Polyamory and Marriage

[nehalem256]

If that's the case, then you should be able to come up with a compelling argument for that point, but I don't see it. Unless you want to live in a society where "they" get to tell you what to do based on what "they" think is good or bad for you, which I and most Americans do not.

By not allow SSM no one is telling gays what to do.

It is really gays that are trying to tell other people(society) what to do. Namely recognize their relationship.

So really it is supporters of SSM who have to come up with a compelling reason for why SSM should be allowed. And because gays want to get married, or everyone who opposes it bigots are not compelling reasons.

 

[Vaux]

Here is another one: How about from now on I just walk around naked everywhere.

Doesn't hurt you or me one bit. But that doesn't make it right???? What????

 

[Charles Kozierok]

By not allow SSM no one is telling gays what to do.

It is really gays that are trying to tell other people(society) what to do. Namely recognize their relationship.

This is a semantic game that is meaningless because it can be applied to pretty much any situation.

So really it is supporters of SSM who have to come up with a compelling reason for why SSM should be allowed. And because gays want to get married, or everyone who opposes it bigots are not compelling reasons.

Actually, yes, they are compelling reasons -- equal rights are something inherently worthy, and so is defeating bigotry. You may not personally find them so, but that's because of your own (endlessly illustrated) prejudices.

However, there are also specific, practical benefits to society from gay marriage. They've been brought up many times before, which due to your involvement in nearly any thread mentioning gay rights, you already know.

Here is another one: How about from now on I just walk around naked everywhere.

Doesn't bother me -- knock yourself out.

 

[Vaux]

It's not a question of if it bothers you if I walk around naked, it's if you feel it's right for me to walk around naked. How about if a woman walked around naked? How about thousands of people walking around naked? If you still think it's ok, do you think that would be a majority opinion?

 

[Vaux]

"equal rights are something inherently worthy"----

Is it a lack of equal rights that men aren't able to bear children? Is it a lack of equal rights that men do not have breasts? Am I a bigot for saying that? How about women not being as strong as men? Is that a lack of equal rights too?

And neither is same sex marriage, for the same reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

"equal rights are something inherently worthy"----

Is it a lack of equal rights that men aren't able to bear children? Is it a lack of equal rights that men do not have breasts? Am I a bigot for saying that? How about women not being as strong as men? Is that a lack of equal rights too?

And neither is same sex marriage, for the same reasons.

None of those examples involve human made laws like marriage.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Is it a lack of equal rights that men aren't able to bear children? Is it a lack of equal rights that men do not have breasts? Am I a bigot for saying that?

No, just someone demonstrating the weakness of his argument by using a rather poor analogy. Bigotry has to do with how people are treated by society and by individuals, and neither society nor individuals has any say about whether or not men have breasts or can bear children.

How about women not being as strong as men? Is that a lack of equal rights too?

Well here you've actually touched on a real issue, which is that because, in general, women are not as strong as men, they have been traditionally excluded from a number of jobs/careers. Now some of these are being redefined to be based on underlying requirements rather than strictly on sex, which does reflect equality of rights and discrimination based on objective rather than subjective standards.

And neither is same sex marriage, for the same reasons.

As eskimospy said, we're talking about laws that control the behavior of adults, which are irrelevant to your analogies.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I think it's comparable. I am the only one getting harmed, which is just as good as it not harming anyone, since what I do to myself is no interest of yours and you have no right to tell me otherwise. But of course, that doesn't make it a right thing to do.

Are you saying that something I don't consider "right" may not necessarily be something I need to try to prevent? I agree.

So you do not have any opinions on things that don't affect you directly? I find that hard to believe.

I have opinions on everything. I just don't think everyone else should conform to them. I find homosexuality in males to be kind of disgusting in a visceral way when i consider the physical act. That makes absolutely no difference in my view of SSM, and why should it? It's highly unlikely that I'll ever have to see anything I don't want to see regardless of it's legality.

I also think saggy pants are pointless and unbecoming. For most people it seems that would automatically require a trip to the voting booth to pass a law banning saggy pants. Why do we think that though? How someone wears their pants is no skin off my neck ultimately. They're not making me wear saggy pants after all, and I do not believe the level of annoyance I feel when seeing someone wearing them demands action.

I feel the same way about SSM.

 

[Pulsar]

Here is another one: How about from now on I just walk around naked everywhere.

Doesn't hurt you or me one bit. But that doesn't make it right???? What????

Sorry, but what's WRONG about it?

Yeah, we have laws against it right now. Yet many European countries do not, and I still haven't seen any apocalypse. So are our laws right? Or do they need re-examining?

I'm glad you used that example. Nudism is becoming more accepted in many places in the US. One we break people of this idea that seeing the human body is bad, we'll have taken another step forward. Plus hot half naked women on billboards is NEVER a bad thing.

Of course, walking around naked doesn't come with the 1100+ legal benefits that being 'married' does, so your analogy (again) is horrible and non-applicable.

 

[Vaux]

None of those examples involve human made laws like marriage.

Good point. Marriage pre dates our laws, though. But since IMO it's a biology aspect that forbids SSM, passing a law that allows SSM would be the equivalent of passing a law that says men are allowed to bear children or are allowed to have breasts.

 

[Vaux]

No, just someone demonstrating the weakness of his argument by using a rather poor analogy.

:\ Everyone here can decide how they feel about it, but I have shot many holes in your arguments, enough that I wouldn't consider mine weak. But whatever.

Well here you've actually touched on a real issue, which is that because, in general, women are not as strong as men, they have been traditionally excluded from a number of jobs/careers. Now some of these are being redefined to be based on underlying requirements rather than strictly on sex, which does reflect equality of rights and discrimination based on objective rather than subjective standards.

I agree with this.

As eskimospy said, we're talking about laws that control the behavior of adults, which are irrelevant to your analogies.

It's not entirely irrelevant. Having a child is not an adult behavior? Do kids have kids? Breast feeding is also an adult behavior.

 

[fskimospy]

Good point. Marriage pre dates our laws, though. But since IMO it's a biology aspect that forbids SSM, passing a law that allows SSM would be the equivalent of passing a law that says men are allowed to bear children or are allowed to have breasts.

What biological trait do gay people lack that prevents them from being able to be married to one another?

 

[Vaux]

What biological trait do gay people lack that prevents them from being able to be married to one another?

One being a man, and the other being a woman.

 

[Vaux]

Are you saying that something I don't consider "right" may not necessarily be something I need to try to prevent? I agree.

Another good point. But in this instance, people are being asked to vote on gay marriage, so that is not really the same. You are supposed to give your opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

One being a man, and the other being a woman.

You are again mistaking human laws and biological attributes. Marriage is a human construct, and qualifications for it are whatever we say it is.

 

[Vaux]

Sorry, but what's WRONG about it?

Hmm. You know you are right about that I guess. I think it is considered wrong in our society, but humans are born naked. Other than it being unwise because of the elements, bugs, ect... I guess there really is nothing wrong about it. Unless I am missing something here.

Plus hot half naked women on billboards is NEVER a bad thing.

:thumbsup:

Of course, walking around naked doesn't come with the 1100+ legal benefits that being 'married' does, so your analogy (again) is horrible and non-applicable.

Well wait a second. If it is benefits you are concerned about, perhaps the unfairness lies in them, not marriage. Maybe married people should not be given 1100+ legal benefits. That is a separate issue.

 

[Vaux]

You are again mistaking human laws and biological attributes. Marriage is a human construct, and qualifications for it are whatever we say it is.

Sure. I say it's between a man and a woman, for the reasons I have already listed.

Oh and careful here, if that is your definition of marriage and qualifications, then you are open for the polygamy and the people marrying their pets angle. Both of which I assume you support since we are free to define marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure. I say it's between a man and a woman, for the reasons I have already listed.

Well society increasingly disagrees. There is no reason we need to use your definition, and there is no benefit to society from using it.

[quote ]
Oh and careful here, if that is your definition of marriage and qualifications, then you are open for the polygamy and the people marrying their pets angle. Both of which I assume you support since we are free to define marriage.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with polygamy. Consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they want. This does not lead to people marrying their pets however, as marriage is a contract and animals are incapable of consenting to a contract.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Another good point. But in this instance, people are being asked to vote on gay marriage, so that is not really the same. You are supposed to give your opinion.

You really need to get to the bottom of the criteria that makes up that opinion before voting though. You've mentioned "rightness" and "wrongness" as two aspects that can exist independently from actual harm being done. That's a distinction I do not make. Right and wrong do not exist in a vacuum, defining themselves. You have to be able to specifically point to why something is wrong before you say it is wrong, and for me that must be done in terms of the real harm it causes to real people. That's why my opinion is such as it is. That's why it's possible for me to vote in favor of something that I might find distasteful. If it does no harm and makes people happy, my decision is easy.

 

[Vaux]

Well society increasingly disagrees. There is no reason we need to use your definition, and there is no benefit to society from using it.

Well if society agrees than certainly they must be right. I mean Justin Beiber sold how many CD's last year? He must be an excellent artist.

There is no reason to use your definition either, and the benefits to society are debatable. I didn't realize that benefiting society was a prerequisite for doing something.

I have no problem with polygamy. Consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they want. This does not lead to people marrying their pets however, as marriage is a contract and animals are incapable of consenting to a contract.

Now wait a minute. You just said that qualifications for marriage are whatever we say they are. Somehow it's ok to change the definition of marriage from what it currently is to make room for gays, but it's not ok to change it to make room for all of those pet loving fun folks out there who aren't hurting anyone! Bigot!

 

[Vaux]

You really need to get to the bottom of the criteria that makes up that opinion before voting though. You've mentioned "rightness" and "wrongness" as two aspects that can exist independently from actual harm being done. That's a distinction I do not make. Right and wrong do not exist in a vacuum, defining themselves. You have to be able to specifically point to why something is wrong before you say it is wrong, and for me that must be done in terms of the real harm it causes to real people. That's why my opinion is such as it is. That's why it's possible for me to vote in favor of something that I might find distasteful. If it does no harm and makes people happy, my decision is easy.

I have numerous times pointed to why I think it's wrong, and I have given my reasoning for it, a reasoning that is ironclad. And for me, it is not always about causing harm. There are other reasons for me to not agree with something other than if it causes people harm or not.

 

[nehalem256]

I have no problem with polygamy. Consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they want. This does not lead to people marrying their pets however, as marriage is a contract and animals are incapable of consenting to a contract.

That is why it is not just about how you find that bride, but about if she is an equal participant or something akin to property. Until very recently women did not need to consent to marriage for them to get married off (in fact this change in definition is so new it has not even been universally accepted yet, many cultures and religions still see consent as unnecessary.) Only their father had to consent. We changed the definition. Our current definition requires consent. That is a major change in the very concept of marriage.

There is nothing inherent about marriage that requires consent.

And since you are clearly have no problem with changing the definition of marriage there is no reason to no change it again to allow marrying pets or toasters without consent. Especially since SSM supporters believe that we cannot restrict marriage based on sexual preference.

Nothing except you objectphobic and animalphobic bigotry. And the fact that it makes your view of marriage look stupid.

 

[nehalem256]

This is a semantic game that is meaningless because it can be applied to pretty much any situation.

Its not a semantic game. Demanding the government be involved in your relationship is exactly the opposite of wanting the government not to tell you what to do.

Actually, yes, they are compelling reasons -- equal rights are something inherently worthy,

But you are not fighting for equal rights. You are fighting to fundamentally redefine what marriage is. This is creating a new right.

and so is defeating bigotry. You may not personally find them so, but that's because of your own (endlessly illustrated) prejudices.

Treating unequal things unequally its not bigotry. Resorting to calling people who oppose your viewpoint on what marriage is "bigots" is no different than calling them "poo poo heads".

 

[fskimospy]

Well if society agrees than certainly they must be right. I mean Justin Beiber sold how many CD's last year? He must be an excellent artist.

There is no reason to use your definition either, and the benefits to society are debatable. I didn't realize that benefiting society was a prerequisite for doing something.

Of course it is a prerequisite for discriminating against groups, that's the bedrock of our entire system of law. If you're going to prevent a group of people from enjoying the benefits of marriage you need to show a reason why.

Now wait a minute. You just said that qualifications for marriage are whatever we say they are. Somehow it's ok to change the definition of marriage from what it currently is to make room for gays, but it's not ok to change it to make room for all of those pet loving fun folks out there who aren't hurting anyone! Bigot!

Marriage is a contract and pets cannot enter contracts. If you are advocating for either extending the ability to consent to animals or making marriage no longer a legal contract, please specify which one and why.

 

[fskimospy]

There is nothing inherent about marriage that requires consent.

There is nothing inherent about marriage that requires consent, but in our society marriage is a contract and contracts require consent. End of story.

And since you are clearly have no problem with changing the definition of marriage there is no reason to no change it again to allow marrying pets or toasters without consent. Especially since SSM supporters believe that we cannot restrict marriage based on sexual preference.

Nothing except you objectphobic and animalphobic bigotry. And the fact that it makes your view of marriage look stupid.

Toasters and animals are unable to provide consent, as previously (and repeatedly) explained to you. Unfortunately you have an extremely limited understanding of how our legal system works and you combine that with an inability to admit when you've made a dumb argument. I won't be rehashing this with you any further. Grow up.