View Poll Results: What is same sex marriage?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • A special right

    109 56.77%
  • Equal protection

    62 32.29%
  • Other

    21 10.94%
Page 94 of 98 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #931
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    First off, had you not intentionally ignored my post on how polygamy is detrimental to society, you would not have made the ignorant statement you made above.

    Second, I was making an argument as to why same sex marriage was Constitutional, not polygamy. Had you read my post you would realized such, but it seems you have become an antagonist rather than a legitimate debater.
    I am sorry I was debating 3 people at the same time. Forgive me for not noticing your post among the others at the very bottom of the page when we were on another.

    I know exactly what you were saying. Had I been talking about SSM and not polygamy, you may have had a point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #932
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Once again, I pointed out exactly why polygamy is objectively detrimental to society and same sex marriage is not. You simply intentionally ignored the post because it challenged your rant.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059226140
    Anecdotal evidence not required. I already know most of the arguments for and against. You are talking about small populations as well. It worked before and it is working in other nations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #933
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Anecdotal evidence not required. I already know most of the arguments for and against. You are talking about small populations as well. It worked before and it is working in other nations.
    It worked before? Never in American history has polygamy been legal in the United States. What you are referring to as "working" existed in ancient civilizations, primitive cultures, or among the wealthiest in male dominated Muslim societies. There is no standard by which to say it has worked or ever will work in America.

    And if by "work" in Muslim societies, you mean women are pouring gasoline on themselves and trying to burn themselves alive to avoid being married into polygamous groups...then yeah, I guess it worked.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 01-19-11 at 01:33 AM.

  4. #934
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Here is a post the I wrote about 2 years ago, identifying why polygamy is completely dissimilar to GM and why it should not be lega:

    First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

    Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

    Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

    All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

    Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #935
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It worked before? Never in American history has polygamy been legal in the United States.
    I never said it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    What you are referring to as "working" existed in ancient civilizations, primitive cultures, or among the wealthiest in male dominated Muslim societies. There is no standard by which to say it has worked or ever will work in America.
    They made it work. I guess we are too stupid in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    And if by "work" in Muslim societies, you mean women are pouring gasoline on themselves and trying to burn themselves alive to avoid being married into polygamous groups...then yeah, I guess it worked.
    Hyperbole as usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #936
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.
    It is different and does not involve "sexuality." So what? As if the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals has anything to do with polygamy?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits.
    "Some cultures value monogamy as an ideal form of family organization. However, many cultures prefer other forms of family organization. Anthropological data suggests a majority of societies prefer polygamous marriage as a cultural ideal. - Value of monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Large families are better for child rearing, this is a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
    So we should deny it because something mite go wrong? No that is not good enough at all. If this were the case we would have no laws.

    So because you are guessing this mite happen, as no proof has been presented or I think exist as I looked. Children will be negatively affected? This is no better than the "it's for the children" argument many liberals use to pass sweeping bad legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.
    Not true...

    The Bedouin Arab adolescents fell into two groups: (a) adolescents in monogamous family structures and (b) adolescents in polygamous family structures. The findings of the first study suggest that the two groups did not differ significantly in the majority of the assessed variables, even though there were significant differences obtained between groups for 4 of the 13 assessed variables. The two groups did not differ significantly in the second study. Results were discussed in terms of their cultural and developmental significance - The Relationship between Monogamous/Polygamous Family Structure and the Mental Health of Bedouin Arab Adolescents

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.
    Norway's Directorate of Immigration has reported that, despite the illegality of polygamy in Norway, it is becoming prevalent, since Norway liberalized the "marriage" laws by allowing legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Now Norwegian men travel abroad to meet and marry women, where polygamy is legal. Then they bring their new "wives" to Norway to live together under legal civil unions, in one, happy, polygamous harem.

    The Netherlands is experiencing this problem as well. In 2005, the government gave a polygamous union to a Dutch man and two women. The male in the union claims that, since both of his "wives" are bi-sexual, there is no jealousy between them - they're all just happily loving one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
    Your information is out dated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #937
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    They made it work. I guess we are too stupid in the US?
    No, we just recognize that women are people too. I don't understand the whole polygamy deflect. We've seen the effects of polygamy and the societies which grow up around it to know that it is not something which can be supported in the US due to the innate inequalities and oppression from the system.

    Besides, Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till they banned polygamy; so there's precedent on that front.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-19-11 at 12:27 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #938
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, we just recognize that women are people too. I don't understand the whole polygamy deflect. We've seen the effects of polygamy and the societies which grow up around it to know that it is not something which can be supported in the US due to the innate inequalities and oppression from the system.
    This has little to do with how it would be implemented in the US. Has nothing at all to do with women not being able to marry multiple husbands. In fact this has already cropped up in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Besides, Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till they banned polygamy; so there's precedent on that front.
    The fact that same sex marriage has been banned in the whole country at one time is not a precedent?

    Either way, the past is rampant with discrimination, so that is not a good precedent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #939
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The "it's to complicated" argument has been refuted using historical precedent, sorry will not float.


    So what?


    Why? You don't want equality for everyone. You said it is OK to discriminate in certain circumstance. How is that equality for everyone???
    Show me where exactly polygamy has worked, from a legal standpoint, in the same way that two person works in the US. Show societies that have polygamy where everyone in the marriage has equal rights. No coercion on anyone's part and the law recognizes everyone in the marriages as equal parts of the marriage and equal parts if the marriage doesn't work. Can the previous wives/husbands truly object to their spouse taking on another wife/husband?

    And would it truly be an equal, non-discriminating setup if the first marriage always took precedent over the other marriages? Wouldn't that cause the subsequent marriages after the first to be automatically unequal, since the one partner that was involved in the many marriages would have say about such things as medical decisions for his/her partner, but the partner would not have that say in their spouse's place?

    And very few societies, if any, have actually had a three or more way marriage at once, where there are 3 or more people getting married at one time. There are polyamorous relationships out there that would also benefit from polygamy. But such marriages would cause a lot of issues also. Including, not identifying at all which person actually does have

    Also, you are really being dishonest about what my argument is. I have said that we should figure out a way to ensure that people who truly want to be involved in polygamy should have a way to get a limited kinship granted to their other spouse (to ensure that they can actually get things like medical visitation and be protected in the case of a breakup of the relationship where they are the one getting out). Legal marriage will not cover this as it is now. It would require a large change to many of the rules/laws governing marriage. Which is why such relationships should be advocating legal recognition that is not the same as two person marriages. In the mean time, while these things are being worked out/set up, it is quite simple to change marriage to include same sex couples.

    BTW, it is not a genuine argument that polygamy would fall under religious discrimination, because the state not providing a multiperson contract or allowing people to enter into more than one contract at a time in no way affects how they practice their religion. Even same sex couples who are married religiously cannot claim such a thing. They are not being arrested for practicing polygamy (although some are for exploiting children during the practice, but that is a different issue). They are just denied legal recognition because the number of people wanting to enter into the relationship is not compatible with the current laws/rules for legal marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #940
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    This has little to do with how it would be implemented in the US. Has nothing at all to do with women not being able to marry multiple husbands. In fact this has already cropped up in the US.
    How polygamy would be implemented in this country has everything to do with why the reasons that it is discriminated against are different than why same sex marriage is discriminated against. The implementation of same sex marriage is much easier than implementing polygamy. Polygamy is possible, in a limited form, but cannot be done under the current marriage rules. If someone absolutely wants to get polygamy instituted legally here, then they need to present a plan on how it would work without exploiting anyone in the marriage and ensuring that everyone is treated fair. It should also cover how to uniformly handle legal issues covered by the current marriage laws that would be an issue with more than two people involved. Same sex marriage advocates have already provided how legal marriage can be changed to work for them. It is the responsibility of the other groups that want such "equality" to argue for their side.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 94 of 98 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596 ... 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
  •