Same sex marriage & Polygamy

Tools    





Rule Britannia....
You are doing nothing more than spewing your hate all over this thread, with nothing to back up any of your claims. So in that sense, yes, you are in the minority.
, i thought I backed(explained) my claims

tell me one example of me 'spewing my hate' , please.
__________________
You looked but you didn't see



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
, i thought I backed(explained) my claims
No, you didn't. You said you don't want babies adopted by gay people and your argument for this was that 'most of the planet thinks that'. Which is not exactly backing up your claim. I appreciate that it is difficult to articulate your views when English is not your first language, especially when other people will happily pick apart the nuances of your posts, but still I see no more argument or explanation than you personally do not like gay people (no reason given), you believe that if people are gay then something is wrong with their parents and that they should not be allowed to marry, adopt, or display affection in public and you incorrectly assume that the rest of the world shares your prejudice.



tell me one example of me 'spewing my hate' , please.

Just about every single post of yours in this thread can be pointed to, but this is the most glaring example:

I don't wanna explain to my children in the future, why 2 men are kissing each other in the center of the city. So let's say you got your every legal right, what's next-- Let's all unite and march the streets how pedophilia should be legal


Which came after you calling the others in this thread "gay lovers" which in and of itself implies your hatred.



But as Adi correctly points out, rationally most of the arguments for same-sex marriage would encompass polygamy as well.
And that would have meaning if we lived in a rational world. In Texas, it is legal to buy and consume beer at age 18. If it's OK for an 18-year-old, it would be rational that it would not be harmful to a 17-year-old, especially one who is 17 and 6 months old. But the fact remains, you can get busted for illegally drinking beer in Texas the day before your 18th birthday. (On the other hand, there are honky tonks in Texas that will admit juveniles under age 18, attaching wristbands identifying them as too young to drink beer. Yet it was perfectly OK if I bought the beer and let my underage kids drink it while sitting next to me. My 15-year-old son got busted when he got up from our table and took a swig of beer while trying to impress an 18-year-old girl at such a club). Is that rational? Maybe not, but society has to draw the line somewhere. When I was 18, I could drive a car, get a marriage license, buy and sell property, and join the Army without getting my parents' consent. I could buy and drink beer in the PX on an Army base, but couldn't buy and drink beer at the joints off base because the legal drinking age in that state at that time was 21. And I couldn't vote at 18 in any of the 50 states. What's rational about that? But society will accept some things and not accept others.

What is or isn't "rational" is just so much semantics. One can claim that poligamy, incest, and bestiality and some even say man-boy relationships are as "rational" as same-sex marriage, although the "consenting adults" stipulation gets in the way of adult-juvenile sex--unless you're Roman Polanski. Yet it doesn't matter how one tries to rationalize the so-called similarities, there are some things society will accept and some things they are far less likely to accept. The Mormons got trumped when they played the polygamy card in the 19th century. You can smoke dope if you're a Native American and claim it is part of your tribal religion, but you can't legally commit bigamy no matter what your religion.



What's rational is certainly not a matter of semantics; something either is, or isn't. We may differ on what is, but the difference is not a semantic one.

Re: "that would have meaning if we lived in a rational world." It has meaning anyway, because it shows what kind of implications the standard would have if applied consistently. We're talking about what makes logical sense, and what a certain principle of same-sex marriage support implies about other situations. Seems like a pretty valid topic of conversation to me; the fact that it may never be applied rationally is a separate issue. Since when does discussion need to be contained within the scope of current mainstream opinion? The focus should be on what makes sense, and the general pursuit of truth. I see no reason to restrain our thinking by things like the parameters of the law's fickleness.

There's also the fact that public opinion about polygamy could well change at some point in the future. I'm not convinced it will anytime soon, but I'm sure people have said that in the past about any number of things which are thought of as commonplace today.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Whether it's rational or not, everything I can find on the subject states that the legal purchase age of alcohol in Texas is 21 and has been since Sept. 1, 1986.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I thought that 21 was the legal age in Texas just because I seem to remember Bush's daughter was 'busted' for underage drinking and she was 20. Made me ill to see a 20 year old adult having to apologise for having a drink, but then, rules is rules and, if we didn't have rules, where would we be?

*+ rep for anyone who gives the 'correct' answer to that question.*



Whether it's rational or not, everything I can find on the subject states that the legal purchase age of alcohol in Texas is 21 and has been since Sept. 1, 1986.
In 1986, I was 43 years old, so I didn't notice the change in drinking age back to 21. I was buying and drinking beer at 15 in West Texas where if you were big enough to throw your money on the bar, you were big enough to drink.

It was sometime in the late 1980s that my son Mark (Mark F., like you) got busted in a "family" bar where my dad and brothers, my lady friend and her daughter and my two sons and a bunch of their buddies were celebrating my birthday. I was out on the dance floor when one of the teens came and told me Mark had just been busted for drinking. I go to the front of the bar where my sheepish son and one of his buddies were surrounded by deputies. Identified myself as Mark's dad and asked what's up. Deputy says, "It's OK if they drink while sitting at a table with you, but they can't be up walking around with beer bottles or these folks (who own the bar) can lose their license. Now these boys are going to have to leave this place now."

I said, "Thanks, they're out of here." Sent them home. Case closed. Not at all logical, but that's the way the world works.

At any rate, I know that at age 18 I was legally buying and drinking beer in joints in Junction City, Kansas, just outside the Fort Riley Army base, so substitute Kansas for Texas unless they too have since raised the drinking age. Point remains that states are still making an illogical choice that one can drink at at a certain age but not one day prior to reaching that age. I confess it's been so long since I've been carded that I'm no longer up on the legal drinking age in various states.



It has meaning anyway, because it shows what kind of implications the standard would have if applied consistently.
Do you know of any standard that is applied consistently? A standard is just a norm against which other things are judged to be below or above, and there are always exceptions. Now it's fine to talk about what's logical and what might occur if by some miracle standards were applied evenly and consistently, but that's all it is--just talk, like what might the tides be like if we had two moons. It has no application to today's reality.

So it's fine to set up these strawmen for discussion like marriage for gays is as logical as marriage for polygamists. But that totally ignores the general acceptance within medical circles that homosexuality has to do more with how people are "wired" by Mother Nature and is not a choice. Poligamy on the other hand is strictly a choice. So since the two are not the same, the so-called logic is illogical, since society constantly imposes standards that are not in the least logical. There are states that today accept same-sex marriages. There will be more in the future. There is no state even considering polygamy, and it is highly unlikely any ever will.



... But that totally ignores the general acceptance within medical circles that homosexuality has to do more with how people are "wired" by Mother Nature and is not a choice. Poligamy on the other hand is strictly a choice
That's not strictly true, rufnek. I'm 'wired' to disappoint as many women as possible. If I were married, to avoid committing adultry, poligamy would be the only way.



Yeah, I'd actually say monogamy is more of a choice than polygamy. I don't think people suddenly cease to be attracted to other people once they fall in love/enter into a relationship, they (or most people anyway) just make a choice not to act on their attractions/urges. Or something...:\



Celluloid Temptation Facilitator
I know some people who are into polyamory. They say that's just the way they are wired. I do believe our sexuality is mostly hardwired.
__________________
Bleacheddecay



That's not strictly true, rufnek. I'm 'wired' to disappoint as many women as possible. If I were married, to avoid committing adultry, poligamy would be the only way.
You're wired to disappoint women, you're not wired to marry them. The best times of my life were when I was sleeping around with several women, but never felt an urge to marry even one of them, which would have been polygamy since some of them were already married. I wasn't adverse to having wives, I was just adverse to marrying one of my own.

Why get married and make one woman miserable when we could stay single and make several happy? I've always been welcomed back by former girlfriends, but I've never once wanted to go back to an ex-wife.

My second wife even told me once I was a hell of a lot more fun as a date than as a husband.

I do like your point about if you were married, "to avoid committing adultry, poligamy would be the only way." Raises an interesting legal point since the dictionary defines adultery as sex with someone other than your spouse. So say you're married to two women and you're having sex with one--either way you're having sex with your spouse. But to the one you're not having sex with, you're having sex with someone other than your spouse, in that you're having sex and she isn't. Now if the court takes your point of view, you're innocent because you're having sex with your spouse. But if the court takes her point of view--she's your spouse, and you're having sex with someone other than her, then you are committing adultery. Man, you could spend time in jail and a whole lot of money on attorneys trying and appealing that case--not to mention both earsful of "I told you not to marry her!" Now you could try to get around it by having sex with both wives at once, but you know how women can get if they think you're paying more attention to someone other than her. And you are going to have two of them on your butt over that! And how far can you carry that before you're totally overpowered? Three wives? Four? More? And if you try to rotate yourself among them, how can you be sure someone isn't backdooring you with Ann while you're pitching woo to Sue? Seems to me polygamy would be a real ball-buster. And that doesn't even address the problem of you busting your butt to make payments on a house big enough for your multiple spouses while keeping them in dresses and makeup and jewelry and cars of their own. They'll be off together on a vacation cruse flirting with the sailors while you're busting your hump at the office trying to earn enough for that month's utility bill.



Yeah, I'd actually say monogamy is more of a choice than polygamy. I don't think people suddenly cease to be attracted to other people once they fall in love/enter into a relationship, they (or most people anyway) just make a choice not to act on their attractions/urges. Or something...:\
You're confusing polygamy with infidelity. I've never tried to be faithful to any of my wives, but I never once was tempted to marry the other women I was messing around with. Polygamy means you marry the sweet things, but isn't one wife enough of a pain in the butt? Why would you want a whole herd of cows when there's free milk all over the range?



Same sex marriage & Polygamy: I'm in favor of both; so long as I can watch.
__________________
R.I.P.



I know some people who are into polyamory. They say that's just the way they are wired. I do believe our sexuality is mostly hardwired.
C'mon, you really know a practicing polygamist??? Or does polyamory just mean someone who likes to screw around on the side? I'm all for free sex and frequent partners. I don't like group sex: it's too much like line dancing. Sooner or later someone is going to get their feelings hurt or their foot stepped on. But having multiple sex partners is NOT the same as marrying multiple people at the same time. It's the multiple marriages that are illegal (with no intervening divorces), not the multiple sex. People may look down on you for not keeping it in your pants, but you won't go to jail unless you marry 2 or more partners (assuming they're all of legal age). Don't even have to consumate the marriages--just say "I do" to 2 or more partners at the same time, and they'll have you down on Uncle Bud's pea farm for bigamy. And no telling who may tag you for the junior prom down there.



I would make some pun about my sexuality being Hardwired, but I've decided against it.
Maybe you're just hot-wired.



Same sex marriage & Polygamy: I'm in favor of both; so long as I can watch.
Oh, I'd put some perameters on that, if I were you. To me the only thing uglier than a guy's hairy butt is two guys' hairy butts. Yeeeech!



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
You know what? All I can say is that it's too bad that ruffy wasn't around for the Male Kinsey Report. If he were, old Kinsey would have had to put out a second volume totally devoted to him.