Homosexuality and Marriage

Post Reply New Topic

Just do what the FLDS does-
load up all the teenaged boys (except the sons of FLDS powerful, of course)
and abandon them by the side of the highway somewhere,
in a world they've been told is full of evil ready to destroy them.

That way, all the old men can have the teenaged girls themselves.


>.>

In the "natural" paradigm, what would happen is a few select very powerful men would have many mates,
and prevent those females from mating with other men,
and the vast majority of males would have little or NO chance at reproduction.
The "natural" state which mankind spent the majority of it's existence in involved men trading women to one another like so much animal flesh.

We spoke before on the feminism thread, and you never came up with an ethical justification for why people should be restricted to whatever roles are deemed "natural" by popular whim by society.

You continually imply that the only kind of rights which exist are legal ones, which is nothing short of moral relativism, and that subjugation which is not codified into law is a-okay.

Furthermore, from the thread discussing abortion, it's clear that your ethical views are quite divorced from any paradigm that concerns itself with suffering of human beings,

so it's really quite unclear to me what underlying ethical modus operandi you champion.

I was thinking of just that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You don't need the government to recognize a special concept of marriage to have marriage contracts. They could be like any other contract.


That's why society ought to favor it, anyway. Whether modern society actually favors marriage is not clear to me.

The reduction in the "marriage penalty" in 2001 did help a fair amount, though, I have to say.

True for gay marriages as well as polygamy. If we're going to allow nontraditional marriages, that implies that they're culturally acceptable, and we shouldn't have a problem with children imprinting on whatever pattern they're brought up in.

Possibly. Except that without marriage the government cannot count on it, and the individual can walk into a government office and claim benefits that would not be available to them if they were married. Marriage clarifies the obligation for purposes of welfare and other claims.

Hold on, I never said there was a natural family model. There is no proof that any family model is inherently natural. I even came up with the idea that maybe polygamy was more prevalent back then cuz there were more risks they faced as well as the guarantee of a short life expectancy. This suggests that maybe family models are merely adaptations to the circumstances of the immediate environment. Also since we have longer life expectancies and the world cannot sustain overpopulation, the idea that homosexuality or homosexual couples are unnatural based on the fact they can't reproduce is BS. Here's another idea I just came up with: What if homosexuality is in fact natural and meant by nature as a check and balance against overpopulation?

What I said about masculinity and femininity being natural for the most part pertained to the influence of gender roles being modeled for children in polygamous households. And yes I know I haven't provided a source for that notion, so here it is:
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog ... ns-brains/

A lot of the things I say are mostly approximations of what I've read from various sources with my interpretations thrown in the mix. I tend to read many sources at once since I have a habit of having a million tabs open at once and tend to hop from tab to tab. So yeah I don't always like going through the trouble of sourcing but just letting you know that I don't pull these notions outta my ass and I will post sources more often from now on.

When did I say people should be going around policing gender roles? I acknowledge notions of masculinity and femininity are partly socially constructed, but social construction itself doesn't come outta nowhere. Nature set the precedent for em.

And yes the only kind of rights that exist are "legal", that's the whole definition of rights. But you probably mean that I only believe in negative rights, which is mostly true. My concept of rights isn't about guaranteeing that people be held to a favourable opinion since opinions aren't a legal matter people are also entitled to their own opinions so for the government to intrude would violate that). It is about guaranteeing freedom from harm (harm in this case is defined as physical harm and/or the infringement of rights under the assumption they are equally granted). I'm not about moral relativism since it is very arbitrary rather than defined by any established standard. I don't believe in a philosophy that can't make the obvious distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist (one only fights armed forces and the other uses babies as human shields and such) and draws absolutely no lines. I've established a clear standard for my morals: Equality is about guaranteeing equal rights and protection of em, not guaranteeing equal outcomes of treatment. Opinions are a reflection of cultural paradigms which is out of the government's scope.

All that being said, I think polygamy is ridiculous in modern society since people can afford to dedicate themselves to loving one person but if people wanna do it then so be it. I still think it should be legal. btw just cuz my idea of equality is different from yours it doesn't mean my ethical views don't take human suffering into account. I hope you're not insinuating that I'm a fascist.

No. No. NO. This is the crux of the underlying issue in our conversations, I think.
There are many kinds of rights, legal being but one, ethical being yet another, and others.
Your ignorance on that point explains why you continually strawman me as advocating state restriction of "social concerns"
(let's forget for a moment that EVERY legal restriction was once a mere social concern).
When discussing ethical and cultural questions, we are necessarily talking about ethical and cultural rules,
not legal ones.

What you're advocating is the very DEFINITION of moral relativism, and yes it is arbitrary.
In the view you have advanced, there is no moral right and wrong independent of legality,
which varies wildly by culture and time period.
The fact that you either don't subscribe to (or are ignorant of) the very notion of rights apart from the law is evidential of this.

Equality is about...equality. That you'd choose to restrict its nature to the question of whether people are equal under the law (quite debatable) is very curious.


In any case. Please don't again bring up "government restriction" if we're discussing cultural roles. It's a red herring.

When I talk about rights I'm talking strictly in the sense of legal rights. But now that it's clear we're talking about ethical rights, then yes there definitely needs to be a change in that. People don't need to go around policing gender roles and they should own mind their own goddamn business. Sorry about the confusion.

However, is any of this a reason to keep polygamy illegal? You didn't state whether or not you wanted it to be legal or not, but I just figured you want it to stay illegal.

Rush Limbaugh has married 4 different women, but never shagged any of them. He has been successful at keeping his homosexuality closeted.

! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I have mixed feelings. I truly have no idea. I read the most horrific autobiography by Carolyn Jessop, who escaped in the most literal sense from the FLDS before Warren Jeffs moved the "community" to the compound, and I'm sure that colors my view of polygamy substantially.

The poll seems biased to me, so I won't vote on it.

I am for marriage equality. Either everyone has the right, or nobody does.

that is EXACTLY what the poll is saying.

I know what the poll says. It's still biased. The "other" option just doesn't cut it for me.

To us Birts this debate is old hat has we discussed this issues before civil partnerships where given the thumbs up.