Polyamory and Marriage

[smackababy]

I think the real reason that sterile men and women can get married is that it is not immediately obvious to every observer that such a union is not marriage. You need access to private medical information.

And until very recently practically irrelevant as there was no real way to determine natural sterility before marriage and people in 1900 did not go around getting vasectomies. And since then no one has thought to change the laws because of the first point.

No, the real reason is because the people who framed the laws of our society, viewed homosexuality as wrong. No one has "thought to change the laws" because marriage is not about procreation. That can occur without marriage just fine.

 

[Vaux]

I think the real reason that sterile men and women can get married is that it is not immediately obvious to every observer that such a union is not marriage. You need access to private medical information.

Nehalem I have been following along mostly, but I can't get behind the premise that a couple without kids are not really married. That one doesn't make sense to me.

 

[nehalem256]

The human race would have MORE children if we were not monogomous.

Marriage is about society controlling reproduction. Control would be more associated with fewer children not more.

If a man can trust that the child a woman bares are his he will be less inclined to father a large brood and instead invest in raising his own.

If you go back to the furthest extent of our histories, it appears it was much more about owning or controlling women than it was about children.

And why do you think men wanted to "own" women?

It seems to me in an era when physical labor is value men would be much more valuable.

Also the line between controlling women and controlling reproduction can be awfully thin.

 

[Pulsar]

If it is unnatural as you claim it is, how does it happen in nature? How do other animals participate in homosexual activities?

So, are you using unnatural as a means to say it is 'icky' or morally wrong to be homosexual? Because if that is the case, you are also wrong, but for a very different reason.

One might also note that in nature it is quite common for a single male to mate with multiple females, but he chooses to ignore that.

This goes back to my post a while ago about detractors not being able to actually say what they mean, because then their reasoning would be transparent.

There is no biological reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman. This has already been covered multiple times, and restating it over and over doesn't make it true. Our population as a whole is increasing to the point of being non-viable. In that context, homosexual marriage is actually a net benefit for our species.

 

[Vaux]

If it is unnatural as you claim it is, how does it happen in nature? How do other animals participate in homosexual activities?

So, are you using unnatural as a means to say it is 'icky' or morally wrong to be homosexual? Because if that is the case, you are also wrong, but for a very different reason.

It happens in nature because other animals, just like humans, are prone to birth defects like homosexuality. And you only see that in a very small percentage of animals.

Some humans are born with 3 arms. Is that natural too? It is if you account for the fact that it is natural for nature to make mistakes. But you would have a hard time arguing that it's supposed to be that way.

 

[dank69]

I don't see much if any difference between society and government.

But just for you:

And the bigger question of why should GOVERNMENT care to recognize any relationship between 2 people? What makes marriage special from a friendship(a relationship between people that society does not recognize offically)?

Why are you asking us? The government DOES recognize marriage and I'm sure the reasons are readily available on the internet. I'm sure they boil down to tax issues and more importantly, the legal issues arising when people want a divorce.

 

[nehalem256]

Nehalem I have been following along mostly, but I can't get behind the premise that a couple without kids are not really married. That one doesn't make sense to me.

It depends on the situation. Consider a case of a man who has had a vasectomy and a woman who has had her tubes tied. Is there any reason for society to care about their relationship?

 

[nehalem256]

There is no biological reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman. This has already been covered multiple times, and restating it over and over doesn't make it true. Our population as a whole is increasing to the point of being non-viable. In that context, homosexual marriage is actually a net benefit for our species.

The human race would have MORE children if we were not monogomous. If you go back to the furthest extent of our histories, it appears it was much more about owning or controlling women than it was about children.

It would seem then that based on your own statements marriage is necessary for the survival of humanity as it will limit the population.

Unless you think that legalizing SSM will cause straight people to become gay.

 

[Vaux]

One might also note that in nature it is quite common for a single male to mate with multiple females, but he chooses to ignore that.

I am not sure why that is significant, but I am not ignoring anything. Perhaps you can explain.

This goes back to my post a while ago about detractors not being able to actually say what they mean, because then their reasoning would be transparent.

I am saying exactly what I mean, and you're reasoning is flawed.

There is no biological reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman. This has already been covered multiple times, and restating it over and over doesn't make it true. Our population as a whole is increasing to the point of being non-viable. In that context, homosexual marriage is actually a net benefit for our species.

I just gave you a biological reason, but it seems that you have ignored it.

 

[Pulsar]

Marriage is about society controlling reproduction.

Marriage has never limited the reproductive drive in humans in any manner. Please cite your source for this argument.

And why do you think men wanted to "own" women?

Dominance. Jealousy. Status. Ego. Power. The same reason the Church instituted itself into the process.

 

[nehalem256]

Why are you asking us? The government DOES recognize marriage and I'm sure the reasons are readily available on the internet.

Because why government should recognize any relationships is important to determining if the government should recognize SS couples.

I'm sure they boil down to tax issues and more importantly,

If there was no marriage there would be no tax issues. The government has no problems with taxing single people.

the legal issues arising when people want a divorce.

If government did not recognize marriage there would be no divorce.

 

[Retro Rob]

And that is your problem. You don't care about someone else is being denied rights. And I am sure it isn't just gays. You probably are indifferent to the rights of others being trampled because it doesn't effect you. And until it does, you won't 'join the fight'. Since you're not the only person with this view (I'd argue a lot of people feel this way), nothing changes and people are denied rights and intolerance is rampant.

Actually, I do care about people being denied rights. However, I am a believer in the God of the Bible and what I believe it says regarding homosexuality. I don't believe the Bible endorses such relationships (stable or not, married unmarried).

So instead of going against what I believe to be right, the best course is to stay out of it all together.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage has never limited the reproductive drive in humans in any manner. Please cite your source for this argument.

Marriage is part of society institutionalizing monogamy. Having children outside of marriage being considered wrong.

Monogamy limits reproduction as per your own claim.

Dominance. Jealousy. Status. Ego. Power. The same reason the Church instituted itself into the process.

And wouldn't owning men confer more power, ego, dominance, etc in an era where physical strength is valuable? Just like owning a Masserati confers more status than owning a Ford Yugo.

 

[Pulsar]

I am not sure why that is significant, but I am not ignoring anything. Perhaps you can explain.

I am saying exactly what I mean, and you're reasoning is flawed.

I just gave you a biological reason, but it seems that you have ignored it.

In post #376, you suggested that you are against homosexual marriage because it is not natural.

There are many natural processes that we interfere with. For instance, children with birth defects are kept alive and cared for when they would otherwise die. But you draw a distinction and choose to only apply the 'unnatural' argument against that of homosexual marriage.

Natural versus unnatural has absolutely no place in this debate. It's about equal rights. Trying to shelter behind some arbitrary term like 'natural' is a total cop-out.

It's not my reasoning that is flawed. I'm merely trying to highlight how arbitrary it is to call something natural. Smackbaby alluded to it in his post as well.

 

[nehalem256]

No, the real reason is because the people who framed the laws of our society, viewed homosexuality as wrong. No one has "thought to change the laws" because marriage is not about procreation. That can occur without marriage just fine.

Except there are multiple historical examples such as ancient greece that did not view homosexuality as wrong and yet they still did not regard same-sex relationships as marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Is there a fundamental difference between an 18 year old and a 17.99 year old? None. It is arbitrary.

Is there a fundamental difference between a man and a woman? Absolutely. And in fact this is what established court precedence says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Race was considered a fundamental difference between people for a long time. The definition of marriage changed. You failed.... again.

Regardless, this entire offshoot of the discussion is utterly pointless as evidenced by what we talked about earlier. That is the beginning and end of it.

What's sad is that conceding you were wrong earlier only apparently lasted long enough for you to go to sleep and wake back up. Now you're back to fighting the same utterly brainless fight.

 

[Vaux]

There are many natural processes that we interfere with. For instance, children with birth defects are kept alive and cared for when they would otherwise die.

Yeah this is true. But it is not the same thing. It is natural to attempt to preserve life. Medicine is natural. Healing is natural.

Being gay is not, because it is a death sentence for the species. That goes against the natural instinct of survival.

Natural versus unnatural has absolutely no place in this debate.

Disagree. It is a perfectly sound reasoning to use to help decide if something is right or wrong.

It's about equal rights.

Disagree. Heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are not equal, for many reasons, some of which I have already listed.

 

[fskimospy]

Disagree. It is a perfectly sound reasoning to use to help decide if something is right or wrong.

So how do you explain the countless examples of homosexuality in nature?

 

[Pulsar]

Marriage is part of society institutionalizing monogamy. Having children outside of marriage being considered wrong.

Monogamy limits reproduction as per your own claim.

And wouldn't owning men confer more power, ego, dominance, etc in an era where physical strength is valuable? Just like owning a Masserati confers more status than owning a Ford Yugo.

You are correct in stating that marriage institutionalizes monogamy. You are correct in stating that Monogamy limits reproduction. You are incorrect in trying to draw a causal link between the two. Correlation is not causation.

Society did not institutionalize monogamy in order to limit reproduction.

You last paragraph makes no sense. The 'dominant' gender is the one who defines power, ego, and status. Hence why in the past, males are the ones who 'owned' the women, much like they owned slaves.

 

[Pulsar]

So how do you explain the countless examples of homosexuality in nature?

He already explained that. He considers homosexuals defective, and on that basis he seeks to deny them equality with people he considers non-defective.

It happens in nature because other animals, just like humans, are prone to birth defects like homosexuality. And you only see that in a very small percentage of animals.

 

[chucky2]

He already explained that. He considers homosexuals defective, and on that basis he seeks to deny them equality with people he considers non-defective.

Not a consideration if one just changes the law to only recognize civil union. Then gay/poly couples not being equal to hetero couples can be addressed by society and the Gov won't have to be in that debate. Problem solved.

 

[Vaux]

He already explained that. He considers homosexuals defective, and on that basis he seeks to deny them equality with people he considers non-defective.

You get caught up in this equality aspect too much. I would agree that equality should be a goal we move towards, but not everything can be equal, and not everything should be equal.

It's the same as a few pages back in this discussion. Gays are not equal to be married just as men are not equal to have children. Humans were just not created that way.

 

[Pulsar]

Not a consideration if one just changes the law to only recognize civil union. Then gay/poly couples not being equal to hetero couples can be addressed by society and the Gov won't have to be in that debate. Problem solved.

I've held that viewpoint for a long time.

If marriage in our legal system can be replaced with a civil union, and civil unions can be expanded to include gay couples, then I would support this solution 100%.

Marriage could be relegated to individual religious beliefs and the sacredness of the act could be preserved in the eyes of the individual relgions.

The problem is (as I've repeatedly said) this isn't really what the argument is about. There is a very large chuck of people here who believe that gays should not be granted equal legal status. They try to dance around it in every way imaginable, but that is the root cause of their argument against changing marriage in law.

 

[smackababy]

It happens in nature because other animals, just like humans, are prone to birth defects like homosexuality. And you only see that in a very small percentage of animals.

Some humans are born with 3 arms. Is that natural too? It is if you account for the fact that it is natural for nature to make mistakes. But you would have a hard time arguing that it's supposed to be that way.

The fact that you consider sexuality to be a birth defect is enough for me to disregard anything else you say due to sheer stupidity.

 

[Vaux]

The fact that you consider sexuality to be a birth defect is enough for me to disregard anything else you say due to sheer stupidity.

Ok. I'll just take that as "I don't have a real argument against your point, so I will just call you stupid instead".