The Real Reason why People Don't Want Ghey Marriage

[JuanDenver]

This article does a great job at presenting the real reason why people dont want ghey marriage. No its not because we are hard line Christians or homophobes. I had to make another thread on this because the other one got lost for some reason. I dont know if people just dont get it or if they dont want to get it. I believe its the latter. Well here you go people:


The Minnesota Legislature is considering proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Many opponents claim that definition is antiquated and discriminatory. A committed relationship should be the only criterion for marriage, they say.

But wait. What if a person loves two people, or three or more? If "one man-one woman" is a discriminatory limitation on the choice of a life partner, on what grounds can the state logically restrict marriage to two people? The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a "committed relationship" -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of "plural marriage" or partnership.

Outrageous scare-mongering! say the amendment's opponents. Oh, really?

Did you catch HBO's new prime-time series, "Big Love," which premiered Sunday? It's about a Utah man married to three wives.

The creators of "Big Love" are a gay couple, Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, who say that the same-sex marriage debate spurred their interest in the topic.

They seek to normalize polygamy by treating it in a "non-judgmental" way.

"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," Olsen told Newsweek. "We'd like them to be America's next great family," Scheffer told the New York Times.

"Big Love" is just a TV show, you say? But cultural expression can pack a powerful wallop - witness the much ballyhooed bid by "Brokeback Mountain" to normalize same-sex attraction. Influential voices are already calling for allowing polygamy. Last week, New York Times libertarian columnist John Tierney endorsed itslegalization in a column titled "Who's afraid of polygamy?"

Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.

Here in America, professors at elite law schools such as Yale and Columbia are laying the groundwork for legal recognition of committed relationships of three or more. Drawing on concepts borrowed from civil rights law, they say they aim to protect "sexual minorities" from discrimination.

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will open a Pandora's box. As a New Jersey appellate court judge wrote recently, if "marriage [is] ... couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous ... unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?"

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, "How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" Down the road it may be, "How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?" If we don't answer the first question with resolve -- making clear that "one man-one woman" is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota -- we may not have a chance to answer the second.

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/310327.html

[KhanPaulsen]

ROFL.

I'm using this as an example (and incest) in another thread.

And people thought I was off my rocker.

[Fidelis]

I support the legalization of homosexual marriages, polygamous (and polyandrous) marriages, and incestual marriages--SO LONG as all parties are competent, consenting adults.

[Mr Beer]

I have no problem with polygamy, other than the legal complications.

[JuanDenver]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

I support the legalization of homosexual marriages, polygamous (and polyandrous) marriages, and incestual marriages--SO LONG as all parties are competent, consenting adults.

Thats too bad.

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships.

[okdude]

someone made the exact same thread recently.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...98#post9217698

Originally Posted by okdude

first, its slippery sloppery bull****.
second, true, not every one who is against it is homophobic, but there are real homophoics and real bigots who will hide behind these excuses because it doesn't look as bad for them.

third, so what the hell has it to do with you when three or four people want to marry together. It is ****ing stupid imo, but as long as they are all consenting and are capable of consenting, who the **** am I to interfere or control their lives.

And same goes for incest, the ultimate disgust,but as long as they are consenting and are capable of consenting, who am I to stop them.

And since some dumbass is going to bring up kids and animals, let's look at the two criterias again, are they are all consenting
? animals out. what about kids? well, the capable of consenting part takes care of that.

These two criteria takes care of everything and that should be the way. Otherwise, any ****head can go around preventing consenting people from getting together. Like interracial marriages. Or me preventing ppl from having anal sex. I don't like anal sex and if not for these two criterias, I would go around stopping anal sex loving heterosexual couples from getting together. But my disgust or disapproval does not entitle me to interfere with somebody else's life, does it?

[catmando]

What is it with the spelling of "ghey"?? What does that mean??

[Melkor]

It's fun and whimsical, don't bash it. Ghey-hater!

[JuanDenver]

Originally Posted by okdude

someone made the exact same thread recently.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...98#post9217698

Adding to my ignore list.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

I have no problem with polygamy, other than the legal complications.

Other than a family with 30 damn children winding up on welfare? Kids who end up with piss-poor education and social issues from lacking intimacy with their families? If you ever want to see an example of the real tragic issues involved in polygamy, read up on Colorado City, Arizona sometime. Now we have young men, 17....18....19 years old running around, no formal education, illiterate, no social skills to speak of, struggling to survive in a highly competitive and frequently changing society.


ARE YOU GOING TO provide housing for these kids? Anyone who supports polygamy should put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to clean-up the aftermath of such a socially destructive policy, just them and nobody else..........................

[Melkor]

Liberals like the idea of more people relying on Government El, that's what they're shooting for.

[JuanDenver]

I added catmando to my ignore list too. He should have been on it a long time ago

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

Thats too bad.

Thanks, I read it the first time around, and I already know you disagree with me.

Now tell me, why is it bad that marriage might be redefined in the US?

Originally Posted by Melkor

Liberals like the idea of more people relying on Government El, that's what they're shooting for.

This is no better than liberals saying "ho ho conservatives are homophobic bigots bu$h ameriKa". Please don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

[okdude]

Originally Posted by SeniorDiscount

Adding to my ignore list.

anyone else wants to hide?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Other than a family with 30 damn children winding up on welfare? Kids who end up with piss-poor education and social issues from lacking intimacy with their families? If you ever want to see an example of the real tragic issues involved in polygamy, read up on Colorado City, Arizona sometime. Now we have young men, 17....18....19 years old running around, no formal education, illiterate, no social skills to speak of, struggling to survive in a highly competitive and frequently changing society.


ARE YOU GOING TO provide housing for these kids? Anyone who supports polygamy should put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to clean-up the aftermath of such a socially destructive policy, just them and nobody else..........................

huh, i read up on it:

"Because polygamy is illegal, most of the wives in Colorado City are viewed by the state as single mothers. Thus, bigamists collect thousands in government aid every month. It is ironic that taxpayers are supporting the lifestyle of a few deviant men, who hide behind their religious beliefs. Recognition of these marriages would stop this welfare fraud."


edit: also, it's funny that you seem to think that allowing polygamy will make this worse, when, not only will it do the opposite, but these people are ALREADY DOING THIS DESPITE THE LAWS. if people want to f*ck their cousins or sisters and live with them, THEY WILL; if they want to f*ck or live with their gay lover, THEY WILL.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

This is no better than liberals saying "ho ho conservatives are homophobic bigots bu$h ameriKa". Please don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

Sorry, my bad. IN GENERAL, liberals like the idea of more people relying on Government El, that's what they're shooting for. Better?

[KhanPaulsen]

Originally Posted by AKR

edit: also, it's funny that you seem to think that allowing polygamy will make this worse, when, not only will it do the opposite, but these people are ALREADY DOING THIS DESPITE THE LAWS. if people want to f*ck their cousins or sisters and live with them, THEY WILL; if they want to f*ck or live with their gay lover, THEY WILL.

It doesn't mean we have to officially condone what they do.

[JuanDenver]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Now tell me, why is it bad that marriage might be redefined in the US?

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships.

..
Sorry if im abrupt. I dont feel like typing and it answers the questions from my pov. Thus, the article

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

It doesn't mean we have to officially condone what they do.

This is true.

[AHood]

its because no one can stand the thought of gay guys doing what ever gay **** they do. so we seek to spite them. now lesbians thats just freakin hot as long as there not rosie odonnel bull dyke lesnians.

[Mr Beer]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

Other than a family with 30 damn children winding up on welfare? Kids who end up with piss-poor education and social issues from lacking intimacy with their families? If you ever want to see an example of the real tragic issues involved in polygamy, read up on Colorado City, Arizona sometime. Now we have young men, 17....18....19 years old running around, no formal education, illiterate, no social skills to speak of, struggling to survive in a highly competitive and frequently changing society.


ARE YOU GOING TO provide housing for these kids? Anyone who supports polygamy should put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to clean-up the aftermath of such a socially destructive policy, just them and nobody else..........................

Reading up on Colorado City, it sounds like polygamy there is just one aspect of a Church (or cult) run society which exploits women. You can have abuse without polygamy, you can have polygamy without abuse. The problem there is not polygamy, but backwardness, entrenched ignorance and religion used as a means on control.

As for lots of illiterate kids on welfare, that is a function of irresponsibility and bad parenting, not polygamy. Yes, that COULD happen - lots of things CAN happen when you embrace a free society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have a free society.

Also, you can have effective polygamy now, you just can't do it formally, in Western countries at least.

I don't much care whether it's legal or not, but if we started with a clean slate and it was my choice, it would be legal simply because I don't we should ban anything we don't have to.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by AHood

its because no one can stand the thought of gay guys doing what ever gay **** they do. so we seek to spite them. now lesbians thats just freakin hot as long as there not rosie odonnel bull dyke lesnians.

ah, you're a breath of fresh air!

[AKR]

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

It doesn't mean we have to officially condone what they do.

no, but it DOES mean he has one less reason. all i was doing was destroying his particular argument. you're entitled to your opinions, but i'm going to point out faults in certain arguments.

[CerealKiller]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

Reading up on Colorado City, it sounds like polygamy there is just one aspect of a Church (or cult) run society which exploits women. You can have abuse without polygamy, you can have polygamy without abuse. The problem there is not polygamy, but backwardness, entrenched ignorance and religion used as a means on control.

As for lots of illiterate kids on welfare, that is a function of irresponsibility and bad parenting, not polygamy. Yes, that COULD happen - lots of things CAN happen when you embrace a free society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have a free society.

Also, you can have effective polygamy now, you just can't do it formally, in Western countries at least.

I don't much care whether it's legal or not, but if we started with a clean slate and it was my choice, it would be legal simply because I don't we should ban anything we don't have to.

Excellent post.

[KhanPaulsen]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

Reading up on Colorado City, it sounds like polygamy there is just one aspect of a Church (or cult) run society which exploits women. You can have abuse without polygamy, you can have polygamy without abuse. The problem there is not polygamy, but backwardness, entrenched ignorance and religion used as a means on control.

Colorado City is nothing but the polygamy cult. I live in AZ, there's pieces on it in the news every other week. You should see some of the stupid, pathetic things that come out of there. A kid any threat to an older male there? Kick them out, now you have a 17 year old male with no clue how to do things.

This is a regular occurrance.

As for lots of illiterate kids on welfare, that is a function of irresponsibility and bad parenting, not polygamy. Yes, that COULD happen - lots of things CAN happen when you embrace a free society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have a free society.

It goes hand in hand with the places that do have popular polygamy (Utah-Arizona border, some places of Montana, etc.).

Welfare isn't a requirement to a free society.

Also, you can have effective polygamy now, you just can't do it formally, in Western countries at least.

I don't much care whether it's legal or not, but if we started with a clean slate and it was my choice, it would be legal simply because I don't we should ban anything we don't have to.

And we should only ban things you don't like, like murder right?

Afterall, how does one decide what is right/wrong, if you personally decide than your definition of right/wrong is just based on you not liking it, not because you have any other reason.

[Mr Beer]

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

Colorado City is nothing but the polygamy cult. I live in AZ, there's pieces on it in the news every other week. You should see some of the stupid, pathetic things that come out of there. A kid any threat to an older male there? Kick them out, now you have a 17 year old male with no clue how to do things.

This is a regular occurrance.

None of which contradicts my point, repressive cult = bad, polygamy is not the enemy here.

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

It goes hand in hand with the places that do have popular polygamy (Utah-Arizona border, some places of Montana, etc.).

I suspect problems with polygamy are associated with poor people. Whether wealthy, well adjusted people would be likely to have several spouses is another matter of course.

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

Welfare isn't a requirement to a free society.

I didnt say it was. I think it's a requirement for a humane society, but that's another argument.

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

And we should only ban things you don't like, like murder right?

Afterall, how does one decide what is right/wrong, if you personally decide than your definition of right/wrong is just based on you not liking it, not because you have any other reason.

I didn't say we should only ban things I don't like. I said what MY position on the subject is.

I think I also implied that this is not based on my like or dislike of polygamy, but if that's not clear from what I said, allow me to elucidate...

I believe we should only forbid when we have to and as far as possible, people should be free to make their own decisions in life. A basic tenet of this philosophy is that consenting adults get to do what they want, if they don't hurt others. Thus, several adults should be allowed to marry.

The argument against this appears to be "think of the children".

Now, polygamous marriages *might* have a higher rate of poor parenting. However, this is irrelevent. Blacks might have a higher rate of poor parenting. Poor people might have a higher rate of poor parenting. We should target poor parenting where possible, not the demographic involved.

To me, this seems analagous to alcohol abuse. Alcohol is a factor in more crime than any other drug by a wide margin. Broken homes, domestic violence, poverty, road accidents...this list goes on. However, should we ban alcohol? No. People have a right to use alcohol if they so wish, however, we can and should target illegal behaviour when caused by alcohol.

[KhanPaulsen]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

None of which contradicts my point, repressive cult = bad, polygamy is not the enemy here.



I suspect problems with polygamy are associated with poor people. Whether wealthy, well adjusted people would be likely to have several spouses is another matter of course.



I didnt say it was. I think it's a requirement for a humane society, but that's another argument.

I agree, cult is bad, polygamy is popular in poor places just like people having 20 children because they're poor parallels that.

Welfare can be discussed elsewhere.

I didn't say we should only ban things I don't like. I said what MY position on the subject is.

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

it would be legal simply because I don't we should ban anything we don't have to.

How do you decide what should/shouldn't be banned?