Conquer Club

There's been a lot of stuff said about what legalising gay marriage would entail, ranging from polygamy to bestiality, and with corruption of youths, weakening of heterosexual marriage, and whatever other kind of fear mongering can be thrown in to the mix.

How has your state or nation managed with the issue?

If you've had a kind of legalisation- have the fears come true? Are you now close to legalising animal abuse and incest? Have marriages been weakened?

Practically, what have been the consequences?

I predict that the consequence of a gay marriage thread is a lot of angry posts.

Metsfanmax wrote:I predict that the consequence of a gay marriage thread is a lot of angry posts.

Probably- I'd be interested in seeing if the people who predicted that bestiality, polygamy, incest and the rest were going to be next felt that after this was legalised or banned, anything had actually changed.

people's opposition to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. is irrational anyway.

The slippery slopes to those types of marriages are valid.

The fact that they are assumed immoral automatically is invalid.

john9blue wrote:people's opposition to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. is irrational anyway.

More irrelevant I'd say. Incest has its own set of problems- ranging from it being open to family abuse and pressure to actual genetic problems. bestiality is abuse and has nothing to do with whether you're gay or not. Polygamous societies are generally the most homophobic societies you're likely to see.

Symmetry wrote: Polygamous societies are generally the most homophobic societies you're likely to see.

Yea, and the KKK is pretty racist. Not really sure how that's relevant.

Is brother-brother incest immoral? Dad-son?

Brother-sister but the brother has his tubes tied? Grandma, three year old boy and cat?

What about sister-sister?

I live in California. The negative consequence is that gays, who contribute nothing to society, are elevated to a higher status, and churches, which contribute greatly to alleviating poverty on the community level, are held in low regard.

Dibbun wrote:I live in California. The negative consequence is that gays, who contribute nothing to society, are elevated to a higher status, and churches, which contribute greatly to alleviating poverty on the community level, are held in low regard.

That's a pretty big generalization.

You're positive that there are no gays at all that contribute anything to society?

And I highly doubt that churches being held in low regard is caused by gay marriage being legalized. That's a bit of a stretch.

Well, I live in one of the most gay cities in the United States... There are a few gay bars downtown and just outside downtown. I'd be lying if I said I haven't ventured to any of them Quite an interesting experience!

-Sully

So far this thread has raised nothing but a few ignorant ideas.

The consequences so far are simply that same sex couples will legally
have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Oh the horror.

No church is damaged by gay marriage, most of their image problems
are self inflicted. Bestiality, incest, polygamy and bigotry have nothing
to do with gender specific sexual preference or same sex attraction.

Symmetry wrote:How has your state or nation managed with the issue?

So far? Poorly.

Symmetry wrote:If you've had a kind of legalisation- have the fears come true? Are you now close to legalising animal abuse and incest? Have marriages been weakened?

What fears specifically? The people that are against gay marriage are against gay marriage because they think it's immoral. I'm not sure they expected some sort of tangible negative result.

Symmetry wrote:Practically, what have been the consequences?

What oVo said.

Now that my pandering to your ridiculous questions is finally done, let's talk about polygamy.

There's been a lot of stuff said about what legalizing polygamy would entail, ranging from bestiality to incest, and with corruption of youths, weakening of monogamous marriage, child abuse, and whatever other kind of fear mongering can be throwin in to the mix.

How has your state or nation managed with the issue?

If you had a kind of legalization - have the feers come true? Are you now close to legalizing bestiality and incest? Have monogamous marriages been weakened? Have females become unequal to males in society?

Practically, what have been the consequences?

Also, oVo - while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality... it's immoral, incest could result, abuse could result, the weakening of society could result, etc. So why are we okay with homosexual marriage and not polygamy? And let's keep in mind that I'm pro-gay marriage. I simply find it a complete and utter hypocrisy to support gay marriage and denigrate polygamy for the same reasons that the opponents to gay marriage denigrate gay marriage.

john9blue wrote:people's opposition to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. is irrational anyway.

You see this happening? Seems like the only ones saying that are those opposed. Others seem clear that there are distinctions.

thegreekdog wrote:
Also, oVo - while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality... it's immoral, incest could result, abuse could result, the weakening of society could result, etc. So why are we okay with homosexual marriage and not polygamy? And let's keep in mind that I'm pro-gay marriage. I simply find it a complete and utter hypocrisy to support gay marriage and denigrate polygamy for the same reasons that the opponents to gay marriage denigrate gay marriage.

I can snswer this. It used to be thought that homosexuality led to pedophilia, that gays were "generally immoral" or even "sick" individuals who would cause harm in society. We now know that this is not true. That is, from the perspective of some religions, it hurts the people directly involved, but there is no real harm to society.

Polygamy IS different. Ironically, many religions support polygamy. However, it results in an unbalanced society. There just are not many times more women than men. There IS a real tendency to take younger and younger girls. However, even in those groups that keep to the "age of consent", you find younger adult males left mroe or less "by the wayside". Again, the extremes actually oust the boys (Warren Jeffs, for example apparently did that). However, even those that don't go to that extreme subtley just don't have places for all the boys. In smaller groups, this can be somewhat balanced by recruiting women from outside the group. However, if polygamy were ever to be widespread, it would be an issue. Polygamy is tied to increased warfare. Sometimes as a response, but also perhaps as a cause. (that last IS debated)

Polygamy also differs in children. Polygamy, almost without exception, does lead to many more children than any other type of relationship.

Finally, there is an inherent dimishing of the value of women in polygamy. I fully understand that polygamy is not all bad for women. I know African women who have lived with or in polygamy. They talk of "sister-wives" and, rather than the stereotypical combat, find comfort in sharing a house with other women. Still, there is no sense of equality. Ironically, many more conservative groups see that as an actual benefit. I, however, do not.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
Also, oVo - while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality... it's immoral, incest could result, abuse could result, the weakening of society could result, etc. So why are we okay with homosexual marriage and not polygamy? And let's keep in mind that I'm pro-gay marriage. I simply find it a complete and utter hypocrisy to support gay marriage and denigrate polygamy for the same reasons that the opponents to gay marriage denigrate gay marriage.

I can snswer this. It used to be thought that homosexuality led to pedophilia, that gays were "generally immoral" or even "sick" individuals who would cause harm in society. We now know that this is not true. That is, from the perspective of some religions, it hurts the people directly involved, but there is no real harm to society.

Polygamy IS different. Ironically, many religions support polygamy. However, it results in an unbalanced society. There just are not many times more women than men. There IS a real tendency to take younger and younger girls. However, even in those groups that keep to the "age of consent", you find younger adult males left mroe or less "by the wayside". Again, the extremes actually oust the boys (Warren Jeffs, for example apparently did that). However, even those that don't go to that extreme subtley just don't have places for all the boys. In smaller groups, this can be somewhat balanced by recruiting women from outside the group. However, if polygamy were ever to be widespread, it would be an issue. Polygamy is tied to increased warfare. Sometimes as a response, but also perhaps as a cause. (that last IS debated)

Polygamy also differs in children. Polygamy, almost without exception, does lead to many more children than any other type of relationship.

Finally, there is an inherent dimishing of the value of women in polygamy. I fully understand that polygamy is not all bad for women. I know African women who have lived with or in polygamy. They talk of "sister-wives" and, rather than the stereotypical combat, find comfort in sharing a house with other women. Still, there is no sense of equality. Ironically, many more conservative groups see that as an actual benefit. I, however, do not.

Why is your "proof" that polygamy is bad different from the "proof" that people submit that homosexuality or gay marriage is bad?

thegreekdog wrote:Why is your "proof" that polygamy is bad different from the "proof" that people submit that homosexuality or gay marriage is bad?

I have previously posted the links when this debate came up before. Granted, Warren Jeffs is not "representative" of "nice" polygamy. However, none of what I stated above is controversial. The controversy or debate is over whether that matters.

Note.. the one argument for polygamy is that we almost have a polygamist/polyandrist society right now, just unofficially, in that people have kids with multiple partners, etc.

Anyway, I don't really want to go over this again today (don't have the time now). I cannot really say I am playing "devil's advocate", because I do think the state has reason to oppose polygamy. However,my feelings on polygamy are nowhere near as strong as on homosexuality. If it were legalized, it would require more restraints/ laws than other types of marriage. You can go into the old threads and find what I have said before if you like. But, you asked a questions and I answered.

There are more heterosexual couples choosing to live together
outside of marriage now than ever before. This is also immoral
in the minds of many people or as my mom used to refer to it,
living in sin.

The polygamy debate is an interesting one. Why should there be
a law limiting the number of spouses "consenting adults" choose
to legally bind themselves to?

oVo wrote:There are more heterosexual couples choosing to live together
outside of marriage now than ever before. This is also immoral
in the minds of many people or as my mom used to refer to it,
living in sin.

The polygamy debate is an interesting one. Why should there be
a law limiting the number of spouses "consenting adults" choose
to legally bind themselves to?

The last time this issue came to national prominence was early in the 20th century through a Supreme Court decision. The decision was based upon a determination of whether a ban on polygamy was unconstitutional based on religious freedom. The Court upheld the law in Reynolds v. U.S.

Here's the wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

EDIT - I realize this does not answer your question. I have no answer for your question because I think polygamy should be legal.

oVo wrote: The polygamy debate is an interesting one. Why should there be
a law limiting the number of spouses "consenting adults" choose
to legally bind themselves to?

Probably has in part to do with benefits and other concerns---on the federal, state, and employment levels.


---Andy

There quite literally is NO difference in arguments between homosexuality and polygamy. Both SHOULD be legal in a free world, because both have the ability to consent involved.

This does not apply to beastiality or incest, because in those instances the ability to consent is a problem and/or the problem of the progeny produced.

Now, can a case be logically made that if the "incestors" are both of the age of consent and that progeny cannot possibly be produced (due to having tubes tied or whatever), that it should be legal? Yes...I would actually agree with that.

For me, it seems obvious that it's primarily a situation of "consent".

Woodruff wrote:There quite literally is NO difference in arguments between homosexuality and polygamy. Both SHOULD be legal in a free world, because both have the ability to consent involved.

This does not apply to beastiality or incest, because in those instances the ability to consent is a problem and/or the problem of the progeny produced.

Now, can a case be logically made that if the "incestors" are both of the age of consent and that progeny cannot possibly be produced (due to having tubes tied or whatever), that it should be legal? Yes...I would actually agree with that.

For me, it seems obvious that it's primarily a situation of "consent".

You don't feel the "more children" issue is one of concern to the state?

And do you disagree with the characterization I gave about women or feel it is just not something of state concern? Just trying to understand.. like I said, I am sort of on the fence on this one myself. Morally, would say there is no distinction ( the "consenting adult bit" is an identical issue for all forms of sex). My concern is more "practicality".

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:There quite literally is NO difference in arguments between homosexuality and polygamy. Both SHOULD be legal in a free world, because both have the ability to consent involved.

This does not apply to beastiality or incest, because in those instances the ability to consent is a problem and/or the problem of the progeny produced.

Now, can a case be logically made that if the "incestors" are both of the age of consent and that progeny cannot possibly be produced (due to having tubes tied or whatever), that it should be legal? Yes...I would actually agree with that.

For me, it seems obvious that it's primarily a situation of "consent".

You don't feel the "more children" issue is one of concern to the state?

No, not particularly...we're not China.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And do you disagree with the characterization I gave about women or feel it is just not something of state concern? Just trying to understand.. like I said, I am sort of on the fence on this one myself. Morally, would say there is no distinction ( the "consenting adult bit" is an identical issue for all forms of sex). My concern is more "practicality".

Honestly, I would see those problems as ones of "abuse" rather than of problems inherent to polygamy itself.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If you've had a kind of legalisation- have the fears come true? Are you now close to legalising animal abuse and incest? Have marriages been weakened?

What fears specifically? The people that are against gay marriage are against gay marriage because they think it's immoral. I'm not sure they expected some sort of tangible negative result.

also... while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality...

Tgd has a point here. It's not that anybody is saying that those other things will inevitably follow. The point is that if you're going to say that marriage is whatever you want it to be, you've got to come up with a better argument because that includes these things and more.

daddy1gringo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If you've had a kind of legalisation- have the fears come true? Are you now close to legalising animal abuse and incest? Have marriages been weakened?

What fears specifically? The people that are against gay marriage are against gay marriage because they think it's immoral. I'm not sure they expected some sort of tangible negative result.

also... while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality...

Tgd has a point here. It's not that anybody is saying that those other things will inevitably follow. The point is that if you're going to say that marriage is whatever you want it to be, you've got to come up with a better argument because that includes these things and more.

"Consent" doesn't apply to beastiality nor in most cases to incest.