Polyamory and Marriage

[Retro Rob]

To some extent, yes. But we should be trying to minimize that aspect of our law. Trying to make it as inclusive as possible, while still maintaining reasonable rules that protect us from harm. I can see no way that extending the laws concerning marriage to include more situations could cause harm.
This is the argument for gay (and poly) marriages in a nutshell. If extending the rights to a group of people causes no harm, then the concept of liberty demands that we do so.

I'm sorry.. I don't recall arguing against what should be included or not -- I was arguing about why gay marriages cannot be equal to hetero marriages. Whatever they make legal is fine with me.

Would you be for keeping laws as they currently are and remove our personal preference starting today? Well, of course not because you haven't gotten what you wanted yet.

What I read is that as long as laws are made to contradict what YOU want, you think personal preference should be out of it. I don't hear you saying that for laws including anything because... of course... they include what you want.

This is really simple.

Who doesn't like the convenience of personal preference as regard law-making?

I will be honest...as long as I am getting what I want, I am all for personal preference. Who isn't?

But these peoples rights are already being denied and we see how they react, with peaceful demonstration and legal challenges inside the system, but almost no violence (although violence is offered against them plenty). So, what are you really saying?

True, but that's because they think its signed, sealed, and delivered. I will reserve my judgment come the end of this month.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm sorry.. I don't recall arguing against what should be included or not -- I was arguing about why gay marriages cannot be equal to hetero marriages. Whatever they make legal is fine with me.

They can be equal in the eyes of the law though. So what if they cannot bear children of their own together without outside help. That is irrelivent to the legal issue of allowing SSM. So in that one regard they are not equal but not many but you seem to care about that aspect of it.

 

[Pulsar]

I'm sorry.. I don't recall arguing against what should be included or not -- I was arguing about why gay marriages cannot be equal to hetero marriages. Whatever they make legal is fine with me.

Would you be for keeping laws as they currently are and remove our personal preference starting today? Well, of course not because you haven't gotten what you wanted yet.

What I read is that as long as laws are made to contradict what YOU want, you think personal preference should be out of it. I don't hear you saying that for laws including anything because... of course... they include what you want.

This is really simple.Who doesn't like the convenience of personal preference as regard law-making? I will be honest...as long as I am getting what I want, I am all for personal preference. Who isn't?

True, but that's because they think its signed, sealed, and delivered. I will reserve my judgment come the end of this month.

First you say you're ok with making it legal. Excellent. Perfect.

Then you dig yourself a hole again and say that this is happening only because of personal preference. Which you know is not correct.

You are attempting to whitewash the entire issue. Are you aware that there are over 1100 specific benefits married couples enjoy under our current law structure, from head of household exemptions right on down? Does that sound like 'personal preference'?

Of course you're aware. I try very very hard not to get mad in these discussions because almost every argument you make is the same arguments made against the desegregation of blacks during the civil rights movement. It is a parallel in nearly every way.

And now you're actually going to try to hang the pallor of 'well they might get violent if they don't get their way' over the entire thing. Just amazing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm sorry.. I don't recall arguing against what should be included or not -- I was arguing about why gay marriages cannot be equal to hetero marriages. Whatever they make legal is fine with me.

I only care about legal right. You can have your opinion, I can have my opinion, and as long as neither is trying to force it on the other we can have a beer together. I'll buy the first round.

Would you be for keeping laws as they currently are and remove our personal preference starting today? Well, of course not because you haven't gotten what you wanted yet.

What I read is that as long as laws are made to contradict what YOU want, you think personal preference should be out of it. I don't hear you saying that for laws including anything because... of course... they include what you want.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. The law as it stands is discriminatory. I'm not asking to exclude anyone based on my personal preference.

True, but that's because they think its signed, sealed, and delivered. I will reserve my judgment come the end of this month.

That is unfair. The SSM movement has been denied again and again, and they have never resorted to violence. There was not riots when DOMA passed. There was no ricin letters when Prop 8 passed. Lets face it, your side is the one that resorts to violence when it does not get it's way.

 

[Retro Rob]

Then you dig yourself a hole again and say that this is happening only because of personal preference. Which you know is not correct.

I was pointing out that personal views are indeed enshrined in our laws. I didn't mean to infer that personal reasons are the ONLY reason why SSM is on the table.

You are attempting to whitewash the entire issue. Are you aware that there are over 1100 specific benefits married couples enjoy under our current law structure, from head of household exemptions right on down? Does that sound like 'personal preference'?

Take the benefits away -- I couldn't care any less personally. I didn't get married for these benefits, and to be brutally honest, my wife and I never discussed them.

As far as I am concerned, they're given and can be taken away just as easily. They don't impact the quality of my marriage whatsoever, nor do they add/subtract value from it.

Of course you're aware. I try very very hard not to get mad in these discussions because almost every argument you make is the same arguments made against the desegregation of blacks during the civil rights movement. It is a parallel in nearly every way.

Get mad. And? You're letting me control your emotions? We all have a personal stake in these sort of issues. Believe me, we get upset just as much as you do.

So?

And now you're actually going to try to hang the pallor of 'well they might get violent if they don't get their way' over the entire thing. Just amazing.

No really, I am not. Bad example --- that's on me.

 

[Retro Rob]

I only care about legal right. You can have your opinion, I can have my opinion, and as long as neither is trying to force it on the other we can have a beer together. I'll buy the first round.

Agree.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. The law as it stands is discriminatory. I'm not asking to exclude anyone based on my personal preference.

Gotcha'!

That is unfair. The SSM movement has been denied again and again, and they have never resorted to violence. There was not riots when DOMA passed. There was no ricin letters when Prop 8 passed. Lets face it, your side is the one that resorts to violence when it does not get it's way.

Fair point. And please, I don't think you know "my side". I don't belong to a side anyway -- I just have my personal opinion. So, you're wrong.

 

[soulcougher73]

Has the "conservative/traditional" side every won a major social issue in this country? It seems they have always been on the losing end as they will be again with SSM. A country cannot progress if being held back by social conservatism.

 

[randomrogue]

Honestly if you can't discuss this topic without resorting to one of the following you've lost the debate:

1. Animals and children getting married
2. Semantics
3. A negative remark about homosexuality

The basics of this discussion are that discriminating against a group due to their sexual preference is bigotry. Denying one group their civil rights because of their sexual orientation is wrong.

If you want to debate civil unions vs marriage or bringing back common law marriage then we have something to discuss. Trying to just put your fingers in your ears and pretend there isn't a problem, or that the problem is that they are gay, is not constructive though.

 

[Retro Rob]

Honestly if you can't discuss this topic without resorting to one of the following you've lost the debate:

1. Animals and children getting married
2. Semantics
3. A negative remark about homosexuality

The basics of this discussion are that discriminating against a group due to their sexual preference is bigotry. Denying one group their civil rights because of their sexual orientation is wrong.

If you want to debate civil unions vs marriage or bringing back common law marriage then we have something to discuss. Trying to just put your fingers in your ears and pretend there isn't a problem, or that the problem is that they are gay, is not constructive though.

So we can't have a discussion if we offend you?

I agree with 1 and 2, but 3 is just encouraging left-wing back-patting. No, you don't have the right to NOT be offended. You can't make a negative remark about conservative views, then we have a deal.

 

[randomrogue]

I mean the bigotry.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

A few points I want to make here. First off, what is marriage? Some people define it in a very limited view that adheres to what they believe "traditional marriage" has been. Others state it's a contract. Well this is the problem with the word "marriage", is it is rooted in a deeply religious history that elicits an emotional response because it's an affront to their beliefs. So there are two issues at hand here 1) the legal and social rights granted in modern American society under the marriage contract, and 2) the belief about what "traditional marriage" is that tends to be tied into religious beliefs. These two things need to be separated. The contract between consenting adults who want the benefits granted to this social construct between them should be called a civil union. Essentially do a cut and replace of "marriage" with "civil union" in all government documents. This alone would remove a lot of the problems people have with SSM, and polyamorous marriages later on. If people want to go get "married" in the Christian religious ceremony then that's their choice, but it grants people the ability to perform the religious/secular ceremony of their choice and has no relevance to the government. Why should religious ceremony's be tied into governmental benefits?

As a person who supports poly/open/non-monogamous lifestyles, and has been involved in poly/non-monogamous relationships before and currently, I don't know about poly marriages being legally recognized. I am also generally against marriage as a personal choice (I don't see any tangible benefit that cannot be granted through other means and a lot of risk to my personal future, but this is off topic and I digress). I would love if these situations were, but it's not as simple as SSM is. That's still only two people. It's no different between a man/woman, black/white, or man/man (or any variations of them). Race, sex, and sexual orientation make no difference. Interracial, same sex, and different sexes between two people are all exactly the same. Period. Unfortunately when it's a marriage between 3+ people it could create many complications in divorces, deaths, or other benefits. Should employers grant all of your spouses the same benefits? Do they each get a portion so 1 person gets 100% spousal benefits but 2 partners get 50% and 3 get 33%? I understand that there are many things in place for death benefit information like no surviving spouse and multiple kids fighting for property, but there is more to it than just that.

Personally I would love for poly civil unions (because by that time we will have moved beyond the term "marriage") to be socially accepted AND given the same benefits as a relationship between a couple. However, that is not something I'd expect to happen for another 20 years or more. SSM has taken that long to get to the point it's at now, and that's a much easier sell IMHO.

 

[Retro Rob]

I mean the bigotry.

Bigotry takes on another meaning in threads like this.

Sometimes, I percieive it means simply taking a different view not agreed upon by the majority.

For instance, I can say I don't agree with gay marriage and before I start to even give a reason, I'm being called a bigot.

The meaning seems to change depending on the topic.

 

[fskimospy]

Bigotry takes on another meaning in threads like this.

Sometimes, I percieive it means simply taking a different view not agreed upon by the majority.

For instance, I can say I don't agree with gay marriage and before I start to even give a reason, I'm being called a bigot.

The meaning seems to change depending on the topic.

At least in my case I can say it is because I have never heard a non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

Not one.

 

[Retro Rob]

At least in my case I can say it is because I have never heard a non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

Not one.

Substitute gay marriage for religious people and you will then see what I mean.

Most religious opposition is purely prejudicial. They oppose and often denigrate religious people.

 

[chucky2]

I totally understand, I mean, we call bushes trees and oranges apples, they're like, the same thing...or, close enough that we can call them the same thing. Heck, why even have a dictionary or an understanding of what words mean, that's so prejudicial! I can't possibly understand why people have a problem with perverting the long understood word marriage by including two men partaking in it. Brilliance... (wait, did I mean brilliance or did I mean something else because now I've redefined what brilliance is understood as? Zoiks! It's endless!)

 

[Retro Rob]

At least in my case I can say it is because I have never heard a non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

Not one.

And note, I said "disagree" with, not "oppose".

They aren't not the same.

 

[fskimospy]

Substitute gay marriage for religious people and you will then see what I mean.

Most religious opposition is purely prejudicial. They oppose and often denigrate religious people.

Who opposes 'religious people'? I sure don't. I oppose some things religious people do, but I do not oppose religious people. If someone were to oppose religious people as a category that would certainly be prejudicial, but I don't know anyone who does that.

Regardless, even if that were true that would change nothing about the bigoted opposition to gay marriage. 'Disagree with' and 'oppose' are interchangeable for these purposes. Even if you aren't trying to enforce your opinion on others it is still bigoted.

 

[jackstar7]

I totally understand, I mean, we call bushes trees and oranges apples, they're like, the same thing...or, close enough that we can call them the same thing. Heck, why even have a dictionary or an understanding of what words mean, that's so prejudicial! I can't possibly understand why people have a problem with perverting the long understood word marriage by including two men partaking in it. Brilliance... (wait, did I mean brilliance or did I mean something else because now I've redefined what brilliance is understood as? Zoiks! It's endless!)

Do we have a word that classifies both apples and organges? How about trees and bushes?

We also have one that covers various pairings under the law. It's marriage.

Sorry to see this complexity is still so vexing to you.

 

[chucky2]

Do we have a word that classifies both apples and organges? How about trees and bushes?

Not applicable as that's not what's being done. We're changing the meaning of a long understood word, a word what is by now Billions of people have understood to mean a man + woman/man + women being joined together. Grouping apples and oranges isn't what is being done here, changing the word apple to also include oranges, oh hey, and peaches too!, is what is being done here. Nice try, but, No.

We also have one that covers various pairings under the law. It's marriage.

No, it's called civil union. Marriage is for a man and woman being joined.

Sorry to see this complexity is still so vexing to you.

The only vexing thing is the simple narrative change gay "marriage" supporters keep trying to pull but keep getting caught (for those that bother to catch them) at. I know why you must keep doing it, but you'd think in this thread at least where you've been debunked so many times you'd just stop the perversion of a long understood term. I see the indoctrination is alive and well (waits for false equivalency with interracial marriage to be used next)...

Chuck

 

[Retro Rob]

Who opposes 'religious people'? I sure don't. I oppose some things religious people do, but I do not oppose religious people. If someone were to oppose religious people as a category that would certainly be prejudicial, but I don't know anyone who does that.

Regardless, even if that were true that would change nothing about the bigoted opposition to gay marriage. 'Disagree with' and 'oppose' are interchangeable for these purposes. Even if you aren't trying to enforce your opinion on others it is still bigoted.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Most people I know, view same sex relationships as a moral issue, the gay people are fine. This isn't bigotry.

Yeah, I know to you there's no difference, but there is a difference with black people and premarital sex, for example. They're fine with black people, but not the premarital sex behavior. Not bigoted because the disagreement isn't with black people, but with what they see was objectionable behavior.

This is an important and vital distinction to make, or anyone who opposes anything can, by definition, be a bigot.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Not applicable as that's not what's being done. We're changing the meaning of a long understood word, a word what is by now Billions of people have understood to mean a man + woman/man + women being joined together. Grouping apples and oranges isn't what is being done here, changing the word apple to also include oranges, oh hey, and peaches too!, is what is being done here. Nice try, but, No.



No, it's called civil union. Marriage is for a man and woman being joined.



The only vexing thing is the simple narrative change gay "marriage" supporters keep trying to pull but keep getting caught (for those that bother to catch them) at. I know why you must keep doing it, but you'd think in this thread at least where you've been debunked so many times you'd just stop the perversion of a long understood term. I see the indoctrination is alive and well (waits for false equivalency with interracial marriage to be used next)...

Chuck

Your semantics argument holds no water. We gladly change the meaning of words all the time. Marriage use to mean one and as many women as he could afford, we then changed it to one man and the woman he was able to buy from her dad, we then changed it to mean one man and one woman of the same race, we no longer liked those definitions so we changed it.

This is the way of the world. If you don't like it you should probably get off the internet. It is changing words faster than even Webster can keep up.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Most people I know, view same sex relationships as a moral issue, the gay people are fine. This isn't bigotry.

Yeah, I know to you there's no difference, but there is a difference with black people and premarital sex, for example. They're fine with black people, but not the premarital sex behavior. Not bigoted because the disagreement isn't with black people, but with what they see was objectionable behavior.

This is an important and vital distinction to make, or anyone who opposes anything can, by definition, be a bigot.

Being gay isn't a behavior. It is much more like being black.

You wouldn't say "I have no problem with black people marrying, I just have a problem with the act of being black" and expect people to take you seriously.

 

[Retro Rob]

nvm

Just.. take that how you will if you haven't begun quoting me already.

 

[randomrogue]

Bigotry takes on another meaning in threads like this.

Sometimes, I percieive it means simply taking a different view not agreed upon by the majority.

For instance, I can say I don't agree with gay marriage and before I start to even give a reason, I'm being called a bigot.

The meaning seems to change depending on the topic.

I'm not going to let you do this shit again with semantics. Just stop it. A bigot is a bigot. The meaning does not change.

 

[Craig234]

nvm

Just.. take that how you will if you haven't begun quoting me already.

Well, I saw you had said 'smoking is a better analogy'.

No, it's not.

People aren't 'born smokers'.

Excessive discrimination against smoker isn't justifed; they shouldn't be denied marriage.

There are two issues with homosexuality. First is people being naturally homosexual. The second are behaviors - gay kissing, gay sex, gay marriage.

So the first is, do you have any justification for 'moral opposition' to someone 'being gay'?

The evidence says no, and you seem to not argue with that.

So then you have the question, given someone is effectively 'born gay', and has the same desires as anyone else for love and sex except from the same gender, do you have any justification to tell them 'WE can have partners and relationships and the respect of society for our marriages, but YOU are immoral for having yours with the gender you are naturally attracted to have them with, so I'm against yours having equality'.

No, there isn't justification for that, but you seem to support it.

Another analogy would be pedophila, if people were 'born pedophiles' (I'm not sure where the orientation comes from, and it seems to be more environmental since so many victims of child abuse go on to become abusers, which is not a condition they were 'born with'). In that case, no, it's not an 'immoral condition' - they didn't choose it, it's not a moral issue.

But the answer to the second question changes - behavior based on it is immoral, if as nearly all of us believe that those behaviors are harmful to children.

The same is not true for gays. It is discrimination without justification - just as telling smokers they're not allowed to marry would be.

And in fact there'd be a better argument for the smokers, if you consider protecting the spouses from second hand smoke. But it's not enough to justify that discrimination.

You seem to think that using the phrase 'personal issue' gives you some untainted, unbigoted reason for denying rights to others. But you haven't justified that.

You have played the victim that anytime anyone suggests there is bigotry motivating your support for denying rights to gays you are wrongy insulted - but not shown anything that doesn't support that it's true that bigotry seems the only explanation behind your insistence on the negative views towards gays.

I've said that bigots often don't realize they are bigoted. It's time for you to consider that you are, and don't understand that you are.

I think it's likely that if I had asked a church full of Mormons 50 years ago if they were bigoted against blacks, they would have largely said 'no'; when asked why there was discrimination, then, they'd have come up with all kinds of reasons trying to justify it, such as the biblical teachings that people with dark skin were 'punished' (IIRC, Mormons did teach and argue that to justify discrimination). They didn't understand they were bigoted. But they weren't about to hange the discrimination.

Luckily for them, they didn't need to get confronted about it much. There didn't seem to be a lot of civil rights leaders for reform who attended church and spoke out.