I'm biting my tongue to avoid any sarcastic, rude, or obnoxious statements I would like to make. People on both sides of this usually contentious debate have remained civil to this point. And I am just asking questions and probing to try to find out exactly what I think about it. HootOwl, I would like to see your response to my posts. Outlaw, do you have any suggested readings or thoughts about what I've said? G'nite all.
goophers in response to your posts about polygamy... i know that on this board in the past there has been debate about whether or not people choose to be gay. i think the vast majority of gay people are hard-wired to be attracted to the same sex. it's not a lifestyle that they've chosen; it's an integral part of who they are, just as my heterosexuality is an integral part of who i am. on the other hand, polygamy *is* a choice made by heterosexuals, as is incest. that to me is the major difference. and i think that is how the difference would have to be seen in order to legalize gay marriage but not polygamy or incest. of course, in order to make this distinction, the court would have to accept (or at least assume) that homosexuality is part of who someone is and not something they've chosen. i don't know what the likelihood of that is... i think that homosexuality is not analagous to polygamy/incest in that it's not a choice to be gay. and it seems like people should be free to marry the person they love. and i know that this is a contentious issue because it's complicated by both civil rights issues and religious issues. personally, i don't consider homosexuality to be either a choice or a sin. i have many gay friends and several gay family members. and it's not a position i've come to without pretty hard reflection, since i come from a family chock-full of presbyterian ministers (like 2 or 3 in each generation... and not everyone in out family agrees. i'd say there are varying degrees of acceptance based primarily on generational differences). also, i think in my last sentence of my last post i should have clarified that i was referring to the religious aspects of marriage (in terms of the love and commitment) whereas the first part of my post was about legal equality. in terms of the religious and spiritual aspects of marriage, i don't see how gay marriage is threatening to straight marriage. it's about love and commitment... however, in terms of legal marriage, there are different issues, and i guess i've just given you my opinion on those.
About polygamy and homosexuality? Sorry I don't know of any books that discuss both. I think I explained my view on it in Pun's nature thread but I can't remember. Basically I don't consider polygamy to be a sexual orientation. It's a legal orientation. You can have a dozen "wives" living in your home and sharing your bed but you can only be married to one of them at a time under the law. I don't really see how that is discriminatory as this would apply to everybody* The government isn't telling you who you can and can't marry just how many people you can be married to at the same time. *I'm sure TheFreak or someone is going to bring up the silly argument about how straight people can't marry someone of the same gender either so let me just say that it's not even really about gay or straight, it's about being able to marry the person who you want to marry. If the government said that you couldn't marry your wife for some reason would you just accept it or fight?
two words... sex change don't make it right, just makes it legal.... or move elsewhere where it is legal but don't expect mainstream America to approve of the true minority's demands an aol poll today showed some 60% of those polled are against same sex marriages... and that's the same there too... don't make it right, just makes it legal.... democracy at work don't vote? don't whine. btw- I say if it is to happen it eventually will, I just doubt it will in my lifetime. thousands of years of human society and laws have yet to allow it across the board... and still no ones worse off for not allowing before..... the thing is, I have yet to see why this debate exists???? Why would one in pursuit of an alternative lifestyle want the conformity and olde fashioned term of "married" attached to them? purely for GREED a.k.a. financial reasons. either conform, or be alternative... but don't try to mold the so-called conformist to your alternative... then you erradicate your individual stance. equality through "do it our way, too" = inequalty disguised tolerance is not equality but it's better than out and out bashing and no I'm no phobic... I know, love, and am related to G&L community people. If you're purple, and I'm green... legislation won't makes both purple or green... it will just lie to us and say we're the same color... get it? insert het or homo in there wherever you choose... it's the same. different is okay, as long as I don't say you're different?? can't have the cake and eat it too. sorry, but it'll never work just because the paper says it will... that's why the powers that be hold to the time tested and honored traditions of humanity... because so far... well prove why it's such a fight? Because the majority determines what the whole gets. And I just don't see a majority turning alternative... then that would be conformity, and hetero- would be the alternative... and well, people can only naturally multiply the old fashioned way... hence majority rule.
Ok, I don't have time to respond to everyone, so I will just respond to Outlaw by saying I'd gladly read his books, I just would have to find them at a library because I'm very poor and the library is the only way I can do anything like that. Its the only way I get on the BBS too. Oh, and in response to you saying that there has to be something to create God according to my logic, the answer is no... Thats what makes God God, he is the first and the last. Its really hard to explain because you know he's God and all, let me put it this way... this is really kinda technical but bear with me I have to take someone to the airport soon... CAusality, lets say you drop your pen on to your desk.... Your hand is the cause of the pen dropping... therefore your hand needs to be present while the pen is dropping... the pen can't drop without your hand....ok? There is a starting point (your hand), and an ending point (pen dropping), both of which need to be present for the action to occur.... Now lets say we take it up a notch.... if actions were to occur ad infinitum, there has to be a starting action as well as an ending action....always present to make the action possible... for believers of God we say this is God's omniprescence, there has to be an uncaused cause to start the chain..... If there were no starting action, then our actions would not be able to occur... People who argue in favor of science only, fail to see that something had to make the thing that went Bang, for Catholics, we call this action God's kenosis, his emptying of himself to his Son, and his Son's emptying to his father... Now when you say that according to my logic there has to be something that created God, you have to realize that that is the point, you would have to keep goinig back and going back, and if there was no starting point, no creator, then there would be no rhyme or reason to life.... And thats the choice to make, whether you think life has a purpose, or you don't... personally I'd like to think that supernatural phenomenom such as love and Christ would sway one to believe there was a purpose, but that is the beauty of free will, we can enter into it or not... Well, I hope that helped man.... sorry I can't even support civil unions anymore, but I have to go with my church.... Peace be with you outlaw.
Well you can get angry if you want, it won't change the basis of the argument that homosexuals are denied the right to marry because they're homosexual. That is discrimination. The incest and polygamy arguments are simply diversions from the issue, just like Bill Frist and Rick Santorum talking about legalized sodomy inviting criminal activity into the home. It's nonsense. And really in this argument of choice or being born with a sexuality, do you choose to be heterosexual or were you born that way? Why would it be any different for homosexuals? This belief that it's a choice anymore than heterosexuality is a choice is crazy.
Have you been reading what I've been saying and the reasons for it? You can dismiss it if you want, but it is apparently because you don't really want to think about the argument. Do you support legalized polygamy? Why or why not? And your nonsense about it being a choice, I'm not sure why you're saying this. Did I ever say it was a choice?
HootOwl, great post(s). On the larger note as to whether or not one chooses to be gay... I have to ask which of you heterosexuals has ever chosen to be straight? Assertions by conservatives that homosexuals choose to be gay is very telling. What was this decision like in your own life? Did you opt not to be gay b/c you had difficulty with the colors? Not a fan of moustaches? Couldn't pull the lisp off in a convincing fashion? ps, we should all applaud the Catholics for their consistency, by the way. They've always prohibited priests from marrying.
Why is polygamy an issue? According to the logic here, why doesn't heterosexual marriage make it an issue since the only difference in this discussion is sexuality? Legalization of gay marriage simply corrects for discrimination against gays, it doesn't open any doors to polygamy or anything else. Does legalization of sodomy open the door to bestiality or incest? Of course not. I don't know how you're getting from one sexuality being discriminated against from legal recognition afforded the other sexuality to now this allows polygamy. I think polygamy is suddenly an issue because those opposed to gay marriage believe homosexuality is an aberrant lifestyle. If not, there would be no greater link to polygamy from gay marriage than from hetero marriage.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development," Sez the Catholic Church. Pot, Kettle, Pope.
The difference in this discussion is legality. Homosexual marriages and polygamic marriages are both currently not legal. Heterosexual marriages are. Therefore, in order to change the law there are two avenues of change. One avenue is for the majority of people support gay marriage legalization and have their representatives pass a law saying this. Currently that is not likely to happen given public opinion polls. The second avenue would be court rulings, which is the resort that minorities go to to be protected from unfair majority beliefs. The court then would have to decide to what extent that government has the ability to decide who can marry. The laws are on the books, and I have yet to see anyone challenge in this forum, the laws against underage marriage and incest. So clearly government has SOME say in who marries. Now if a court found that the government cannot interfere in a homosexual marriage, then what would prevent a court from finding the same thing for polygamists? What is the separation? If you don't want the goverment to decide the gender of marital partners, on what grounds would you say that it's ok for the government to decide the number of marital partners? Re: your sodomy question, of course not because bestiality and incest are questions of consent and "public good" - i.e., no genetic problems in kids.
Gay marriage isn't a criminal activity, like bigamy, nor does it require "legalization" like illegal drugs. It just lacks, in most states except for maybe vermont, legally recognized status like non-gay marriage has. I'm not sure if any state make gay marriage a civil or criminal offense, I don't think any do. All states, however, make drug poss. or bigamy a civil or criminal distinction. Bigamy has more in common, legally speaking, with drug use or other crimes than with gay marriage.
I've yet to read a single decent argument opposing the union of two homosexual individuals from anyone on this board. It reminds me very much of the arguments of the civil rights movement, with the opposition to equality basing the majority of their opinions on fear, ignorance, and in this case poor religious motives.
my favorite stupid argument against is the "well what's to stop two gays who are friends from getting married and cheating the federal government for tax purposes" that has been trotted out before in other threads. Aside from the hilarious new found conservative concern for the potential erosion of tax revenues, the idea that that homosexuals are any more prone to tax-fraud marriages than heteros is equally laughable.
Is that true? I thought it was a (circa) 14th century change to make sure that the church started inheriting more land. Man on man, did that change stick! Also (and I'm sorry if someone posted this already), but do we really want marriage to be a glorified type of country club, with exclusive membership? I don't want it to be that way.
If the court finds that barring marriage among any consenting parties goes contrary to the Constitution (which I believe it does), then the state would have to prove that there is a "compelling interest" for barring marriage between two homosexuals or multiple polygamists. Here are some reasons I could think why polygamy would be barred 1) Division of estate - If a polygamist dies without a will, who would be in charge of the estate? This would be made all the more difficult if the spouses of the deceased had conflicting viewpoints. You could have years of court battles trying to sort out this mess. 2) Legal guardian- If a polygamist went into a coma (or suffered any other medical condition where his/her judgement was impaired) and decisions had to be made regarding his/her care, how would you resolve a conflict over his/ her care if the spouses disagreed over the course of action. In this case, time would be of the essence, and a long court battle would not be effective toward the ultimate goal. 3) Determination of parental rights - Imagine if you had a one man and three woman family with six children. Each women is the biological mother of two of the kids. Imagine one of the women takes care of all the kids while the other two work. Now what happens if one of the women (let's say it's the homemaker) decides to divorce the husband. The court would have to decide whether the kids should stay with the woman who raises them and whom they are (presumably) the closest or whether they should stay with their biological parents. These are just a few of what I would consider realistic scenarios for why polygamy causes problems. At one time in the past, polygamy involving more than one husband was probably barred in order to avoid confusion regarding which one was the biological father of a child, although science has rendered this reason obselete. Now if anyone can provide compelling reasons why homosexual marriage should be barred, I'd like to hear them. Please do not say things like "it ruins the family" - that is a conclusion, not a reason.
The bad thing about my joke is that it feeds on the conservative stereotypes about homosexuals... ie, you shouldn't allow homosexuals to be boy scout troop leaders, since they might secretly be Catholic priests. but... anything is permissible when throwing barbs at the church.
