Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Lead to Polygamous Marriage. Really?

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, your traditions went out the door with divorce laws. There is hardly a family that is 'a man, a woman and children' shucks, there are enough couples who are - by choice - without children. Not to mention enough 'families' who are without either man or woman...

Neither divorce (which I was once) nor being childless (which I am) changes the definition of marriage.

You are keeping an argument alive that is still stuck in the last century: Up until the 1960s or even 70s a woman was to get married and have children. That was her sole purpose in life. But we have since moved away from that. I think those sentiments, that a woman can actually have a job outside the home was also met with 'you open the door to...' arguments.

I disagree. Recognizing the right of women to vote, own property, be educated, and have a career has not opened to the door to anything else, because there isn't anything beyond that; every person enjoys those freedoms no matter what kind of relationship they find themselves in, as they should.

And my argument is *not* about the joys or pains of non-traditional marriages; read my subject line again. My argument is that same-sex marriage proponents claimed that recognizing same-sex marriages would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage. They have. Ta-da.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just because you repeat the argument does not make it any more true.

I'm not arguing; I'm stating a fact. Our society, the one you and I both live in, is based on a traditional definition of marriage the defines it as being between one man and one woman. Period, ranking full stop. It's not argument, it is fact. You cannot assail it, it is what is.

Look past the western society and see how necessary 'marriage' is: the Chinese Naxi don't have a family tradition like we do. And oddly enough no marriage in that sense.
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minorities/min-Naxi.html
several African tribes who have not yet been swallowed up my Islam have woman's choice in terms of selection of the mate, and when things don't turn out right, she can pick a new one the following year.

Marriage is a matter of lineage. Marriage is a matter of economic needs. But is non of the things other than that. Naturally, if you actually like your mate, it has always been a bonus.

Marriage is traditional in our society, and it has always been defined as being between a man and a woman IN OUR SOCIETY. Bringing up other epochs and other societies is interesting stuff, but it is not our history or our society. You do not live in that society and neither do I.

 

[Makalakumu]

How about personal preference that our society remain traditional?

Do you really want to live in that kind of society, Bill? I don't. I want to live in a free society where people's personal preferences are personal. In a free society, a government can legislate against forms of violence and breach of contract. If you want to start adding things, THAT is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. I'll take this slippery slope over that one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you really want to live in that kind of society, Bill?

Yes.

 

[Big Don]

Since Bill has a line from Orwell in his signature, it is only fair to point out how many of our more liberal members are engaging in New Speak.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes.

I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban.

Enjoy.

 

[Makalakumu]

Since Bill has a line from Orwell in his signature, it is only fair to point out how many of our more liberal members are engaging in New Speak.

Pot kettle black.

 

[Big Don]

I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban. Enjoy.

IMO, that is pretty damn close to a personal attack. That said, Maunakumu, you realize, do you not, that on a fundamental level, you are no different than bull crap, i.e., you're both composed of matter of use to some and useless to others...

 

[granfire]

Neither divorce (which I was once) nor being childless (which I am) changes the definition of marriage.

no, not the definition of marriage, but the definition of family, which you base your definition of marriage on.

I disagree. Recognizing the right of women to vote, own property, be educated, and have a career has not opened to the door to anything else, because there isn't anything beyond that; every person enjoys those freedoms no matter what kind of relationship they find themselves in, as they should.

And my argument is *not* about the joys or pains of non-traditional marriages; read my subject line again. My argument is that same-sex marriage proponents claimed that recognizing same-sex marriages would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage. They have. Ta-da.

You can't have it both ways:
Your traditions are already corrupted by the advances of society. because the truly traditional marriage, the woman surrenders all rights and all hopes at the alter. It's only since the last century that marriages can be desolved with no blame towards the woman. Or that violent transgressions towards wives have become criminal.


I don't think the same sex marriage has had more influence in the call for making multiple spouse marriages legal. I do feintly recall that those groups ahve always carefully lobbied for that. naturally not as upfront. And no, that is a recollection from the deep recesses of my mind, not fact.

naturally there are points brought up to strengthen once position. In light of all the weirdos and perverts hiding under the polygamist label, it makes a pretty good boogy man for those who are on the fence about same sex marriage.

The point is that marriage is not a moral thing, nothing holy about it. In the end all that counts is that the numbers under the bottom line are black.

It's about health insurance, property rights, wills, living or otherwise. Legal stuff.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban. Enjoy.

Really?

Let's see...

Me: Against same-sex marriage.
Taliban: Against same-sex marriage.

Me: Recognizes the right of same-sex couples to live together in civil union.
Taliban: Cuts off the heads of homosexual couples.

I think we're pretty different on a fundamental (nice irony, there by the way, thanks) basis.

But don't bother apologizing. I'm used to being compared to terrorists for wanting marriage to remain defined as being between a man and a woman. Yeah, that's a horrible thing. I ought to have my head cut off for believing that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The point is that marriage is not a moral thing, nothing holy about it. In the end all that counts is that the numbers under the bottom line are black.

You're assuming I am claiming a moral basis for marriage; I am not. I am claiming an historical basis in our society, which is factual. You cannot argue against that, so you shuffle sideways around it. Our society is based on a traditional interpretation of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Fact.

It's about health insurance, property rights, wills, living or otherwise. Legal stuff.

All of which can be handled without redefining what marriage is. Contract law works just fine, and in areas where same-sex couples are treated inequitably compared to married couples, the law can be easily changed to address those disparities. A redefinition of marriage is not required.

In any case, again, this is not my thesis. You don't seem to want to address that, eh?

 

[Makalakumu]

Really?

Let's see...

Me: Against same-sex marriage.
Taliban: Against same-sex marriage.

Me: Recognizes the right of same-sex couples to live together in civil union.
Taliban: Cuts off the heads of homosexual couples.

I think we're pretty different on a fundamental (nice irony, there by the way, thanks) basis.

But don't bother apologizing. I'm used to being compared to terrorists for wanting marriage to remain defined as being between a man and a woman. Yeah, that's a horrible thing. I ought to have my head cut off for believing that.

It's the idea that you can legislate your personal preference. If you don't like the comparison, fine, but it's true. You hold the fundamental idea that makes their society possible. Granted, you may not want to take it to that extreme, but others will and they can use YOUR arguments to speed down that slippery slope.

If you want to live in a free society, then you have to accept personal decisions that you don't agree with as long as they don't infringe upon your property rights and are violent towards you. If you want to start adding prohibitions, you must accept the company of others who also choose to do so.

 

[CoryKS]

meh. They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution. Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it. Many people may enjoy committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.

 

[Makalakumu]

IMO, that is pretty damn close to a personal attack. That said, Maunakumu, you realize, do you not, that on a fundamental level, you are no different than bull crap, i.e., you're both composed of matter of use to some and useless to others...

It's not a personal attack. It's a simple comparison that happens to hold true. If you think you can legislate your personal preference when it causes no violence and does not infringe upon your property rights, you hold the fundamental idea that makes the society the Taleban created possible. I don't care if it's inflammatory, considering the politics, because logically you cannot point fingers at the Taleban and say "oh your bad" because they'll throw your arguments right back in your face.

IMO, it's a question of personal liberty.

 

[Makalakumu]

meh. They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution. Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it. Many people may enjoy committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.

I don't know about that, Cory. Marriage works out great for me. We are happy and have great children and we are part of a tradition that accepts same sex marriage and polyamorous relationships. Yes, some relationships don't work out, but that happens in any tradition in which one belongs. For the government's purposes, its a contract that needs to be enforced. Let the various religions do what they will as long as it's non-violent and respects property rights. Why should we be so concerned about other people's business?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's the idea that you can legislate your personal preference. If you don't like the comparison, fine, but it's true. You hold the fundamental idea that makes their society possible. Granted, you may not want to take it to that extreme, but others will and they can use YOUR arguments to speed down that slippery slope.

Anyone who believes that society can make laws that represent the will of the people believes what I believe. Of course I want my personal preferences to be law. So do you. All of us do. What makes us different from the Taleban is that I accept that I cannot have it my way all the time. The Taleban of course does not.

If you want to live in a free society, then you have to accept personal decisions that you don't agree with as long as they don't infringe upon your property rights and are violent towards you. If you want to start adding prohibitions, you must accept the company of others who also choose to do so.

Nope. I accept that they have the right to cohabitate as they wish, and to have the same rights that married couples do. I do not have to accept that marriage has to be redefined for that to be accomplished. I am for freedom; I am against the redefinition of marriage to mean something it traditional has not meant in our society.

I do live in a free society; I have to accept that if some states redefine marriage, then that's what happens. Freedom means compromise too. It does not mean I have to change my opinion though; and I don't. I remain against same-sex marriage - and against polygamous marriage too.

Freedom also means freedom of conscience. My conscience says no to same-sex marriage. Would you deny me the right to have the freedom of my own conscience?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

meh. They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution. Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it. Many people may enjoy committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.

Be that as it may; I said that the people who argued for same-sex marriage argued that it would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage, yet it has. Arguing that marriage is broken after repeated assaults on it broke it doesn't seem very clever to me. It's like arguing that speed limits don't mean anything now that no one obeys them anyway. Possibly true, but not an argument for not having speed limits.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not a personal attack.

Yes, it was, but I don't take offense.

IMO, it's a question of personal liberty.

It would be a question of personal liberty if same-sex couples were not allowed to cohabitate; but they are. It is a question of personal liberty in that same-sex couples do not have the exact same rights as married couples; this can and should be addressed by modifying the laws regarding civil unions and contract law. No modification of the definition of marriage is required for the needs of personal liberty to be satisfied.

It would be like redefining the definition of 'man' to mean men and women, because men have more rights than women. The correct solution is to make their rights equal, not to change the language to redefine what 'male' means. Address the issue, not the institution.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes, it was, but I don't take offense.

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack. I think there is a lot of irrational energy around the world Taleban that is clouding the broader philosophic point. You (and others who take your view) share the fundamental aspect that makes the Taleban society possible. The idea that you can legislate your personal preferences beyond a simple prohibition of violence and respect for property rights is how societies like the Taleban become possible. The arguments you use to prohibit various forms of marriage can be thrown right back in your face by other groups of people who wish to prohibit other things that people do.

From a philosophic point of view, your views are consistent with the Taleban...and people who share my "traditions" are your victims.

Here's the one question I really want to know. What makes your traditions so special that they can take precedence over others? Is it the force of the majority? Is it the force of your weapons? Or do you believe that you are right and others are wrong and that's that?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack. I think there is a lot of irrational energy around the world Taleban that is clouding the broader philosophic point. You (and others who take your view) share the fundamental aspect that makes the Taleban society possible. The idea that you can legislate your personal preferences beyond a simple prohibition of violence and respect for property rights is how societies like the Taleban become possible. The arguments you use to prohibit various forms of marriage can be thrown right back in your face by other groups of people who wish to prohibit other things that people do.

From a philosophic point of view, your views are consistent with the Taleban...and people who share my "traditions" are your victims.

I don't have victims because I don't make the laws or enforce them. I merely vote as any citizen does. If having a preference and stating and voting for it makes me Taleban, I think it is your definition of Taleban that needs some exploring.

Here's the one question I really want to know. What makes your traditions so special that they can take precedence over others? Is it the force of the majority? Is it the force of your weapons? Or do you believe that you are right and others are wrong and that's that?

Not my traditions; our traditions. Societies have normative behaviors (norms). Heterosexual marriage is a norm of our society. These are facts.

What I want is for our society to keep our societal norms in this sense. I recognize that some norms can infringe on civil liberties, and that when they do, society must change in a free society based on civil liberties. The right to be treated equally is a civil right. The right to be married to a person of the same sex is not.