Principal differences between gay marriages and polygamy?

[livi]

So, I hear California, perhaps somewhat reluctantly, went and authorized gay marriages. So be it.

One of the more reluctant guys, interviewed for Swedish radio said: Right, two men wants to get married. What about if three or four persons want to get married? Whats the difference - the marriage concept and philosophy is crumbling down.

So what say the assembled geniality club of OT on this principal matter?

For the record, personally I could not care less on the actual formality part, as long as potential children are brought up with loving adults in a functional fashion.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally Posted by livi

...For the record, personally I could not care less on the actual formality part, as long as potential children are brought up with loving adults in a functional fashion.

Word.

[chapo]

Divorce lawyers are rejoicing across the state, as well as deciding what color the new Mercedes should be.

[Jeff Higgins]

For that matter, why does it have to be two humans? Let's just go ahead and break down all boundaries. Our paradigms about marraige are so old fashioned...

Seriously, though, I'm not sure there is a functional difference between "marriage" and "polygamy" when discussing gay men. One of the most discussed (and well documented) aspects of the gay lifestyle (again, for men, not women) is promiscuity. Women are far more demanding of fidelity in a sexual relationship than men. Remove the female quotient from a relationship, and the men tend to go hog wild. Even the gay community acknowledges this problem and struggles to come to terms with it.

So, I wonder how many gay men will "marry" simply to enjoy the legal benefits. I'm sure straight couples do this as well, but I'm equally sure the occurance of these "marriages" are somewhat lower, if not drastically lower, in the straight community. Two gay men will, as study after study have shown, have far less of a problem with their partner sleeping around than a straight couple or even a gay female couple.

I love my dog...

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by livi

, as long as potential children are brought up with loving adults in a functional fashion.

i'm gonna get blasted by the 'enlightened' portion of PPOT for this but there ARE no potential children in a gay marriage.

Further there is nothing functional about raising a child in a gay marriage.


blast away lefties. for all the abstract thinking you pride yourselves on you surely do have trouble with the simple concept of 'family'.

[trekkor]

Morals? What morals?


KT

[berettafan]

Wait, i thought of a difference! In polygamy the man does not necessarily have to wash another man's ***** from his pecker after sex.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Anything that encourages people to enjoy lifestyles without continuing to pump out more babies is just fine with me. We've got enough people and last I checked gay couples couldn't easily get pregnant. That's just fine with me.

Now if we could just stop the people from moving here (both legally and illegally) we'd be going in the right direction.

[livi]

He he.

I knew this would get you going.

[Tobra]

Markus, California did not decide this, 5 people in California decided this. I don't know how many million voted the other way when there was an election.

Polygamy is still illegal in California, bestiality is too I believe. Gay marriage is not legal, it is just not illegal. They already had all the same state rights in a civil union as in marriage, and it has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in California since 1992. I believe it is a minority of homosexuals that are in favor of this.

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by berettafan

Wait, i thought of a difference! In polygamy the man does not necessarily have to wash another man's ***** from his pecker after sex.

Congratulations on keeping the discussion intelligent.

[KaptKaos]

If you take away the historically accepted premise of 1 man and 1 woman, then who really gets to define what it means now?

IMO, the courts made a very interesting ruling. They ruled that love (or however you want to define that) is the deciding factor, not gender. Gays always had the same rights to marry as heteros, they just couldn't marry someone of the same sex. So marriage had to be changed to include the people you love regardless of sex. It's another step to redefine it in terms of quantity. However, since the determining factor is now love, not gender then I am sure in another 20 or 30 years, we'll have polygamy legal.

[livi]

Thanks, very good posts! Makes you (me) think!

Maybe we should stop blaming GW for everything and start saying ITS OBAMAS FAULT!

[dhoward]

Originally Posted by berettafan

Wait, i thought of a difference! In polygamy the man does not necessarily have to wash another man's ***** from his pecker after sex.

THAT was funny, I don't care how liberal you are...

[berettafan]

Sorry Gogar, i forgot we're supposed to embrace homosexuality as nothing more than additional sitcom material and ignore the reality of it.

silly me.

[berettafan]

Or was there some factual error you wanted to point out?

[NICKG]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Morals? What morals?


KT

well...the actual disdain of gay marriage is a relatively new ideal you know...the church routinely married same sex couples till the late 19th century...
I don't understand why it is big deal, why should i care if they get married, I can, they should be allowed to be as well.
It is NOT a religious thing...it is a social thing that makes it so charged
why is it so hard to understand that what people choose to do in their personal lives is their buisness..and that no one else has the right to throw stones lest they want stones thrown back

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by NICKG

.the church routinely married same sex couples till the late 19th century...

Sorry, but you are going to have to back that one up. And not from some gay advocacy site, either. I'm calling bull*****.

Originally Posted by NICKG

It is NOT a religious thing...it is a social thing that makes it so charged

At the risk of repeating myself, "bull*****". The Bible, and many other religious texts, define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman before God.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

And this is exactly how much influence such "religious texts" should have on a secular institution:










(that's "zero" in case you don't get it).

What's the problem here. Really? I may personally find the gay lifestyle distasteful, certain aspects even abhorrent, but:

(1) If someone is lucky enough to find love in this world, who am I or anyone else to look down my nose at it because I don't happen to experience it in the same form as them?

(NOTE: Please don't attempt to twist my words here - this is not condoning bestiality or pedophilia, there is a difference between "love" and "sexual intimacy between two consenting adults" here).

(2) As I said earlier, if people make the choice to live in happiness and it means they won't be bringing any new people into this world (because of equipment limitations) that's DEFINITELY a good thing as I see it. One thing we have way too much of already is people. Let's worry about getting all the unwanted ones adopted first before we go rabidly defending institutions for the express purpose of facilitating more procreation, k?

(3) Anything that drives religion out of politics or vice-versa is a good thing. Fine. So the Bible doesn't like gay marriage. Nobody's twisting your arm to go marry a guy. Don't do it if you want to follow such-and-such a religious tome as part of your personal moral choices, fine. Don't try to use it as the basis of legislating morality for the rest of us. I have no issue with people using religious or moral codes to guide their own choices as an "above and beyond" sort of addition to our secular laws. I have EVERY problem with people trying to impose a particular brand of religious pseudo-morality upon everyone else.

[livi]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

a start fluffing, Markus thid election in my view will decide the downfall or hope for America,

Rika

Sorry, too cryptic for my English level. I only understood the fluffing part.