Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[King Richard]

Polygamy has some creepy real-life implications sometimes, such as that breeding farm in Texas...*shudder*

Not if your name is Quagmire, allllllright.

 

[AchrisK]

I am not sure where the discussion would/could/should progress from here. Only starting on page 19 here have things started to branch out in terms of making comparisons to other forms of 'marriage' in order to help find some form of objective viewpoint, however fuzzy it may be...but eventually this WILL also be whittled down to the simple boiling point of law vs personal morality and interpretations of both. But you have to have some backbone of truth to really truly believe something logically, and you have to really truly believe something to make any change with it or be an example in that belief, so any progression in thought with anyone as a result of this discussion is a success at least.

It's mostly just people lamenting the rights that religion is taking away from homosexuals. I don't see a whole lot (to be fair, there is some) of interest in looking at it in any other way.

 

[cookiecutter]

It's mostly just people lamenting the rights that religion is taking away from homosexuals. I don't see a whole lot (to be fair, there is some) of interest in looking at it in any other way.

But that's what it is in principle in most places and what it is in practice in California.

Has the Keith Olbermann comment on gay marriage been posted? If not I'll post it, it's really good.

 

[King Richard]

Yes please do, I want to see what kind of retarded shit Keith said this time.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

he made some excellent points, though he was incredibly dramatic as usual.

 

[Burning In Hell]

Let's make this as simple as possible. If one dude wants insert his meatcicle into another dudes poop chute. Who the fuck are we to say yay or nay.

Just as long as it ain't me. Go to fucking town.

 

[cookiecutter]

Yes he is dramatic, but this is a dramatic issue. A majority of people in three states just voted to perpetuate bigotry and discrimination against a minority group. If you aren't upset by this then you are one cold individual.

 

[Death Aflame]

Enough of this relativity bullshit. If you can't see the difference in rights between gay marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage, then you shouldn't be having this discussion. Hint: Only banning gay marriage completely wipes out a person's opportunity to marry at all.

Why are you all of sudden attacking me? Because I asked some related questions? Clearly there is a difference between each form of relationship we have been discussing, but the whole point has been trying to understand how far we should or shouldn't extend marriage rights to other, related sexual minorities. Thus, though the distinctions between each coupling are significant, within the discourse we have established--i.e. the 'fundamental' logic of sexual minority marriage--their cases are not that different at all.

The other reason I bring it up is precisely because it is a challenging notion, our knee-jerk reaction to both polygamy and incestuous marriage is repulsion, but if we support gay rights--doesn't it follow that we should also support other sexual/relationship minorities, right to marriage (assuming it is between consenting adults)? Are we hypocritical in our conception of 'rights' if we don't accept this? This later question is what I have been trying to get an answer too, but I have not seen a decent argument that refutes the extended logic of rights for sexual minorities.

Also your last point makes no sense, incestuous couples are not allowed to get married at all, sure they could choose to marry a non-relative, thereby gaining access to marriage, but what is the difference between that and saying another sexual minority (i.e. homosexuals) could also still get married if they rejected their current sexual practice?

 

[cookiecutter]

The difference is that someone who has incestuous feelings can also have feelings for a non-related member of the sex of their relative. A gay person can't love someone of the opposite sex.

 

[cookiecutter]

Victory in Connecticut! I knew those Yankee lovers weren't all bad.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/br...mesex_marriag_3.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5

 

[Death Aflame]

Careful why? True we may not know enough about a culture to be 100% accurate. But we see what goes on in other cultures around us to get a fairly decent idea I would think.

I say we should be careful since, to me anyways, it evokes notions of ethno/cultural centrism where we decide for other cultures what their values should be. This in itself also seems to recall colonialism and other such notions--who are we to impose on other cultures our values? What gives us that right?

To answer this we could say that since we are saving women from potential abuse, we are justified. And though this is certainly a good reason we need to be wary that we apply this mentality only where it is truly applicable. Is it not possible that a polygamous marriage could be non-abusive? In other words, it is not the form of polygamy itself that universally causes the problems, but only in particular cases. This seems more true than generalizing that all polygamy is all bad all of the time. That, in essence, is all I am saying.

 

[Burning In Hell]

I say we should be careful since, to me anyways, it evokes notions of ethno/cultural centrism where we decide for other cultures what their values should be. This in itself also seems to recall colonialism and other such notions--who are we to impose on other cultures our values? What gives us that right?

To answer this we could say that we are saving women from potential abuse, we are justified. And though this is certainly a good reason we need to be wary that we apply this mentality only where it is truly applicable. Is it not possible that a polygamous marriage could be non-abusive? In other words, it is not the form of polygamy itself that universally causes the problems, but only in particular cases. This seems more true than generalizing that all polygamy is all bad all of the time. That, in essence, is all I am saying.

Agreed.

 

[Death Aflame]

The difference is that someone who has incestuous feelings can also have feelings for a non-related member of the sex of their relative. A gay person can't love someone of the opposite sex.

Interesting point.

So are you saying that because they have the potential or capacity to 'love' in a way that is hetero-normative they are not entitled to have equal rights, when it comes to marriage, in their preferred way?

And, also, can we even make the assumption that they do have the capacity to 'love' beyond their relatives (and even if they can, what if the person they love the most is in fact related to them?)? It seems reasonable logically, but could it possibly be a biological or inborn 'orientation' instead (as gay men claim their positions are)?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Gay marriage and Polygamus marriage are no problem. Incestual I do have a problem with. This can produce physically and mentally handicapped children.

As I pointed out already, so can marriage by retarded couples. Regulating incestuous marriage solely on genetic terms is eugenics.

The difference is that someone who has incestuous feelings can also have feelings for a non-related member of the sex of their relative. A gay person can't love someone of the opposite sex.

That's not enough of a difference to warrant banning incest.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

As I pointed out already, so can marriage by retarded couples. Regulating incestuous marriage solely on genetic terms is eugenics.


That's not enough of a difference to warrant banning incest.

If it softens the blow, it's definitely nothing new, as America has been involved in varied eugenics territory for over a century now. I know it's not completely the same thing, and may not be the reason behind the law, but I'm just saying.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What "eugenics territory" are you talking about exactly?

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

'War Against The Weak' is a good starting resource to read if you want to look into it some more.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Or you could just spare me that for now and tell me what the book actually talks about.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The notion that preventing people from polluting the gene pool with their ludicrous sexual practices (remember, people in lascivious incestuous relationships are doing so out of their own choice, whereas gays do not choose who they love but rather it is defined for them at birth) isn't really eugenics tbh. It would be eugenics if the "higher race" was planning on systematically eradicating them or if we were going for a "human evolutionary" aspect, but...it's...not.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

Or you could just spare me that for now and tell me what the book actually talks about.

Or you could take yourself a pill. I only mentioned it like that so the thread doesn't get more of a complete derailing. Why should I entertain this attitude here, anyhow?