Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Waterstar

The Gay Marriage Debate and Polygamy

Recommended Posts

Greetings.

 

The idea that people who are homosexual and wish to be married should be able to do so and have this marriage recognized in all aspects is becoming increasingly popular. Perceptions of gender/roles are changing rapidly, as are families and society in general in response to these changes in perceptions. 

 

(From Michel Martin's "Tell me More" show on npr.) When people debate gay marriage, some argue that it could lead to legalized polygamy. Host Michel Martin asks how, and if it would even matter. She speaks with Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/31/154064922/would-gay-marriage-lead-to-legal-polygamy

During this particular show, Michel Martin had two men on her show who had opposing views about the legalization of gay marriage. Nimocks  was not in support of gay marriage while Brookings was in support of gay marriage. Though these men were clearly on different sides of the gay marriage debate, they were solidly united in the stance that they took against the legalization of polygamy.

I listened for a solid argument against polygamy, yet heard none.

My question then is, for those who support the legalization of gay marriage yet oppose the legalization of polygamy, what is the solid argument against the legalization of polygamy? 

Before you answer, consider this. In America, it is perfectly legal for a man to have 10 different women and children with each, yet it is illegal for him to marry and be legally responsible for all 10 of them.and the children that he has made with them? What are the solid arguments against that in this situation? 

One reason that some people push the legalization of gay marriage (by this I mean the full recognition of it) is that it can help to lift the burden re: adoptive/foster care. Can the same not be said about the legalization of polygamy?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in the legalization of gay marriage.  Before you progressives hang me in effigy. I also do not believe in the legalization of heterosexual marriage either.  The government should not be in a position to legitimize what two or more adults do behind closed doors.

 

Waterstar, your point that "In America, it is perfectly legal for a man to have 10 different women and children with each, yet it is illegal for him to marry and be legally responsible for all 10 of them."  Also illustrates why I do not think marriage should be a legal issue controlled by the government.

 

What adults should to do with each other is up to them.  Again gay and heterosexual people have been living together as a couples for as long as couples have lived together.

 

The loudest argument against gay marriage has been the religious one.  Christians, for example, do not believe people of the same sex should be married to each other.  That is their belief and they are entitled to it.  I don't think I, or the government, should be involved controlling what people choose to believe.

That said, I think it is a good idea for people, who make babies, to live together with their children and share responsibility for raising them until adulthood.  I personally do not care if they are married of not.  I think the hetero combination is better for raising children.  But two people, regardless of their sex is probably better than one person.  

 

If any couple who wants to go to a church and have a religious ceremony and get "married" that is fine.  But if the a given church refuses to perform the ceremony, it is not up to the government to impose their rules on a church.

 

If enough gay people or gay sympathizers wanted to, they could form their own church and make new rules to suit their own desires.  Isn't that the reason there are some many varieties of Christianity anyway?  They could get married in those churches and the government should not be able to do anything about it.

 

I don't believe in the "legalization" of polygamy either.  But if people chose to live a polygamous life style, and of course some do, that is up to them.  They just should not expect the government to step in a force the Catholic Church to marry them.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many pundits have chimed in with the observation that the dissident black clergy should be more vocal about advocating marriage  among black heterosexuals, instead of condemning it among homosexuals.  Black people just don'f feel that compelled to exchange vows.  They have no qualms about shacking up and/or having babies without the benefit of matrimony.  This situation has certanly had a negative effect on black children.   

 

Nevermind legalizing polygamy, others have posed the question that if same sex unions are legalized, will incestual couplings be next?? Will siblings  be allowed to marry or, even more controversial, will animal lovers be allowed to walk their pets down the aisle?  The same issues of insurance, and  inheritance and taxes that Gays  raise in their arguments for marrying can be similarly applied to these bizarre situations. 

 

I am pro-choice about abortion and, in the spirit of consistency,  when it comes to who people want to marry I accept that they have a right to choose.   All I have to say further to Gays is  don't lecture me about your victimization. Be grateful that I don't really give a damn if you want to have an all-white wedding, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm all for polygamy and think it should be a legal option.


However, I have 2 separate views on gay marriage from intellectual and religious points of view:

-As a rational and logical man, while I believe homosexuality is an abnormality....as long as it doesn't hurt me or my family I could care less what other people do amongst themselves.

-However as a God fearing man who believes that homosexuality is a sin, I'm against all forms of promoting it.




But my biggest complaint about the gay-marriage debate is how the media and many groups continue to compare it to interracial marriage and the Civil Rights Movement.
It was never a sin to be Black, nor was it ever is sin for people of different races to marry.....you can't find it in any ancient religious scripture.
However homosexuality is universally condemned even in communist/atheist nations and modern Western society is the only one that seems to want to legitimize it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"homosexuality is universally condemned"  Perhaps in your narrow world view Pioneer.  But homosexuality is not even universality condemed in the US.  Have you even been to a major city like NYC, or San francisco? 

 

Pioneer have you considered that you can't be both a "rational and logical man" and "God fearing man"?  The fear of God is based in neither rational though or logic.

 

I have no problem with poligamy as long as it is not practiced, condoned or legalized in the US.  I'm not saying we throw people in jail or execute them if they are caught doing it, but we have to have some boundaries defining acceptable behavior if we want a stable culture. Right? 

 

"...black clergy should be more vocal about advocating marriage  among black heterosexuals, instead of condemning it among homosexuals."  --WORD!  It is much easier to say what someone else is doing wrong in their house than controlling what is going on in your own home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

"homosexuality is universally condemned" Perhaps in your narrow world view Pioneer. But homosexuality is not even universality condemed in the US. Have you even been to a major city like NYC, or San Francisco?

Lol, is New York or Frisco the Universe?

Does the culture of these 2 cities with a combined population of about 15 million represent the culture of  6 billion plus people on our planet?


I haven't interviewed all of them but I'm willing to bet that if we were to take a poll, a VAST majority of adults on this planet would have a negative view of homosexuality based on religions and/or cultural and even personal reasons.
Whether this view is logical or justified or not, it's a fact that they feel this way.

Homosexuality is universally condemned....even in so-called "athiest" Communist nations like China and North Korea.


 


Pioneer have you considered that you can't be both a "rational and logical man" and "God fearing man"? The fear of God is based in neither rational though or logic.


No I haven't.
Not to say that it's impossible, I just haven't considered it.

I've considered that since God Almighty is the One who decides where my soul spends it's eternity then it would be both rational and logical to have reverence, fear, and respect for God.

It wouldn't be wise to be flippant and disrespectful to such a powerful Being.

Even if you are in doubt, not sure about the existence of such a Being....wouldn't you want to have reverence just to be on the safe side?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It wouldn't be wise to be flippant and disrespectful to such a powerful Being."  Pioneer, I used to feel that way when I was younger, but I've long since abondoned those fears.  My gut tells me that any entity with the ability to transcend space and time, one capable of calling into creation the infinitely vast universe, would simply not be preoccupied with instilling "fear" in me.

 

No I don't think 'Frisco or the NYC reflect typical world views -- no city does.  I just mentioned these examples because you used the word "Universal" which means, everyone --  which simply is not true.  You also failed to consider homosexual themselves.  They make up a significant portion of the population (obviously).  Some people suggest 10% or roughly 600,000,000 people. 

 

Hyperbole may help when you are appealing to people on an emotional level but it is not a good way to support an argument.

 

One can believe homosexuality is wrong and/or abnormal and still support gay marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.....

The only logic I can gather behind someone who sees homosexuality as wrong and still support gay marriage is if they are assuming that the supposed limitations of marriage will diminish the amount of sexual partners they will engage in and thus "reduce" the behavior that they disapprove of.

But if you're talking support in the sense of:

"I don't like it but but I'm not going to stand in the way and try to obstruct them from being happy"

We must first understand that there's a difference beteen ACCEPTING something and SUPPORTING it

When you accept something, you acknowledge it's reality whether you agree with it or not.

When you support it....you approve of it.

For example, I ACCEPT that there is crime in society, but I don't SUPPORT it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, your definition of "support" is more accurate Pioneer and I did mean "support" it in the way you descibed.

 

The logic I was applying to gay marriage is the one behind the oft quoted line in support of free speech:


"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can believe homosexuality is wrong and/or abnormal and still support gay marriage.

 

 



So now that we have a clear understanding of what you mean by support, let's get a clearer understanding of what you mean by "wrong"

Are you talking "wrong" in the sense of gross or weird like putting soy sauce and ketchup on a baloney sandwich; or "wrong" in the religious sense?

Very people who oppose homosexuality on religious/moral grounds (like I do) can still support gay marriage, even as a civil right.

That would be quite a cognative dissonance.

Morals tend to be connected to a person's core essense.

I think it's "wrong" for women to walk around with shiny bald heads, but I could support a woman's right to do so if she chooses.
How a woman styles her hair or even whether she chooses to keep it or not is not part of my moral code, so it's acceptance is really a matter of personal choice.

In the case of homosexuality.......
Because those views and values don't come from me, they aren't mine to change and it wouldn't be as easy to compromise them.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wrote that Homosexuality was wrong.  I don't even oppose it.

 

I don't support government control of marriage.  If they were not involved this gay marriage thing would not be an issue.

 

The government's role should be to protect the rights of all people, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wrote that Homosexuality was wrong. I don;t even oppose it.

I don;t support government control of marriage. If they were not involves this gay marriage thing would not be an issue.

The government's role should be to protect the rights of all people, period.

 

I never said you did....

I thought the statement you made:

"One can believe homosexuality is wrong and/or abnormal and still support gay marriage."

.....was merely a hypothetical example, not necessarily intented to reflect your own personal views.

However I must admit the part about "wrong and/or abnormal" sort of (to me) hinted that you saw homosexuality as atleast an abnormality without coming out and plainly saying such.

However the question of which type of "wrong" remains...........

Which type of "wrong" (social, moral, ect....) are we speaking of, because that actual type is a strong factor in determining whether or not a person can still support what they disagree with.

 

The government's role should be to protect the rights of all people, period.

That's an interesting statement.

What rights do heterosexual people have that homosexuals don't?

Homosexuals can get married just like heterosexuals can, they just can't marry the same sex

...just like heterosexuals can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer  my quote, "One can believe homosexuality is wrong and/or abnormal and still support gay marriage." stands.  If I wanted to attribute the sentiment to myself I would have written "I believe homosexuality is wrong and/or abnormal and still support gay marriage."   This is just English.  Any hints or or imnpression derived beyond what I wrote are yours alone.

 

Apparently there are many rights heterosexual enjoy that homesexuals, who are "out" do not.  I understand, work place descrimination, adoptions rights, miliatry service, etc are some examples.  Of course the right to marry same sex people is that main issue.

 

But again, if marriage was not something sanctioned by the government this would not be an issue, like race, sexual orientation is something, the goverment should stop concerning itself with (in my opinion for Pioneer's benefit ;) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...