This is a continuation of the Marriage or Union: Homosexuality and the Redefinition thread.

Bump.  As Heath pointed out, if this is going to be a serious discussion and not just an aside, please put it in the appropriate forum to avoid confusion.

   Okay, since it was my comment that brought this up before, I'll ask again (albeit in a slightly different form) ... what right does the government have to make a law outlawing any form of marriage other than that between one male and one female?

I am thinking that we can accept that the government has the right to define law, and interpret law, so I am thinking that we agree that they have the right. The question of why they can deny or accept the conditions of marriage is what would make it clear for the various views on this. Can I ask what you define marriage as?

Additionally, do respect different views on the matter? Is it safe to give my opinion if it isn't the same as yours?

Not in the US, I would argue the Federal (not state) government has no right to define any law beyond what is permitted by its charter, the Constitution.  I see nothing in that document which seems to have any bearing on marriage or recognizing any form thereof.  So no, the US Federal government does not have that particular 'right'.  Of course, in Canada, that argument does not hold.

Interesting, I did not know that.

Right, in Canada, it's already legal. They still have plenty of laws that need to be reworded due to that change, but over all, apparently it's a lot of rewriting laws now to fit the new definition.

When the law took effect, it wasn't even legal, it just wasn't illegal. For almost a year there was a time period where you could get married to the same sex, but you could not get a divorce, as the laws were not written to apply to same sex. I'm not sure where they are in catching all the laws that mention marriage to be rewritten to apply to the new definition.

I think a part of the fear of legalizing same sex marriage is that it will eventually lead to pastors being forced perform same-sex marriages or be accused of discrimination.  If you allow same sex marriage and you regularily rent out your building for marriage cerimonies, the gay rights activists could come in and force you to go against your convictions and allow gay marriages to be prefomed in your buildings.

It's also another step toward silencing pastors from teaching that homosexuality is biblically sinful.  Already the hate crimes act is trying to make it a hate crime to preach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin.  I understand that part of it is a knee-jerk reactions to people like the "God hates fags" clown, but gay marriage would be another arrow in the quiver of activists to push for that kind of legislation.

*** But see, while I agree that they can define and interpret law, I don't think that gives them the right to create an unjust law.


I'd define marriage (more or less), as a legal contract between consenting parties which defines the nature and scope of their relationship, and is recognised by all other outside parties as legally binding.


*** I ... I respect others right to have differing opinions. I can't in all honesty say that I respect all other opinions, as I think some of them are completely and utterly wrong. Certainly everyone has the right to their own opinion, and I'd never want to deny someone that right. As far as whether it's safe ... <wry grin> I already know we disagree, and I know neither of us will convince the other, so ... <shrug>.


*** Okay, I suppose I'm dumb, but why would someone want to be married by someone they had to force into doing the job?


*** Now see this one I can see, tho' I'd still think there were ways around it (only rent the building to members of your own congregation, perhaps?), but I'm still unconvinced that the good gained outweighs the evil caused.


*** Now see, this one I don't see. The reason is becos if one is preaching from the Bible, what the law says is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if one is preaching from a lawbook. Changing the law doesn't change what the Bible says. Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that being gay (or anything else) is a sin. Talks a lot about how various behaviours are sinful, but doesn't say just being a certain way is wrong, so if someone is preaching that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin, then yeah, I can see why it'd get classified as a hate crime. Why not say being black is a sin? Or being female? Or Gentile, for that matter?
This message was last edited by the player at 06:14, Tue 04 Mar 2008.

Okay, that is where the confusion came in.  The original question was about whether you thought homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt.  Your three topics, while important, don't actually answer the question that was asked.  I get the impression you're trying to imply without saying something like "homosexuals can adopt, as long as they do so in a straight relationship," or something like that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake, you could answer: "do you think homosexual couples should be able to adopt?"


Yes, you did say that a number of times.  I would disagree.  Equality of marriage doesn't imply you can't discriminate (though other laws might).  I gave examples of cases where people of different groups that have legally the same marriage can be discriminated against.  Marriage laws are separate from discrimination laws.

Let's try it this way:  If gay marriage were made legal, with the provision that adoption agencies could still take orientation into account, would that affect your view of it in any way?  Would you support that kind of gay marriage law?



That's all well and good.  However, I don't think it's fair to say that you're not saying they're equal, or that you're not saying they're worse.  I think you've made it very clear that you feel gay couples are worse than straight couples at raising children.  We might all discriminate in various ways, but let's not downplay what you're doing here.  You do believe, if I'm not mistaken, that homosexuals are bad, yes?  You do believe it's a sin, and that by being an openly practicing homosexual, you do think they are doing a bad thing, correct?  [note, that was a real question]

It's all well and good to say we all discriminate, so we shouldn't be offended when you do it.  But let's at least be honest about your position.

Also, some of the questions I asked sort of got missed.  The questions below can be taken as real questions:





Okay, that's better.  Now, since the "average homosexual male" doesn't actually exist, but is rather just a concept, we need to be careful not to base laws on what he does or doesn't do.  If a monogomous couple comes in, and neither has HIV, is it fair to tell them "well, on average you're going to live 20 years less than straight people, due to aids, so you lose points for that?"  No, I don't think so.  They should be judged by their own merits, not those of other people who happen to be in the same group as them.


No, it's not a strawman argument.  It's an example that your logical is fundamentally flawed.  It's a case where two legally identitical marriage can legally be treated differently.  You're saying if two marriages are legally the same, then you can't discriminate between the two.  I've given a counter that shows that that's simply not true.


Yes, I'd agree to that.  But that's a change of argument.  You've switch your original premise of "if gay marriage is legally the same as straight marriage" to "if you can't legally discriminate."  Those are two different laws.  If what you're opposed to is laws that make discrimination illegal, make that clear, and drop the issue of legalized gay marriage.  They're not the same thing.

Have to disagree with this one.  To say that no one cares what they do does seem pretty absurd.


You don't need to get married to procreate or raise children.  If marriage were primarily about children, you'd get married after your first child was born.  This argument is a weak one, and it's a misdirection.  The idea that marriage is just a license, and it represents what society wants to encourage is true.  But to say that they only want to encourage future tax payers is silly.  I've never once been to a wedding that had anything about "future taxpayers" in the vows.  I've never seen a wedding card that mentioned future tax payers.  Marriage is about much, much more than procreation.


Actually, there are a number of ways in which homosexual couples can have kids.  Should homosexual couples who have children from previous partners be able to marry?  How about surrogate mothers or artificial insemination?  It's not impossible for homosexual couples to procreate these days.  Should they be allowed to marry because of that?


To say it's irrelevant contradicts your premise that marriage is primarily about procreation.  If that was the primary function of marriage, preventing sterile couples from marrying would be of prime importance.  The fact that you consider sterile couples "irrelevant" just illustrates that you really don't buy that marriage is primarily about procreation.  What could possibly be more relevant if that were true?

The idea that a "right to privacy" prevents such intrusions falls flat, because as you say, marriage isn't a right, it's a priveledge, so it'd be legal to ask people to not make use of that right to gain a priveledge.


Yeah, I can agree that polygamy should be legal.


This last point is critical, I think.  It doesn't matter what's best on average, it just matters what's best in any given case.  The fact that gay couples are statistically less likely to be monogamous doesn't mean any given gay couple is less likely to be so than any given straight couple.  Each case needs to be judged on it's on merit, rather than trying to solve every case all at once with one ruling.

This is important. I'm asking if you are tolerant of other views. It appears from the above that not all views will be welcome. If people aren't tolerant of other views, and it will result in difficulty when another view is held, does that mean replies will be unwelcome, or welcome?

I did answer if homosexual couples should be able to adopt. I told Falkus that they should be able.


It would change the previous reasons we went over. Would I support it with that, technically no. Just so everything is clear, the problem is if marriage is altered on the basis of preventing discrimination, the discrimination part is what is making the marriage part get altered.

To reclarify, yes, that change would alter my view. Would I still support it with that change alone? No.



That needs some redirection. That doesn't express my view or how I truly see things. I don't think same sex couples are the same as married husband and wife, because there is a gender missing when raising the children. That doesn't mean that a homosexual loves their child less, or that they won't try as hard to raise their children.

Homosexuals are people. And to Jesus, they are a people who God wants to be with. Just like every other person on the planet. Homosexuals aren't bad. Do I think it's a sin? Yes. And I think so is lying, masturbation, cheating on a spouse, and watching porn. But every person that does these things aren't bad people. God loves them just as much as anyone else. He loves them so much that He gave His Son up in sacrifice.

I have been honest. But what relevance does religion have to do with discrimination? Research doesn't stand or fall based on religious beliefs.

I don't think calling things strawman is helping us out very much. We both seem to disagree on it's meaning. You accuse me of it, and I explain why I feel it works, and I accuse you, and you explain why you feel it works. I am thinking strawman must be a subjective thing.

Perhaps we should give some leeway, and consider that we try and bring in things that we feel are relevant, and important to the conversation. Even if the other person feels it's not, we probably don't bring in things because we want to trick others. Would you agree with that?


In Canada, that's why same sex unions were legalized. It was discriminatory in their view. I do realize you feel they are different arguments, but it's what happened.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:09, Tue 04 Mar 2008.

*** Yes you're right in that it is important, and judging from your question, I didn't explain myself very well. Let me try again: I try very hard to be tolerant of other views, but I am not always as successful at this as I might try to be. Yes, I'd say that other views are welcome, but it's hard for me to ... it's like something Jefferson once said (I think): "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Do I welcome your views, however much they may disagree with my own? Yes. Does that automatically mean I'm going to like them? Not necessarily. Is that ... does it make more sense?


*** Okay, for those of us who are slow, can you rephrase that please? I'm seriously not sure what it is you're saying here (it's the second part that confuses me).


*** Well, if you claim to believe in a religion that teaches tolerance, and you're acting in a manner that is intolerant, it's going to make it difficult to convince people of the truth of your religion. It's like, Jesus was cool with the IRS, right (Matthew, Zaccheus, etc)? So if the disciples were holding a pancake breakfast and wouldn't let the tax guys in, that's sort of conflicting with the heart of their message. Does that make sense?


*** Tell that to Galileo.

   Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, the thrust of your arguement seems to be that children need both a male and female parent, correct? Would you be okay with a marriage which involved two males and one female?

(Galileo's research fell based on his pissing on a lot of powerful political figures, including directly insulting the Pope himself.  Just thought I'd mention that.  Please continue.)

Thank you, that's very clear.  I'm still a bit confused, though.  To clarify: you think homosexual couples should be able to adopt, but that adoption agencies should be able to take the fact that they're a same-sex couple into acount in making their decision?  If so, I'd say most people here probably agree with you.  The question comes in where you link this to gay marriage.


It is the motivation for many people, yes.  But I think the "discrimination" they're talking about is being able to get married or not.  Being able to adopt or not (without having your orientation taken into account) is a related by separate issue.


Okay, why not?

In this argument you've linked legalized gay marriage with adoption.  If we grant that gay couples would still have their orientation taken into account when they try to adopt, even if they're legally married, we've removed the only objection you've raised here.  But you say you'd still oppose it.  What's the other factor(s) that would make you oppose it?



Okay, this is good.  Then why not give them the same help we give straight couples to make it easier.  Why shouldn't we try to help their children just as much as we try to help the children of straight parents?


This is good too.  But why, then, should the law treat them as if they aren't as good as everyone else?  Why should the law treat their relationship as less valuable than staight people's?



What relevance does religion have to do with discrimination?  Tons!  If your religion causes you to have certain views, then your religion is very much a part of the discussion.  Research shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, but all too often it is, and certainly people's interpretation of religious beliefs is affected by their religion.

I honestly feel that it's your religious belief that homosexuality is a sin that is the reason you oppose legalized gay marriage.  While you argue about adoption, I have a hard time accepting that that's really your primary concern.  I may be wrong on that, and I'd be happy to hear if I am.  But I think the real disagreement is at a deeper level than all this stuff about adoption.  I think it's far more fundamental than this higher level stuff we're debating here.  If the fundamental disagreement remains, nothing we end up agreeing on at the higher level will matter.  The fact that gay marriage with the provision that their orientation could still be considered in adoption cases wouldn't change your view illustrates this.  We finally reached a point where we agreed, and it didn't change our positions at all, because the issue of adoption isn't what we really disagree about.  If we're all completely honest about why we support or don't support legalized gay marriage, we're more likely to at least understand each other's view, or at most come to some sort of meaningful agreement.



But you're equating motivation for a law, and the law itself, when these are different things.  What it sounds like you really want, is to be legally able to discriminate against homosexuals.  You feel like legalized gay marriage reduces your ability to discriminate, so you're opposed to it.  It's not the gay marriage that's the real problem, it's the underlying motivation.  I think more progress can be made if we get as close to the root of the disagreement as possible.  Debating the pros and cons of gay adoption won't really get us anywhere if our real disagreement is over whether we should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference or not.

As I say I think it's just the fact that there would be a legal precident to argue in that direction if someone wanted to.  You know as well as I that people with an ax to grind get off on forcing people to do what they don't want to do.  The answer to your first question is: the gay couple who were told by a pastor that he wouldn't marry them because the bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  What a power trip to force that person to preform the ceremony and eat his words or loose his church tax license, go to prison or get a fine.

Many churches rent out their building as a way of reaching out to poeple who are unsaved.  The vast majority of people get married in churches even if they are non-attenders or non-religious.  I don't understand it, but that's the facts.  To have to restrict the use of your building to church members only could be a problem, and if you require church membership for marriage ceremonies, then it opens up law suits for discrimination if you refuse to allow homosexuals to be church members.  If you think that's far-fetched, talk to the Boy Scouts.



Oh I beg to differ.  The bible explicitly defines homosexuality as sin.

Lev 18:22:
22. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

And:

1 Cor 6:9
9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,  nor sodomites,

And:

1 Tim 1:10
10. for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

And:

Rom 1:26-27
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Biblical doctrine is emphatic that homosexuality is a sin.  Now if your making the case that the temptation to be homosexual is not sinful, just the consumation of homosexuality, I might agree with you, however Jesus makes it plain that lust in the heart is the same as acting upon that lust, whether homosexual or streight.
I think it's important to say here that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin in God's eyes.  Sin is sin and it all needs to be repented of, so I'm not trying to paint a picture of homosexuals as any worse than any other sinner.  I have things in my life I struggle with and have to repent of, so I'm not condemning anyone.  The point is, the bible specifically teaches that homosexuality is sinful and if we start passing laws that could be used to prohibit pastors from preaching the teachings of the bible on the grounds that it's "discriminatory" or "hate speech" is very threatening, not to mention unconstitutional.

This isn't likely.  A catholic priest doesn't have to marry a jewish couple, and a rabbi doesn't have to marry a lutheran couple, and so on.  Religious leaders are free to set whatever conditions for their services that they desire.  Civil servants, on the other hand, would be required to give marriage licenses, even if they were opposed to gay marriage, I suppose.  But they're already required to provide licenses to any number of groups they might not agree with, so that's nothing new.


That I could see, and in such cases I would actually oppose the law forcing anyone to rent out their property to anyone they objected to.  Private citizens should be allowed to discriminate, the government shouldn't.  This is one of those cases where I may be well out of step with much of the left.


If the law protects the KKK when they have their rallies, I think your pastors are safe.  Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone's right to free speech.  Equating these separate issues only confuses the issue, and makes it harder to come to some kind of agreement.

I'm not positive, but I'm guessing the hate crimes bill would stifle this as well.

It's not a crime to rally, ergo it can't be a hate crime.  It would only be a hate crime if they committed an actual crime based on the victim's gender, race, religion, etc.

So yes, the KKK can and does continue to hold rallies.

The hate crimes bill has not yet passed.

While I'm (weakly) opposed to the idea laws defining "hate crimes" in general, my admittedly limited understanding of the bill is that it will only add sexual orientation and gender to the existing categories.  Expressing anti-gay biblical ideas would only become "hate" crimes if they were crimes already.  If I understand the bill (and there's a decent chance that I don't), it doesn't make anything new illegal, but rather increases the penalties for things already illegal depending upon the motives behind them.

Yes, it does make more sense to me. Thank you.  I'll try and catch up to your other questions.


I was pressed for time, and that could have been worded better. What I was trying to say, if marriage is altered to prevent discrimination, then whatever description it is given, in this case, male-male, or female-female will be married in the eyes of the law. By law, a marriage could not be shown less than another marriage based on the couple's orientation. It would be a protected right.


I'm a christian, and this may be a surprise, but I don't feel christianity teaches tolerance per say. Though it would make it interesting if I stopped there, I'll explain. God wants us to love the people He created. The greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind, and then also is to love our neighbor as yourself. And Jesus did love the people. He died for all of us, so that we could be with God. But that didn't happen so that people could do things that God doesn't want us to do. Jesus loved people who sinned, but He didn't love sin. Jesus didn't like it when the teachers and authorities made laws and rules that didn't lead to God. Matthew chapter 23 is a good example of how blunt, and controversial he could be. Jesus was taken to the authorities, and they begged for Jesus to be crucified.


I understand, but did the point make sense?

  I half suspect that research would say that is a better environment. I personally don't see how that could work in society. I think jealousy would make it difficult. Could you imagine a woman faking twice the number of headaches? ;) Tongue in cheek, there. I would think that all the reasons given so far would not apply in any way to that however. My answer would have to be that I wouldn't be ok with marriage being defined to three or more people. Falkus pointed out some problems with it, and I'd add tax laws, and insurance could possible collapse without a complete revision to anything to do with income tax, and child tax, refunds, etc.  I'd be half inclined to think that divorce might be the most unusual item to deal with ever. What if Barbie wants to divorce Ken, but stay married to Antonio, and Antonia wants to stay married to Ken? Really, I can't see how group situations could work by law.

I think that has more to do with the view one is coming from. At this point, from the view of others, they wouldn't want a law created to change marriage, as they feel it would be unjust. It's one of those things, two sides, (maybe more) where they have opposing ideas of what is right, and what is wrong. It's kind of subjective.


That definition is kind of vague. That would mean that a sister and brother could have a marriage if the law was redefined, or even multiple people, or even even a child and an adult, (with parental consent of course). It has some good points, like legal, and binding, and of course recognized by the law. But it does need more definition to be legally binding.




Strangely enough, when the law was changed in Canada, Marriage commissioner's were forced to officiate same sex weddings. Those who had religious views that did not accept same sex weddings were told they would not have a job. They were denied their religious beliefs. They were forced to quit, or perform the ceremony.

Yes, that's my point. We are seeing eye to eye.  Could you rephrase so I get a clear picture of what is being asked.



Because that's only one issue.

Bare with me, this will take a few lines of explanation. I'm not going to answer this at this time. I've found that if I throw out too much information topics are  "cherry picked", and while multiple ideas are there, each need extensive debate to clear up the reasons, the question, and the responses, plus follow up questions that arise. So for example, I'll give six reasons, and one person replies how full of garbage they are, and proceed to write up the problem with reasons 2 and 4, ignoring that 1, 3, 5 and 6 were valid.

A gluttony of information isn't helpful to a debate all at once. Quite Frankly, I also detest the idea that someone might take on the challenge of replying to each point all at once too. Then it takes an hour for each turn at replying what was addressed.



What help do they not get now? Child tax rebates, and income tax deductions are given to the child's guardian/parent.


I disagree with the wording here. Currently the laws are equal for all people. Rights don't apply to couples, but to individuals (I'm giving Heath credit for that one).



I'd call that a bias. Personal beliefs, and religious beliefs are rights we enjoy. You don't actually need to prove why you think something is good or bad before a vote for example. I'm not saying I'm trying to hide my belief. So my views don't impact the research that is out there.

I'm not that black and white. ;) Seriously though, I look at something, and can talk about something strongly for a myriad of reasons. With the current debate, I haven't brought up the bible because I'm not trying to debate if it's a sin. I'm trying to show the differences in a relationship. We're debating law, and rights, and to bring up the bible when talking about your's, or Vexen's, or Falkus' views has little to do with the bible.

I think I have been fairly accused as brutally honest. And if I wanted to hop on a soap box, and blast "them heathens and sinners!", I'd have people just keep on walking.

In this subject, I'm not bringing up the bible, because that isn't answering the questions brought up. That I'm a christian, and will bring up the bible in many posts yet to come on a variety of subjects is a given. I know you'll all be waiting excitedly for that. ;)

I think it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it that doesn't really explain my views on this.

It's not that I don't want to discriminate, as I do. In the sense of saying there's a difference, not in the manner that I want to say they aren't equal.

I'll have to go back and check, but I believe that it was in Canada that the CBC stopped a radio station from airing a religious group talk about homosexuality. I'll get more details about this.

:)



Well, you want adoption agencies to be able to treat gay couples differently than straight couples.  You've argued that if the gay couple were married, then it wouldn't be possible to differentiate.  I think that's a logical leap.  It's possible for two legally equal marriages to be differentiated, as illustrated by the example of income.  You're tacitly assuming that legalized gay marriage equals no discrimination at the adoption agency.  What you're really concerned about is the latter, but you're arguing against the former by treating them as the same thing.  So the question, I guess, is do you agree that it's possible for legally equal marriages to be differentiated.  If so, let's drop down to a slightly more fundamental level, and discuss the issue of legal discrimination, rather than the issue of gay marriage, which is more a consequence of the issue.




That's fair enough.  But we've reached a level of agreement on the one point you've raised so far, but still don't agree on whether gay marriage should be legalized.  So we need to address the next point.  One at a time is fine by me.




Well, here we get back to the assumption that marriage is intended to be about raising kids.  I'm not sure if I agree with that assumption, but it seems to be taken as fact by the anti-gay-marriage side, so let's work with it.  If it's better for kids to have married parents than non-married parents, why not let gay parents get married?  If being married is an aid to parents that helps them successfully raise children, why not give that same aid to gay parents?

Conversely, if marriage isn't any benefit, why extend it to straight couples?



That's an unfair dodge, though.  Saying gay people have the right to marry opposite sex people is silly.  It's like making a law that outlawed marriages between christians, and when they called it unfair, telling them "well, you can still get married, you just have to marry a non-christian.  You have the same rights as everyone else here.  Couples don't have rights, individuals do.  You've got the same right to marry a non-christian as everyone else."  Marriage is about couples.  To act as though it's not is to ignore the obvious.  The law treats homosexual couples as inferior to straight couples.  There's no getting around that.  Heath even makes this more explicit.  He says 'why should the government support that kind of relationship?'  He's made it clear that the idea is to promote one kind of relationship because it's better.  If you disagree with him, fair enough, I hadn't realized.  If you do agree with him, though, the question stands:  why treat gay couples as inferior to straight couples if everyone is as good as everyone else?


I'm not asking you to prove anything is good or bad before you vote, though.  I'm trying to understand why you're voting the way you are.  We could both sit here and just vote "aye" or "nae" to various topics, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.  Figuring out our fundamental motivations does, though.  Yes, you have the right to your religious beliefs, and you're free to vote based on them.  I'm not trying to take that away from you.  But if you're religious beliefs *are* what determines your vote, that's what I want to talk about.  Not about adoption, because that doesn't alter either of our votes.  At the end of the day, you vote one way, and I vote another, because there's some issue we disagree on.  That disagreement may lead to a number of other disagreements, such as adoption, but those other disagreements aren't really the true difference.  That true difference is where we should focus our efforts, because everything else is just a consequence of that difference.

My best guess is that our point of disagreement is something like you want laws to maximize the number of people doing what God wants, whereas I want laws to maximize people's ability to make up their own minds.  I think the point of disagreement that leads to that is that you're completely confident in your beliefs about God, whereas I think no one's got it all figure out.  Other people's freedoms aren't as important to you as it is to me, because you're convinced you know if what they're doing is right or wrong, whereas I think they're just as likely to be right as you, or me, or anyone else, since we're all just humans trying to do the best we can with limited information.  I think if we could come to some agreement about that, all of the other, higher level stuff, would fall into place.  If you could convince me that that your religion is obviously right and the others are obviously wrong, then my view on gay marriage would shift, without having to discuss points 1-6 or whatever.  Likewise, if I could convince you that you could be wrong, and you're only just about as likely to be right as anyone else, you'd probably be much more likely to let other people figure things out on their own, again without us having to debate points 1-6.

That's really what I'm getting at here.  I'm trying to peel back the layers of disagreement to the true sticking point.  The issue over adoption isn't what determines either of our positions on gay marriage, it's just something we argue over because we feel it back up our side.  We can both bring studies that show X, Y, or Z, but really we'll both just think our own studies are good and the other's aren't, so that doesn't get us anywhere either.  All that is just consequence of our more fundamental disagreement.  Does that make sense?


True, but it has a lot to do with your view (at least I think so).  I don't think adoption really has a lot to do with anyone's view on gay marriage, to be honest.  It's a side issue to be sorted out afterwards for most people.  I'm guessing that even if all studies showed that children were better off raised by two gay men than by a man and a women that you wouldn't change your oppinion on gay marriage.  I wouldn't be too surprized if it turned out that gay couples aren't statistically as good as straight couples at raising kids (though the studies seem to show otherwise), but it wouldn't make me think gay marriage should stay illegal.  To make any progress on this, we need to get down to the issue that would change our views.  I'm guessing that our views of the certainty of your religion is that point.  If I became as certain as you about your religion, then my views of gay marriage would match yours, and if you became as uncertain about it as I am, your view of gay marriage would match mine.


Certainly, and I'm not suggesting you do that by any means.  But if the bible is the real reason you oppose gay marriage, to change people's minds you need to convince them that your view of the bible is correct.  To change your mind, I'm guessing I'd have to convince you that there's a real chance that you're wrong about God.  Not necesssarily that you are wrong, but that it's at least possible.


Well, saying there's a difference means they're not equal, really.  But I'm trying to use 'discriminate' as you mean it: recognizing a difference.  Perhaps 'differentiate' is a less politicaly charged word, so I'll use that instead.  You want to be able to differentiate between gay couples and straight couples.  Fair enough, I think that should be legal too.  But I think gay marriage doesn't prevent that, though other laws might.


This was in your discussion with Mr. Crinkles, but I thought I'd add my thoughts.  Marriage commissioners, I assume, are government employees.  It's very different to force government employees to treat people a certain way, as opposed to forcing clergy to treat people a certain way.  You should be free to practice your religious views, but if your jobs duty's conflict with your religious views, I don't think your employer is obligated to keep you on.  If your religions says part of your job is wrong, and you shouldn't do it, that's probably a job you shouldn't keep.

I'll come back to the rest of your post tonight, as I have only a little time before heading off to work.

The problem I see with this is that means you can fire someone based on their religious beliefs. Think of it this way. They were perfectly capable of the job before, and now, due to their religious beliefs, they are considered incapable. Fired for religious beliefs is illegal.

As long as it doesn't create undue hardship, alternatives are made to accommodate. For examples, there are people who want to take holy days off for their specific religion. You accommodate their beliefs even though you may not celebrate those same holy days.

If that means the commissioners are to be marked not available for some parts because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, then you accommodate that. Imagine telling someone that can't have their holy days off because they don't match Christmas, or Easter. Human rights would be all over that.

Freedom of religion is one of the rights that the USA and Canada are quite vocal, and legendary for.

Well then why don't we just say commissioners hired before the allowance of gay marriages can make a religious claim indicating they can't do those marriages, but all new ones know the rules when they're getting hired and can't make that claim.  Would that then make it okay?



I don't know about Canada, but here, if you want to take off a holy day, you spend leave just like everyone else.  If for some reason the company can't give you leave, you gotta work on that day.  I haven't heard any human rights complaints, however.

They're not being fired for their religious beliefs.  They're being fired for being incapable of doing their job.  Their reason for refusing to do parts of the job may be religious, but it's the fact that they're not doing their job that actually matters.  A christian who married gay couples, even though he thought they were wrong to get married, could keep his job.

An example might be a hindu applying for a job at Mcdonalds, and then refusing to serve anyone hamburgers because it was against their religion.  Mcdonalds would be well within their rights to fire any employee who wouldn't serve people beef, even if the person's reasons for not serving beef were religious.

The simple fact of the matter is that if your religion prevents you from carrying out the duties of a particular job, you're not the best candidate for that job, and someone else should have it.

Freedom of religion only means that no one can stop you from practicing your religion.  It doesn't mean anyone else has to accomodate your particular needs.  They're free to if they like (and in many cases will), but they shouldn't be required to.


Employers are certainly free to make accomodations, but they shouldn't be required to do so.  In this case, they'd have to hire someone who would give out marriage licenses to gay couples, in addition to the one who wouldn't.  If that 2nd person could do the whole job by themselves, I don't see any reason to keep the 1st person on the payroll.  Religious holidays are fairly easy to work around.  A person simply refusing to perform their duties isn't.


Maybe in Canada, but in the US there's nothing that guarantees you the days off that you want off.  Most employers will work with you to give you the days you want, but no law forces them to do so (to my knowledge).


Yes, but again freedom of religion just means you're free to practice your religion, not that anyone else has to help you do it.  It's sort of like freedom of speech: you're free to say what you like, but nothing compels other people to listen to you.  If swear at your boss, you won't have much luck arguing your first amendment rights when you get fired.  In this case, you're free to practice your religion, but if that means you can't do your job, you're going to get fired.

*** Okay, I see your points, but wouldn't the whole "Seperation of Church and State" thing come into play? (I'm not trying to say you're wrong, btw, just figuring out why I am.) I guess I don't see how the government can force a church official to perform a church function, or to allow church property to be used for non-church purposes, or to allow people to join a church against the church's will. With the Boy Scouts, there was no conflict between church and state, so they were rightly forced to not discriminate, but I'd think a church would be different.


*** What I was saying is that the Bible doesn't say that being gay is a sin. It says that acting gay is a sin. Yes, I'm aware of the "lust in your heart" argument, but I don't think we can equate temptation with actual sin, as Jesus Himself was tempted, yet He was also without sin.


*** So would I, to a point. I think it's wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent an apartment to someone just becos he doesn't like the group they belong too, for example, but a church shouldn't have to rent their building out to just anyone either.


*** Okay, I'm still not clear on how this is a bad thing.


*** I'm not trying to be offensive, I swear, but DUH!!!


*** No, you're right. It's God's fault that people can do things He doesn't like. He's the one who came up with that whole "free-will" nonsense.


*** Yeah, and maybe people are better about that today, but scientific/medical breakthroughs have always had opposition from religion, and I really don't see that changing anytime soon.


*** Is it just becos of the legal issues, or is there another reason?


*** And I intended it to be. The law should be vague on something like this. From a legal standpoint, I see no reason why a brother and sister should not be allowed to marry. Ditto for your other examples. Anyone capable of consenting to a marriage should be allowed to be married.


*** Okay, what's a Marriage Commisioner? If that's a religious job, then I think what happened was wrong. If it's a civil job, then I don't. Tycho said it better:



*** Not true. If two (or more) individuals all want to participate in the same marriage, the law won't allow them to. Also, unless you're going to define anyone under 21 as "not people", the law is EXTREMELY discriminatory where they're concerned.


*** And everyone has the right to their own beliefs. The problem comes when person A tries to force person B to live in accordance with person A's beliefs, without regard for person B's beliefs.


*** Unless your reason for wanting a law is Biblical. Then it has a lot to do with it. Ex: I believe the law against driving under the influence is a good one, becos it helps people more than it hurts. This has nothing to do with my Biblical beliefs, so in this instance, the Bible is irrelevant. But if I wanted a law against drinking simply becos I think the Bible is against it, then it would be relevant.


*** No, it means you can fire someone for actions based on their religious beliefs. No one is saying they're incapable of doing the job; they'd be fired for refusing to do it. It's not becos of their beliefs, it's becos of their refusal to work.


*** This is why (in the US, at least), we have the law phrased as "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when talking about religion. Yes, you're free to practice your religion as you see fit, but I don't have to help you do it.

Gay marriage needs to be made legal. To say it's not is basicly saying that homosexuals are secound class citizens that don't have the same rights and privalidges that someone of a different sexual orientation, any arguments against such a motion are just excuses.

Careful, your bias is showing (as well as your lack of knowledge about history).  This isn't the thread for a proper discussion, but I think a little research will show how very wrong this statement is.

Just want to check something here for clarity's sake.  When I asked TitL about wearing garments made of two fabrics (which is declare unnaccecptable in the next chapter of Leviticus), he said that doesn't apply to christians, it's just a rule for the jews.  First of all, do you agree with him on that?  And if so, wouldn't this statement fall under the same category?

If you feel Leviticus shows God's true thoughts on this matter, do you think Leviticus 20:13 holds as well?  If the crime is still just as much a crime as it was at this time, should the punishment remain the same as well?  What is your opinion of those who do think Lev 20:13 is still God's intention, and preach such from the pulpit?

I find that Leviticus is one of those books that christians tend to pick and choose from.  They keep what they like, and what they don't like, they say is 'just for the jews of that time.'

I did ask a variation of that question on another thread, why is it Christians follow some of the laws and twist or ignore others? And only the Ultra orthodox wrear pure cotton, silk ect, do you know how difficult and expensive it is to do that in this day and age? And do you know about mixing strains also applies to food aswell?

The short answer is Jesus has made a new covenant with us, so the old covenant (including the rules in Leviticus) no longer necessarily apply.  However, SOME rules of the old covenant do carry over, and they are described in the New Testament (so for instance, murder is still wrong, and Jesus makes this clear).  As it happens, the rules against eating shellfish and wearing mixed-cloth clothes are not passed on in the New Testament, however the rules against homosexuality (and sexual immorality in general) explicitly are.  In fact, I believe it's Paul where the question arises about whether Gentile converts should be circumcised and otherwise follow the Jewish laws and traditions, to which Paul responds that they do not need to follow any of the Jewish laws, except those in the New Testament, some other minor things, and to avoid sexual immorality.

If that's the case, I'd urge christians not to use Leviticus when arguing that homosexuality is wrong.  Fair game to use the NT stuff, but if Jesus made Leviticus obsolete, bringing it up seems a bit shady.  I think this is particularly important in light of Lev. 20:13.  If that's no longer valid, then it's probably a good idea not to point people towards Lev. 18:22, since they're in the same book, and on the same topic.  It's hard to see how one would be valid and the other not.

By the by, did Jesus say homosexuality is wrong in the NT, or is it only Paul's words that say it is?  I can't remember Jesus speaking on homosexuality off the top of my head, but it's quite possible I've forgotten something.

At a glance, it looks like it's primarily letters from Paul and a book in Timothy 1.  If you're going to say that Paul took Christianity in a different direction than Jesus originally intended, I'm half-way inclined to agree.

I'm not sure this thread will allow for an extensive answer on Old Testament/New Testament theology, but the short answer is this.

The Old Testament represents the old covenant with Abraham and the Jews.  It was put in place to show us that righeousness could not be obtained by observance of the law alone.  With the coming of Christ and the introduction of the New Covenant through Christ, the reqirements of the law were fulfilled.  This in no way means that the law was done away with, but that righteousness has been attained through Christ so that the power to keep the law is in us through Christ.  In the case of what some call "domestic" laws (the treatment of mold and mildew, mixed fabrics, dealing with women during ther minstration times, etc) these laws are seen in the light of context.  The children of Israel were living as nomads in the dessert, water was hard to come by, fabric even more so, and they didn't have S.C. Johnson and Wax pumping out cleaners and disinfectants.  Seen in this light, these laws were meant to help the Isrealites to stay healthy and provide for a time of need.

Furthermore, in specific to Lev 18:22, the idea that homosexuality is an abomination is established in both old and new covenants.  You find it in Leviticus and in the teachings of the New Testament, therefore it is carried over into the new covenant.  To understand the law I will steal a quote from a pastor named James McDonald from Walk in the Word ministries.  He often says, "When God says don't he means don't hurt yourself."  Looking at the law in the light of a loving Father, we see that the "domestic" laws were given as a help, not a burden, as is every law in the old testament.  It's God's owner's manual for the human life, and if we opperate under the guidance we find in the scriptures, we flourish and will avoid many of the pitfalls we find ourselves in.  (Yep, that's the short answer!)

Ha!  I just saw Katisara answered pretty close to the same as I just typed.  Ah well, great minds and all! :)



To make this argument work you have to have some convincing, reliable evidence that homosexuality isn't actually a choice.  I'm still not at all convinced that anyone is simply "born gay".  To me it's like saying murderers should be considered a minority and due special consideration because they were just born murderers.  There's as much evidence for this argument as for the other.  The case can also be made that homosexuality has done as much damage as murder due to the rampant spread of AIDS among homosexual men.  I realize that's not a popular or politically correct statement to make.  Please understand that as I said in my last post, I don't condemn homosexuals nor do I fear or hate them.  Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than pride or lying or greed.  God doesn't hate homosexuals any more or less than he hates liars, the prideful or the greedy.  The bible makes it clear that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.  That's all of us.  This doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is discribed as a sin in both Old and New covenants, and is therefore sin that must be repented of, no matter it's origin.

I think reading the bible, a few things are pretty clear:
1)  Temptation happens.  This is never your fault, whether the temptation is homosexual, heterosexual, to murder, etc.  It just happens that some things will tempt you specifically.
2)  You entertain the temptation in your head.  You dwell on it, consider it, maybe play it out.  This IS your fault.  You might for a moment feel so upset with someone you genuinely want to kill him, but considering it further is where it becomes a sin.  Thinking about having sex with someone who is not your spouse is a sin.  Whether it is sinful to dwell on non-sexual homosexual activities I'll let other people debate.
3)  You physically engage in the temptation.  This is also obviously a sin.  Having sex out of wedlock, having homosexual sex, murdering people are all sins according to the bible.  That is pretty clear and I don't think anyone here has debated it.

So if Joe happens to see an attractive man walking by and feels momentarily aroused, that's okay.  If he continues to think about that man or allow himself to get more aroused, then he's going into the red zone.

Here's another related, but slightly different, discussion/question that I'm rather curious about. Of the last few years, there have been quite a few very hardcore Christians who preached against homosexuality, but then were caught doing homosexual things (Ted Haggard and Larry Crieg come to mind). And, often, I hear something similar to what we appear to be addressing now: this temptation, this repressed desire, that brought them to sin.

Now, let me ask you all something: have you ever felt this temptation you that that is described here? I don't. The only time I've thought about another woman naked is when it was deplicted in a story, or perhaps, when I'm comparing certain anatomy to certain people. Now, I might have some tempuious thoughts about some of the men in my life, but that just doesn't happen to me in terms of another female.

This is comming from someone who isn't homophobic. I wouldn't think of myself any less if I were a lesbian. I'm not disgusted by the female form (in fact, I think it much more pleasant and easy on the eyes). However, the thoughts just don't occur to me uless I force it. I don't feel any temptation. And, asking this question around my circle, the only friends I know who expressed having temptations or desires to be with one of the same sex were ones who identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Does this experience differ from any of yours? Could it simply be that those who feel this temptation are simply those who are, for whatever reason, just homosexual or bisexual? Or is this just me?

I agree 100% with what Katisara just said.  James 1:16 (I believe) speaks to this "progression of sin".  See Katisara, we do agree on something! :)

The case can also be made that homosexuality has done as much damage as murder due to the rampant spread of AIDS among homosexual men.

What's your opinion on African Americans, a community equally afflicted by AIDS and equally spreading it? Are you going to argue that the black community has done as much damage as murder?

Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than pride or lying or greed.

You're free to consider it a sin. But freedom of religion means that you can't impose that view on other people. It's not up to society to make your religion law.

This doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is discribed as a sin in both Old and New covenants, and is therefore sin that must be repented of, no matter it's origin.

And that doesn't change the fact that I, and four billion other people, deny the concept of sinning as Christianity defines it.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:23, Wed 05 Mar 2008.

*** Yeah, I do too. My concept of being homosexual is that it's #1 on the list. Doing something about it is #2 or #3, depending on what you do. This is why I take issue with people who say "homosexuality" is a sin, as opposed to saying "homosexual behaviour".

Perhaps we're looking at this differently, but a single person cannot be discriminated based on sexual orientation when it comes to adoption, so I don't see how that would change with a couple. I do not feel in the situation of the law changing the definition of marriage will allow for the differentiation between couples that have different sexual preference.




The largest issue that I can see in that is that children are a result of two sexes, not same sexes. In order for the same sex to have children, that seems they are not staying with the father or mother of the child, in order to be with a same sex. I think most of us agree that doesn't benefit the child most. If this applies to adoption, the earlier argument we discussed would apply.

It is a benefit. There's a legal benefit for paternity in the event of one spouse dies. The spouse automatically becomes next of kin. Anyone know of another benefit being married gives to you?

I'm no lawyer, but can't all benefits of marriage be enacted through legal papers? Next of kin, living will, property in two names, etc?




Maybe I'm putting words in Heath's mouth, but did he say that the government gives the benefit because it does benefit itself from the action? Future tax payers?

That's a side point. The law is not unfair. The law doesn't care if it is right or wrong. The law only determines legal and illegal. And in this case, the law is equal. Every person has the same rights. The law isn't saying any person is worth less than another.


This may surprise you, but I disagree with you. ;) I'm teasing actually. I agree with the concept, but disagree with the response. If you want to discuss christian beliefs, we're in the wrong thread. So while I accept you say that you want to discuss my beliefs, and not same sex adoption, the posts seem to disagree with that. Personally, I'm enjoying checking out the new research that I'm learning about, and the ideas that develop from this. The points are provoking, and I'm learning a lot from these threads. I think if I only wanted to talk about the bible, and nothing else everyone else wants to talk about, I could do so by posting only in bible related threads. I think it's a two way street. You're an agnostic, and yet you want to talk about God in other threads. I think this is a general view of people to have different ideas, and subjects that can be discussed, and still be of interest. Talking about same sex adoption might prove quicker, then talking about christianity or agnosticism.

I agree with that.

Yep.


Actually, I think people have a variety of views, and can come to the same conclusions regardless of religion. If a study does conclude that children would do better in most situations, we would want to encourage that as a society. Let's say for example it says that education would be more beneficial at age 4, and extended to age 19. I'm all for it. I think you would be too. Unless your view is based on faith, then if studies say it is best, it's for the best. It might even change your view on what is being asked for, and why it is being asked for. If the conditions are what influence your decision, and the conditions are different than your expectations, changes should occur.


I'll guess we'll have to see where things go. I'm not opposed to talking about the bible if that's what people want.


Sure, differentiate is fine.

I think most of us agree that doesn't benefit the child most.

I seem to recall everybody on the pro-homosexual marriage side of the argument disagreeing with you on this matter, along with every major psychological research institution in the western world.

Tycho and I were still talking about the adoption part, and impact. It does follow over from the previous thread, and so it's kind of a long process of how it came to this page/thread.


I must have missed something? I was trying to respond to the previous post from you.




The education of the world in the ancient, and almost recent history is due to religion. Books, education, reading, science, etc. Basically near all universities were started by church funding. I know today it is near unthinkable that the top universities in the world originated due to religion.


Well, there are other reasons. I think plenty of the reasons would be similar for why sisters and brother can't marry, or a mother and her son can't marry, or an adult and a child can't marry.


So best friends, niece and aunt, mother and son, room mates, etc could marry too? Why would the law need to recognize these unions? I mean society needs to have mothers, best friends, aunts, and so on. But why is it important to legally recognize these couples?


It's not a civil servant job. As a matter of course, marriage commissioner's can opt not to marry anyone else. But if they opt out of marrying same sex couples, they will lose their job. You can fill out some forms, and become one yourself. It's like a driver's license, available to anyone.



Equal means the same for everyone. The law applies to everyone means it is equal. No one can legally participate in polygamy, which means everyone is treated equally by this law.


I agree.


Actually, I agree with you. That's why I haven't been bring up the bible in this subject. We're debating the laws, and the consequences of changes in law.


Actually, a pastor in a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, but a marriage commissioner couldn't. He was being treated differently for their religious beliefs. A clear case of unequal treatment. It would have mattered if they were a civil servant. If they are performing a function down also by others, and they are being treated differently, then it is not equal treatment for what they are doing.

In this case, they are being treated differently than others who can marry. A clear case of discrimination that is illegal. It's still in the courts, and we'll have to see what happens.

An easier way of handling that is to accommodate them. Let them be the one work the breakfast menu, cooking up eggs, bacon, and sausages. Or let them be the french fry cook. Or janitor, etc.

If someone has a religious belief, wouldn't you try and accommodate them? We're not talking about ruining your business, but making alternatives available. Like offering the name of a marriage commissioner that will marry the couple.



Let's make a comparison, a job is changed, and now requires heavy lifting. The person who had the job is a woman. She can't lift those heavy things. Should she be fired?

At the risk of splitting hairs, I would say that the temtation of homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexuality is.  Being homosexual implies intent at least and would fall under the "taking it to heart".  If you identify yourself with it, obviously it's more than a temptation in your life.  I think essentially we agree, just not on terms.



No I would not say that by being black, the black community has done as much damage as murder, but I would say that their higher incidence of hypodermic drug use, sharing sexual partners, and unprotected sex has done as much damage as murder.  See Falkus, your opperating under the false assumption that homosexuality is equal to a race or gender and it's not as far as I can tell.  Homosexuality is as much a choice as greed or hate or any other emotional state.  Choices have consiquences and AIDS is one of the consiquences of homosexuality, sharing needles and sexual partners, having unprotected sex, etc.  Are there now innocent people being effected by AIDS through blood transfusions and through birth?  Yep, just like a lot of innocent people are effected by someone choosing to drink and drive and hit an innocent person just going about thier daily routine, or a person who chooses to hate another person and does a drive-by shooting and the bullet misses it's target and hits an innocent kid sitting at his desk by a window doing his homwork.  Sin always has a consiquence no matter what "race" you are.



We actually weren't talking about making "my religion" law.  Mr. Crinkles made a statement that the bible didn't specifically teach that homosexuality was a sin, and I showed him from scripture that the bible does call it sin.  The conversation was about the bible and therefore the bible is the context in which we were defining sin.
We also weren't talking about making my religion law, but in protecting the rights of pastors to preach from the bible in their own churches about homosexuality being a sin.  There is a belief that the hate crimes bill would give legal precident to call that sort of thing "hate speech".

We've been down this road too many times Falkus, we both know we don't agree about this, so why beat a dead horse.  It's not making religion law to allow the system of govornment we've chosen to take it's course.  If you want homosexual marriage legalized, vote in a representative that believes in that and get him or her elected, but don't falt me for doing the same thing.

I'm curious as to what the legal definition of religion is.  In a legal document like the bill of rights, what constitutes a religion?  Does it have to center on a "higer power"?  Heath, any help?

Jude 3, I think you missed some of the more specific questions in my post:



Another question, is how do we tell which parts of Leviticus were just for the nomadic jews, and which are for us today?  If some are just "domestic" laws, and some are really important now, how do we tell?  As far as I can tell from most christians today, you tell by which ones you already follow.  The ones you don't happen to follow were just meant for the jews back then.  Beating slaves?  People who owned slaves thought that applied to them.  People who don't think it's just for the jews.  Homosexuality?  Non-homosexuals think that applies now, pro-gay rights people don't.  Shellfish?  People who like to eat seafood think it's just for the jews.  Clothes of two types of cloth?  Just for the jews back then.

In this case, I think it stretches credibility to say 18:22 is still valid, but 20:13 isn't.
And (fortunately) I haven't heard anyone saying 20:13 is still valid.


The trouble here is that any evidence that is brought up will be deemed "unreliable."  Just as all the studies that show that children can do fine with gay parents are deemed "flawed" or "too liberal" or "biased" or whatever.  What kind of evidence would be convincing and reliable in your opinion?  Would the fact that some animals practice homosexuality convince you it's a natural occurence?  Would any number of gay people telling you that they'd been gay as long as they could remember?  What information is needed to convince you?  I mean this honestly.

Bumping this, as no one seems to have replied yet, and I think it's a very good question.  I've ask similar ones before.  I agree with Vexen on this.  Though I'm pro-gay rights, and have no problem with gay people, I'm simply not attracted to men, and couldn't just decide to be so if I wanted to.  You can't choose (or at least I can't) who you are or aren't attracted to.  If you could, life would be so much easier.

*** Right, I get all that, but I don't see why orientation should matter in ANY circumstances, including adoption.


*** You wouldn't want to marry your best friend? No, but my point is, anyone who is capable of consenting to a marriage should have the right to be married. It's important to legally recognise these marriages for the same reasons it'd be important to recognise any marriage.


*** So it's like being a Notary? I guess my question would be why they're allowed to opt out of marrying anyone. I mean, I'm thinking if someone takes the job, it's to marry people, so ... <shrug>. And still, the pastor is a religious person, so he'd logically be allowed to opt out on religious grounds. That makes sense. The other isn't religious, so he oughtn't be allowed to opt out on religious grounds.


*** And see, in that case, the couple in question ought to say, "Thank you; we'll go look him up." If they don't, then the couple would be the one in the wrong, not the commissioner.


*** And I think that's where the problem is. A lot of people (myself included) believe that it is NOT a choice; that it is how you're born, and therefore IS equal to race, gender, etc.

Wait, a single person cannot be discriminated based on sexual orientation during adoption?  If that's the case, how will gay marriage laws change things?  Again, I think you're worried about the wrong law.  The law you're really talking about is one that allows or prevents differentiation based on orientation, not gay marriage laws.






The trouble, though, is that you're confusing the cause and the effect.  Whether or not gay marriage is legal, the parents are still going to be gay.  All that can change is wether or not they're married.  Preventing them from getting married isn't going to change one of them to the opposite sex.  So, if the children of gay parents would be better off if their parents were married, why not let them get married?





If being married is a benefit, then why not provide it to gay couples raising children?

If all the benefits can be obtained through legal papers, why have marriage at all?  Does it only reproduce existing benefits?  Is there any advantage to having them all bundled into one?  If so, why not provide it to gay parents as well?  Whey make it harder for them, when it's there (or so you claim) to help people raise kids?






Again, though, this is a dodge.  Marriage is about far more than procreation.  And considering that gay couples can have kids these days, it doesn't even really apply.  But if it did, then we'd only give marriage licenses to people who already had kids.  We wouldn't let sterile couples get married, or people who didn't intend to have kids, or women too old to have kids, etc.  Society already clearly sees marriage without kids as a viable, acceptable, and encouraged option.  To pretent otherwise is to ignore so many cases as to be silly.  To claim that marriage is soley about generating future tax payers is cynical to the point of being offensive.  It's also silly, since people can procreate just as well without marriage.  There'd be plenty of tax payers whether we have marriage laws or not.  Let's be honest here.  When you asked your wife to marry you (or she asked you) were you really thinking "well, time to help the government out by generating future tax payers?"  In your marriage ceremony, did it talk about loving, helping, commitment, etc., or did it talk about taxes and duties to the federal government?  When you think about the success of a marriage, do you think about how much tax money the offspring from that marriage have produced, or do you think about how the couple has stayed together, worked together, supported and aided each other?


The law doesn't care if it's right or wrong?  Only because it's an idea, not a person.  I very much care if a law is right or wrong, as do you, and as does everyone here, I would wager.  And in this case Heath (and I think you agree with him, correct me if I'm wrong) IS very much saying that certain couples are worth less than others.  He's saying the law should discourage one type of couple, and encourage another because one is more valuable than the other.  Do you agree that's what he's saying?  If so, do you agree with him?

Yeah, if you could do that without affecting your business, that'd be great.  But you don't have to do so by law.


I would try if it was done easily.  But if they're simply not doing their job, I'm not going to go too far out of my for them.  In the example you offer here, yeah, if he did the leg work of finding someone else to marry them, I think that'd be fine.  If he just said "no, find someone else" then it'd be less so.  From what you've posted, though, I may have misunderstood the canadian system, though.  I was thinking a marriage commissioner was a paid position, like a clerk at the courthouse, whose job it was to marry people.  If this is just a license that any citizen can get, like a driver's license, then I agree that they should be free to marry or not marry whoever they like for whatever reason they like.


In part it depends on who did the changing of the job.  If laws changed, and thus the job was required to change, then she could be fired.  If the boss just decided to change the job, there might be contract issues.  Either way, ideally, the boss would find her some other job, but he's not obligated to do so.  You can law someone off simply because you don't need them any more.  If they can't do the job you need done, it's fine to let them go.  It's not religious discrimination to do so, it's ability-to-do-the-job-discrimination.

r.  See Falkus, your opperating under the false assumption that homosexuality is equal to a race or gende

No Jude. You are completely and utterly wrong in this. Every psychological association in the western world disagrees with you on this. Your sexuality is no more a choice than your gender or your race. It develops throughout your lifespan as a result of your genetics and your environment, there is no point where you can say 'I want to be a homosexual or a bisexual or a heterosexual' and become that. It is beyond your control.

You tell me what makes you the final word on human psychology? Why should I take your word over the APA or the surgeon general or every other major psychological research institute?

Choices have consiquences and AIDS is one of the consiquences of homosexuality

You have to got to be joking. Do you honestly believe this?

HIV and AIDS has higher incidence among homosexuality because of luck of the draw, it's got nothing to do with it being a 'punishment' for sin. Believing otherwise shows a sad lack of understanding of HIV and AIDS actually work. It could have just as easily been heterosexuals who mostly suffer it.

Sin always has a consiquence no matter what "race" you are.

There's no such thing as sin.

I'm not a Christian, don't you get that? You'll find that I will be very difficult to sway me by arguing about 'sin' and 'god' and stuff like that.

If you want homosexual marriage legalized, vote in a representative that believes in that and get him or her elected, but don't falt me for doing the same thing.

But is legalized. I'm a Canadian. I've essentially 'won' on this issue in my country. And it's only a matter of time before its completely legalized in the United States.

Oh, and this isn't an issue for the government or the people to decide, any more than the abolition of school segregation was. This is a human rights issue, it's something for the courts to decide.

Yes Jude, we probably agree on quite a lot actually!  I just like to make trouble :P



I did, briefly.  Most males go through it in adolescence.  Generally it isn't serious enough to lead to anything, even to seriously dwell on it, but there is a period in most boys' lives when they are so full of hormones they'll at least consider doing just trying just about anything.

After I passed around fifteen though, things settled down.  I have had gay room mates, but there was never any temptation.  I think I flirted with them once or twice for fun, just to tease (not serious flirting, just of-the-cuff compliments, silly stuff like that).  The female body is simply much nicer, I think.  But overall my temptations lie elsewhere.

It is not uncommon though for people who struggle with a particular temptation, especially one they can't openly share, to become strongly polarized against it, even to an irrational level.  If you struggle with something every day, it just changes your psychology.  The best thing I can really recommend for those people is being honest with at least one other person.  I went through a long process of shutting up one temptation and in my vigor to do that, something equally bad grew in the darkness.  As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I thought I answered this question nicely:



As far as my opinion of those who think OT law is still God's intention, I say the same thing Paul says in the New Testament:
"If righteousness through the law was something to be obtained, then Christ died for nothing."



Again, I think I answered this in post 38:



This may not be all-inclusive, but it's a good starting point.  Again, I think some common sense is in order.  If we take the context of where the Isrealites were when Leviticus was given and the challenges they faced we can see the wisdom of the "laws" on things like sleeping with your wife while she's menstrating when you probably didn't bathe very often or have ways of dealing with bacteria and desease transmission.  Besides, if you can't control your lust enough to wait until menstration is past, you're probably in violation of some of the other laws that are much more clearly defined.  That's just an opinion.



I try not to find fault just to make my own case stand.  I'm sure I've done this before, but I'm trying to see evidence for what it is rather than who presents it.  I think we're all fooling ourselves if we think statistics are completely impartial, because people are not completely impartial, but I'll try and field some of the ones you've put here.
I'm not sure you can make the case that some animals "practice" homosexuality.  The fact that a dog mounts another male dog isn't, in my opinion, an act of homosexuality.  For one thing, animals are instinctual and not "intelligent" thinkers.  To me this would also make the case for eating one's own vomit and licking one's own.... well anyway you get the overly graphic picture.
Also I would be interested to see if this is something that's only seen in domesticated animals or if it's seen in animals that are totally wild and uninfluenced by human contact.  Another thought is that if you follow this line of thinking, homosexuality would be soley about the act of intercourse and nothing about relationship, so why would they care about marriage?  In the animal world you might see two male hippos mount up, but they certainly don't cohabitate afterwords.  Animals that do cohabitate do so in male and female.  I'm guessing you might have an exception in mind, but it would be just that, an exception, and therefore if you follow your example, homosexuality would be simply about gay sex, short term, and incompatible to reproduction.

People saying that they have been gay as long as they remember isn't very convincing in my mind either for the reasons I stated before.  If a person says they've felt drawn to start fires for as long as they could remember or they've hated blacks for as long as they can remember or they've had a compulsion to take what doesn't belong to them as long as they can remember, does it mean that this person was was born to steal, be a pyro, or a biggot?  Even if this was true, should we then say that thieves, arsonists and Nazi's should be considered minorities and be given special consideration under the law?

As far as what would convince me, as you know the bible is an important part of my worldview, so first and foremost someone would have to make a fairly strong biblical argument that God not only condoned, but created people to be homosexual.  Otherwise some pretty conclusive scientific evidence that there is specific gene structures that are common to homosexuals would be a consideration, but in fairness, since I'm not well versed in this, it probably wouldn't sway me.



Supporting evidence please?



Hmmm... this is interesting to me because my understanding is that the scientific community was divided pretty evenly on the idea.  This also wouldn't explain people who come out of one form of sexuality into another in my mind.

As far as "what makes me the final word...", nothing and no one.  I'm not the final word nor have I ever claimed to be.  Last time I checked this site was about debate, so if you don't agree, say so and support it, but don't come at me with antagonistic retoric that has no bearing on the topic like your some high and mighty defender of the APA.  You have this tendancey to put out one or two sentence posts that say little more than "is not!" with nothing to support it.  I'd appriciate a bit more content from someone who makes a play at being an intellectual.





Yep, other than you took my statement out of context, I do.



Hmmm... luck of the draw eh?  I'd like to see the evidence you have for that.  If it could have just as easily been hetrosexuals, then why wasn't it and if it's still luck of the draw then why is it still homosexuals that have a higher contracting rate?  I'm well aware of how HIV and AIDS works, it's transfered by bodily fluids such as blood and semen.  If you have unprotected sex with multiple partners you kind of stack the deck in your luck of the draw senario don't you?  If you swap dirty needles you stack the deck in your favor don't you?  Sounds like a bit more than luck to me, and again, I hold to the idea that it's not a "punishment" but a consiquence of choices made.



Falkus, whether you belive in sin or not doesn't change the fact it's real.  See this is where I think your opperating under another misconseption.  I'm not trying to sway you.  I don't have to convince you and it's not my job to convince you.  That's God's job.  You can rail and kick and fight all you want, but in the end it's your choice whether you believe in sin and redemption or not.  All I'm required to do is put the truth in front of you, what you do with it is your choice.

I AM a Christian, and as a Christian I believe your soul is in jepordy.  Just like I wouldn't walk by a burning building and not try to warn people or help people get out of it alive, I won't walk by and not try and warn you of your soul's state.  As a non-Christian that may not make sense to you, but if you look at it from my perspective I'm only doing what is natural to my belief system, and nothing you say or do will make me stop.




I would agree that it's just a matter of time before the US caves to the homosexual agenda and while I don't agree it's the best thing for america, my choices will be live with it or find another place to live.  As far as it being an issue for the courts, that shows a lack of understanding for our legislative system of govornment.  Laws are to be passed by the legislature not the judicial branch of govornment.  Marriage is not a right but a privilidge in the eyes of the law, thus the issuance of a license.  If you want to change the perameters of the privlidge, you have to change the law.

Hmmm... this is interesting to me because my understanding is that the scientific community was divided pretty evenly on the idea.

The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and Surgeon General David Satcher have each stated that while a person's sexuality may be fluid over their lifetime, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that there is any conscious choice involved.

This also wouldn't explain people who come out of one form of sexuality into another in my mind.

Are you talking about conversion therapy? There's never been a single scientifically documented case of someone changing their sexuality through therapy.

Hmmm... luck of the draw eh?  I'd like to see the evidence you have for that.

According to CDC statistics, only about half of all new infections of AIDS can be traced back to male to male contact.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/...e/basic.htm#exposure

The reason why it's presently prevalent among the homosexuality community is that many of the initial victims victims were homosexual, and discrimination from mainstream society encourages promiscuity which encourages the spread.

If you have unprotected sex with multiple partners you kind of stack the deck in your luck of the draw senario don't you?

So, we need to discourage homosexual promiscuity, in other words. I know, let's give them the right to marry, that will encourage them to form couples. Problem solved.

Falkus, whether you belive in sin or not doesn't change the fact it's real.

Right back at you. Just you believe its real doesn't mean its real.

I AM a Christian, and as a Christian I believe your soul is in jepordy.  Just like I wouldn't walk by a burning building and not try to warn people or help people get out of it alive, I won't walk by and not try and warn you of your soul's state.

You talk as if its plainly obvious that christianity is the right religion, when it's obvious that there's no evidence suggesting that your particular faith is any more valid than any other faith.

I would agree that it's just a matter of time before the US caves to the homosexual agenda

You make it sound like a conspiracy, rather than the efforts by an effort of part of the population to achieve equal rights.

Laws are to be passed by the legislature not the judicial branch of govornment.

And when these laws infringe upon human rights, it's up the judicial branch to set things right.

Marriage is not a right but a privilidge in the eyes of the law, thus the issuance of a license.

According to article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right guaranteed to all humans, not a privilege. The license is for bookkeeping purposes.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:33, Thu 06 Mar 2008.

Have a look at Lev 20:13.  I think it's hard to put it in the same category as fabrics and mildew.  And even harder to put it in a different category from Lev. 18:22.



I'm not sure I follow.  You pointed to Leviticus to show homosexuality as wrong.  I know you pointed to the NT stuff, and I see that as somewhat different.  My thoughts are that if your position is that Jesus made the OT law obsolete, and made new rules to follow (some of which overlapped the old), that you should just stick to the NT sources.  If you point someone to Lev. 18:22, I think there's a non-trivial chance they're going to read more than just that verse.  And there's nothing in Leviticus to tell you which laws still apply, and which don't.  So I think it's a poor argument for your position.  The NT stuff is more relevant, but Leviticus doesn't seem at all relevant at this point.

For what it's worth, my thoughts on the NT stuff is that it's Paul's opinion, not Jesus', and paul was just a man.


Agreed.  But I think asking for evidence, when plenty of evidence has already been given isn't going to get us anywhere.  The evidence is there, and you don't accept it.  It seems unlikely evidence is what will settle the disagreement, as I think the disagreement is a bit more fundamental than that.


The fact that they're instinctual and not "intelligent" thinkers is just the point, though.  Could such things be capable of "choosing" to be gay in the way that you feel humans do?  I'm not saying that we should do whatever animals do.  I'm saying things that animals do are probably not cultural, but rather instinctual, natural, biological, etc.  If such things are possible in animals, couldn't it be possible for humans as well?


Dolphins and bonobo chimps engage in gay sex in the wild.


The point of discussion here is whether the attraction is natural, or chosen.  I would argue that being gay is soley about the attraction to members of the same sex.  How one reacts to that attraction is a chose, no argument there.  But right now I'm just hoping to convince you that gay people can't choose who they're attracted to anymore than straight people can.


Male dolphins often form life-long pairings with other male dolphins.  Such dolphins only interact with females to breed.  That would seem to imply, by your reasoning, that heterosexuality is simply about sex.  Are they an exception?  Sure.  No disagreement there.  I'd say gay humans are an exception to the usual way of things.  But being an exception doesn't mean it's a concious decision, which is what I'm trying to get at here.


The difference between the groups you list, and homosexuals is that the groups you list harm other people who don't agree with what they're doing.  Consenting homosexual adults don't harm anyone but themselves (if we assume they are 'harmed' by it in the first place).  I'm not saying that people should be allowed to do anything that they've been drawn to do from birth.  I'm saying anything they've been drawn to do from birth is probably not just a choice they've made to be difficult.  What determines what they should be allowed to do is how it affects other people.


This is a good, honest answer.  I like it.  And I agree, this is much closer to the point where we should be discussing.  I'll say upfront that I don't think I can convince you that the bible says being gay is condoned.  I might be able to convince you that people are 'created' gay, but not from a biblical argument.  My argument isn't that the bible says it's okay to be gay, but rather that as confident as you may be that the bible is right, other people are just as confident about other religions.  I would argue it's best to let people make up their own minds, rather than trying to force them to act as though they think your right.  It's sort of a golden rule, thing.  I'm sure you wouldn't like to be legally forced to live a gay lifestyle (no matter how well-intended the people making the law were), so you shouldn't try to legally force someone else to live a straight lifestyle (no matter how well-intended you are).  If people are going to come to Jesus, they have to do it of their own free will.  They can't be coerced into it.  You might be 100% convinced that the bible is spot on correct, but as a human being, you have to realize that you might be wrong.  No matter how sure of it you are, you're just a human being, and could be wrong.  Just like the people who are 100% convince their different religion is right, you could be wrong.  Given that, I think the only fair thing is to leave everyone to make their own mind up.  Yes, some of them will make the wrong decision (and as they do so they'll be thinking you are making the wrong decision), but since we're all just humans, none of us can say definitively who's right or wrong.

You may very well be right that the bible is right, and the bible says homosexuality is wrong.  But there's a chance you're not right as well.  Just as there's a chance the jews aren't right, the mormons, the muslims, the hindus, the buddhists, and everyone else, despite each religion having members who are absolutely convinced that their religion is the right one.  If we start from the point of realizing that each of us can't be sure of our own correctness, the best course of action seems to be to maximize each person's freedom to make up their own mind.  If there's strong evidence that you're the one who's right, people should end up agreeing with you anyway, even if the law doesn't force them to act like they do.

*** May I ask, why if you don't believe in such things are you trying to make your case on a board made up of people who do? If I'm not mistaken, I'm on your side in this issue, so please don't think I'm trying to tell you not to speak, but I just don't understand why a non-believer would choose to debate in a forum for believers.


*** See, I disagree with you there. You're right that this is a human rights issue, but I don't think it's something to "decide". It's something for the courts to DO. You can't just "decide" something is right or wrong like this. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and discrimination IS wrong.


*** Well I don't know how much any of this will convince you, but to start with, I've never yet met anyone who said that they chose their sexual orientation, be it straight, gay, whatever. Also, I read an article in a science journal for one of my college classes where scientists talked about they'd discovered a diffference between straight males and gay males on a chromosonal level (I don't recall which magasine, sorry). Third, consider logic: If you were given the choice, would you WANT to be humiliated, laughed at, considered a joke, treated as a second-class citisen, and likely get AIDS (or something else)? Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay, if it was something they could control? It doesn't make sense.


*** I can think of two rather easy explanations for that (which doesn't mean they're right, I know). The first is that they didn't actually change; either they were lying before or they're lying now. The second is that I agree with Kinsey that it isn't a matter of just being one thing or the other, like flipping a switch; sexual orientation is more like a sliding scale, and people can move along it in different ways thruout their life.


*** I keep reading this with respect to this issue, and I'm wondering, why is it okay to give group A rights, but not group B?


*** You know, I've wondered about a lot of stuff like this, becos Jesus said one thing, and then later books (not just Paul's letters) say other things, so which is true? While I'm still conflicted on various issues (salvation being the primary one), I think the fact that in the what, almost 2000 years since Christ the Bible hasn't really been changed counts for a lot. If God disagreed with Paul, or any of the other non-gospel writers, I think He'd have done something about it by now. Too, Paul and the others did say they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that would give a bit more creedence to their words, I'd think.


*** Which is why the Bible ONLY condemns homosexual behaviour, not homosexuality itself.

   You know, one thing I've never understood is why a group which claims to believe in and follow God (ie: Christians) tries so hard to deny God's will. If He created people with free will, what right does any person have to try to deny other people that freedom? Yes, sin has consequences, but didn't He say something about leaving it up to Him to deal with (Romans 12: 19-21, I think)?

I do.  My room mate said he preferred women, but couldn't get any so went with men instead.  He kept it secret in high school, but college was a little more tolerant.



It's not good to give one group of people rights and not another.  But a marriage license isn't a right.

*** You're right, I mispoke. What I meant to ask was why it's okay to give group A privileges and not group B. I'm sorry; my mistake.

We have touched on this before, but there are a number of different reasons.  If you're talking about the government giving certain privileges, it generally comes down to either group A having some sort of need the government feels responsible for addressing (for instance, lack of money or health care), or that group A provides some service to the government (bringing in more tax dollars, supporting domestic businesses, etc.)  If group B doesn't meet those requirements, they shouldn't get those privileges.

I suppose if you pre-suppose that God changes things so the bible says what He wants it to, that makes sense.  On the other hand, if He doesn't, then it makes sense that things would stay the same.  Also, bear in mind that there have been plenty of attempts at adding to or editting scripture but generally they're discreditted for that.  If God told someone "hey, I think they misquoted me in that bible of there.  Could you write a new version that says..." that person would have a pretty tough time convincing the christians about it (Joseph Smith seems to have made a pretty good run of it, I'll admit, but there are some fairly strong anti-mormon sentiments among christians because of it).  Lastly, claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give ones claims any greater authority.  I could claim that right now, if I wanted, and (I hope) you wouldn't believe me any more than you do already.  Someone who's making stuff up shouldn't have much trouble making up the fact that what they're making up came from the Holy spirit.  Not to say that it's impossible the Holy spirit did guide Paul, just that him saying it didn't doesn't make it any more likely.  It may also be that some people think they're being guided by the holy spirit, even when they're not.  There are plenty of people from plenty of different (and conflicting) religions, who all claim divine guidance, and for many of them I'm able to believe they actually believe they've really gotten divine guidance, even if their messages are clearly not all from God (since they contradict).

Whew!  Lots to reply to.  Not sure when I'll be able to get to it as this is my last day sitting in front of a computer for eight hours.  Starting a new career on Monday.  If I'm not able to get back to you all it's not cause I'm mad or anything.  We're selling our house and have to be out by Wednesday.  Not sure when I'll have long term internet access again after today.  If it is a while I want to say again how much I've learned by speaking with all of you and even if I didn't see eye to eye with some of you, I have enjoyed the experience.  Blessings to you in Christ!  (Even you Falkus! :)

Wow, congratulations, Jude!  I hope this is a good change for you!

Best of luck with the big changes, Jude 3!  Hope you'll be back with us soon.  It's been fun!

Congratulations Jude.

May I ask, why if you don't believe in such things are you trying to make your case on a board made up of people who do? If I'm not mistaken, I'm on your side in this issue, so please don't think I'm trying to tell you not to speak, but I just don't understand why a non-believer would choose to debate in a forum for believers.

What are you talking about? This is a forum for debate on religious issues, not a forum for religious people.

It's not good to give one group of people rights and not another.  But a marriage license isn't a right.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 16.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:13, Fri 07 Mar 2008.

Sorry for dragging out an old off-subject topic, but I got sick when this was mentioned.



I have to strongly disagree on this one. Polygamy undermines the fundamental principle of of our society -- that all people are created equal. And we also know that people who engage in polygamy don't do so for any liberal reasons, but quite the opposite, almost exclusively for male chauvinist reasons. This is clearly a case of being tolerant towards the intolerant.

I think you're making a broad and unfunded generalization.  There are plenty of communes where multiple people are in a group-marriage like environment and which are extremely liberal which prove you wrong.

I don't mind group marriage / promiscuous groupings (call it however you prefer), but in reality, or should I say US, majority of people who would exercise the right  of polygamy would be people who belong to communities that simply haven't evolved beyond chauvinism.

Now you're dipping into stereotype.  Mr. Crinkles would swat you on the side of the head for that one.  :)

As I said previously, I don't think the marriage benefits should extend beyond one spouse, but a special designation as "concubine" should be created to account for special rights to that designated class.

Of course, the government should stamp out those who force children into such arrangements or other deviances.  But those deviances go on anyway.

If people think "coupling" is a right, then they would also naturally think that "grouping" in this way is a right, and that both deserve the full credits of marriage.

*** I've said it before and I still hold it to be true: Anyone who wants to be married should be allowed to, so long as EVERYONE in the marriage is capable of consenting to it, and does. If anyone can show me a MORAL reason why it's okay to deny people this priviledge under the law, I'll consider it, but I still haven't seen it.

Out of curiousity, could you name a few? I just want to get an idea of what you're talking about. I'm having a hard time imagining it.

And I do think Tzuppy has a point here, that in polygamy, there is this unequal element to it. Much more so than even traditional monogamy, there is this sorta unequal power presented, where the husband, the man, has an great amount of authority. Setting up a situation where multiple people have to submit to one authority seems somehow even more unbalanced than is just one. Power corrupts, and the man in a polgamy has more power than a man in traditional marriage.



A special "concubine" designation? Would that be "concubine" as in a sexual slave, or "concubine" as in a mistress, a temptress, a side lover? I would oppose this status, and I haven't even heard explination of what it would entail. Out of curiousity, however, what would it entail?

The problem I have with your stereotype example is that, in the gay issue, you guys are in fact making criticism against gays and lesbians on a stereotype. Gays are mentally ill, and promiscuious. That's in fact a stereotype, and one wielded rather often in the hands of those against gay marriage.

I find that marriage isn't a right to be a false notion. There would be many very very upset people to find their marriage licenes revoked by the government.

However, even acting on this notion that it's a benefit for couples that have children, it is simply false that homosexuals don't have children. There's adoption. There's homosexual unions that have children because one of the members actually had the child from a previous relationship. There's surrogacy. There's methods still being birthed from the mapping of the human genome. There's often the notion of having children in marriage, and I don't think that changes in the case of homosexual unions.

By the same token, marriage benefits should then be revoked for infertile couples. Any couples beyond child bearing age shoudl have benefits revoked. Anyone who goes becomes sterile willingly should not have marriage benefits.

   Out of curiosity, would any of those opposed to marriages with more than two people be okay with polyandry? Or how about a situation with an equal number of male and female partners (2 & 2, for example)?

There were plenty of hippy communes back in the 60s which operated on that basis.  There are a lot fewer now, but they're still around.  And of course, group homosexual couplings aren't especially unusual either.  Or any situation where you're expecting a bisexual to be happy would hypothetically include this.



Well there you go, where people "have" to submit to one authority.  If it's not voluntary, it's not kosher and the marriage doesn't pass.  I don't think if my wife and I decided to add another husband it would do anything to help her or my authority, though.  Sure, there might be exceptions, but there are exceptions to every rule.  That doesn't mean we should deny the powers of law-abiding people just because a few deviants are going to abuse them.  Those deviants are going to abuse them whether it's legal or not (as we see in the case of people who have illegal polygamous marriages).



Concubine would refer to male or female person you have a continuous, dedicated sexual and emotional relationship, in something akin to marriage, but who does not have a claim on your estate (except perhaps as equivalent to a child) or the same legal power as a husband or wife.

So for instance, I have a wife Sarah and a concubine Jim.  I can share a house with both of them, claim them both as tax dependents.  However, if I'm in the hospital on life support, Sarah can say to pull the plug, Jim can't.  Sarah would inherit all my money, Jim wouldn't.  That's all.  The word Heath uses is confusing because of its cultural meaning, but the concept makes sense.



I think you'll notice the people who support polygamy aren't the ones generally making generalizations against homosexuals.  Read back over if you want to verify.

Surprizingly, I have no problem for letting people do things that aren't liberal. ;)  People's reason's are their own.  Whether I think it's a good situation or not really doesn't matter.  As long as all people involved consent to it, it's not my place to say it's chauvanist or intolerant, or whatever.  I might try to convince people not to get a polygamous marriage, but I think they should be allowed to if they don't agree with me.

Earlier in the previous thread we were talking about what was best for the child, and studies. It was a follow up of what we were talking before. Tycho saw the change of "venue", and brought the post over, and we continued the conversation from before. We were talking about the why in the process.


The same reasons? We have laws against siblings marrying because of problems of the children. Society doesn't value those relationships as much as other relationships.

Could you give some of the reasons for marriage, that apply for other relationships? This will help in showing what a marriage is.

As I know you stated that discrimination is wrong, I'd say that it is one of the problems that need to be ironed out.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:00, Sun 09 Mar 2008.

I'm not so sure it's another law I'm worried about. If marriage laws change, there will be many issues that will come up. Adoption is one of them.



I think this still has to do with children. The best situation for the child is with a mother and father. Changing the law will affect adoption laws.





In the event of a death, the child will go to the spouse, and not the other pbiological parent?

I don't think it realistic to expect that marriage could be eliminated from society, since society does want to encourage a future healthy society. Marriage is simply a means to an end for society. Put a man and woman together in a relationship, and they will have sex. Having sex results in children. 1+1=2. Man and woman = babies. It's always been that way, and always will be that way. It doesn't matter if you're using protection as it still happens, and it doesn't matter if you have surgery, because there have been plenty of cases where it reversed, and still there were babies. Society wants to encourage relationships where the children will be best raised. If children are not put in the best possible relationship, we see plenty of problems. For example prisons. Most men in jail did not have a father at home, and if there was a father, he wasn't interested in his children. Please note, I did not state that no father in the home means the child will be a criminal. I am stating that a lack of a parental role will affect the future of the child, and as a result will affect society. A prisoner impacts society in a negative way.

Society needs strong families to raise a strong society.



My marriage did talk about loving, and helping. And no I didn't tell my wife it's time to support the government so let's get married. However, on my license, it did not ask if I loved my wife. I never went to a government official to prove that I loved her. No government official has since come to my door and making sure that I'm still loving, and helping my wife.


Society needs new children, else society will crumble if the burden grows too high. Children that depend on society to take care of them ie. welfare or prison, will make things more difficut to be strong.


It looks like we're discussing different points. I'm talking about equal rights, and you're talking about differences in couples. Equal rights is towards individuals. I would agree that there are couples that are less worthy to society, even though thtey are important. A mother son is a good relationship to build, but should not be allowed to marry, right? Some relationships aren't worth the same value to society, right?

I don't think it realistic to expect that marriage could be eliminated from society, since society does want to encourage a future healthy society.

Cloning and memory transfer could theoretically provide a much better way of producing citizens than marriage, but that's a long way in the future.

Marriage is simply a means to an end for society.

No, it's a human right, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Society wants to encourage relationships where the children will be best raised

Not really. The government only intervenes in cases of abuse, and there's no actual test before people are allowed to have children. Really, there's nothing suggesting that the government encourages relationships that are good for children.

My marriage did talk about loving, and helping. And no I didn't tell my wife it's time to support the government so let's get married. However, on my license, it did not ask if I loved my wife. I never went to a government official to prove that I loved her. No government official has since come to my door and making sure that I'm still loving, and helping my wife.

Nor have they come to check up on your reproductive ability either.

Society needs new children, else society will crumble if the burden grows too high.

Yet in China, couples having more than one child are heavily penalized. But marriage is still legal there.

I know you probably didn't mean the above sentance to sound so unflexible but it does. Satisticly yes the best situation for a child is to grow up in a home with a mother and father. However we're not just talking numbers we're talking about people and most people would say who cares about the numbers so long as the child is raised in a loving enviroment. Just because the parents of a child might be together that doesn't always mean that that is a good thing, how many times have we heard people say they stayed together for the children? I believe there have been studies done proving in such cases it would have been better if the parents had devorced. Why should it matter what sexual orientation a person has when it comes to adoption? So long as they can provide a safe and loving home that shouldn't matter, hell they allow Hollywood stars adopt and they're lifestyle isn't the least bit stable usually. Now adays growing up in a family that hasn't been touched by devorce is becoming the anomally not the norm any more.

I do agree with you there are exceptions. But over all I would think we all agree we want to encourage the best situation for children possible. I agree there is not always the best situation available. SOmetimes accidents, deaths, divorces that make the situation different. But what is the best for the child is what society, and people would prefer. Setting a goal doesn't remove that there are other situations.

Risking to sound like my fellow Republicans (gosh, do I detest them) I'll say the following. I'd agree on this with you, Tycho, if it wasn't for two "little" details:

1) Lunatics willing to plant bombs in subways or run planes into skyscrapers

and

2) Chauvinists willing to embrace chauvinist ideology and force their mothers/wifes/sisters/daughters to submit to it.



I've already said that I support promiscuous groupings as long as they have at least two members of either sex or are completely homosexual.



I've heard about them, but I am still to learn a single name.



But we must also empower the law-abiding people with means to resist the violators and that is next to impossible if polygamy is legal.



I beg you pardon.

Falkus - the government's, not society's view on giving benefits for marriages is it's an ends to a means, just like giving benefits to having kids.  Someone who makes $200k a year doesn't need $1k a year back to raise his children, the government is just doing it to achieve another means.

Homosexuals have every right to get married.  Unlike polygamous groups, there is no constitutional law in the country to stop them.  They just don't get all the nice benefits meant to encourage children.




Freedom is worth more to me than safety.  I have no problem of increasing the risk of people doing bad things if that's what I have to accept in order to guarantee my children's freedoms.



???  So if I decide I want to get a second wife, either both of my wives must be completely unattracted to me, or I'm not allowed to be attracted to them??  Please tell me I'm reading that wrong!  Did you mean bisexual?




Most of them didn't have names, I believe.  Exceptions would be when the media got involved, like with the Manson family.  Really though, why would they?  What do you call your house when talking to your friends?  Just 'my house', right?  Not much of a name.  You only use your physical address when talking to outsiders.  Our language doesn't really support a descriptor for a family without a clear leader.  But if you want to google some communes, I'm sure you could.



Why is that?  Is it impossible to empower people against spouse abuse when we legalize normal marriage?

Homosexuals have every right to get married.  Unlike polygamous groups, there is no constitutional law in the country to stop them.  They just don't get all the nice benefits meant to encourage children.

In vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, heck, adoption. Having children now is easier than it ever was in the past, and doesn't require that the parents actually produce the child themselves anymore. A homosexual couple can just as easily produce and raise children as a heterosexual couple.

That is true, however, as has been pointed out, government is currently under the impression that, while homosexuals are legally allowed to have kids, it is not the optimal situation and therefore not what they want to encourage.  Homosexuals in that situation get the same bonuses that a single mother would get (which is also not an optimal situation).

*** Well, I'd say the reasons for marriage are that you want to make a lifelong commitment to someone (or a group of people, if that's your thing), and you want ... legal notice of it. It's a way of publicly saying, "I belong to this person(s). I'm a part of this family unit." If you take away that public acknowledgement of it, it then becomes more difficult for someone to act as a member of the family in the event something bad happens (like say the other person(s) is in a coma, and medical decisions need to be made).


*** See, this is what I don't get: Why do you think changing marriage laws would affect adoption laws at all?


*** Well, the child's viewpoint should be taken into consideration, certainly, but I can say from experience that a biological relationship isn't the best basis for awarding custody.


*** You know, I've had a lot of (heterosexual) sex, and I haven't had a child yet. Seems the math there is a bit flawed.


*** And while we may disagree on what type of relationship is best, I don't think anyone is questioning this. What we're saying is, "Fine, encourage those relationships, but don't discourage any others."


*** Dude, seriously, unless there's some sort of cataclysmic event, I don't think people are gonna stop having babies.


*** And who gets to decide which relationship has enough value? That's the problem; your opinion of what's valuable may be VERY different from mine, so the only way to make it work is to say that either NO relationship is accepted, or they all are.


*** Okay, why?

*** Dude, seriously, unless there's some sort of cataclysmic event, I don't think people are gonna stop having babies.

Well actually, extrapolating from developed world birth rates suggests that mankind will be extinct by the year 3000 due lack of population replacement.

*** Really? I didn't know that. Okay, I stand corrected. We've only got a millenium or so left to get that cloning thing worked out.

I could agree that is a reason. Legal notice in the evnt something were to happen to you. Currently, if you were not married, and something happened to you, what would be the result? Would your fiancee not find out, or have any awareness of things with you? I'm trying to find out how important legal notice is in amarriage. Where would you place it on a list?


In the previous thread we were discussing about adoption, and how change in the definition of marriage would be impacted.




I think you're looking at an exception to make up the typical. For example, if a husband and wife have children, and the husband or wife dies, who should take care of the children? I would imagine everyone would say the best situation for most would say the other biological parent that is still alive. I don't think awarding the child to a government agency to take care of the child until the surviving parent could prove themselves adequate is going to work. A government agency taking care of a child after the loss of a parent, and keeping them away from the other parents for a few months would seem cruel.


You know, after my 4th child, I did figure out where children came from. I suspect after you have some children, it may help you figure out what brings them about too. ;)

I think you understand the point. Children are the result of a father and mother. There is no other way to make babies without both sexes involved. Artificialmeans still require the involvement of a man and a woman.


I think the law does discourage other relationships due to what they do want to encourage. They discourage sibling couples due to problems wth children born from those relationships. However, that is done throughs laws that make it illegal. There are no laws that make same sex couples illegal. Though I wonder if a same sex couple who are siblings is truly illegal, as I suspect it it only illegal to wed, right? Either way, that's not discouragement. Discouragement is making something illegal, right? Encouraging is giving a benefit. So I would suspect that we are in agreement to not make laws that discourage same sex relationships.


Look at the problem with baby boomers as they are aging. They are suggesting the concern that such a high amount of elderly, the pension fund will go bankrupt. Not enough new taxpayers to fill up the pension funds as those who are taking out. I'm not sure what the real impact will be, but you need a growth of children to make up for the loss of adults to stay in a stable, healthy society.

I agree with Falkus. More so, we'll see the impact in some countries first since some countries are not producing enough children to pay for the next generation. 'm wondering about China myself.

Two parents allowed to make one child. That means the following generation should have half the population. Right?

*** Really? I didn't know that. Okay, I stand corrected. We've only got a millenium or so left to get that cloning thing worked out.

Eh, it's just a piece of trivia. You can't really make estimates on population growth over a period of time like that.

I agree with Falkus. More so, we'll see the impact in some countries first since some countries are not producing enough children to pay for the next generation.

Developed nations more than make up the difference through immigration.

Two parents allowed to make one child. That means the following generation should have half the population. Right?

There's still enough illegal births to the point where the birth rate is higher than the death rate.

What do they do if they find an illegal birth anyway?

What do they do if they find an illegal birth anyway?

Officially, heavy fines and other legal penalties on the offending family ranging from half to ten times the average annual income.

Behind the scenes, there tends to be mandatory abortions, forced sterilizations and infanticide. Of course, that's technically all illegal in China, but the national government tends to look away when local governments use these methods in areas with difficulty enforce One Child Policy.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:57, Sun 09 Mar 2008.

*** Well ... I guess I'd have to say that legal reasons are one of the MAIN reasons I see for marriage. Not just for "next of kin" situations, but like wills, and child custody, and a lot of various things.


*** What I was thinking of, actually, is a situation where the biological parents aren't married, and one of them dies. I'd think it quite wrong to take a child from the step-parent who has raised them and give them to a biological parent they may never have even met before. No, I agree that government agencies shouldn't come into it at all, but I just meant that it ought not be automatic that the surviving bio-parent gets the kid.


*** That's one way to do it, yes, but it isn't the only way, and I'm thinking by not giving a marriage license to someone it doesn't approve of, the government IS trying to discourage that marriage.

Not as much as we really need.  Immigrants may replace the numbers, but they rarely provide the gross pay, and even in numbers they can't compare to the retired/working ratio of our parents (at least in the US).  On the shallow end of the problem, social security is going to explode and people will have to work 'til they're older.  On the deeper end of the spectrum, we'll see a full-scale recession like what Japan has been for about a decade and a half.  We need significant positive growth for economic stability.

A lot of people, knowing that they could only have one child, took steps to make sure that the child was a boy.  The consequences of such a drastic population shift and how one young person might now have to support both two aging parents and four aging grandparents, as well as the gender imbalance is becoming great enough that the Chinese government has relaxed the One Child policy in rural areas.  Tradition being what it is, though, it's about as difficult now to get people in a particular province to have more children as it was 30 years ago to get people to only have one child.

You people say the same thing about gun control and look where it gets you.



I'm saying that at the time when you are to take a second wife, your first wife should also take a second husband. It is the only way to maintain equality.



My point is that in real world they don't function.



It is very difficult, as your court practice clearly shows. Protecting from rape in marriage is even more difficult.

I think you're confusing causes and effects here, but I don't see us getting anywhere on it at this point.  You agree that fixing the adoption laws to avoid the 'issues' you're talking about wouldn't change your mind, but don't seem to want to move on to the next 'issue' on your list.



You're letting 'best' prevent 'better.'  If 'best' isn't realistic, isn't 'better' something we should encourage?  Because the children of gay parents aren't going to be raised by their biological mother and father.  Even if that really is the best thing in every single case, it's simply not an option in these cases.  The only realistic options are married gay parents, or unmarried gay parents.  That's what you're choosing between.  Not between gay parents and straight parents, because that's not what the law affects.  Gay marriage laws don't make people gay or straight.  They make people married or unmarried.  You want everyone to be straight, and are speaking as if keeping gay marriage illegal will help in that respect.  But that's not the effect at all.  The effect of not having legal gay marriage is that gay people will stay unmarried, NOT that they'll be straight.

Let's put it this way:  do you think committed, monogamous gay relationships are better than promiscuous, noncommitted gay relationships? [note, that's a real question].  Do you think it's a good idea to encourage stable, monogamous relationships for gay people? [again, that's a real question]



You feel this is a benefit?  If a gay couple has raised a child together for years, and one dies, you don't think the child should stay with the spouse that's helped raise it?  Isn't it more important who raises a child than who contributes to its genetic make-up?  Why do you think the other half of the gay couple should be the one to continue raising the child?



Wow, that's amazingly calous.  I hope that wasn't in your wedding vows!  ;)


And it will always be that way whether there is marriage or not.  To imply that without marriage there wouldn't be as many babies is pretty absurd in my mind.


Okay, then why discourage strong families for gay parents?  Why make it more likely that the children of gay parents will run into problems?  Why don't you want to help the kids who have gay parents?  You talk about marriage leading to more stable families, with more sucessful children.  Don't you want those children raised by gay parents to be as successful?  Don't you want to give them all the benefits?  [note, these are real questions]

Put another way:  Is it better for a child to be raised by two married gay parents, or two unmarried gay parents? [real question]


What did it say on your license, then?  What has the government checked up on?  What do you consider your marriage to be all about?  Why did you get married?  [these are real questions, but if they're too person, feel free to just say so--I'm not trying to pry, just illustrate a point]


Okay, I can agree with that.  How does that have a bearing on the issue?  Who is more likely to depend on society to take care of them:  The children of married gay parents, or the children of unmarried gay parents? [real question]


Okay, just so it's on the record, can you state whether you think gay couples are worth less to society than straight couples?  I'd like to have this to point to when you say things like "I'm not saying they're worth less or anything...just different."  If your position is that gay couples aren't as valuable as straight couples, I'd like you to be frank and up front about it, and not hide behind this "I value you just as much as anyone else" speech.  You are free to preface it with whatever qualifiers you like, I'd just like you to state your view on the relative worth of gay and straight couples explicitly.

Saw this today in the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/10land.html
and got a bit of a chuckle.  It's now so easy for a straight couple to get married that you don't even have to be there to do it!  If this is all the more effort the government asks you to put into it, it seems hard to argue (in my view, at least) that the government is really all that worried if you're going to have kids or not.  I think this is pretty good evidence that marriage (the civil aspect, at least) isn't a government program to encourage procreation, but rather a service provided to citizens to legally formalize the terms of a relationship.

Note the "as long as all people invovled consent to it" part of my statement above.  Neither of the cases you list qualify.  In fact, the thing that is wrong with both examples is that people who don't consent are adversely affected.  The first case is rather unrelated, as far as I can tell.  The second, though, has two parts.  I have no (legal) objection to people embracing chauvanist ideology.  I disagree with it, but I think they have a right to believe things I disagree with.  Forcing anyone, whether their relation or not, is the problem.  They don't have a right to force anyone to follow their ideology, nor should they.  They do (and should) have the right to try and convince people of their ideology, but that's not the same thing.  I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world (and even some here) who think my ideology is just as dangerous as you feel chauvanism is.  I wouldn't want to be forced to act as though I'm a christian just because some people feel atheism is an abomination, so I'm not going to force people not to be chauvanists even though I think it's bad.

Yes, all the bad gun crime goes to where the guns aren't allowed.

Honestly, gun control is a terrible example because the question of guns is whether having guns encourages or discourages crime (and for the record, it would appear the answer is 'discourages', but that's another thread).  The guns themselves can either lead to more or less crime, depending on the circumstances.  The concern with polygamous marriages isn't whether allowing them will lead to more or less crime, because making them legal probably won't seriously decrease crime (since not a lot of people commit crimes due to not being allowed a second wife).  It's a question about whether the freedoms, happiness and self-determination generated by permitting this is worth it compared to the chance for abuse.

Right now I see no reason to say 'no' to that.  I don't see a lot of people saying 'hey, I want another spouse.  You're a pushover, so I'm just going to push you into getting another spouse' where that wouldn't be the case for stealing money, getting another car, sleeping around, etc.  It's not like if my wife and I were interested in bringing another person on for whatever reasons that would suddenly change me from a level-headed guy into a chauvinist.



That's like saying the only way to maintain equality is if I prescribe one person penicillin, I should prescribe EVERYONE penicillin.  Have you considered maybe it's my wife who is pushing for a second wife?  That as a bisexual, she feels either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship would only be expressing half of her person?  But me, as a heterosexual, I have no interest in adding another male (and she doesn't need one either, since she already has one.  So we agree to the concept of adding another female because I'm agreeable and my wife is the driver, but the law somehow requires I turn homosexual to do it?

Or perhaps more importantly, what about love?  If my wife and I DO happen to say fall for another  man, together, who we want to bring into our blessed union, but the law requires we get someone else as well.  Well we don't have anyone else, and it took us 8 years to find this guy.  What are we supposed to do, just grab some stranger off the street?



I'm curious what world you think they were in.  They're in the history books.  If you really want, I'll spend some time digging some up.


</quote>

Very well.  Marriage is now illegal, by degree of Tzuppy.  For the children, right?

According to the article, the marriages aren't valid in Iowa.  That could create problems down the road.

Totally weird. I can never understand what kind of person can harm a child, or penalize someone for a child.

Totally weird. I can never understand what kind of person can harm a child, or penalize someone for a child.

A person who puts his ideology above all other concerns.

Child custody is unique, as almost always there are two people involved, a man and a woman. But with wills, and next of kin, that's nothing that can't be done with more simple paperwork. For example, we don't have people beating down the law courts to marry a parent, in order to have items passed down through wills because marriage makes it easier.

I'm not sure what other various things you have in mind, but I get the impression that you're saying a marriage is merely a contract to share resources within a group.

Are you asking for marriage for other people as it has more to do with sharing resources? Is marriage simply a term then? Is there nothing different between a husband and wife having children, and a woman and her son sharing an apartment?


Aside from exceptions, if one spouse has the child, and dies, who should get the child? I'm coming from the most common occurrence, not the exceptions.


I'm not a minority race, and since affirmative action is in effect, does that mean the government is discouraging me from working?

I'm looking at your example of not gaining some benefit means it is discouragement.

I don't know. I think one would have to be a monster to put harm on a child. Looking at my own children, I would imagine that the person that could harm another child must have been severely abused to allow such hate. There must be some sort of damage to that person that allows them to do something like harming a child.

It must be quite tragic, and frightening to face the people who are able to harm a child.

I remember talking about examples of where a child is threatened with harm unless you comply and allow yourself to be taken hostage as well. We're talking in the context of someone who broke into your house, and was looking to rob you, and took your child hostage. My friend came up with a simple response. "Why would you believe anyone who would threaten a child that they will not continue to harm you or the child after you are taken control of in a hostage situation?" It brought home the point that anyone that could threaten a child is clearly not afraid of harming anyone.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:08, Tue 11 Mar 2008.

It's neither an encouragement nor a discouragement.  It's an attempt to provide a level playing field to allow all potential participants in the workplace compete on an equal level, assuming that there is nothing else innately hindering any particular subset of candidates.

I absolutely agree.  In something of a conversation shift that should possibly go into a different thread, since I believe that God is absolutely not an abuser of children -- that he doesn't vituperatively act against helpless children, I belive that God will not damn a child to hell for all eternity solely because of circumstances completely outside of the child's control -- namely that the child wasn't baptized before an untimely death.

Once again, the child argument, that marriage between heterosexuals is to help them with children, is an invalid point. Homosexuals can have children. If it's really for the children, then give benefits only to couples that have children and deny them to those who don't. Kinda gets to the heart of the matter, and no exceptions need to be had. Any rule that discriminates the benefits to "children" on the basis of what kind of parents they had is a pretty bad way of doing it. In fact, I would argue that those that think it's okay to give benefits to one child because he was raised by heterosexuals, and deny them to another because he's being raised by homosexuals actually doesn't give a damn about children. They care much more about other issues they're caught up on then about what's best for children. If it's really about children, then stop making it about the parents.



That's a dangerous mindset to have, because it places those who do bad things to children on this special alter, and implies that most people aren't capable of it. The fact is, they are.

Post-WWII, the American people had the same idea that you had now about the Nazis. They saw them as a bunch of crazies and evil men, and that they couldn't imagine any good American doing the same things. Then the infamous Milgram experiment prove them wrong. Even American psychologists at the time believed that at most 2% of the all American subjects would actually go through knowingly and willingly to inflict life threatening injury on someone based soley on a person of authority telling them to do so. The experiment, however, showed that a staggering 65% would in fact go through with it. This experiment has been reproduced in many cultures, and many areas of the world, and through the decades since with similar results wherever they go.

Every society with any real length of history has shown the capability of committing great attrocities, and yes, even against children. Children were not exempted from slave life. Lynching a child wasn't seen as an abomination. Until fairly recently, a father beating up their child (especially males) was simply considered a normal part of growing up.

So pardon my skepticism to anyone saying that good Christian American men can't do bad things to children or commit horrendous acts.



Didn't God praise Moses after he ordered his people to kill the remaining men, women and children (except the female virgins) after his people conquered the Midianites, even though these people were helpless and legitamately captured, so they had the option of not doing so?
This message was last edited by the player at 10:17, Tue 11 Mar 2008.

By the same token there is nothing wrong with people persuading other people to commit a crime.



Yes, and that is why Europe has so terribly appalling crime rates.



Of course. The "circumstance" that people have no guns to use is what makes the difference.



And those "abuses" are not crimes? Rape, spousal beating and mass murder are not crimes?



That's why you don't socialize with people from Anatolia, Saudi Arabia or Iran.




Oh, please!



Look, I'm talking about real life, not a script for $5 porn video.



Needs of many... (you know the rest)



There quite a lot of things in history books that don't exist or practically don't work.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. All I'm saying it will complicate protecting the innocents of family abuse even more difficult.

Again, go back to the "all people involved must consent" part.  If a crime is commited, someone is probably not consenting somewhere.  If you're the one convincing someone to commit a crime, you're becoming part of it.  This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.  I'm just saying "let people do what they like with/to themselves, and others that agree with them."  If I don't agree with someone's actions, but they don't have a direct impact on me or anyone else who doesn't agree with them, then it's not really my business.

Well put, Vexen.

As I understand it, that's one of the definitions of a crime, that someone has to press charges.  For some crimes, like murder, where the victim "obviously" won't/can't press charges, the state will step in and press charges, but mostly the victim has to press charges for a crime to have been committed.  Of course, some crimes (firearm in an airport restricted area, speeding in traffic) are crimes where the government is the victim who presses charges, again as I understand it.  Heath could probably give more information on that, though, since I'm not a lawyer.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:51, Tue 11 Mar 2008.

Falkus is basically right, however.  The Chinese government does not harm children (at least in this discussion).  It passes laws that basically say 'if you have a second child, we will take all your money and you and your family will starve, so don't have any more children'.  Parents find themselves in a position where, if the wife gets pregnant, they can either survive with one child or starve as a family of four.  Obviously, not everyone chooses starvation.

This, by the by, is precisely why I support private ownership of guns.  The Chinese people have no way to fight back against their government.

Legally speaking, you're correct.  As long as I'm not actually helping you commit the crime or somehow compelling you to commit it, there's nothing wrong with me telling you to go kill Tycho (just as an example).




1)  Western Europe has always had less crime than the US.  Compare the crime rates of NY to London in 1900, where neither had gun control.  London had something like a third of the violent crime of NY.  The funny thing is, now that the US has more lenient gun control than England, the gap is actually closing.  London is closer to NY now in regards to crime than it was before.

2)  Europe, by and large, has less respect for other human rights than the US (and I say this including nations like Russia).  In the US, you can't get sent to jail or fined for insulting someone else, however you can in England.  In the US, townships don't generally set up their own video camera surveillance to catch people putting out trash a day early, but that's happening in England.  And of course, once you get into Eastern Europe, nations once under the Soviet Bloc, things can easily get much nastier than that.

That said, this is very off topic.  If you really want to continue the debate, I can start a thread for it.



Yes, that would explain why Britain is now suffering from a wave of knife violence, and actually has bans on people having certain types of knives if not required for their occupation.



Oh, I'm not saying they're not crimes.  I'm just saying that making polygamy legal or illegal in itself not a crime-deterrent.  If I give everyone in my town a gun, a robber is going to think twice about robbing anyone because he's liable to get shot.  If I give everyone in town a second spouse, I don't think anyone is going to stop committing crimes who were going to anyway.  Hence, it's a bad comparison.  Polygamy is in no way a crime deterrent (either by making it legal or illegal), the question is whether polygamy is a privilege (or right) that people genuinely deserve, or if it costs too much to society to accept.



No, I don't socialize with those people generally because there are none in my area, but continuing on...

Let's say there's a gentleman from Saudi Arabia who believes wives are chattel and he wants to accumulate as many as possible, but lives here in the US.  How is the US government restricting him to one wife somehow going to stop him from abusing the one he has already?  It won't.  However, we're still willing to extend to him the privilege of marriage and the trust that goes with it that he will use that privilege responsibly, just like we extend the same trust to you and to me and any other adult.

If we're willing to extend that trust to people already, why not keep extending that trust?  It's just more of the same.  If your argument is that some people abuse their spouses, well why aren't you campaigning against ALL marriage?  That was my point below.  If you let people get married, you're only inviting some of those married people to abuse their spouses.



I understood that, and I'm saying it's silly.



I'm starting to question your grasp on real life.  What is not realistic about my marrying a bisexual woman, but I myself being heterosexual?  What is unrealistic about my wife feeling that being in a monogamous marriage with a man means that she, as a bisexual woman, is not fully experiencing her sexual identity, while I, as a heterosexual man, have absolutely no interest and in fact find myself repulsed by the idea of inviting another man in?  If you think that is unrealistic, I have a few books to mail to you (my wife took a class in Sexuality and Culture or something like that for one of her electives and had to buy a bunch of books, including a couple on this precise topic).  Or get me your e-mail address and I'll get you a bunch of personal testimonies (sharing an apartment with four homo/bisexuals means you get in touch with the community).  Or heck, do a google search on difficulties of being bisexual in a monogamous relationship.



Should not outweigh the rights of the few?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/14/gender.uk
http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/polyoutline.html
http://www.polyamoryonline.org/

These aren't names of actual families, but rather studies, articles and forums where many of those families are discussed or discuss.  You're welcome to peruse.  While of course, they are still a minority, they most certainly do exist.

If you want an example of a family, check out the Oneida Community.  Elizabeth Emens wrote a few books on the topic which may also be worth your time.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:46, Tue 11 Mar 2008.

*** I'm saying a legally recognised marriage adds a level of protection to a relationship that isn't there otherwise. I'm asking for marriage rights for everyone simply becos I believe that's what's morally right. And the difference would be in the level of relationship. If a mother and son want to formalise their relationship as a marriage, from a legal standpoint, I think they should be allowed to do so.


*** Well again, the kid ought to be consulted, but I'd say the person who's been raising the child along with the deceased spouse, not necessarily the other bio-parent.


*** Well, while I can appreciate the goals of affirmative action, I don't think it's right either, so yeah, I'd say they ARE discouraging you, however inadvertently.


*** I'd say people deserve every right (or priviledge, if you prefer) that they can have, unless there is some compelling reason to deny it to them. What is the cost to society if marriage is thrown open to someone other than one male and one female? There isn't one, other than that a bunch of self-righteous conservatives will have to deal with people doing things they don't approve of.



*** Exactly.

The society has to encourage victims to report the crime, not potential perpetrators to commit it.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:13, Wed 12 Mar 2008.

I rest my case (on this and several other issues).



But gun availability in London has always been lower than in US.



And what about Germany?

Or for instance Balkans? Even during the worst postwar years all parts of Balkans had less than a half murder rate than US. Now it is several times better.



Now that is just American flag waving.



Not really. My point is that what you people say and what is are two (or as we in Serbia would say three) different things.



This is where you are wrong. It will increase rapes, spousal violence and mass murders.



Sure, go on, but deep down you know I'm right.



Now who's being silly?



Fine. The right of many not to be blown to bits or to enjoy freedom outweigh lustful needs of the few.


You are talking to a mathematician. You cannot play semantics better than me.

So what?  Great Britain is the most . . . what's the term, security conscious?  Invasive of privacy?  It has more cameras run by the government, per capita, than any other country in the world.  There is less government surveillance in China and North Korea of a person's personal life, telephone calls and internet activity than in Great Britain.  Just because the above quote might be perceived as "American flag waving" doesn't invalidate it.

I guess I've sort of lost track of your line of reasoning here.  This started about polygamous marriages, went through terrorist attacks and chauvanism, to telling people to commit crimes, and ends on yet another non sequitor.  I'll restate my point:  Groups of consenting adults should be free to do as they please with/to themselves.  We shouldn't limit the freedoms of people who don't commit crimes just because some other people might commit crimes.  Punish people after they've done something wrong, not before.  It sounds to me like you want to prevent people from willingly joining a polygamous marriage 'for their own good.'  That's taking the decision out of their hands and putting it in the government's.  I'd rather let people control their own lives, even if they end up worse off for it.  Freedom over safety, in all but the most extreme cases, I guess you could say.

I do think that not allowing any polygamous marriages is a big stumbling block for our relationship with some of the Arab countries.  If a man and his wives move to the US and try to become citizens, all of his wives (but one) suddenly become prostitutes and lose their "wife" status?  That seems kind of harsh.

However, I think that allowing homosexual and open polygamous (polyandry and/or polygyny) marriages will devalue marriage and family values and contribute to a degenerate society.  I think that Europe in general and the Netherlands in particular evince this quite clearly.

I'll still stick with Tycho.  My right to say what I please is a basic human right, and I doubt anyone here would disagree, even if what I say happens to make you personally uncomfortable.  I will never approve of restricting that right because it 'might' lead to someone with so little self-control he's going to end up in jail anyway into committing a particular crime.  And that same mindset applies to just about every other right, privilege or action you care to name.  *MY* rights should not be curtailed because *YOU* (or whoever your hypothetical example is) are unable to control yourself and belong in prison.




Evidence?  You're a mathematician, you know proof is important.



No, really.  Because I have a friend in this precise situation (not seeking out a second spouse, of course, but open to the possibility).  How much background do you have with the bisexual community?



As above, I know someone IN THAT SITUATION.  You must have more to go on than just dismissing what I say with a wave of the hand.  If your argument consists of 'I'm right and anything you say to the contrary is just silly', have you considered perhaps your argument doesn't have a lot to stand on?



I don't see how my getting a second wife, defending myself, talking about people who should die etc. have any bearing on your freedom.  I certainly will agree I am driven by a lustful need, but that lustful need is for my own freedom, for my ability for self-determinism, to make my own mistakes and live my own life without trusting 'the party', 'the government' or anyone else to decide for me.  I will not live in a nation which does not respect my natural right to live my own life, and I will not leave such a nation for my children to live in either.

I think there's a point to saying that those societies and communities that allow polygamy tend to have a lesser respect for women, and give them a less of a chance to become anything but a house wife. I mean, one could argue that is essentially an unequal affair. In polygamy, a woman is often discouraged to even interact at length with males outside of family or their husband, while a man can, knowing he is always allowed to look for another potential wife. How much can you really value women when married women are encouraged to hold eyes only for their husband, but married men are free to date and flirt with other women, under the guise of adding to the marriage?

And, even if we allow polyandry as well, something tells me that that situation is simply not going to happen nearly as often as polygamy. Culture naturally treats dictates, almost universally, that men trying to be intimate with multiple women is natural, possibly wrong, but fairly natural. And there's far more scriptural support in various religions for polygamy. In fact, I've never heard of a religious or societal defense for polyandry, when I've heard of many for polygamy.

However, that said, I support for polygamy to be legalized, as well as polyandry and whatever combination of group marriage possible. Just because some people will abuse it doesn't mean that it can't work in a way that is respectful to all those involved. I do agree with Tzuppy that making it a legal form of marriage makes it harder for us to catch abuse when it happens, but that's true with monogamy as well. We need to work to prevent and punish all spousal abuse, not specifically on one kind of marriage, but all. I do think we should keep a special eye on polygamy for the reasons stated, but I don't think that's enough to make me think we should keep it illegal.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:18, Wed 12 Mar 2008.

As a historical relic, yes.  However, that doesn't necessarily hold true for those communities which have 'rediscovered' it for other purposes.



But what if it works both ways, the woman is allowed to look for new men as well (all parties consenting, of course).  If the suggestion were for polygyny (men can have multiple wives, but wives are restricted to one husband), I would agree, it's asking for trouble, it's disrespectful to women and inherently shifts the power equation.  Same with polyandry.  However, by virtue of opening it up to both sexes, it isn't so unfair (and allows the bisexual man to have a second man if he wants).



I'd be genuinely interested in this.  I'd be curious to see, among polygamous groups in western society, what the gender breakdown usually is.  However, it couldn't favor polygyny too heavily without female consent because hey, if you had the choice between some guy's third wife or some other guy's first wife, which would YOU choose?  You'd only choose the former if that's what you really, really wanted.  And since you can get a divorce without being stoned or anything, you can correct the mistake if you want.



But nature indicates both sexes are about equally promiscuous.

I think it's interesting you feel the need to argue against my points, even though I support the same position you do.

If you're asking for concrete proof to my claims, I don't really have one. I could point to historical points, but ultimately, that would always be thrown into question by "that was then, this is now." After the women's rights movement, and the sexual revolution, you're right, it's hard to make the case that it would be the same. That's one of the reasons I don't think it's right to ban the marriage.

I think there's inequities in society though, which translate to the marriage. Which, again, is why I don't think it's innately bad. Yes, it's both men and women's nature to always be on the look out for a better mate. However, what's the difference between a playa and a ho? Gender. One's a compliment, one's an insult, and the only difference is sex. I think that speaks to the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I know, I like to talk :(



Oh no, I don't think anyone has sufficient proof.  I was just very curious, you bring up an interesting point and I'd love to explore it further.

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that correctly. I didn't mean it as a form of criticism. It's just interesting. You don't hear people who are pro-life, for example, argue with other people who are pro-life over reasoning.

As a person who believes that means are as important as ends, I think examining small differences is important. Though, I also note it's human tendancy to quickly cite difference and ignore similarities, something that leads to a lot of unnecessary conflict.



That's fine, though I think we've debated on similar points enough that you understand my objection well enough. Society encourages promiscuity in men far more than it does in women, for example. Feel free to debate this as you want.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:50, Wed 12 Mar 2008.

No, I didn't take it as critical.  But I really am a devil's advocate.  The thing is, if all of the people here advocating against polygamy disappeared, I would naturally turn to start talking about why polygamy is dangerous or wrong.



No, you're right.  I think I posted the same thing basically talking about the apparently misogynistic lines in the Old Testament in another thread.  I just thought it was an interesting question, when applied to modern polygamous relationships.

Again, I'm for allowing polygamy, simply because I don't think there's anything innately wrong with it. I think if the participants keep respect, there's not much problem.

It's simply what people do with it that's a problem. Again, I've never heard a single defense for polyandry in culture, in societal excuses, or in religious scripture, but I've heard plenty advocating polygyny. I've not much doubt that there are going to be large groups who will use such things to say then that polygyny's alright, but polyandry isn't. If a man wants to find another wife, he's got nice scriptural support for his position. If a woman wants to look for a new lover/potential husband, what support is she going to have to refer to?

A related problem brought up on this thread was the sheer amount of abuse in marriage that exists. I mean, granted, it's absurd to make marriage illegal for the amount of abuse, but it's a serious problem we need to look at that I feel polygyny is only going to make worse. There's something to be said that love is dangerous, in a very sad way. Rape, for example, is, by an extremely wide margin, committed to women by men who the women themselves feel some degree of affection for. Many psychologists in fact agree that spousal rape is likely the most common type of rape, yet it is the least reported. It's a very confusing thing, how someone can still feel love for someone who abuses them, but they do, and often are either in denial, or don't want to get someone they care for in trouble. This is a far bigger problem than divorce or gay marriage, in my mind.

The Bible says, at least according to advocates, that a woman should submit to her husband, but her husband should make her welbeing the top priority in mind. Let's just assume this. Fine, it is what it says. But how many men actually follow this rule? There's always this insitence, even in secular society, that women should be submissive to men, but men's responsibilities are lax. In an odd way, I like divorce being so available. It gives some power to women (even though men divorce about as often).

Need I say anything after this?

A woman can refer to the law.  When it comes down to it, right at this moment, I can go to the bible and show my wife where it says she should shut up and cook me dinner.  That doesn't mean she can't laugh at me and go back to bed (it being 2:17am right now) and in fact, that's probably what she would do.  If I were super religious and said 'you will marry me then shut up and cook me dinner', she knows what she's getting into and, as a consenting adult, if she wants to be in that position she should be free to, and if she doesn't, she doesn't have to be.

Now I do agree there is space for a domineering individual, man OR woman (because hey, there are a lot of domineering women out there) pushing their spouses into such a thing.  The solution is simple; unlike a normal marriage, a polygamous marriage requires an additional level of government control and so on, sort of like with an adoption.  There are more causes for the government to deny a polygamous marriage, and the government does not need to reveal why the marriage was denied.  As it happens, this includes interviews with both spouses and if either reveals they are being coerced, the process stops, but the report is kept completely anonymous.



For some reason it seems to me that for most people, being in a position where there are two of you and one of the abuser puts you in a more advantageous position than if there's only one of you and one of the abuser, doesn't it?  Unless you mean the abusing husband (let's be honest, that's what was in your head :P) gets a second husband maybe to cover shifts while he's at work, but that does really sound silly.



I agree that divorce does offer a legal recourse when things absolutely, positively get to their worst.



Tzuppy, yes, you still need to address the arguments brought up previous to Vexen's last post.

Anyone following Wife #6 story?

Haven't heard of it...what is it?

Raid on polygamist sect in Texas.

As I understand it, it's been handled peacefully with no causalities in response to a possible kidnapping.

It's a horrible story, and I found the details of the call that alerted the officials to the compound in the first place to be particularly distrubing for me.

I'm not entirely sure what's to discuss, though. Was there a particular talking point you wanted to make? I'd be happy to go along with it, I just...don't know what it is.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:58, Wed 09 Apr 2008.

I wanted to say are you still certain that there's nothing wrong with polygamy.

Not much to discuss, it's being handled competently, effectively, peacefully and legally, and I can't imagine that anybody on this board would have anything bad to say about how the government's taken care of it.

I was never truly certain to begin with. It's a point of intellectuality to me, to think that polygamy doesn't 'have' to end up like this. And I still have to kinda agree with that. I don't think it was polygamy that was wrong in this case. If they were practicing the arrainged marriage, abuse and rape of adolesent girls and raising males to continue the tradition in a monogamous manner, it would be equally horrifying.

That said, you do tend to see a lot of these cases in societies that hold to polygamy. I can't deny that. I wonder if there's something about the social situation that polygamy sets up that makes these sort of things more likely. I question my belief in this manner.

I just can't say I have any proof to say that it does. Only speculation. I don't think it's fair to judge all of a particular category by the worst examples of it. There's tons of sexual abuse that occurs in monogamous societies as well. It's widely believes by professionals that spousal rape is the most common form of rape in the U.S., and a vast majority of people practice monogamy in the U.S., not polgygamy. Maybe there's something to be said about the occurance of abuse in polgyny, but I don't think there's enough to say that it's inherently within the concept.

It is scary when I say something like this and it simply materializes...



Can you afford to try to prove that you are right. Or is it better simply not to let it happen?



Male dominance. And as with everything in human society, there is no other way to predict what would happen except to look at what is happening and what has happened and make an educated guess about what will happen. There can be no mathematical proof.



I don't think as much.



And everywhere else.



But in US women at least have (some) possibility to escape abusers.



There is a reason for that. No man would let it happen to him. Only some women cannot escape (or believe that they cannot escape) polygamy.

Personally, I feel liberals claiming that polygamy guarantees spousal abuse to be about on the same level as conservatives claiming that homosexuality guarantees child abuse.

There is a difference. I am not a liberal.

But on the serious note, it is important that it did turn out to be true, but in case of homosexuality and child abuse it is not turning out to be true.

One case does not prove a trend. Got statistics on it?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:49, Wed 09 Apr 2008.

First, it's not one case, there are hundreds. Second, such communities intentionally live out of reach of statistics... or child services.

I think you're characterizing me in a way that I don't think is accurate. This is not something that I am behind with a passion. The abuse and objectification of women is a sensitive subject for many, and for women especially.

I do put myself in that position. I don't think I would want to be married to a man who was sleeping with another woman and was even raising children with that woman all while he's sleeping with and raising a family with me. I don't think it's fair that my husband gets the piece of mind of knowing he's the most important man in my life, but I don't get the same from him. I don't think it's fair that if we have an argument, I have to sleep alone, while he gets to find comfort with another woman. I'm not saying I would be happy with such a marriage. Makes me tear up just thinking about it sometimes...

But I'm trying to be rationale about this. Just because I might not be willing to accept such circumstances doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't, nor that it would affect them in the same way it would me.

Yes, preventing abuse is important, but we need to identify the source of the problem in a way that it's not trapmling on religious expression or unfairly making judgements about a particular life style in general. Black familes, on average, have much higher abuse rates then whites. Does that mean we should prevent blacks from marrying to prevent the abuse from happening?

Likewise, spousal abuse is fairly common in monogamy. Maybe we should make all marriage illegal to prevent abuse. By definition, that would stop all spousal rape, as there would be no spouses anymore. Male dominance also happens in a vast majority of monogamous socieities as well. This is far from a polygamous thing.

Similarly, polygamy already is illegal, and it doesn't stop abuse from happening. When it's taken underground, the potential for abuse is greater. Maybe it's better if we made it legal, kept note of polygamous marriages and kept an eye on things to make sure no abuse is happening, rather than having them off the radar entirely.

Maybe the question shoudlnt' be "how do we stop polygamy" but rather than "how do we stop the abuse of women." You're too quick to point out polygamy's problems, but you practically ignore the ton of sexism and sexual abuse that occurs in monogamy as well.

Second, such communities intentionally live out of reach of statistics... or child services.

Lack of evidence is hardly an argument in favor of your position.

I did not knowingly characterize you in any way, nor did I imply you did not care about abuse of women and children.



So, my question is why would any woman accept it if she has a choice. My point is that most of them don't or think they don't.



Are you sure? Tell me why would any sane person accept such arrangement?



Why do you think our judgment is unfair, when is based on compassion?



Of course not. We should improve social and economic conditions they live in, as is the case with rural America. Eliminating polygamy is one step in improving those social conditions.



Well, in 21st century marriage is clearly becoming obsolete. In US, today, is almost as simple to get married/divorced as to start/end relationship.



Male dominance is the real cause, I am not denying it. Removing polygamy is to serve as an intensive to men that they should/need/must accept equality.



In some cases (as with drugs and prostitution) I would agree with you. However, since the main purpose is to break male domination I disagree. Males would simply see it as an encouragement, they would simply say something like "you see the government agrees".



What I'm saying is that it is difficult (or should I say impossible) for society to say that abuse of women is wrong while saying that polygamy is OK. We all understand that, don't we?


Preventing abuse of women is a much bigger issue and if you want we can discuss it.

Second, such communities intentionally live out of reach of statistics... or child services.

Lack of evidence is hardly an argument in favor of your position.

But active avoidance of civilization by polygamist societies (sects) is.

Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, please don't forget that men as well are sometimes the victims of spousal abuse, sexual or otherwise.  I've been witness to several cases in my relatively short life (fortunately none close to home).  Please don't act as though abuse and violence is a one-way street.

Secondly, polygamy would still be an interesting idea for bisexuals, who would find monogamy to only express half of their desires.  Group marriages also have a history, and I'm not aware of any violent or abusive example of that arrangement.

The key distinction in polygamy which might take it out of the mainstream discussion of alternative marriages is where polygamy is based on a religious belief.  There you have fundamental rights to religion conflicting with marriage laws.  By the same token, there is no need to expand marriage laws to include multiple wives/partners.

My point in the past has been that the law should simply not make polygamy illegal, but should not criminalize polygamy for religious reasons.  In other words, don't send them to jail just for polygamy, but don't give them a license for the marriage.  Their particular religion can recognize the marriage for its purposes, but not the government.

(Obviously, abuse of children and those types of issues are a different matter entirely.)

*** Yes. Just as there's nothing wrong with a gun; it's what a person does with it that becomes right or wrong. Ideas are neutral, it's only actions that can be right or wrong.


*** I'm not in a life-situation where I have to prove that I'm right. And okay, it may be better if it doesn't happen, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to "let it happen" or not.


*** So then you don't believe that males are ever abused?


*** So there's no evidence to back up your claims then? Interesting ....


*** Maybe some women would want that choice? You may be absolutely correct in that most of them would not choose it, but if even one would, then it should be an option. No one should EVER be forced into a relationship they don't want, but if they choose it, they should be allowed to have it.


*** Becos different people have different needs and/or wants? Also, while this may not be such an issue in contemporary America, I could certainly understand a person accepting such an arrangement for the benefits it would provide (protection from others, other people to help with children and bills, etc).


*** If I'm understanding you correctly, your compassion is only for the victims and/or potential victims of such an arrangement. You seem to have none at all for anyone who might (for whatever reason) wish to be a part of such. Thus, you are being unfair by not having compassion for everyone equally.


*** I'm sorry; I must've missed something. What does polygamy have to do with the socio-economic living conditions of rural America?


*** You mean, I think, that traditional marriage is becoming obsolete.


*** If equality is the goal, why not legalise polygamy and polyandry?


*** Uh, no. It is very easy for me to say that abuse of women (and/or anyone else) is wrong, while at the same time saying that polygamy is OK. O look, I just did it. See? Easy. Want me to do it again? Abuse of women is wrong, but polygamy is OK. Want it backwards? Polygamy is OK, but abuse of women is wrong? I could do it in Oppish or Pig-Latin if you'd like? It's quite easy to say.


*** Why? Are you saying that anyone who actively avoids civilization is automatically an abuser?


*** What if someone merely wishes to have multiple spouses but not for religious reasons? Where would that fall?


*** Agreed. If anyone is being abused in the relationship, then it is wrong, regardless of the legal status of the relationship.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:54, Fri 11 Apr 2008.

No. I'm saying no man would allow himself to be in polyandrous situation.



Indeed and what we're watching on CNN is not happening.



You did not answer my question.



I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to be in such situation for exact reasons Vexen described.



Obviously.



Exactly for the next sentence.



Your wisdom and understanding of social issues is so fabulous that you should run for Congress. Better yet, run for the White House.



No, I'm saying that many abusers are fleeing the civilization in order to hide their crimes.

*** I would.


*** If I remember aright, you claimed at one point to be a mathematician? Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase, "one anomaly does not a trend make"?



You did not answer my question.
</quote>
*** Fair enough. A woman would accept it if she wanted it. Your problem seems to be that, becos such a situation is not one you yourself would ever want, you cannot comprehend that someone else might, and would very willingly choose it becos they wanted it.



*** So becos you find it hard to believe, it's impossible that it would happen?


Obviously.
</quote>
*** Obviously what? Now you're not answering my question.


Exactly for the next sentence.
</quote>
*** I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.



Your wisdom and understanding of social issues is so fabulous that you should run for Congress. Better yet, run for the White House.
</quote>
*** Well, I am 35 today ....



No, I'm saying that many abusers are fleeing the civilization in order to hide their crimes.
</quote>
*** Probably, but that doesn't mean that everyone who engages in the same behaviour is automatically doing it for abusive reasons.

Precisely my point.



And perhaps you are familiar with my statement that this is not an isolated case.



Brilliant answer. The question was why a woman would want such a relationship.



Obviously you missed something.



VVVVVVVVVVVV



Is it a minimal age for running for president in US?



Of course not, but it does explain why there are no all-mighty statistics on the issue. (As I said.)

Of course not, but it does explain why there are no all-mighty statistics on the issue. (As I said.)

So basically, you have no evidence to support your claims, and you just want us to take your word for it. Well I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

Put your money where your mouth is and prove your statements.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:41, Fri 11 Apr 2008.

(Completely unrelated, please do avoid the dripping sarcasm.  Irony too can be a form of personal attack.  If someone is making a logical statement, personal attacks are certainly not a necessary part of the supporting arguments.)


Happy Birthday Mr. Crinkles!!


Edit:  Statements reversed in order, so it doesn't appear I'm addressing Mr. Crinkles specifically.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:33, Fri 11 Apr 2008.

*** Fine. But you seem to be saying that the evidence supports the idea that all polygamy is bad, and when asked for the evidence, you cite the lack of evidence as evidence that you're right.


*** Thank you, and I will try.

PM

Happy birthday from me, too. Let's not forget the important things in our debates.



I don't believe you are serious about this, but if that is your conviction then you do lack masculinity.



Polygamy and related cases of underage marriage in US have been documented over decades.



Protection? From whom or what? This is not 6th century Arabia. It is 21st century America -- the richest and most powerful nation in the world, land of the free, home of the brave!

Financial assistance? How? Isn't monogamous situation better, since there are more productive members of the society per a dependent? Or is it just prostitution?

Love? As I said, yeah right. (Especially in case of 13-year old girls.)



By eliminating polygamy we improve them. Have you been reading this thread?



Or 3 meter high concrete walls around their compounds? What's the purpose of these? Gimme a break.

Of course not, but it does explain why there are no all-mighty statistics on the issue. (As I said.)

So basically, you have no evidence to support your claims, and you just want us to take your word for it. Well I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

Put your money where your mouth is and prove your statements.

Take a look at these walls they have around their compound and then tell me I'm wrong.

*** LOL. I have a very ... open-minded ... approach to relationships. If that means that I lack masculinity, then so be it; I've never especially noticed any problems.


*** Okay, good. Give me some documentation, please.


*** I wasn't necessarily speaking of only America.


*** I don't see how you think a monogamous relationship has less "productive members" than a polygamous/polyandrous one. Consider: a polygamous marriage has 1 adult male and (at least) 2 adult females. That's 3 (or more) adults working together to pay bills and such. In a monogamous relationship, the max would be 2.


*** You asked why a woman would choose such a thing, not why a 13-year old girl would. As I've stated before, in any relationship where someone is being abused, the relationship should be stopped.


*** Forgive me, but evidently I'm slow. What is the connexion between polygamy and the socio-economic situation of rural America?


*** Privacy? Keeping nosy, interfering busybodies out? Just guessing.


*** Well, since you asked so nicely <grin> .... You're wrong. Evidence of walls is not evidence of wrong-doing.

Take a look at these walls they have around their compound and then tell me I'm wrong.

I saw a black man getting arrested for theft last year. Therefore, all black people are thieves. Your logic is absurd, one example proves nothing.

I've been watching documentaries and movies on the subject for decades. Most recently, Warren Jeffs, the leader of the breakaway Mormon sect whose compound was just raided in Texas, was convicted in Utah for rape by proxy of a 13-year old girl.



I am talking about civilized, democratic part of the world.



First, a man with two wifes can produce as many children as two men in monogamous marriages (and often more), so it's four adults on as many children.



Vexen has covered this in detail. My main objection is about abuse.



For the hundredth time, by eliminating polygamy male domination is disrupted and women are empowered.



Or let me guess. It's to prevent their wives and children from seeing people who are free. Just like Chinese internet.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:52, Sat 12 Apr 2008.

For the hundredth time, by eliminating polygamy male domination is disrupted and women are empowered.

Care to prove this claim? You're making a lot of statements, but your evidence is lacking.

This statement need clarifying?? You don't see the situation where one man can have sex with whichever of three women he chooses and he can bring more, while he is the only man they can have sex with, demeaning for women?

So. I've decided that since I've hit a meanstreak with controversial threads, I should try something like a more gentle approach.

Let me try to explain my views about homosexuality a bit more clearly...

It has often been declared that homosexuality is something that is more of a sin than other sins. This is something that I am completely against.

If I may say this more clearly, I have slid a little to the more popular view on homosexuality for this issue.

As a result of contemplating the scriptures... Here's something that I have been considering for some years now....

Homosexuality is listed as a sin which may keep someone out of Heaven....

The problem is that often people bring up the interperatation of this New Testament passage into question.. I agree with this interperatation BUT

Consider for a moment that in the Bible, there IS a difference between two different kinds of sins.

They are called iniquities and they are called sins....

I will always consider homosexuality a sin.

However, do not despair my hopelessly leftist comrades...

Homosexuality is NOT an iniquity.

Consider for a moment that both the Old Testament, and the New Testament are both considered the Scriptures for the Christian faith. The Jews use the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and not to change or amend the Law. EXCEPT to make one more Law, that we love eachother.

I think that it is clear in the Bible, since the Law was not changed, that homosexuality is a SIN. But, this is something that I think that homosexuals should take a little bit of comfort in. Even IF Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is correct, and it is something that keeps someone out of Heaven, may I suggest that this "Temple Prostitution" business spoken of by liberal translators may be the INIQUITY.

However, I hypothesize that if homosexuality is not a choice, it may be possible that there is a version of homosexuality that is not iniquitous, but merely sinful, the same way that small sins are.

May I further suggest that this sin does not keep one out of Heaven.

Summary:
Homosexuality as defined by the liberal side of the debate is not something that keeps someone out of Heaven.

Homosexuality as defined by the conservative side IS. But, both sides rarely understand what eachother are talking about.

I would guess that everyone who supports legalizing that kind of marriage also supports legalizing marriages in which one woman can have sex with any number of husbands, and each husband only has sex with her.  It's an issue of personal choice.  People who are okay with legalizing polygamy feel people should be free to make their own choices, even if they're choices we might feel aren't very good ones.

Allowing women to enter polygamous marriages of their own volition is not demeaning to them.  Forcing them to enter one would be, and everyone is opposed that in this debate.  Telling a woman she can't make up her own mind about what kind of marriage she wants is demeaning to her, I would argue, even if you feel you have her best interests in mind when you say it.

This statement need clarifying?? You don't see the situation where one man can have sex with whichever of three women he chooses and he can bring more, while he is the only man they can have sex with, demeaning for women?

And do you think denying them the right to choose the manner and fashion of their marriage is any less demeaning?
This message was last edited by the player at 11:41, Sat 12 Apr 2008.

*** Okay, that's one example. Also, what's "rape by proxy"


*** That's presuming the polygamous marriage has as many children as the non-polygamous one. To be fair, what I was thinking of is something like a man and a woman with 1 child (2A;1C), and then the man marries a second woman and has another child (3A;2C).


*** And as I've said repreatedly, if anyone in the relationship is being abused, then that one single relationship is wrong. But not all relationships of that type are wrong by extension.


*** Which are two things I'd be in favour of (I much prefer female domination). I just don't understand why legalising both polygamy and polyandry wouldn't accomplish the same goal.


*** Well, I'm also in favour of a marriage where there are however many husbands and/or wives anyone wants, and everyone in the marriage is free to have sex with everyone else in the marriage.


*** Exactly correct.

I didn't mean to imply that men are the only abusers in relationships. We were just talking about polygamy, and the primary concern was the abuse of women in these compounds, not men. You could say they were hurting the young men by teaching them that it's okay to violate adolescent girls, which is legitamate by the way, I agree, but it would be a more indirect way than what we're talking about.

Polygamy (or polyandry, or group marriage) would be an interesting idea for bisexuals, and I would be all for that. It's just that by far polygamous situations involve heterosexuals.





Whoa, wait! You're misunderstanding me! I only covered how I and I alone think about being in a polygamous marriage, not how it's felt universally. Al lthat proves is that polygamy probably isn't right for me.

Some women might be okay with that sort of arrangement. Maybe for religious reasons. Maybe because they don't view marriage in the same light I do. Maybe because happy for them is different than happy for me.

I read about the polygamy that occurred in eskimo colonies from time to time, and it didn't seem abusive at all. It happened because the women far outweighed the men in numbers, because fishing freezing cold waters was particularly dangerous, and that was men's work. It happened, because, if it didn't, half the women there would be without a mate. Not because they disrespected women in any light. In fact, women more or less ran the homes and had considerable power over the men (wouldn't call it a matriarchy, but women had probably as much power as men, all considered). Given this, I can't imagine that all polygamy is wrong.

If you really can't imagine a man being respectful to and even loving two women at the same time, if your mind can't fathom such a situation in which the man doesn't turn it into an abusive situation, if you really think that all men can't handle being in a position without corrupting them, then I'd argue that you don't have a very high opinion of men at all, so much so that even monogamy couldn't occur without abuse.



Male domination isn't disrupted by banning polygamy. Western society as large has had a large preference for monogamy. That didn't for one instance make it more empowering for women. Until fairly recently in history, essentially the past two hundred years, I can't honestly say women in monogamous socieities had it better than women in polygamous societies.



You're half right. Don't forget about the young men as well. It's not like boys were allowed to leave the compound either. They were trained that abusing women was alright, and to be ready to essentially violate adolescent girls by the time they were adults. Maybe the abuse to them isn't the same as it was for the girls, but I think I could hardly call the warping the leaders did to young men ethical either.



I agree with Tycho here. Telling a healthy adult woman that she isn't capable of determining what she wants is demeaning to her.

And he's also right that I would support legalizing polygyny only if polyandry and group marriage variations were made legal as well.



Err...maybe you might want to clarify that a little there, Mr. Crinkles? I mean, I'm a feminist and all, but I'm aiming for something closer to egalitarianism, not female domination. Why would you think matriachy would be better than patriachy?
This message was last edited by the player at 20:43, Sat 12 Apr 2008.