 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
OK. mindsey proved his point. Gays are a special group that deserve special treatment under the law. Next thread...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I think he is a sadist and gets off on being the MOST discriminated.
Odd what people will compete over. |
Sorry dude, but you called my passing comment "stupid". I called you on it you have failed to back-up your argument. I can understand your embarassment. 
You guys have provided some examples of minorities that are very diverse, perhaps even as diverse as gays, yet these examples all support my original claim.
It's true there are other very diverse minorities, but they fall into two gategories: (1) they share a common link that influences their actions and beliefs much more than "who you fall in love with" (e.g. blacks, Roman Catholics) or (2) they share a link that does not strongly influence their actions or beliefs (e.g. women, whites, red-haired people).
In minorities of type (1), their shared attribute is strong enough to anchor an agenda or leadership. One can easily conceive of "leaders of the Asian community" or a "Roman Catholic" agenda.
Minorities of type (2) have a difficult time organizing around agendas and leaders because their commonality is too loosely connected to their beliefs and actions. Who are the leaders of "women"? What is the "white agenda"?
And that is, if you recall, the point of my original reply to DanS' observations on the poor political judgement of "gay leadership" and the existance of a "gay agenda".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I'm trying. Hey, I married a buddhist so at lest I am trying to be more tolerant...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Mindseye - quote:
Berzerker,
You seem to be making rather tortured presumptions regarding my "giving a fair hearing" to polygamy. My meaning (which I had hoped was obvious) is that I can hardly decide my opinion on a given issue without first acquiring accurate information (i.e. "a fair hearing"). |
You don't know what polygamy is?  Sounds like you are already informed on the subject. If you want a right protected and I say I will give you a fair hearing, that presumes I have the authority to decide in the first place. That's the thing about rights, they don't need to be justified to me or you. That's the primary reason I vote Libertarian, they know we don't need permission to exercise our rights from politicians or those who would give us a fair hearing.
quote:
From what I know about how polygamy is currently implemented, it seems that it usually involves a very young woman becoming the "spirit wife" of a much older, already married man. This raises concerns on my part that these young women are being socially and religiously coerced into a relationship that they may not have freely entered into under other conditions. |
That does indeed happen, monogamous marriages see plenty of injustice too but we don't give people a fair hearing on that, if we see the injustice we do something about it. I know of a polygamous family in
S Utah and everyone was an adult when they married. They are a strange mixture of Mormonism and the hippie movement and politically libertarian. Some people just find the arrangement easier and the women in that situation were asked if it was exploitive and they said it was empowering because more adults in the mix allowed for more free time and greater security.
It is simply multiple spouses and typically a means of surviving difficult times so thine seed does not cease to exist. Sure, most cases of polygamy are "sexist". Among humans the women give birth and nurture while the males propagate. More wives, more children who survive. Is that sexist?
quote:
Perhaps this is not a fair assessment, which is why I feel the advocates of polygamy need a chance to make their case before I can decide if I personally support it or not. How you can object to my wanting to form an informed opinion is beyond me. |
You didn't say you wanted an informed opinion, you said you'd give polygamists a fair hearing. Now read slowly because you aren't getting my point - your opinion shouldn't matter, there is no need for you to give others a fair hearing as to whether or not their freedom should be allowed. The injustice you cite is not a product of polygamy, it's a product of paternalism and Mormonism.
quote:
As for your other arguments, until you can show that the initial marriage of a polygamist is somehow significantly different than a "standard" hetero marriage, I'm afraid your arguments hold little or no water. |
Mindseye, why don't homosexuals just marry the opposite sex? Oh, that's not their "nature"? Well, polygamy is the polygamist's nature. Forcing polygamists to marry only one person runs counter to their nature just as forcing homosexuals to marry the opposite sex runs counter to their nature.
quote:
An additional point that I somehow neglected to make earlier is that polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality is not. |
How do you know? "Polygamy" seems to be quite prevalent in nature.
quote:
Generally, our society does not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of factors (e.g. birth) over which the individual has no responsibility. |
Then you explain why Jesse Jackson said he gets nervous when a group of young black men are behind him and not white men. We all discriminate and often arbitrarily, and if one day we discover murderers, pedophiles or rapists are "born" that way, we will discriminate against them. So we don't look at "birth", we look at freedom. Does your conduct violate anyone's freedom?
quote:
Great, then it should be easy for you to give one example of a minority group more diverse than gays. |
If gays are found everywhere in sufficient numbers, their diversity is equal to any other group with sufficient numbers.
Drachasor - quote:
The whole "gay marriage leads to polygamy" line of reasoning is flawed on numerous levels. For one, Gay Marriage *still* requires two and only two people, just like heterosexual marriage. Just because you are allowing any two people who willingly agree and care for each other to get married does not somehow mandate allowing more than two people to be bound together by marriage. |
So denying 3 or 4 people their freedom is okay, but not 2? I don't see the logic there...
quote:
Indeed, there are many arguements against this that in no way infringe upon gay marriage. There is the very real potential of favortism in a polygamist marriage which doesn't lead to emotional health. |
"Society" does not exist to prevent you from making decisions that negatively effect your emotional health.
So if we find a monogamous heterosexual parent stricken with favoritism, then people shouldn't be allowed to have children because the unfavored child suffers emotionally?
quote:
There is the fact that we don't have infinite numbers of women and men, so polygamy is inherently unequal and exclusionary. |
Most relationships are unequal and exclusionary; and don't worry, we aren't going to run out of people or genetic diversity because of polygamists. Hell, that's a weird argument for homosexual marriage and against polygamy.
quote:
Also, polygamy tends to make people be considered as objects more; when you have a marriage between two people, then there is much more incentive to make a meaningful relationship, but when you can get many people to marry you, then it encourages a "quantity" thinking rather than a "quality" one. |
It seems logical to me that polygamist marriages are more stable, not less. We don't have numbers for polygamist "divorces" obviously but I don't see how it could be worse than the monogamists.
quote:
Of course, I will say the polygamy reasoning is more sensible than the bestiality/children/object marriage reasoning that some also use. That isn't saying much though. |
Age of consent says alot...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Berzerker, you still have the issue of what is good for the society as a whole with polygamy. I went over this in a post that came after the one you quote, and I personally feel the arguements I presented there are more telling.
Additionally, I represented my arguement from the standpoint of someone defending gay marriage to people saying that opens the door for polygamy, marrying animals, etc.
As for the emotional health arguements, society does have a concern in individual emotional health and should try to not encourage activities which are physically or emotionally damaging.
quote:
Most relationships are unequal and exclusionary; and don't worry, we aren't going to run out of people or genetic diversity because of polygamists. Hell, that's a weird argument for homosexual marriage and against polygamy. |
You missed my point, which I elaborated on later. Polygamy leaves society with a lot of males that can't date or get married because there aren't enough women. Additionally, there will be a great deal more genetic similarity in a few generations, because there are far fewer fathers and many more children. This is an inherent aspect of polygamy, and neither the feeling of frustration on the non-married males nor the genetic cost is worth it.
Homosexuality occurs in about equal rates, more or less, so this isn't an issue. It is also a pretty small phenomenon and many wouldn't produce heirs anyhow.
quote:
quote:
Also, polygamy tends to make people be considered as objects more; when you have a marriage between two people, then there is much more incentive to make a meaningful relationship, but when you can get many people to marry you, then it encourages a "quantity" thinking rather than a "quality" one. |
It seems logical to me that polygamist marriages are more stable, not less. We don't have numbers for polygamist "divorces" obviously but I don't see how it could be worse than the monogamists. |
Errr. and this addresses my point how? I was talking about how widespread acceptence of polygamy would result in wives being viewed as commodities and status symbols much more so than they are today. Quantity of wives would override the quality of the relationship. Sure, it might be stable, but stability is not everything.
Simply speaking, polygamy is not something a society should endorse.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Gays are a fabulous group of secret research clones.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2004 01:43
Congratulations! Did you marry him in Thailand, or Vermont? (I'm assuming he's Thai)
@ Imran
|