Yeah, c'mon dude, the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia, whatever you think of the former, is pretty obvious.
I'm certain we've been over this either earlier in this thread or in another (I forget): this isn't an argument that homosexuality is "natural," it's an argument that the word "natural" is meaningless. Everything is a part of our natural world, thus under this logic every thing which has ever been, is, or ever will be, is "natural." Defined this way, the word has no reason to exist.
But there are plenty of reasonable definitions as to what "natural" or "unnatural" mean that need not invoke a deity or an objective morality. Biologically, for example, many species have what we classify to be natural or unnatural behavior, generally defined by the results they produce and the frequency with which each occurs. This is how things are always classified.
There are all sorts of things we all agree our bodies are made (or not made) to do that are perfectly uncontroversial. You don't put food in your ear because your body wasn't designed to ingest it that way; that's clearly an "unnatural" behavior. It doesn't mean you can't do it, and it's not a basis from which to issue a moral condemnation, but it's a clear example of an action that you're not biologically designed (through God or nature) to accommodate.
I think this is only a point of contention because of the ideological springboard it can give people who wish to condemn homosexuality, and not because there's a real disagreement about how our bodies work or whether such a thing as unnatural behavior exists.
i actually agree with this and think it is very well said. that said - not to take it back into a religious discussion, (because we've already beaten that dead horse) i do think bears mentioning for posterity and factual soundness that ideologically, the bible does actually use the word "unnatural" in Romans 1. so in this way
for some, the contextual meaning of the word "natural" takes on a religious connotation as well. just a note - not to digress or disagree, but to clarify why such a statement may take on religious context.
You're right in that the public thinks about the two things in very different ways, but that doesn't mean the distinction has a rational basis. The same principle that is often used to support the idea of same-sex marriage -- that all relationships between consenting adults are equally valid and we should not discriminate between them -- logically must include polygamy.
This is assuming that the arguments are applied consistently. As you point out, it's unlikely that they would be. But as Adi correctly points out, rationally most of the arguments for same-sex marriage would encompass polygamy as well.
i disagree. in fact, lets shelve religion or some other mystical ideology for the mo. if i were an atheist, i would still be skeptical about the emotional health of a polygamous relationship on the individual. i'd go so far as to wonder whether conventional therapy, or accepted psychology would even condone such a thing.
HEALTHY?
let's clarify. i do not discuss whether one should have the right to CHOOSE polygamy here, i discuss whether such a choice would be considered generally
HEALTHY for the individual (any of them!) by the leading minds of today. without knowing the nuts and bolts of the inner workings of the polygamous marriage, i
assume that someone (or some few/many?) in the marriage is(are) coming up short from an individual health perspective. so as far as i'm concerned, just because one CAN, doesnt mean one SHOULD. currently, one CAN be as polyamorous, or singularly promiscuous as one wishes to be. Healthy? maybe not. Allowed? certainment!
CHOICE
so now let's look at CHOICE. how can the government simply open the floodgates on polygamous
marriage when the breadth of studies and information they have on the subject shows that its mostly a flawed system? and before we get there, let me say that no - i do not agree with the sentiment that the reason we dont have a wealth of information showing how
great polygamous marriage is is because...well....yknow...
they won't let us be together! [sarcasm] because we all know that if only they were allowed to marry many and all, by gosh, in the doing of it alone, all those polygamous relationships would prove their case! [/sarcasm]
let's just be honest. we dont need another petri dish to study it out - we've seen it. ruffy is being acerbic, but he's right - the Mormons did it already, and many of their women might say "by choice." so have the Muslims. its a perfect case to show that just because a person says that what's happening to them, or what they are involving themselves in is ok, doesnt mean it is. perhaps i may be forgetting other incarnations of the same, but the lets all at least agree that the evidence so far is quite damning. and it is not enough to suggest that in a "perfect environment" such a union(s?) would thrive.
life isnt perfect. and if they havent thrived already under the strain of existence, then they probably wont. and there isnt enough
Big Love in the world to deaden people to and marginalize the very real problems that polygamy present.
OTHER ISSUES
we havent even scratched the surface of the practicalities of polygamous marriage. suffice to say as a starting point that it is a proven fact that polygamous marriages are a financial strain on the taxpaying public. bottom line? the government has reasons wholly separate from morality or religion to ban polygamous marriages.
so no. we cannot just bundle Polygamy up with Homosexuality and paint them as one and the same. that is an incredibly narrow view that fails to comprehend the wider, and mutually exclusive issues that pertain to both.
....just my incoherent $0.02 that i hope makes sense (pun intended!) at 3:32am.
Closed Thread
