Forum Post: question for advocates of gay marriage
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 2, 2012, 2:54 p.m. EST by warbles
(164)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I was talking to someone the other day and he said that gay marriage is no different from polyamory. I couldn't think of a reason it is different... can anyone here help me out with some talking points?
The issue of gay marriage is an issue of two people seeking the same status as others wishing to enter into the same status. While polyamory, indicates multiple members of such status within a singular group.
Pretty big difference.
Gays often enter into monogamous relationships, living in effect, as a married couple without the legal aspect of such a relationship. Inheritance, insurance coverage, end of life decisions, all things taken for granted by married couples, denied certain couples all because the lack of a piece of paper.
For a traditionally married couple it would be like having a stranger having more rights to your (generic you) spouse's effects upon death, having a stranger having more rights in medical decisions that may affect you both, more right to enter into a family only ICU in the event of illness,more rights in deciding deeply personal matters in many areas.
The LBGT community would like to have what most of us take for granted. These are not 'special rights', after all, many of us already have them.
[Removed]
Yeah, they want these rights.... so does the polyamory community. You never said what makes them different, you just said they are. After all, if several of your neighbors want to marry, how is it any different to you than if your two male neighbors want to marry?
Well. let's see...two same sex persons wish to engage in marriage and three, four, five etc polyamory people want to marry...jeez I just can't see a difference.
good answer to this troll consensus cracker. It is a nothing question an a non-debate.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Yeah... I work for the government and I'm here to bring down OWS... I can't believe you found me out...
So, when someone asks a question you don't like you claim they're a paid troll?
[Removed]
Hu? In what way is it similar to polyamory? Gay marriage is still a monogamous relationship, being, you know, marriage. I suppose polygamous gay relationships are just as possible as heterosexual ones, but then I don't think we're talking about marriage anymore. Or maybe we are, about open marriage specifically, but the, uh, contract is still between two people.
Do you mean that extending the traditional definition of marriage as woman/man to man/man and woman/woman is the same as extending from one/one to many/many? I guess I could see that, though at some point words are gonna loose their meaning, and I do feel, perhaps arbitrarily, the later is more radical than the former.
That said, I have always felt there was some overeach, or lack of distinction, in the fight for normalization of the lgbt life. There are two parts of the fight, namely cultural and legal, and I think it is wrong, and counterproductive, to use tools appropriate for one to win the other, specifically legal means to win the cultural battle (as a sidenote, that's pretty much Pascal's definition of tyranny). It seems clear to me that lgbt folks have full rights to the legal protections and advantages as traditional married couples. The state should be blind to the make up of household and child raising units. That said, the name, and the recognition by cultural institutions (churches and such) is a different thing : the legal status of marriage doesn't give a right to the cultural status of marriage, and the later, though I personally recognize it, is not something that can be forced on people by the state.
From the perspective of "protected (financially, legally and so on) civil status" I would argue that polygamy is different from the traditional married couple in a more essential way than lgbt couples. Should it have some other status? What is its place and function in the social structure regarding child raising and housing and such? I don't know and they don't seem to be obvious questions. Social scientists, get on to it!
Related. I think fighting cultural battles with legal weapons, and the legal and political arms race it creates, is a problem with many other issues, like religion. Cultural change takes time, and short circuiting the process with a legal hammer might give results in the short term but it also hinders the dialogue that is needed for progress in the long term : both sides will feel threathened, less concerned about reflection than defense, and so more likely to fall into antagonistic power play.
Gay marriage is different from polyamory for the same reason hetero marriage is different from polyamory. The vast majority of married couples, gay or straight, are monogamous. Arguably, not allowing gays to marry could increase polyamory.
But is there anything even wrong with polyamory? The same arguments I've heard for gay marriage apply equally to multiple partner couples. What gives?
yeah why cant an eskimo marry his snow blower
well...sex might be an issue...'turn it off, turn it off, turn it off...'
[Removed]
Don't they call themselves that?
sorry didnt mean to offend the snow blower
[Removed]
When you talk about polyamory/multiple partner couples, do you mean allowing someone to have more than one legal spouse at the same time?
Yes, if they are all consenting.
polyamory is having multiple consenting sexual partners who are all clued in to the arrangement.
polygyny/polygamy is having multiple wives at the same time.
polyandry is having multiple husbands at the same time.
I think the difference is that the law does not permit anyone, gay or straight, to be legally married to more than one person at a time. While only heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person of their choice, polygamous marriage is forbidden to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. To allow monogamous marriage to one group, but deny it to others, based on sexual orientation, denies equal protection of the law to gays and lesbians.
Allowing gays to marry does not require a massive overhaul of all the laws which affect marriage partners. The law is already set up for the one spouse scenario.
One could certainly argue that polygamous marriage should be legal, but it would require quite a reworking of many laws because then the position of 'spouse' would be shared by more than one person which adds complexity to the rights of the parties.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
You been raped by a gay man?
Warbles, you've got a definition of terms problem. Marriage, as I see it, is a two-adult business arrangement.
It doesn't matter how either of us sees it, just as it doesn't matter how a religious fundamentalist sees gay marriage. What matters is, is there a principled agreement that people have the right to marry the people they choose and love? What difference does it make to either of us if our married neighbors are two men or three?
Hmmm....non-issue. Ok, I understand you now.
Glad we agree.
[Removed]
Why is this a question for advocates of gay marriage? The definitions are the definitions regardless of what you advocate for.
Please explain why you think they are the same first. It would make more sense. If not you opinion then the opinions of the people you have talked to.
He said that marriage is an contractual agreement between multiple consenting parties and it doesn't matter any more to outsiders what gender the people are any more than it matters how many of them it is in the contract.
Multiple parties being man and woman and man and woman? Just two different participants in the same type of relationship right?
[Removed]
well we can prove if gay marriage is right or not, if the entire world became gay and children stopped being born, we could cause the people to go extinct. yup sounds reasonable to me, uh NOT!!!
So, by your logic then, the ONLY reason two people would marry is procreation?
well we sure dont want gays to have children, the poor kids will get scarred for life. If it was meant to be, they would be able to but instead they want to corrupt the natural order of things.
I personally know several married hetero couples who don't have children and don't plan to. They're married because they have that level of love and commitment for each other.
[Removed]
LOL!!! Leno just did a skit about celebrity husband swap. Santorum and that gay guy from Star Trek.
Here's a better question: if same-sex marriage is a "right," what is the principled argument against incestuous marriage?
You can breed a bunch of kids with crazy genetic diseases. 2 gay guys can't reproduce.
Fair enough. But since when have couples ever been subject to genetic testing as a condition of a marriage license? And doesn't that violate the so-called "right to privacy"? The Supreme Court has held that there's a right to contraception as part of a right to privacy. What gives the state the power to inquire as to whether any married couple is going to procreate or contracept?
Well that is why a brother and a sister cannot get married. Probably originally it was based on religious views but now it is more a public health standpoint. And it is really weird.
What public health standpoint? I could make an argument about the negative health implications of same-sex marriage, but someone will tell me that the state has no business there and that we should presume that citizens do not create public health risks without some evidence that they're in fact doing so. So if same sex marriage is a "right," why can't a brother and sister also marry? Is there a principled argument against, or is it just "really weird"?
I don't think same sex marriage is a right. I just don't think the consequences of it are nearly as bad those of incest.
The whole issue is framed by its advocates in terms of civil rights.
Honestly, I really do care one way or the other. I am neither gay nor attracted to my female relatives so it is not really an issue for me.
I think the government should take the exact same approach - just not care and let people do what they want.
wow, a libertarian position on incest. that's a new one on me, dude.
Haha, if one wants to hook up with their own cousin, whatever, it doesn't do anything to me. They just shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
Perhaps you can. But just as outlawing premarital sex would have no affect on the illegitimate birth rate, outlawing incestuous marriage has no affect on the inbred population.
I don't really think you can compare the two. Most people have premarital sex so they are a lot more accepting of it. Not a lot of people hook up with their cousin.
I'm not comparing them. I'm trying to say that the law has no affect on these things, that legalizing incestuous marriage would have little to no affect on the inbreeding rate. Just as outlawing marijuana has no affect on the consumption.
Two cousins or siblings who have a sexual relationship probably aren't "out." One would think that the vast majority are going to go to great lengths to avoid getting pregnant. If they are allowed to marry it becomes a much more legitimate relationship and it will make them a lot more likely to reproduce.
Like I said, most people are cool with premarital sex and even marijuana because it is so common. Incest is not only considered to be pretty messed up by nearly everyone, but it is also extremely dangerous.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I dont believe in gay marriage, but some people want to allow that. I dont believe in a 30 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl, but some people want to allow that. There are things that are just wrong. Once you open the gates,,,,,. If you think I should support gay marriage then your asking me to support someone else that wants to have sex with children. STOP. If you want to live with someone of the same sex,,, go for it. But change some laws concerning property ownership. Legal ownership and gay marriage are not the same. Dont have sex with children either.
Most people who have sex with children are heterosexual and who on earth ever says that is okay? What are you talking about?
Actually, pedophiles are slightly more likely to be homosexual, as they are roughly seven percent of offenders and two percent of the population. Not to say that gay people are bad or anything but statistics are important.
I don't think there are any reliable statistics because the issue is so controversial.
Here is the mainstream academic view from an article at UC Davis:
"Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children."
[Removed]
The original post above,"question for advocates of gay marriage " continues to raise issues about gay marriage. A majority,, according to polls, are against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a wife. That has been a statement from the beginning of time, but some want to change that. Sex with a child has been an issue since the beginning of time. If you want to change one, you open the door to change the way of life. What part of that dont you understand?
The part where two consenting adults having sex is not illegal and where an adult engaging in sex with a child is illegal. These issues are NOT RELATED.
First,,, you didnt read my post. Here is what I said (If you want to live with someone of the same sex,,, go for it) so you dont know what your talking about. Second, up until recently it WAS against the law in MOST states to have same sex with the same sex, even if it was consenting. THAT WAS THE LAW. Wellll,,,,, that changed. Now they want to get married. Then men having sex with children is next. You get what you ask for.
You are a fear-mongering reactionary. I told you before to stick to healthcare. Don't be surprised if you get banned again for this hateful thinking.
I have been banned by this CENSOR group a number of times. I will be back. (( It is interesting they want open things like gay marriage and such but you are not allowed to disagree or you get cut. That is an amazing group you have here. My suggestion to all of you, be a part of the movement,,, but dont you dare open your mouth our you will be left in the dust. What a group)
When you open your mouth and pure hatred comes out of it, no you're not welcome here. I asked warbles back when he first posted this thread why he posted it. What was the point since gay marriage and polyamory have their own definitions and are not connected in any way. I got no answer. I feel you have given the answer as to why he posted it. To generate hatred.
I must have missed that question. The reason I posted this thread is to promote debate and gain knowledge. To insinuate that I am here for any other reason is hateful and an attempt to derail the thread.
I suggest completely ignoring w -
his question could be instantly answered by wikipedia
[Removed]
What knowledge have you gained from the discussion? Have you learned that gay marriage and polyamory are in no way related?
[Removed]
Disagreement (wih YOU) is hate. OK,,, got it.
No. I have disagreed with you before on other issues and there was no hatred. What you are saying about gays is hatred.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Once you open the door to allow gay marriage you open the door to pedophiles and then you open the door to people that want to kill and torture. You gave a perfect example,, thank you for why one action opens the door to killing. (in your words)
[Removed]
New law. It is called RoadWarrior Bill #69. If you dont agree with filth then you must die. There you go folks. Agree with butt sex or die.
[Removed]
I would never force another man to obey a moral code. but look how quick you are ready to kill, when in fact the majority of good people are against the gay lifestyle, not in favor of it. Perhaps those who support it are in need of an exorcism. again i wouldnt force this either. im for voluntary exorcisms! LOL
[Removed]
well it sounds like your in the minority, most people dont support gays, so if a war ever comes, victory shall prevail for the 99%. (who let a gay supporter in to the 99% bracket anyway) lol
You seem very angry. Sex hemorroids hurting you today?
[Removed]
Yes I am a Christian. I dont agree with gay sex. If you want to continue with your hemorroids hurting after sex with Fred, that is your business.
But let me take it one step beyond. I would ask you what would happen to YOU if you carried a sign through nearly any city in the middle east that says, "Allah sucks and I'm Gay." What do you think would happen. Not a CHRISTIAN in sight. What would happen? The majority of the WORLD does not agree with your life style,, MAJORITY. A majority in America dont agree with you. Most of the World HATE,,,, yes hates, America because of your beliefs. So dont point your cum stained finger at ME.
[Removed]
I can see how religion or having religion fuels HATE. What,,,,, you want me to die,,, is not hate on your part? You said religion fuels hate but you have no religion so how can you hate me????????? That will be a tough one for your gay mind to resolve. Roll Fred over and give him a break
[Removed]
lol
to me gay marriage is such a shocker, its like a man marrying his cow and committing beastiality or something. I mean wow, thats right I said the obvious that none of the other wanna be pollitically correct people will say cause they prefer blindness instead of sight.
Show me a cow that can make a choice and I might agree with you. Marriage is a choice made by both partners, usually. At the very least, they both must be capable of making choices. There is an old story about a Foreign Legion outpost that had what they called a "sex camel." When a new arrival, a proper Christian fellow, became the new commandant, he immediately announced that the guys would no longer be permitted to use the sex camel; such despicable behavior was a sin against God and man. Six months later, the Commandant asked his aide if the sex camel was still around. The aide took him to it and he proceeded to b/f with vigor. When he dismounted, he asked the aide if that was pretty much the way everyone did it. The aide said, "Oh, no, sir; we usually just ride it to town." Like beauty, sin is often in the eye of the beholder.
Let God judge the unrighteous. It's not your call.
Two people of the same sex living together in marriage hurts no one, unless it hurts themselves in God's eye's. That is God's purview. Not yours and not mine. God's.
The molestation of children is not the same. They are innocent and should be protected - ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are ignorant.
calling someone a name doesnt present a point its like admitting defeat, like, 'I have nothing to contest or debate what you are saying so i will just call you a name.
You are far too ignorant to debate with.
LOL
Laugh all you want.
[Removed]
i wouldnt interfere with another man's choice to destroy himself or promote good things in his life, but i sure dont want my children watching their bad example u see the dilemna? it is destroying to my children to watch two men making out in public for example, they might as well watch a man hump a cow, and if you cannot see this, then your conscience is probably so sheared down, it could be compared to the peanuts cartoons i grew up with and the awful family guy cartoons that pollute our televisions today.
[Removed]
If you want to have butt sex with a cow or RoadWarrior, that is your issue. I dont want you to marry RoadWarrior using our legal system which forces the majority that are against it to approve.
You too. Ignorant.
Ignorant is a strange word to use against ME. Almost every state in America did or currently has laws against gay marriage. Millions and millions and millions of people agree as a MAJORITY. For you to say ignorant is truley a strange selection when you are in the minority.
amen brother, well said, let us with fertile soil overcome the weeds that would destroy our peace and prosperity with their "ignorance". hahahahha
You are the weeds.
Just wait. They will have to toss in the RACE CARD to justify gay marriage. This is their next statement "Oh,, so just because the majority was for slavery 200 years ago means you agree with slavery?" I cant wait because they have to use the Race Card, the GAY Card with all the other cards. KILL A BABY is OK as long as the monther wants her body to look nice.
You are kidding right? This is the 21st century. Come join us.
I would not kid about butt sex with another man. If you want to watch it, go for it. I disagree with it. I dont want to join, I dont want to watch and dont want them to get married. gay sex = sick.
Open your mind, would you? Are you a libertarian? Are you about freedom? If so, then keep your criticism out of other people's love lives. It makes you the ultimate hypocrite.
And, don't fear, you will not become gay yourself by accepting gays. It doesn't work like that. Let your fears fall away please.
Sounds like you and your mother are carpet munchers? Did your mother marry a man? Grandmother munch carpets or did she marry a man? You would approve of that?
I have no problem with lesbians, you ignoramus. I'm done. There is no help for you.
I'm sticking with what the MAJORITY of the WORLD thinks. Try to carry around a sign saying you approve of gay sex in most of the world and see what happens to you. Most of the world HATES America because of the liberal thoughts, especially gay sex. THE WORLD does not agree with you,, not just me. I bet you will not carry the sign.
RoadWarrior did not pull the race card. What is wrong with you? He was showing you how following the majority is not the answer.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I posted earlier that one of you would pull out the RACE CARD. YOU WON!!!!!!! You finally did it. Congrats on not letting me down.
You are very fearful. Try love instead of fear. It's much more pleasant.
No, how about you spreading your thoughts out to the world. Tell me what YOU think would happen to you if you walked down a street in any middle eastern city. What do YOU think the amount of LOVE you will get back? Just your thoughts on the rest of the WORLD.
"I couldn't think of a reason it is different."
go back to third grade math - you dolt
1+1=2
if n>1 then 1+n>2
you have two legs, not more than two legs
but you think like you have six legs
I'm trying to be constructive here and get some talking points. Thank you for mathematically describing the number of IQ points you have, and oh-so-accurately portraying your desire to argue and call names instead of producing constructive and intelligent discourse. It prevents people from listening to you.
Have a wonderful day!
[Removed]
"sure to be illogical thinking"? I did not say I'm against gay marriage, you must be one paranoid fool to see people from "the other side" at every turn. I need talking points, I never said they were similar, I just don't know.
Gay marriage? Such an oxymoron...lol
How would they get those legal rights that come with marriage without marrying someone they would not want to marry? What would you do if straight marriage is banned (theoretical question) and you want those protection that comes with marriage?
[Removed]
[Removed]
Funny... a political party in Germany said the same thing about the Jewish in the 1930s...
All people are animals. You should have learned that in about 3rd grade.
Are you out of your f*cking mind?????
A powerful rebuke no doubt,damn.
[Removed]
You're an uneducated idiot. How do you even figure that?