View Poll Results: which are Constitutional rights?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • SSM

    12 23.53%
  • polygamy

    0 0%
  • both

    18 35.29%
  • neither

    18 35.29%
  • undecided/other

    3 5.88%
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 152

Thread: the right to marry whoever

  1. #141
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

    There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.



    Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

    Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.


    It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #142
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:37 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

    There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.

    Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

    Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.

    It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.
    Agree completely, and IMO the parallels are most certainly there. As long as all are consenting adults, of course.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #143
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-29-15 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    506

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Same sex couple are sexually compatible with each other. Well some are, and some aren't just as some opposite sex couples are not sexually compatible. Your "puzzle pieces" idea a a red herring at best. Procreation is nothing when it comes to sex or marriage. Outside of procreation the male/female thing is meaningless, save in light of one's personal religious calling. Intimacy occurs regardless of the genders involved. Additionally, intimacy can refer to the physical or emotional aspects, or even both. I've been physically intimate with women and not emotionally, while I am emotionally intimate with my husband but not physically.
    I don't mean the ability to make offspring. I mean "what anatomy is used for what?". And male-male and female-female relations don't have matching pieces. And this extends beyond anatomy too. Psychologically, relationships differ between genders. Male-male, male-female, and female-female relationships differ emotionally, physically, sexually, and all sorts of other -ally's. The kind of intimacy required for rational sexual activity is only even potentially present in male-female relationships.
    The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

  4. #144
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    I don't mean the ability to make offspring. I mean "what anatomy is used for what?". And male-male and female-female relations don't have matching pieces. And this extends beyond anatomy too. Psychologically, relationships differ between genders. Male-male, male-female, and female-female relationships differ emotionally, physically, sexually, and all sorts of other -ally's. The kind of intimacy required for rational sexual activity is only even potentially present in male-female relationships.
    While I won't disagree with you that all the -ally's differ between the different types, there is nothing to indicate any kind of negativity in those differences. At the most diverse we are discussing the differences between apples, oranges and grapes, all fruits, but different. Nothing negative in those difference, save maybe to an individual. I would say we are closer to discussing the difference between red delicious, golden delicious and fuji, all apples but still different.

    As to body parts, hands are exactly the same and still fit together, as do mouths. The pleasure functions of the body parts in question are not dependent upon those of the opposite gender in the same locations. Since the activity is pleasure sex that is being discussed, not procreation, there are no set parameters on what can be used to achieve the goal. Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis in any field of science.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #145
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,050

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Of course not. It is a natural right to associate with anyone you wish and to form alliances with them.

    This marriage stuff has nothing to do with the right of association only concerns itself with the special rights that governments gives to "married" couples, based on long term sexual relationships. This should not be a governmental concern. I believe that the government has a right to discriminate in the granting of special rights and special responsibilities. For example only persons of a certain age may enter into contracts-age discrimination. Only persons of a certain age may be subject to military drafts. Grants for educational funding should be granted with consideration of the age and capabilities of recipients. However, such discriminating laws should be minimal.

  6. #146
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,050

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Why stop there? Currently marriage is based on some public policy belief that long term sexual relationships are deserving of special benefits. Only heterosexual couples who expressed this long term sexual commitment were granted these benefits and now SS couples who express this long term sexual commitment have these benefits as well. But one should ask, why does the government concern itself with one's sexual arrangements? Why not get away from the current sexual nature of marriage and extend it to anyone, regardless of sexual natures-siblings, favorite uncle & nephew/niece, great platonic friends. etc.? Clearly marriage should be extended to polygamists, polyandrists, etc but why not others? Why limit it to that sexual component, which should not be a government concern anyway?

  7. #147
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-29-15 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    506

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    While I won't disagree with you that all the -ally's differ between the different types, there is nothing to indicate any kind of negativity in those differences. At the most diverse we are discussing the differences between apples, oranges and grapes, all fruits, but different. Nothing negative in those difference, save maybe to an individual. I would say we are closer to discussing the difference between red delicious, golden delicious and fuji, all apples but still different.

    As to body parts, hands are exactly the same and still fit together, as do mouths. The pleasure functions of the body parts in question are not dependent upon those of the opposite gender in the same locations. Since the activity is pleasure sex that is being discussed, not procreation, there are no set parameters on what can be used to achieve the goal. Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis in any field of science.
    First, don't make the claim "Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis..." when you don't know what it is.

    Pleasure sex is not what I'm discussing. Pleasure sex is equally debase. Our disagreement seems to be much more foundational. Sex for a rational being is about unity, not pleasure or procreation (For an empirical proof, google "oxytocin". Fascinating little hormone). Procreation and pleasure are empirical aspects of sex, but to reduce sex to the empirical is, by definition, debase. So what is a homosexual couple unifying around? Bodily pleasure? That's irrational. Procreation? That's impossible. The only rational answer is "family". The couple wants to be a family together (this doesn't mean kids, family of 2 is fine).

    But nature has already established what a family is for our species. Homosexual couples often desire the right thing, but via an impossible means. Our species has a pre-determined family unit consisting of fathers and mothers. Chimp families extend to about 25, all closely related. Mom takes care of her child primarily. A rare trait in mammals, the primate dad often assists the mother in child care. That is our heritage. The unity is male and female. Homosexual couples literally cannot have union.

    If we evolved from octopuses I couldn't argue this.
    The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

  8. #148
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    Pleasure sex is not what I'm discussing. Pleasure sex is equally debase.
    Subjective. Simply because it it debase to you does not make it universally debase.

    Our disagreement seems to be much more foundational. Sex for a rational being is about unity, not pleasure or procreation (For an empirical proof, google "oxytocin". Fascinating little hormone). Procreation and pleasure are empirical aspects of sex, but to reduce sex to the empirical is, by definition, debase. So what is a homosexual couple unifying around? Bodily pleasure? That's irrational. Procreation? That's impossible. The only rational answer is "family". The couple wants to be a family together (this doesn't mean kids, family of 2 is fine).

    But nature has already established what a family is for our species. Homosexual couples often desire the right thing, but via an impossible means. Our species has a pre-determined family unit consisting of fathers and mothers. Chimp families extend to about 25, all closely related. Mom takes care of her child primarily. A rare trait in mammals, the primate dad often assists the mother in child care. That is our heritage. The unity is male and female. Homosexual couples literally cannot have union.
    I like that. A 2 person family is fine, but then you claim the family is a mother and father. Without the children there is no mother or father. Period. Family is not simply about parents and kids. I have a family that is outside my blood family. I have my married family that consists of a husband and two wives. Nor does sex make a family or bring unity. An individual can be non functional in the crouch region, or be lacking equipment, and still find unity and family. You are trying to tie together things as absolutes, that in reality, although common together, exist quite well independently.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #149
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-29-15 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    506

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Subjective. Simply because it it debase to you does not make it universally debase.
    Individuals within our species do not differ enough to claim that this is subjective. You can say "that's false", but it certainly spreads over everyone in our species. By "debase" I mean "degrading the object in question". So, pleasure sex is degrading sex to a purely hedonistic act, and that is false in rational beings. Rational beings make sex much more complicated.

    Also, if it really is subjective, you have no base from which to argue with me. Subjectivity removes any and all common ground. Pleasures and pains are subjective, but logic is objective and integrated into rational creatures. The a rational creature not only has a bunch of chemicals firing in intercourse, but there is an understanding of the act, a whole dance we perform prior and after. It's called romance. Purely hedonistic sex is possible, but it leaves both men and women with a kind of wanting because there was no romance.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I like that. A 2 person family is fine, but then you claim the family is a mother and father. Without the children there is no mother or father. Period. Family is not simply about parents and kids. I have a family that is outside my blood family. I have my married family that consists of a husband and two wives. Nor does sex make a family or bring unity. An individual can be non functional in the crouch region, or be lacking equipment, and still find unity and family. You are trying to tie together things as absolutes, that in reality, although common together, exist quite well independently.
    Yes, a guy that has no genitalia can find family and unity. But that's off topic. We're talking about a homosexual union of a specific romantic type; gay marriage. This guy wouldn't be doing any homosexual activity. He won't be doing sexual activity at all. And members of a family don't have to have sex (that's usually incest, and that's weird). But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "what is sex", where I claim sex is for a kind of unity, and "homosexual union", which I claim is impossible due to the nature of our species.

    Look, here's it to you blunt: Homosexual couples don't work. I've lived in the Montrose area of Houston for 5 years or so. I have lots of 70 year old gay friends. They echo me on this. Guys get together, within 4 months someone cheats, and the split up. They never move in together because they expect the break up to happen very fast. And they say it's even worse with lesbian relationships. The girls get together, immediately move in together, and within 4 months hate each other, but now they're both stuck on the lease agreement. Gay couples that actually stay together are nearly as rare as unicorns. Why? Because there is no real unity. Our minds aren't built for that. A wire is crossed somewhere, and that's where some people look for romance. The unity is never found. Rarely you get a couple that stays together, and that's the extent of the bonding between the couples. And those are the guys that aren't having sex that often. They're more like brothers than husbands.

    To reiterate, homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. Sex is still about unity, but the defect makes the individual attracted to the wrong gender to achieve such a unity. Embracing the defect is irrational. This does not mean homosexuals are less than anyone else.
    The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: the right to marry whoever

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

    There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.



    Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

    Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.


    It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.
    Probably going to catch hell for this. but what is wrong with polygamy/polyandry/polyamory?
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •