Marriage customs — like a lot of culture — are heavily influenced by material conditions. If the material conditions are such that polygamy makes sense, then there will be polygamy. Ancient Hebrew society was polygamous, and God seemed to think that was okay for them. I guess God is a moral relativist.
My aren’t we sensitize. I was merely showing you that you were wrong about people marring animals. I did not try to get into the legal or moral implications. But if you insist on going there I DO BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CALL IT A MARRIAGE. Historically marriage is between a man and a woman. They should just strive to have laws that recognize and legitimize benefits and rights equal to heterosexual couples. Hetero couples do not have to be married to get the same benefits as married couples.
Apparently you didn’t read the supreme coure “friend of the scourt brief” filed several days ago that pointed out this very scenario. All the artist did was to visualize and toon the thing rather hilariously…
You guys are missing the ruling. Yeesh. Did you even read the opinions? For (The 5 votes): This is a states’ rights issue, and if a state deems it okay, then who is the federal government to refuse it? Constitutionalists should be happy.Against (The 4 votes): This is not something that should have been heard; the people of this country have elected leaders who carried out their will. To be honest, the dissenting is pretty weak. Social morays change. I honestly can’t stand the concept of same-sex marriage, but I’m also not so bullheaded that I can’t recognize social morays are changing because the youth of this country is being brainwashed to think anything is okay. If conservatives want to blame someone, blame the education system and themselves, because they didn’t instill their version of ethics into their children.So here is what’s going to likely happen in this country: Those people who approve of same-sex marriage, or those who will want to have same-sex marriages, will gravitate to states that approve it. Those who oppose same-sex marriage will gravitate to states that ban it. And then some people (like me) will stay where they are, and accept that people can do what they want in their homes, and as long as it doesn’t impact their life they don’t care. My state currently prohibits same-sex marriage. If that changes, I recognize I’m faced with the above 3 options. I know that homosexuality is a relatively low-percent of the population (like 1-3%), and of that population, likely less than half are going to be interested in marriage. It is what it is. I will shrug and move on with my life, continuing to tell my children that marriage is for opposite-sex, unrelated couples. They are my kids, and I’m permitted to raise them how I see fit. Just like you are yours. Do I approve? No. But that’s my right, just like it’s yours to disapprove of my opinion. Here’s the difference: I don’t label someone who disagrees with me a bigot/heterophobe/racist/close-minded/etc. Many times, especially on these boards, we find people who will throw those words around because we have an opinion that favors traditional values. I didn’t realize that was such a grave sin. So guys, enough with the hate, on both sides. Yes, this is a slippery-slope issue, and no, it’s not the first time in history society has shifted like this. Sometimes, history needs to repeat itself before we as a species finally flipping learns something.
Nature made each of us one of two sexes. The express purpose of the two sexes is reproduction. Continuation of the species. Marriage up until recently has been government’s sanctioned recognition of the fact that ONLY the male/female relationship can create new life. It is the ONLY relationship that has that POTENTIAL. Same-sex couples, by their very nature, DO NOT have that potential. You can shout “equality” all you want but nature has provided that only opposite-sex couples can do what same-sex couples can’t.
It doesn’t hurt the individual, perhaps, but it does erode the nuclear family unit further. I’m not saying it’s in a great state of affairs as it is, but why would we do something to hasten its total annihilation?Oh, and you quoted the wrong person. ;D
While I consider the LGBT issue way overblown politically, for a long time, if it keeps the paranoid religionists bent out of shape, it may be worth it!
While I also supported EQUAL opportunity for decades, I saw way too many abuses from “affirmative action” programs.
America remains “Animal Farm” where some are just “more equal than others”, and it cuts multiple ways. From the wealthy 1%, to the AIPAC less than 1%, to folks wanting something for nothing, whether it’s GE, or someone on welfare to lazy to work, we DO need to refine our laws and regulations to assure actual, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, for all in the society. That even includes those who’ve come here seeking the freedom and status those Pilgrim forefathers (who also came here illegally, without visas or “papers”) sought. And yes, those laws also need revision, as the ones we once had were better than what we have now.
The STATE needs to recognize “partners” without prejudice, even if “religious folks” won’t let it go, like so many civil rights they don’t care for.
Someone posted that “historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman”. This is not, in fact, true. Many cultures have had same sex marriage. Even the early Christian church had a uniting ceremony specially for it, the last mention of it being used was in the 14th century. Saints Sergius and Bacchus were a devoted couple. Saint Sebastian may also have been gay, as well.
Newenglandah, if you read my post you will realize that you are making my point. 100 years ago, a woman had no say in the decision to marry. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was unacceptable. We are now accepting same sex unions. The next progression will be interspecies unions. One could argue that multiple spouses or child spouses will precede such a practice, but such relationships already are being practiced in some cultures. It would be judgmental and and impolitic to suggest that a cultural practice is acceptable only when embraced by the West.
and to kevin…check it out…“hetero” couples do have to be married to collect social security benefits, so your reasoning is flawed just on that. estate taxes…same. and that IS what we want…a level playing field.
“Fact in Europian countries that have legal homosexual marriage, same sex male couples have a 50% high divorce rate then traditional couples and same sex female couples have a 126% higher divorce rate.”
False, swr. Same-sex couples have a higher divorce rate than heterosexual couples in Norway and Sweden. In Denmark the divorce rate for same-sex couples is considerably less than half that for heterosexual couples, and in the UK and those US states where same-sex marriage is legal, the current same-sex divorce rate is about half that of heterosexual marriages.
Simple fact is, it doesn’t “weaken” marriage to let more people who want to commit to it, commit to it.
Concerning polygamy, my understanding is that it’s rarely the case that even all WIVES have the same rights and privileges as EACH OTHER, let alone equal rights as their common husband. That’s my primary concern about polygamy; any time you try to organize a three-way, there’s a good chance one participant will end up feeling left out.
Of course, it’s only been recent years in which both parties in monogamous HETEROSEXUAL marriages have been assumed to be “equal partners.”
I think that’s part of what bugs the “traditionalists”: In a marriage between two husbands or between two wives, how can you tell which one is supposed to be the Boss?
Snarky almost 11 years ago
Give it time Newenglandah. 50 years ago, anyone suggesting marriage between people of the same sex would have been waved off as a nutjob.
William Bednar Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Can “legalized” polygamy be far off? If “marriage” is just a legalism, then ALL forms of “marriage” can, in principle, be lagalized.
klr562 almost 11 years ago
I suggest you Google “man marries dog” and do some research.
lonecat almost 11 years ago
Marriage customs — like a lot of culture — are heavily influenced by material conditions. If the material conditions are such that polygamy makes sense, then there will be polygamy. Ancient Hebrew society was polygamous, and God seemed to think that was okay for them. I guess God is a moral relativist.
griffthegreat almost 11 years ago
Asinine and stupid.
klr562 almost 11 years ago
My aren’t we sensitize. I was merely showing you that you were wrong about people marring animals. I did not try to get into the legal or moral implications. But if you insist on going there I DO BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CALL IT A MARRIAGE. Historically marriage is between a man and a woman. They should just strive to have laws that recognize and legitimize benefits and rights equal to heterosexual couples. Hetero couples do not have to be married to get the same benefits as married couples.
d_legendary1 almost 11 years ago
Only Republicans equate homosexual marriage to marrying inanimate objects. And isn’t marrying your sister a red neck thing?
EeyoreBlue almost 11 years ago
Apparently you didn’t read the supreme coure “friend of the scourt brief” filed several days ago that pointed out this very scenario. All the artist did was to visualize and toon the thing rather hilariously…
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
You guys are missing the ruling. Yeesh. Did you even read the opinions? For (The 5 votes): This is a states’ rights issue, and if a state deems it okay, then who is the federal government to refuse it? Constitutionalists should be happy.Against (The 4 votes): This is not something that should have been heard; the people of this country have elected leaders who carried out their will. To be honest, the dissenting is pretty weak. Social morays change. I honestly can’t stand the concept of same-sex marriage, but I’m also not so bullheaded that I can’t recognize social morays are changing because the youth of this country is being brainwashed to think anything is okay. If conservatives want to blame someone, blame the education system and themselves, because they didn’t instill their version of ethics into their children.So here is what’s going to likely happen in this country: Those people who approve of same-sex marriage, or those who will want to have same-sex marriages, will gravitate to states that approve it. Those who oppose same-sex marriage will gravitate to states that ban it. And then some people (like me) will stay where they are, and accept that people can do what they want in their homes, and as long as it doesn’t impact their life they don’t care. My state currently prohibits same-sex marriage. If that changes, I recognize I’m faced with the above 3 options. I know that homosexuality is a relatively low-percent of the population (like 1-3%), and of that population, likely less than half are going to be interested in marriage. It is what it is. I will shrug and move on with my life, continuing to tell my children that marriage is for opposite-sex, unrelated couples. They are my kids, and I’m permitted to raise them how I see fit. Just like you are yours. Do I approve? No. But that’s my right, just like it’s yours to disapprove of my opinion. Here’s the difference: I don’t label someone who disagrees with me a bigot/heterophobe/racist/close-minded/etc. Many times, especially on these boards, we find people who will throw those words around because we have an opinion that favors traditional values. I didn’t realize that was such a grave sin. So guys, enough with the hate, on both sides. Yes, this is a slippery-slope issue, and no, it’s not the first time in history society has shifted like this. Sometimes, history needs to repeat itself before we as a species finally flipping learns something.
Snoopy_Fan almost 11 years ago
Here’s a coherent argument:
Nature made each of us one of two sexes. The express purpose of the two sexes is reproduction. Continuation of the species. Marriage up until recently has been government’s sanctioned recognition of the fact that ONLY the male/female relationship can create new life. It is the ONLY relationship that has that POTENTIAL. Same-sex couples, by their very nature, DO NOT have that potential. You can shout “equality” all you want but nature has provided that only opposite-sex couples can do what same-sex couples can’t.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
It doesn’t hurt the individual, perhaps, but it does erode the nuclear family unit further. I’m not saying it’s in a great state of affairs as it is, but why would we do something to hasten its total annihilation?Oh, and you quoted the wrong person. ;D
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
While I consider the LGBT issue way overblown politically, for a long time, if it keeps the paranoid religionists bent out of shape, it may be worth it!
While I also supported EQUAL opportunity for decades, I saw way too many abuses from “affirmative action” programs.
America remains “Animal Farm” where some are just “more equal than others”, and it cuts multiple ways. From the wealthy 1%, to the AIPAC less than 1%, to folks wanting something for nothing, whether it’s GE, or someone on welfare to lazy to work, we DO need to refine our laws and regulations to assure actual, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, for all in the society. That even includes those who’ve come here seeking the freedom and status those Pilgrim forefathers (who also came here illegally, without visas or “papers”) sought. And yes, those laws also need revision, as the ones we once had were better than what we have now.
The STATE needs to recognize “partners” without prejudice, even if “religious folks” won’t let it go, like so many civil rights they don’t care for.
pirate227 almost 11 years ago
RWNJ defined, thanks Ramirez.
orionova almost 11 years ago
Someone posted that “historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman”. This is not, in fact, true. Many cultures have had same sex marriage. Even the early Christian church had a uniting ceremony specially for it, the last mention of it being used was in the 14th century. Saints Sergius and Bacchus were a devoted couple. Saint Sebastian may also have been gay, as well.
Snarky almost 11 years ago
Newenglandah, if you read my post you will realize that you are making my point. 100 years ago, a woman had no say in the decision to marry. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was unacceptable. We are now accepting same sex unions. The next progression will be interspecies unions. One could argue that multiple spouses or child spouses will precede such a practice, but such relationships already are being practiced in some cultures. It would be judgmental and and impolitic to suggest that a cultural practice is acceptable only when embraced by the West.
catlovr almost 11 years ago
what? you forgot the family dog and a goat, you putz!
catlovr almost 11 years ago
and to kevin…check it out…“hetero” couples do have to be married to collect social security benefits, so your reasoning is flawed just on that. estate taxes…same. and that IS what we want…a level playing field.
lbatik almost 11 years ago
“Fact in Europian countries that have legal homosexual marriage, same sex male couples have a 50% high divorce rate then traditional couples and same sex female couples have a 126% higher divorce rate.”
False, swr. Same-sex couples have a higher divorce rate than heterosexual couples in Norway and Sweden. In Denmark the divorce rate for same-sex couples is considerably less than half that for heterosexual couples, and in the UK and those US states where same-sex marriage is legal, the current same-sex divorce rate is about half that of heterosexual marriages.
Simple fact is, it doesn’t “weaken” marriage to let more people who want to commit to it, commit to it.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Concerning polygamy, my understanding is that it’s rarely the case that even all WIVES have the same rights and privileges as EACH OTHER, let alone equal rights as their common husband. That’s my primary concern about polygamy; any time you try to organize a three-way, there’s a good chance one participant will end up feeling left out.
Of course, it’s only been recent years in which both parties in monogamous HETEROSEXUAL marriages have been assumed to be “equal partners.”
I think that’s part of what bugs the “traditionalists”: In a marriage between two husbands or between two wives, how can you tell which one is supposed to be the Boss?