Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Zevn]

@ Matt: The posts you put next to each other is your way of trying to imply that I'm making a broad generalization in saying that US politicians talk about their religious beliefs too much.

It isn't broad, they shouldn't talk about it at all.

And what I meant by saying it isn't a political issue, is simply that it has no place is politics.

@ Mario: Sigh. I obviously know what polygamy is if I can talk about the problems that come from it being a societal norm in certain cultures. Why sarcastically ask me that, do you even have a point?

@ Sunny: Thank you for clarifying your point of view.

 

[J.T.]

So you're alright with young girls having their life ordained from birth with arranged marriage, and a culture that only allows them to be maids and breeding material?

That is repugnant.

Because monogamous heterosexual marriages are never arranged and forced upon people in countries like, say, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

What's that? They do? Well clearly, going upon Zevn's precedent, we should ban monogamous marriage as well in order to prevent such things! Because that's how logic works. It's just like how we banned all sex once we realized rape was a thing.

Wait.

 

[Zevn]

Because monogamous heterosexual marriages are never arranged and forced upon people in countries like, say, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

What's that? They do? Well clearly, going upon Zevn's precedent, we should ban monogamous marriage as well in order to prevent such things! Because that's how logic works. It's just like how we banned all sex once we realized rape was a thing.

Wait.

For the sake of the conversation we can't follow every tangent.

What happens in those countries is a problem, but it isn't what we're currently discussing.

I'm not even against the idea of polygamy if that's what people choose without being coerced. Do you really want to examine all of these details, or do you want to stay on topic? ^_^

 

[Sadib]

Because monogamous heterosexual marriages are never arranged and forced upon people in countries like, say, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

What's that? They do? Well clearly, going upon Zevn's precedent, we should ban monogamous marriage as well in order to prevent such things! Because that's how logic works. It's just like how we banned all sex once we realized rape was a thing.

Wait.

To be fair: Zevn probably doesn't understand the difference between child marriages and arranged marriages.

 

[Zevn]

To be fair: Zevn probably doesn't understand the difference between child marriages and arranged marriages.

No, I do. I disagree with both.

You have a very aggressive tact. ^_^

Your posts have yet to hold any real content, how about trying to funnel that aggression into a logical and coherent rebuttal.

 

[CSolarstorm]

For the sake of the conversation we can't follow every tangent.

What happens in those countries is a problem, but it isn't what we're currently discussing.

I'm not even against the idea of polygamy if that's what people choose without being coerced. Do you really want to examine all of these details, or do you want to stay on topic? ^_^

The comparison of homosexuality, heterosexuality to polygamy is not off-topic...and people are not off-topic just because they choose to test your reasoning.

 

[Zevn]

The comparison of homosexuality, heterosexuality to polygamy is not off-topic...and people are not off-topic just because they choose to test your reasoning.

They aren't trying to test my reasoning.

They are acting like they are inconsistencies in my argument because of subjects I have not chosen to address. It proves nothing, and muddies conversation.

 

[Liberty Defender]

The solution is simple:
Get the government out of people's lives and allow people to enter into relationships with whomever they choose.

 

[mattj]

No offense, it does look like you're new to this forum, but just because you don't want to discuss the implications of what you have said does not mean that their points aren't related. There really are inconsistencies in what you've said. Generally, when in this forum you can't just say "Your point isn't important". Either address it or concede.

The solution is simple:
Get the government out of people's lives and allow people to enter into relationships with whomever they choose.

Including 3yos right? Oh wait.

 

[Sadib]

They aren't trying to test my reasoning.

They are acting like they are inconsistencies in my argument because of subjects I have not chosen to address. It proves nothing, and muddies conversation.

Your reasoning is incoherent. Let me give you an example.

Yes it can. So you're alright with young girls having their life ordained from birth with arranged marriage, and a culture that only allows them to be maids and breeding material?

That is repugnant.

What does this have to do with polygamy?

 

[Zevn]

Your reasoning is incoherent. Let me give you an example.
What does this have to do with polygamy?

I'm not arguing that polygamy by itself is an issue, it's that it allows certain societies to completely control all possible outcomes for the life of an individual.

The problem I had is that polygamy was posited as something comparable to homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage does not have an inherent negative effect on anyone.

You cannot deny the prevalence of child marriage and misogyny in polygamous cultures. Obviously you could argue that polygamy isn't the cause of this, but I beg to differ. Most polygamous marriages consist of a man and many wives. This implicates that a man is of higher value than a woman, by the very nature of the arrangement. Therefor, a society that considers these things acceptable is subjugating their women, and one step to addressing this would be to eliminate polygamy.

^_^

There really are inconsistencies in what you've said.

There are only details that have not been discussed.

 

[Tisub Lord of Kummi]

You cannot deny the prevalence of child marriage and misogyny in polygamous cultures. Obviously you could argue that polygamy isn't the cause of this, but I beg to differ. Most polygamous marriages consist of a man and many wives. This implicates that a man is of higher value than a woman, by the very nature of the arrangement. Therefor, a society that considers these things acceptable is subjugating their women, and one step to addressing this would be to eliminate polygamy..

Who cares what it implicates. It's absurd to use that line of reasoning, just because something leaves a "bad taste in your mouth" doesn't make it a legitimate reason to oppose it for everyone. Once again it goes back your social engineering way of thinking, you only want an idealized society that matches your view. For example, in some gay marriages there might be people who want to play the "wife" role, even if they are men. Would you then say it implicates that straight marriage is superior because gays want to emulate the traditional husband-wife scheme? If you want to be a culture warrior, go after real atrocities and not on images.

 

[Zevn]

There are much bigger issues than this.

But it's the point of the thread to discuss, so I talk about it here to learn about other people's ways of thinking, and broaden my own.

 

[J.T.]

What happens in those countries is a problem, but it isn't what we're currently discussing.

Wow, you missed that point rather spectacularly methinks.

I'm not even against the idea of polygamy if that's what people choose without being coerced.

Oh good! Because, see, when most people say they support polygamy, they usually mean they support polygamy only when all parties agree to it. Generally we're against it happening when someone involved in it is forced into it against their will. Yes, there are sick ****s who will try to force it onto people, but this is no more an argument against polygamous marriage than arranged marriages are against monogamous marriage.

That's my point. We haven't banned sex between two consenting adults because of the possibility of people being raped against their will (bit of a redundant statement, but eh). We haven't banned monogamous marriage between two consenting adults because of the possibility of people being forced into arranged marriages. Why should we ban polygamous marriage between n consenting adults because of the possibility of some people being forced into a polygamous marriage?

Do you really want to examine all of these details, or do you want to stay on topic? ^_^

In what way did I go off topic?

They aren't trying to test my reasoning.

Actually, that's exactly what I was doing. You were arguing (or at least you sounded like you were arguing) that polygamy should not be legalized because people could be forced into it against their will. I pointed out that this is not a valid reason for banning polygamous marriage as a whole by providing examples of other things that are legal despite the possibility of people being forced into them against their will (in this case, sex and monogamous marriage).

Most polygamous marriages consist of a man and many wives. This implicates that a man is of higher value than a woman, by the very nature of the arrangement. Therefor, a society that considers these things acceptable is subjugating their women, and one step to addressing this would be to eliminate polygamy.

Alternatively, we could allow one woman to marry multiple men if that is what is desired between the group.

 

[Psychic]

When you say your religion is OT-only, does that mean you are Jewish by religion? If so, you'd be the first religiously Jewish person I've debated here on the Forums.

The division between two testaments is both the largest division in the Bible, and the most crucial. You would not believe how many times I've tried to provide evidence of Jesus' resurrection (largely from the four gospels and the letters of Paul) only to get a response like "[insert Old Testament book] totally says that the earth is flat, therefore, you can't take anything in the Bible seriously!" Yeah.

Thanks for the explanation! I was entirely unaware of a lot of the things you brought up, so your post was rather enlightening. Thanks! :>

I am indeed Jewish, though I wouldn't call myself religious. I participate in some of the main rituals because my family does (and frankly, they won't let me get out of it, haha).

I'm still fairly surprised by how starkly different the two are, but I agree that a debate working that way doesn't exactly work. But then, my feelings are similar regarding why I really don't think religious texts belong in modern debates, but that horse has already been beaten to death, so we'll leave it at that.

it happens to be in the US and many other countries.i just thought i'd put those two quotes next to each other
Concerning Old Testament punishments
Concerning what you can and cannot eat
Now, both of those are from a Christian perspective. If you, or anyone else, do not accept Jesus' claims or the authority of the New Testament, then obviously they won't hold any sway.

But i do agree with what you said. If one only accepts the Old Testament I don't see how they could pick and choose homosexuality as an issue but ignore stuff like what food they eat or planting seeds together or a host of other random things. If I was a serious Jew I don't see how I could harp on homosexuals but wear denim jeans with a cotton shirt.Oh! Please, please, PLEASE don't misunderstand what I said to mean that Christians don't or shouldn't hold the OT in the highest regards, read it, and follow its guidelines. The New Testament places the highest emphasis on the OT, as the foundation for everything in the NT.

Ah, I see. As I said, I figured the NT reinforced the OT, but I didn't realize there were so many differences as well. Having only read what's considered the OT and never the new one, I wouldn't have known. But yes, it's hard to have a debate when one person cites a religious text and another believes that text holds no ground in a modern debate or simply doesn't agree with it/believe it authentic/etc. I'm glad we can still debate between people with different beliefs, though. :>




Now, this entire polygamy discussion is getting ridiculous. Look at it like this:

What is heterosexual marriage?
A man has the right to love and marry any one woman, and any woman has the right to love and marry any one man.

What is homosexual marriage?
A man has the right to love and marry any one man, and any woman has the right to love and marry any one woman.

What is polygamy?
A man has the right to love and marry multiple women at once, and there is also a marriage bond between the wives.

The same right does not apply to women.

What is polyandry?
There have been very few cases of this compared to polygamy, but it is when a woman has the right to marry multiple husbands at once. There is no marriage bond between the husbands. Often, the husbands are brothers, and the woman is often just seen as shared property. Polyandry is hardly comparable, it rarely occurs in modern times and it is virtually ignored.​

Polygamy generally does not allow women to have multiple husbands as it allows men to have multiple wives. The dynamics are substantially different, and it often only happens to allow brothers to share their property (ie the woman). For this reason, polygamy is unfair.

Homosexual marriage means it's okay for any one person to marry any one person they love, regardless of gender. Polygamy means it's okay to let any one man marry a number of women, and it often creates a dynamic that revolves around ownership or a group dynamic centered around the single husband.

Point is, homosexual marriage aims to make it okay for any two people to marry, while polygamy aims to make it okay for men to have multiple wives. It's unfair at its core because it doesn't work equally for both genders. Group marriage, however, would be fine by this logic, because it doesn't encourage anyone to own anyone else, and the group dynamic isn't centered around a single person. It's equal opportunity for everyone, which is what we are talking about at the core.


Personally, I just say if you want to discuss polygamy, move it to a new thread. :/

~Psychic

 

[Liberty Defender]

Including 3yos right? Oh wait.

A 3 year old doesn't enter into relationships. They think the opposite sex has cooties.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Personally, I just say if you want to discuss polygamy, move it to a new thread. :/

I think so too. Anyone else who wants to continue talking about the merits/problems with variants of polygamy should take it to the polygamy thread:

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?t=556751

 

[Sadib]

A 3 year old doesn't enter into relationships. They think the opposite sex has cooties.

Are you calling 3 year olds gay?

 

[Liberty Defender]

Are you calling 3 year olds gay?

Saying that the opposite sex has cooties is in no way an implication of sexual orientation. I don't even know how one can draw that conclusion from my post.

 

[Zevn]

quoted for link

I guess I failed to get my message across.

Simply put: I think that eliminating polygamy in cultural environments that treat their women like objects, and slaves, would instigate a push to better rights for them. I'm trying really hard not to cite specific examples of this in the US, because I don't want to insult anyone's beliefs. I abhor personal attacks of that nature, but I would be glad to share the examples privately.

This will be my last post on the subject of polygamy in this thread SunnyC, have no fear. ^_~

My main issue with the government not allowing homosexual marriage is what that implies, not so much the actual issue itself.

Marrying the person you love, should not be dictated to you in this way. The connotation is that a homosexual marriage is of less value than a heterosexual one. The entire basis of logic that it should not be allowed is archaic, and when attempting to relate it to our time, completely arbitrary.

The government needs to take a step back, and deal with real issues.

a few examples
-eliminating poverty
-educating the masses

I chose these two, because they go hand in hand.