|
Post by Hilly on Apr 4, 2004 21:10:45 GMT -5
If not, be ready for polygamists asking for the same thing gays are asking for in a few years. I don't have anything against it, but accept it or try to find a coherent reason why gay people should be able to wed but not polygamists. You can't make an argument from tradition as in:"it's been a 2 person affair for a very long time" and be in favour of gay marriage because that same tradition would forbid gay marriage. Forget the polygamists, theres no fair comparison here. I believe human nature has shown we typically relate to one another best as a couple in a loving relationship, which would include homosexuality. Polygamy I feel could easily lead to feelings of jealousy and confusion especially if children were to become invloved. I see it as a abnormal situation not worthy of marriage. Now strictly sexually speaking, well, what ever floats your boat so long as no one gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 4, 2004 21:24:31 GMT -5
Hilly,
"I believe human nature has shown we typically relate to one another best as a couple in a loving relationship, which would include homosexuality."
Ah, the argument from natural disposition. One could just as well say that "I believe human nature has shown that we typically relate to one another best in a one man and one woman relationship, which would exlclude homosexuality."
How do you establish human anture if not through what is most common? What is most common by far is heterosexuality.
"Polygamy I feel could easily lead to feelings of jealousy and confusion especially if children were to become invloved. "
The jealousy argument has not been used against homosexual marriage ( promiscuity has, which is close ) and confusion, especially if children are involved, is a common argument against homosexual marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Apr 5, 2004 10:25:20 GMT -5
Ah, the argument from natural disposition. One could just as well say that "I believe human nature has shown that we typically relate to one another best in a one man and one woman relationship, which would exlclude homosexuality." I don`t see where homosexuality should be excluded, it is only less prevelent but yet still relevent. As I stated, I feel it is the couple factor thats ingrained in us and that would include homosexuals, the same cannot be said of polygamy. Yes it is more common, but not to the point of negating the presence or relevance of homosexuality. Remember were talking here about the right to marriage not just sexuality alone, theres a big difference. As far as I know poligamy is rare. I believe it may be found in some radical fringes of the Mormans, resulting in some pretty messed up lives. In my opinion poligamy is`nt even on the radar screen where marriage is concerned nor should it be.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 5, 2004 15:23:21 GMT -5
Hilly
Actually, polygamy is quite common in Africa, especially when you get out of the major cities. It's just rare in western society, is all.
It also works differently in Africa than in Mormon areas. While Mormon families all live in one house, African polygamous ones tend to have one house for each wife's family. So it's like several different and mostly independent families that have a husband in common. It's sort of interesting that there are different interpretations of the subject.
At any rate, this is sort of off-topic. Same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages should be evaluated by society on their own merits, not on the merits of other styles of marriage.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 5, 2004 15:37:26 GMT -5
Yaw,
What happens to all the other males who don't have a mate?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 5, 2004 15:40:56 GMT -5
For some reason I've never heard that coming up as an issue. It might be worth looking into...
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 5, 2004 15:41:51 GMT -5
First, I'll start off by saying that I agree with most of the people here. I see no reason why homosexual should be denied the right to marry. Most of the backlash people direct against homosexual marriage stems from their own personal distaste for homosexuals and from religious dogma. What I think a majority of people don't realize is that churches are not the ones being asked to recognize homosexual marriage, the state is being asked for this recognition. Churches will still be free to determine what they consider a valid marriage even if the state recognizes homosexual marriage.
AuntieSocial
I disagree. If the couple, freely consenting to their marriage, decides that they want a church minister to witness their marriage - I see no problem with allowing their request. I'd be interested in hearing why you think churches should not oversee marriages.
AuntieSocial
Is your objection here directed only towards having religious leaders notarize the civil contract? From my understanding, religious marriages are also considered valid civil contracts.
Yaw
I'm not sure BaalShemRa was off-topic. What I think BaalShemRa is trying to say is that the common arguments used against gay marriage, which many of us dismiss, are also the ones used against polygamy. As a result, I think BaalShemRa is challenging us to come up with better arguments against polygamy if we disagree with it but support gay marriage.
To me, it seems like the very purpose of marriage is to engage in a very personal, committed relationship with someone. I question whether someone would be able to have that same level of comittment in a polygamous marriage. Homosexual marriage can have the same level of committment as any heterosexual marriage can.
Much of this debate (homosexual or polygamous marriage, etc) focuses on one simpler question. What is marriage? How should we determine what qualifies as a marriage and what doesn't? Any responses?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 5, 2004 16:03:15 GMT -5
I don't think we're that far off in terms of our positions. What tends to happen in talking about this topic is that those against same-sex marriage lump it in with polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, incest and other stuff that consists primarily of sexual abuse, then reject the whole on the basis of the worst sexual acts that are entirely irrelevant to the issue. What I was trying to say was that same-sex marriage has to be evaluated on its own merits, without reference to any of these red herrings. Which I think BaalShemRa was trying to get at as well, but it ended up generating a tangent.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 5, 2004 16:41:44 GMT -5
Maverick,
"As a result, I think BaalShemRa is challenging us to come up with better arguments against polygamy if we disagree with it but support gay marriage."
Yep, I don't want to engage in special pleading. If an argument justifies gay marriage but also justifies polygamous marriage, I will apply it accross the board, not just when it's convenient.
"How should we determine what qualifies as a marriage and what doesn't? Any responses?" I think it should be left to the people who want to enter in one.
Yaw, "those against same-sex marriage lump it in with polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, incest and other stuff that consists primarily of sexual abuse,"
Yeah, I very much dislike the idiots/bigots who can't or won't see that the fundamental difference between the average homosexual relationship and pedophilia, bestiality and incest is that in the case of bestiality one party is not a rational agent.
In the case of pedophilia the agent is not mature enough to make an informed decision ( the same reason an 8 year old can't take a car loan on his own )
As for incest the relationship is analogous to the one between a boss and an employee or a psychologist and a patient; there's a seriously unequal footing in the status of the people involved. Too much potential for abuse of authority is present.
I don't know if cousins, where the possibility of a child is absent, should be forbiden from forming a relationship.
In the case of polygamy though, rational agents giving their informed consent can be the case. So I don't see what's wrong with polygamy and anything I've heard that justified gay marriage justified polygamous marriage. Hilly's argument ( not to pick on him )is a slightly different version of an anti-gay marriage argument which seems to have been modified ad hoc to allow gays to marry but not polygamists.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 5, 2004 19:01:03 GMT -5
Maverick, my main objection with religious weddings is that the minister is overseeing the signing of a legally binding contract. I think that legal (civil) arrangements shouldn't be conducted by churches. In my opinion, contractual undertakings should be conducted in the secular (civil/legal) domain, not in a church.
Currently, we have an institution (the church) claiming that another institution (marriage) is their invention. Many christians feel that marriage is a Christian Institution, as sacred as the eucharist. Both of these claims are nonsense. Marriages have existed long before xtianity (and several pagan cults participated in a celebratory eucharist).
I just feel that the seperation should be complete. I don't think that legally binding contracts should be enacted by a religious institution.
Actually, I would take it one step further and say that marriage, itself, is an archaic practice that really isn't necessary, but I can't be bothered to pull out my soapbox at this moment. (And, yes, I am married).
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 5, 2004 19:18:36 GMT -5
OK I have two different points of views not my own just ones I've heard on gay marriage.
Point One: Marriage is a church thing and should be left up to the church. But you should still have "civil union" which is that same(right?) as being married.
Point Two: The point of marriage is to procrate, or have kids. Same sex couples can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Apr 5, 2004 19:37:56 GMT -5
I'll counter those points.
1. Marriage was never solely a "church" thing; it existed cross-culturally and in some cases entirely independant of ANY religion far before xtianity appeared on the scene anyhow. (BTW, what IS the difference between a marriage contract and a civil union?)
2. That's BS. By those same standards, any heterosexual couple that decides not to have kids is just as bad. Plus, that logic would also exclude sterile people, people with STDs that don't want to infect their partner, a couple that is likely to pass on genetic diseases to the child, etc. from getting married. So they could adopt...so could homosexuals!
I'm convinced these arguments are just facades to protect homophobes from having to say, "I'm a bigot."
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 5, 2004 19:41:50 GMT -5
I know griffey, they aren't my points of view though they are just things I've heard. I don't get why the whole thing is that big of a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 5, 2004 20:07:57 GMT -5
Since this is slightly off-topic, I'll deal with it first: Maverick, my main objection with religious weddings is that the minister is overseeing the signing of a legally binding contract. I think that legal (civil) arrangements shouldn't be conducted by churches. In my opinion, contractual undertakings should be conducted in the secular (civil/legal) domain, not in a church. As long as a religious marriage does not conflict with secular requirements of the civil marriage contract, I still don't see why we must demand separation between the two. (For example, if one religion mandates marriage between two people without the consent of one of the spouses, I then agree that the marriage should be considered null.) But what harm is done to a party seeking to be married by a religous leader of their choice? AuntieSocialI would agree with this statement. Marriage is only useful for legal purposes. Beyond that, I see nothing about marriage that is any more significant than a genuine relationship between two people. Now, I'll counter one of the two points: nonbelieverJust as AuntieSocial said, religions usually attempt to claim that they invented marriage and that only religious marriages can have a deep, committed meaning. The push behind allowing "civil unions" is really nothing more than a push to give gay marriage a different name. This, in turn, brands gay marriage as something that deviates from the norm. It's a clever word game on the part of religious institutions.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 6, 2004 5:33:42 GMT -5
Marriage is only useful for legal purposes. Beyond that, I see nothing about marriage that is any more significant than a genuine relationship between two people. I guess this is my main bone of contention, Maverick. And yes, this is slightly off-topic. The way I see it, we don't want religious intitutions writing other laws. We don't want religious institutions administering other laws. I see this as a 'give an inch, they will take a mile' situation. My bond with my husband is not contained in that piece of paper we signed. The ceremony we had (which wasn't religious anyway) was a celebration so friends and family could participate in our declaration of love. In our minds, we were married long before we were married. I just don't see why the marriage contract can't be signed at the county clerk's office (or some other place), then whatever ceremony the couple wishes to have can be conducted free and clear of the legal signing of the contract. Maybe it's just me, but I see the allowance of church involvement in a secular contract as a foothold into the legal arena. BSR, why should there be any arguments against polygamy? As Yaw has pointed out, there are areas that have polygamous relationships that have none of the 'hangups' the we westerners would like to ascribe to the situation. Actually, monogamy isn't as natural as some would want us to believe either ... genetic research has been done on the offspring of swan couplings (long believed to be a 'mate for life' bird), and it was discovered that up to 30% of the little swanlings weren't genetically compatible with the male in the coupling. Isn't it better, genetically, to try and achieve different mixes of genetics in order to continue the species? Wouldn't children raised ina communal environment (not a Keresh or Jonestown type of commune, but a Native American or African tribal communal environment) get the best preparaton for adult life? They would be exposed to the mannerisms and skills of many adults, instead of the two that conceived them. Each member of the community would take an active role in teach that child their own special skill and would take interest in that child's development. Natural interests could be easily identified in a child as they are being exposed to many different activities. When a natural interest or skil is identified, it can then be nurtured so that child can have concentrated instruction in that area of interest, like an apprenticeship, while the rest of the community continues a basic training in the other skills needed in life. Their mental development would be centred on group activities, fostering stronger social skills. Anyways, just some thoughts that were floating around in the grey-matter. With respect to the marriage v civil union debate. Why should any one group of people hold exclusive rights to the term marriage? Especially when marriage has existed long before Judeo-Christianity (as Griffey pointed out) and it is just an attempt at a clever word-play by certain self-interested parties (as Maverick pointed out) to continue to segregate those who are not the same as their ideal. Actually, if you really want to get down to it ... Christians should not be getting married at all (the supposed-Jesus supposedly said that heaven is for the unmarried) and St. Paul preached a doctrine of celibacy (only the weak, those who could not master a control over their lustful urges, should marry rather than having sexual relations outside of wedlock). *wanders back to bed, giggling at the whole concept of Traditional Christian Family Values
|
|