosexual marriages are allowed, the children adopted by same-sex couples turn out homosexual more often than not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vovansim
If you read my post more carefully, I don't dismiss the feelings as not being love. I dismiss them as a deviation from the norm. As for me being qualified, I specifically stated that I am not. Thus, I am simply expressing my opinion. Unqualified as it may be. Just like you can't judge about straight love, I can't judge about gay love objectively. It is all subjective in this world.

Deviation from the norm doesnt mean anything. Interracial couples are a deviation from the norm. Should those be prohibited as well?

As you say, even the "norm" is subjective.

Statistics, Boris, statistics. In places where homosexual marriages are allowed, the children adopted by same-sex couples turn out homosexual more often than not.

Oh, and would you care to cite these statistics and a source? It didn't come from some organization like the Family Research Council, did it?

Since gay marriage is only legal in the Netherlands, and was made so only recently, I have a hard time believing there would be any reliable statistics on the matter. And if you think real hard about it, you'd realize why obtaining such statistics is impossible.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by St Leo
Ozz, ask any primatologist.

What? That hog behavior differs from primates behavior?
Seems Humans and Hogs have more in common than apes in many cases. They are both aggressive meat
eaters.

Anyways I don't think the "nature" argument holds water in regards to Humans, we're supposed be
"reasoning" creatures not just creatures of instinct.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz
Marriage is a procedure for creating, protecting and supporting children, or its supposed to be that.

Anything else is just a taxes and job benefits grab.

Care to hear the stories of gays who were denied hospital visitations of their dying partners, were locked out of funerals and denied inheritances? Or the ones who lost custody over the kids they had raised for years with their partners?

Right, marriage is just about job benefits and taxes. Anyone who gets married for non-procreational reasons must be greedy...

[Dis]

actually maybe all marriage should be illegal

It's just a way for women to trap men financially

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Care to hear the stories of gays who were denied hospital visitations of their dying partners, were locked out of funerals and denied inheritances? Or the ones who lost custody over the kids they had raised for years with their partners?

Right, marriage is just about job benefits and taxes. Anyone who gets married for non-procreational reasons must be greedy...

Those "acts" were committed by members of the person's own family and have nothing to do with marriage, they are homophilia by their own family
( @ St Leo Which relates to my hog post)

If you took the job benefits and taxes out of gay
marriage and denied adoption, no one would give
a damn whether they married or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz


Those "acts" were committed by members of the person's own family and have nothing to do with marriage, they are homophilia by their own family
( @ St Leo Which relates to my hog post)

What are you talking about? You do realize that, legally, a hospital is under no obligation to allow visitation of a gay partner, and if the blood family requests the partner be barred, the hospital will do so. Marriage confers over 1100 rights on couples that non-married couples do not have, and among the most fundamental is the legal right to have access to the partner in case of hospitalization, to act on the partner's behalf in terms of such situations and in funeral planning, and in being a legitimate beneficiary of their life insurance and last will and testament. One of the key foci of the drive for gay marriage is for obtaining these rights, since there are countless situations when partners have been denied such things.

How would you feel if you couldn't spend the last moments of your partner's life with them?

[Az]

since homosexuals aren't "made,"

I think this is debatable.

Or do you think that this is pure genetics?

[Provost Harrison]

Whatever goes on between consenting adults and affects no one else is no business but their own, the same goes for polygamous marriage...different horses for different courses I suppose, but if all parties consent...why not?