When it comes to gay marriage...

[americanwoman]

why do people (Jerry comes to mind) use the argument that if we allow gay marriage then people enganged in incestuous relationships should be allowed to be married, people will then marry their dogs, or we should then allow polygamous marriages. I don't understand the connection. As far as polygamy, I don't care- that's not the issue that I am concernced about. It's the incest and beastiality comparison that confuses me. Why is that even an issue? When you talk about two people of the opposite sex getting married, people don't argue that since Jack married Jill how come I can't marry my sister? It's not even an argument. So why do you make it an argument when debating gay marriage?

 

[new coup for you]

Because "I don't like gay people" is a bad argument.

 

[Bonnie1988]

I think his view is that either government can regulate what relationships it will recognize - or it cannot. IF government cannot and people can have such relationships as they desire recognized by government as a personal fundamental right and if government cannot attach any morality to such decisions, then polygamy, bestiality marriages and incestuous marriages also then have to be allowed. Why special divergent rights JUST for gays?

If I just redefined his stance inaccurately, I apologize to him. That is how I read it.

I don't really get to that point as I oppose gay rights because I think womens Constitutionally protected rights should come first and I really don't like gay rights activists so don't want them empowered further nor to have victory by grossly offensive conduct.

 

[shuamort]

Because the slippery slope fallacy is a sign of a lazy debater and a lazy mind.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think his view is that either government can regulate what relationships it will recognize - or it cannot. IF government cannot and people can have such relationships as they desire recognized by government as a personal fundamental right and if government cannot attach any morality to such decisions, then polygamy, bestiality marriages and incestuous marriages also then have to be allowed. Why special divergent rights JUST for gays?

The problem is, one does not have to argue that the State can't regulate legal marriage in order to argue that the State should allow homosexuals to marry. This is a decent argument against the idea that marriage is somehow a "right" that the State must recognize, but it is a poor argument against the specific policy of allowing homosexuals to be legally married.

Claiming that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalization for polygamous and zoophilic marriage is a foolish response to an even more foolish argument. Unfortunately, most of the people who pose that claim aren't aware that it is, essentially, reductio ad absurdium.

Of course, that leaves me in the situation of arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't have anything to do with polygamous marriage... despite the fact that, after homosexuals raising children anyway, my main motivation in supporting homosexual marriage is to establish a legal framework by which polygamous marriages might be recognized. Having one person married to three others is unstable; having four people married jointly and individually to each other is not.

I don't really get to that point as I oppose gay rights because I think womens Constitutionally protected rights should come first and I really don't like gay rights activists so don't want them empowered further nor to have victory by grossly offensive conduct.

Welcome to Western liberal democracy. Every political cause is furthered by grossly offensive conduct-- whether its grown men marching down Main Street wearing nothing but leather underwear and hats made of fruit, or middle class middle management types holding sit-ins at vote counting stations.

If you find it so intolerable, I'm afraid there just isn't enough napalm in the world to make it right.

 

[Bonnie1988]

Claiming that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalization for polygamous and zoophilic marriage is a foolish response to an even more foolish argument. Unfortunately, most of the people who pose that claim aren't aware that it is, essentially, reductio ad absurdium.

Of course, that leaves me in the situation of arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't have anything to do with polygamous marriage... despite the fact that, after homosexuals raising children anyway, my main motivation in supporting homosexual marriage is to establish a legal framework by which polygamous marriages might be recognized. Having one person married to three others is unstable; having four people married jointly and individually to each other is not.

Writing only on theory, it would seem that legalizing polygamy also would require legalizing prostitution. Historically, polygamy involves 1 man and many women for which the attraction and ability of the man is based upon wealth. The source, then, for women for the average man could only be shared prostitutes. A person can buy one spouse so-to-speak. But should our society allow buying multiple spouses thereby reducing potentials for others?

 

[Jerry]

why do people (Jerry comes to mind) use the argument that if we allow gay marriage then people enganged in incestuous relationships should be allowed to be married, people will then marry their dogs, or we should then allow polygamous marriages. I don't understand the connection. As far as polygamy, I don't care- that's not the issue that I am concernced about. It's the incest and beastiality comparison that confuses me. Why is that even an issue? When you talk about two people of the opposite sex getting married, people don't argue that since Jack married Jill how come I can't marry my sister? It's not even an argument. So why do you make it an argument when debating gay marriage?

To test your argument's logical consistency the legal theory proposed.

Polygamy is a logical consequence of gay marriage law, and if you doubt my opinion, keep an eye on the Muslim demographic in America as it grows.

You will find that if you can satisfactorily fulfill the questions with succinct facts, you will create support and diminish resistance.

You might be surprised how much anti-gm resistance is based on mere uncertainty and not true objection to the issue.

 

[Jerry]

I never argued that people will then marry their dogs, however.

 

[Jerry]

Because "I don't like gay people" is a bad argument.

If anything, not allowing gays to suffer marriage is a loving act of compassion :2razz:

 

[jallman]

To test your argument's logical consistency the legal theory proposed.

Polygamy is a logical consequence of gay marriage law, and if you doubt my opinion, keep an eye on the Muslim demographic in America as it grows.

No, it is not. Marriage is a person to person contract, not a corporate entity contract in which multiple person's engage. There is absolutely no reason to jump from person to person to multiple engagement contracts of the corporate type.

You will find that if you can satisfactorily fulfill the questions with succinct facts, you will create support and diminish resistance.

You might be surprised how much anti-gm resistance is based on mere uncertainty and not true objection to the issue.

It's been done. It's the same marriage contract with the same list of mutually enjoyed rights between two consenting, able-minded adults who are not genetically incestuous...except that gender is left out. Just like race requirements were once left out.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Writing only on theory, it would seem that legalizing polygamy also would require legalizing prostitution. Historically, polygamy involves 1 man and many women for which the attraction and ability of the man is based upon wealth.

A second wife is no more a prostitute than a first wife. After all, the primary trait that allows a man to win a first wife is his wealth; without polygamy, the wealthy man simply enjoys a more attractive wife, and then all too frequently indulges in rampant infidelity.

With polygamy, at least, there is more stability and less risk.

Not to mention that, given our current culture, polygamy would remain relatively rare... and polygyny would be far from the only form.

The source, then, for women for the average man could only be shared prostitutes. A person can buy one spouse so-to-speak. But should our society allow buying multiple spouses thereby reducing potentials for others?

Yes. And this would, indeed, lead to increased social pressure and an increase in social disorder-- pressure that I would hope would be mitigated by the re-establishment of the extended family and the stronger support networks that the extended family entails.

 

[jfuh]

To test your argument's logical consistency the legal theory proposed.

Polygamy is a logical consequence of gay marriage law, and if you doubt my opinion, keep an eye on the Muslim demographic in America as it grows.

I don't exactly know of any cases of homosexual polygamy, as far as I am aware of, polygamy is heterosexual.
Muslims also oppose gay marriage as do mormons, both of which practice polygamy (or did) and all of which were heterosexual.
Marriage defined as between only a man and woman by homophobes does nothing to discourage polygamy. It's a slippery slope argument - as is incest. If a brother marries a sister, that's still between man and woman.

You will find that if you can satisfactorily fulfill the questions with succinct facts, you will create support and diminish resistance.

You might be surprised how much anti-gm resistance is based on mere uncertainty and not true objection to the issue.

Amply played onto by the religious right.

 

[Bonnie1988]

A second wife is no more a prostitute than a first wife. After all, the primary trait that allows a man to win a first wife is his wealth; without polygamy, the wealthy man simply enjoys a more attractive wife, and then all too frequently indulges in rampant infidelity.

With polygamy, at least, there is more stability and less risk.

Not to mention that, given our current culture, polygamy would remain relatively rare... and polygyny would be far from the only form.



Yes. And this would, indeed, lead to increased social pressure and an increase in social disorder-- pressure that I would hope would be mitigated by the re-establishment of the extended family and the stronger support networks that the extended family entails.

Are you troubled by the tendency of young women, possibly economically distressed, gathering in the harems of old men as wives and then having their children?

If legalized, I doubt if it would remain rare for long.

 

[Bonnie1988]

No, it is not. Marriage is a person to person contract, not a corporate entity contract in which multiple person's engage. There is absolutely no reason to jump from person to person to multiple engagement contracts of the corporate type.

That's hysterically funny! And hypocritical. You adopt the anti-gay marriage logic to argue a traditional definition of "marriage", but then you twist it to be "person to person" and not man and woman.

 

[Jerry]

No, it is not. Marriage is a person to person contract, not a corporate entity contract in which multiple person's engage. There is absolutely no reason to jump from person to person to multiple engagement contracts of the corporate type.

It's been done. It's the same marriage contract with the same list of mutually enjoyed rights between two consenting, able-minded adults who are not genetically incestuous...except that gender is left out. Just like race requirements were once left out.

You lost me with "Marriage is a person to person contract". Not even pro-gm's strongest and most successful champions believe that marriage is a mere contract as opposed to a larger, interactive sociological institution.

By asserting this argument you are telling me that you see marriage as something so alien to my view that your argument only serves to foster uncertainty, which I will reflexively avoid. If I bothered to post a counter point like "the state is a signing party and *the* issuing authority in every marital contract, so the contract is not simply between 2 people", I would only do so because your argument is leaving out important facts of law, which only serves to exacerbate existing uncertainty, not because I have a legal concern.

You may choose to only address the legal aspect, but doing so is to merely grandstand instead of persuade. You have every right to grandstand, but unless you address what your listener want to address and resolve those concerns you will likely not convince them to cast their vote in your favor.

 

[Jerry]

jfuh, I would love to discuss demographics, sociological interactions, various aspects of law, and smiler....but all you ever say is:

blah blah blah homophobes blah blah blah blah

That's all I ever hear in your arguments.

I hope you see the point I'm trying to make in my mis-quote of your post.

 

[Jerry]

The 'person to person' argument doesn't stand on it's own because more then 2 people can enter into most other "strictly legal private contracts between consenting adults"...so, by bringing up polygamy I'm trying to find out what pro-gm thinks makes marriage different, or if pro-gm thinks polygamy should in theory also be legal.

Creating threads to whine about my asking questions instead of simply answering the questions also only serves to exacerbates existing uncertainty.

Either tell me why you think marriage should be a strictly legal contract enterable by only 2 people or tell me that you have no issue with polygamy theoretically.

Even if I disagree with your answer, your honesty will demonstrate your character and attract both my trust and my vote.

 

[Bonnie1988]

My instinctive opposition to polygamy is that could evolve to highly oppressive social practices towards young women, that it would too heavily shift "marriage" to economic matters, and it could create very destruction social imbalances.

 

[Jerry]

My instinctive opposition to polygamy is that could evolve to highly oppressive social practices towards young women, that it would too heavily shift "marriage" to economic matters, and it could create very destruction social imbalances.

Demonstrating how women in polygamist marriages are oppressed with credible sources would help your argument.

 

[americanwoman]

The 'person to person' argument doesn't stand on it's own because more then 2 people can enter into most other "strictly legal private contracts between consenting adults"...so, by bringing up polygamy I'm trying to find out what pro-gm thinks makes marriage different, or if pro-gm thinks polygamy should in theory also be legal.

Creating threads to whine about my asking questions instead of simply answering the questions also only serves to exacerbates existing uncertainty.

Either tell me why you think marriage should be a strictly legal contract enterable by only 2 people or tell me that you have no issue with polygamy theoretically.

Even if I disagree with your answer, your honesty will demonstrate your character and attract both my trust and my vote.

As I stated, I have no problem with polygamy or making it legal. Heck, look at Hugh Hefner. Would the world end if he ended up marrying his girlfriends?

I was only confused to why whenever gay marriage is brought up polygamy and incest are brought up along with it, as though they have something to do with that. I hardly consider that whining and the only reason you were brought into it, is because you are the one I see most bringing those issues into the debate. I don't know what questions you even asked, I am just noticing a trend that whenever gay marriage comes up, people bring up every excuse in the world to not let them have the right to marriage and I just wonder why, when that's not even related to the arguement at hand.

 

[Jerry]

Heck, look at Hugh Hefner. Would the world end if he ended up marrying his girlfriends?

I never claimed any extreme such as 'the world is going to end' in any event, so your taking that fictional claim and applying it to another hypothetical cause is just silly.

I was only confused to why whenever gay marriage is brought up polygamy and incest are brought up along with it, as though they have something to do with that.

Here instead of asking me why I think they are associated you are closing off communication be insisting that they are not. You might be right, but the fact that you slam the door in my fact instead of allow an open flow of communication only respells me from your your view.

I hardly consider that whining and the only reason you were brought into it, is because you are the one I see most bringing those issues into the debate. I don't know what questions you even asked, I am just noticing a trend that whenever gay marriage comes up, people bring up every excuse in the world to not let them have the right to marriage and I just wonder why, when that's not even related to the arguement at hand.

You bring the issue up, I have questions, and instead of validating my concerns and doing your best to address them you summeraly dismiss them as excuses in the name of pure partisan bias on my part.

You are insulting without provocation. I care even even less about "gay rights" as a result.

 

[americanwoman]

I never claimed any extreme such as 'the world is going to end' in any event, so your taking that fictional claim and applying it to another hypothetical cause is just silly.

I never said you said that you said that. I was just making a statement. Why are you getting so defensive over this? You asked about polygamy as an example and I said I have no problem with it and used an example where polygamy is out in the open in our culture and no one seems to have a problem with it.

Here instead of asking me why I think they are associated you are closing off communication be insisting that they are not. You might be right, but the fact that you slam the door in my fact instead of allow an open flow of communication only respells me from your your view.

I don't think they belong in the same category, you do. So I said it. By doing that I am not closing off communication, I am stating my opinion. Then if you don't agree you argue it and I then argue back, that's why we are here on a debating site, right?

You bring the issue up, I have questions, and instead of validating my concerns and doing your best to address them you summeraly dismiss them as excuses in the name of pure partisan bias.

As I said before where are your questions? I have no idea what you are talking about. How is all this partisan bias? My issue was just to question what incest has to do with gay marriage. Again, I don't dismiss your opinions, I simply tell you why I don't agree with you because we are debating a topic.

You are insulting without provocation. I care even even less about "gay rights" as a result.

Show me where I have insulted you one time Jerry. Back this up or retract it because I have never once insulted you.

 

[Bonnie1988]

Demonstrating how women in polygamist marriages are oppressed with credible sources would help your argument.

I'm not willing to devote that effort to be honest. More that view is just off the many stories of polygamists religious organizations in which generally it seems that it is very young women with a very old husband.

I've also read how often runaway young girls/women end up turning to prostitution for economic survival - however hopefully there is a way out of that. If, instead, those girls turned to financially secure old men for his harem, they become trapped then by children of that polygamy.

The other example I would give is the highly restricted and gender-controlled roles that women in polygamy marriages such as Muslim seem to be. Don't most societies that have polygamy tend to deny women rights even to vote, extreme punishments for wrong-gender behavior and so forth?

Because wealth will buy wives, the trend would be old men with wealth and young women without wealth. The result would be a society of grandfather-less children and widowed mothers - in which men marry old and women marry young.

Polygamist cultures don't seem historically to be cultures also with great personal freedom. I would think the rates of divorce of the women from their rapidly aging husbands would do anything but create a stable family and would frequently lead to adultery and divorce by the women.

As a different point, the idea that few people would actually opt for polygamy seems just an assertion. If polygamy became popular and given it does tend to be one man and many wives, what of all the other men? There is a point at which society shouldn't have to, or just won't, respect the rights to power by wealthy while outlawing power by virtual of strength or numbers. There is only inherent validity to wealth equating a protected power.

I assume by polygamy, though, you also would have no problem of a woman having multiple husbands. Would your logic then also extend to group-marriages - many women and many men all in the same "marriage?"

 

[Jerry]

You wanted to know why these questions keep coming up, and I am doing my best to show you why they do. You will find that I am not actually debating gay-marriage on this thread. I am trying to point out pasterns and behaviors many people perform which hinder communication on the issue.

It is due to a lack of communication that the same questions keep getting re-asked.

I never said you said that you said that. I was just making a statement. Why are you getting so defensive over this? You asked about polygamy as an example and I said I have no problem with it and used an example where polygamy is out in the open in our culture and no one seems to have a problem with it.

If you didn't loose me with the riddle, you lost me with the negative assumption.

I don't think they belong in the same category, you do. So I said it. By doing that I am not closing off communication, I am stating my opinion. Then if you don't agree you argue it and I then argue back, that's why we are here on a debating site, right?

You stated your opinion while asking a question, and that resulted in your reader interpreting something you never intended.

What do you think is be a better way to structure your post so that the reader is less likely to assume that your question is rhetorical?

As I said before where are your questions? I have no idea what you are talking about. How is all this partisan bias? My issue was just to question what incest has to do with gay marriage. Again, I don't dismiss your opinions, I simply tell you why I don't agree with you because we are debating a topic.

My problem was that you imposed upon me why I was asking the questions.

You fabricated my motivations instead of letting me give them to you.

Show me where I have insulted you one time Jerry. Back this up or retract it because I have never once insulted you.

I can quote where I interpreted an insult and you can deny ever intending to issue an insult, and we would both be correct.

When someone interprets and insult where I never intended one, I have found it best to quickly apologize for the miscommunication (without owning or assigning anyone responsibility's for it) and reword my original point.

This passes over the bump in the road quickly and helps keep the discussion on topic.

 

[americanwoman]

I can quote where I interpreted an insult and you can deny ever intending to issue an insult, and we would both be correct.

Show me where and the quote.