Where is possible the gay marriage?

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It was me who said that BD and spiker were deliberately trying to be annoying, not Kotchanski, I did not use the term trolling, I may add them to my ignore list, I certainly have not suggested and do not approve suppressing them. I am not going to bother to engage Spiker(likes to live up to his handle) further.
 

titan1968

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Posts
876
Media
5
Likes
748
Points
313
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I see your point. However, in what is 'gay coupling more significant than a man and his four wives'? Firstly, same sex couples shouldn't be treated any differently than heterosexual couples; secondly, polygamy is illegal (marriage is a contract between two people).

Laws aren't static. Like the societies we live in, they evolve: they are changed to reflect the changes in our societies. We might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Who makes the laws? Government. Who does the government represent? The people.

This (Canadian)law isn't telling people (heterosexual or homosexual) that they must get married-- they just have the option. There's no (hidden) agenda. Slavery was once accepted in most societies, but it isn't anymore because our societies decided it was wrong, and the laws were changed to reflect those changes. Will guys (or gals) marry three or four people? I don't think so-- that behaviour isn't acceptable in our societies and it's also illegal.

But what is so special about gay coupling that makes it more significant than a man and his four wives? Why is two a magic number? Its only magic because it furthers an agenda. .]
Yeah, hetero couples get married and don't have children. But then when society is deciding on how to legislate things it might just be more reasonable, if not easier, to leave the devil to the details. I'm not really interested in supporting couples and their families anyways. I think goverment recognized/subsidized marriage should be abolished period. If you aren't religiously minded then just make a promise to each other and pinky swear.

Not everything needs to be made fair.

[edit: Mine isn't a religious position at this point so Sunday is just another day for me too.]
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I see your point. However, in what is 'gay coupling more significant than a man and his four wives'? Firstly, same sex couples shouldn't be treated any differently than heterosexual couples;

Socially I agree that same sex couples shouldn't be treated differently. But legally why shouldn't they be treated differently? Just because YOU say so? That's kind of funny logic, don't you think? One couple can have children directly creating them the other couple can't without jumping through several hoops. Is that not a significant difference that requires different treatment?

secondly, polygamy is illegal (marriage is a contract between two people).
Exactly! Gay love was illegal too, now it isn't. Why shouldn't polygamy be made legal? Who are you to decide whether what three or more consenting adults choose to do is legal or not? Isn't that your logic?

Laws aren't static. Like the societies we live in, they evolve: they are changed to reflect the changes in our societies. We might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Who makes the laws? Government. Who does the government represent? The people.
And for better or worse 'The People' are choosing not to recognize gay marriage.

Will guys (or gals) marry three or four people? I don't think so-- that behaviour isn't acceptable in our societies and it's also illegal.
Of course it is acceptable. The Mormons are doing it today even though its illegal.

Answer me only this: I'm Mormon and have two wives who love me and each other dearly. Why can't our polygamous/bigamous marriage be recognized?:cool:
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,296
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no way to make the case that gays shouldn't have equivalent marriage (or other rights) without an underlying belief that gays are lesser human beings. You really don't have to be that clever to see that gay marriage doesn't correspond to group marriage, marrying underage people, etc. The real analogue to 4 men marrying one woman or 4 women marrying one man is not a gay couple getting married, but rather 5 women (or 5 men) marrying each other. Failing to see this obvious parallel and lumping gay marriage in with group marriage, marrying cousins, etc., can only reflect a presupposition on the part of the questioner that gay = deviant. To stick to the question once this obvious flaw in it has been pointed out would reflect the fact that the questioner isn't really looking for an answer, but is just trying to stir up shit with a kind of low-grade sophistry.

In terms of only supporting marriage because it produces children, besides the fact that childless heterosexual couples do enjoy equivalent rights and no one is proposing to take them away, that is ridiculous also because there is no need to promote births in the US nor in most countries. If anything, incentives should be given to people who don't have children. And even if there were some kind of burning need to create more babies, stopping gays from marrying would do zero to ameliorate that.

If mixed-race marriages were illegal, racists (both overt and covert) would raise the very same objections: "Where do we draw the line??? The mixed-race marriage activists keep saying it's different than a man marrying a donkey, but they never offer any proof!"
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You really don't have to be that clever to see that gay marriage doesn't correspond to group marriage, marrying underage people, etc. The real analogue to 4 men marrying one woman or 4 women marrying one man is not a gay couple getting married, but rather 5 women (or 5 men) marrying each other. Failing to see this obvious parallel and lumping gay marriage in with group marriage, marrying cousins, etc., can only reflect a presupposition on the part of the questioner that gay = deviant. To stick to the question once this obvious flaw in it has been pointed out would reflect the fact that the questioner isn't really looking for an answer, but is just trying to stir up shit with a kind of low-grade sophistry.

Excellent analysis. Bringing up a flawed argument once is a learning opportunity; bringing it up twice is a chance to clarify one's understanding.

Bringing it up three times is a troll.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Ahhh, the double imprimatur of authority calling a troll a troll. Case closed!

Its not that polygamous marriage is equivalent in every detail to gay marriage, its just who is to say what is right when the State is to recognize a 'marriage'.

Neither of you answered the final question:

Answer me only this: I'm Mormon and have two wives who love me and each other dearly [and we have 5 children]. Why can't our polygamous/bigamous marriage be recognized?
cool.gif


Feel free to ban because I put something up displeasing a fourth time. Trolling does usually requires swearing, profanity, and any number of things not yet seen here by my part and that you will in fact never see from me.

I was in fact against banned people being allowed to return (i.e. Danny) now I'm not so sure I know enough to really say. I only know enough that if I was banned I wouldn't come back. :)
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,734
Points
643
Gender
Male
You still haven't stated why if a moslem came to this country with four wives his marriages shouldn't be recognized. Isn't polyamory just as valid as gay couple love? Aren't you just arbitrarily deciding what is a reasonable norm?

I believe you meant to say polygyny. The Muslim, and anyone else, is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction that they are in, whether they like those laws or not. One can always petition the government of a country to try and change laws and ask for new ones.
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Mine was a thoughtful post asking for reasoned responses to reasonable questions. Just because they are difficult to answer doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.

I'm for not supporting heterosexual couples and their children too in the interest of fairness if it works out that way.

So according to you polygamy is okay? It is in fact almost working that way. Men get multiple women pregnant and women have children by multiple men. It's all good.

All of you are missing the main point. You choose to be a polygamist, you choose to be Muslim, or Mormon, or Scientologist, or whatever. You do not choose to be gay. You're born that way. The same way black people do not choose the color of their skin, and the permanently handicapped do not choose their physical states. For you to say that gays can't marry is like saying that blacks can't marry because they choose to be black. It's inane and only proves you to be a bigot.

If gays cannot help sexual attraction to people of their same sex, then they shouldn't be expected to adhere to man-woman marriage. It's illogical. They should be granted the rights to same-sex marriage because they're incapable of opposite sex marriage. You wouldn't expect a permanently handicapped person in a wheelchair to climb stairs would you? You wouldn't tell a dog to use only two of its legs would you? Your black-white view of the world alienates natural exceptions. People like you are ones who refused to free the slaves because they asked the question,

"If we free blacks, then where will it end? Citizenship? Private Property? Equal treatment by whites? Hell no!!!"

By the way I have to call you out on your obviously fake PC persona, referencing the support of women's rights and civil rights while completely contradicting your own argument! CONSISTENCY! Have it!
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Gender
Female
All of you are missing the main point. You choose to be a polygamist, you choose to be Muslim, or Mormon, or Scientologist, or whatever. You do not choose to be gay. You're born that way. The same way black people do not choose the color of their skin, and the permanently handicapped do not choose their physical states. For you to say that gays can't marry is like saying that blacks can't marry because they choose to be black. It's inane and only proves you to be a bigot.

If gays cannot help sexual attraction to people of their same sex, then they shouldn't be expected to adhere to man-woman marriage. It's illogical. They should be granted the rights to same-sex marriage because they're incapable of opposite sex marriage. You wouldn't expect a permanently handicapped person in a wheelchair to climb stairs would you? You wouldn't tell a dog to use only two of its legs would you? Your black-white view of the world alienates natural exceptions. People like you are ones who refused to free the slaves because they asked the question,

"If we free blacks, then where will it end? Citizenship? Private Property? Equal treatment by whites? Hell no!!!"

By the way I have to call you out on your obviously fake PC persona, referencing the support of women's rights and civil rights while completely contradicting your own argument! CONSISTENCY! Have it!
Wow... marry me! ;)
Kidding, but thanks your post puts the final and most important point down.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
There is no way to make the case that gays shouldn't have equivalent marriage (or other rights) without an underlying belief that gays are lesser human beings.

There is no way to make the case that polygamist shouldn't have equivalent marriage (or other rights) without an underlying belief that polygamist are lesser human beings.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Neither of you answered the final question:

Answer me only this: I'm Mormon and have two wives who love me and each other dearly [and we have 5 children]. Why can't our polygamous/bigamous marriage be recognized?

I have answered this question already. Your stubborn insistence that same-sex marriage is comparable to group marriage is absolutely a red herring. But I'll spell it out for you one more time:

  1. A cornerstone principle of American jurisprudence is that all Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
  2. Straight people and gay people share equal responsibilities in this country: we are bound by the same laws, we pay the same taxes.
  3. Straight people and gay people, however, do not share equal benefits. Straight people are provided a large number of benefits that allow for them to provide for the well-being and care of their loved ones (regardless of whether or not the couple has borne children, another red-herring you've thrown out.) These benefits are denied to gay couples, even though gay couples participate equally in the funding of those benefits.
  4. Members of group marriages share equal responsibilities in this country to straight and gay people as well.
  5. What you're proposing, however with the "why shouldn't both my wives be recognized" crap, is that the legal protections and benefits that marriage offers be granted to each spouse, resulting in a more unequal distribution of benefits than we already have.
Legalization of same-sex marriage brings this country closer to the realization of its egalitarian principles. Legalization of multiple-partner marriage does not.