Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[hotatlboi]

I don't understand by what evidence you can claim "fair and equal", and I definitely do not see any evidence provided that one can't love multiple people like they can one person. You keep saying it, I've noticed, but that doesn't make it true.

And totally illogical, as I've tried to point out. There exist people with a deep love for many, and others with a total lack of love for even one.

 

[MystikWizard]

And totally illogical, as I've tried to point out. There exist people with a deep love for many, and others with a total lack of love for even one.

No, it really isn't illogical.

Common sense dictates that the more of something you have, the less attention and love you can give the others remaining. And we have been around this block several times.

For example, and we've gone through this plenty times before .... will Wife 1 be loved as much by her husband if there also existed Wives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10? Or would she be more loved by her Husband if it were just her and him?

The overwhelming number of people in our society wants it setup so that there are marriages between two people and only two people, with the one spouse receiving all the love and support from the other spouse.

You need votes to change that , and it doesn't appear that you are getting much support. Be happy with one, and then if you want to openly have a relationship with two, three, four other people in front of your spouse or behind his/her back, then so be it.

 

[MystikWizard]

You make it sound as if 'love' is quantifiable and a zero-sum game. It is far easily argued love is but an abstraction, a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Your argument, in other words, is retarded and bullshit. It was also countered already by the argument that having multiple children would be child abuse, because you just can't love them all equally according to your ilk. Love doesn't play a single role in law or policy, nor is it factored in. Historically, and in some marriages today, it wasn't even factored in by the parties involved.

I make it sound like love is quantifiable, because in many ways, it is.

Tell you what. Answer these questions on a "Yes" or "No" basis. I don't want these questions answered metaphorically. I want them answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".


"You can love one wife with the same amount of love and attention that you can love 10 wives?"


"You can love one wife with the same amount of love and attention that you can love 20 wives?"


Therefore, in those instances, are you saying that not one single wife wouldn't receive a disproportionate amount of love as compared to the other wives?

Well, if that's your dicktarded argument, then an overwhelming number of people in our society wants it setup by what they claim as traditional---man and woman only. Let's just bow to the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority.

Actually, there is a difference. Sexual preference, as you well know, is not a choice. Polygamy, however, is a choice.

Nothing wrong with my argument. I think your own dicktarded attempt at an argument is the problem, because essentially what you are doing is comparing apples and oranges.

Eh, be happy you can draw breath, and do nothing to risk it by doing nothing at all but conforming to the majority.

Yeah, I can be cool and roll my eyes, too. See?

 

[MystikWizard]

Are you asking me to make your argument for you? After I called into question how love is quantifiable?

I think it's fairly obvious why you won't answer the questions. Checkmate. Thanks for playing.

 

[MystikWizard]

I read your Onion piece, Mr. Barnes: http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned

Your questions were daft and unanswerable because it asked me to answer about quantified love WHEN I SAID THAT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. You are asserting that love is quantifiable, burden of proof is on you. You can't be asking me to prove a negative and you definitely should not be asking me to prove your argument for you.



By your reasoning skills and display of intellect, I would think you were more a checkers than a chess player.

No, I asked you a very simple "Yes or No" question that also included the word "attention". And you dodged the question. And you and I both know why you dodged the question.

Let's forget about the word "love", for a moment, and strictly focus on the word "attention". And let's try this again.

Yes or No, ICO?


"You can provide the same amount of attention to one wife that you can to 10 wives?"


"You can provide the same attention to one wife that you can to 20 wives?"


"Therefore, in those instances, are you saying that not one single wife wouldn't receive a disproportionate amount of attention as compared to the other wives?"



Since love isn't quantifiable in your view (although personally I think that is a clear dodge from you on a point you are nailed on), let's try the word "attention", instead and see if that resonates.


Oh, and btw, about the checkers/chess thing, my arguments are common-sense based arguments. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make simple arguments. And make no mistake about it, this one is a simple argument, that can be answered with common sense.

 

[MystikWizard]

In order: No. No. And... maybe no for the third, because it has a double negative that I don't care to parse because your questions don't matter anyway. You broke your own argument. I don't give all my friends equal attention, and it isn't a problem---some people prefer disproportionate amounts of attention, just as some rightly require it. So, the argument about attention is moot. What's more telling is how love itself is moot since you were so quick to remove it from the equation. Not that it matters, many marriages throughout history to today don't factor love in either, just as the law doesn't factor in 'love' or even 'attention' either.

It doesn't resonate. And your belief that love is quantifiable is an assertion. I don't have to believe it, and I don't. I also don't believe in god. It's not a 'clear dodge' on a point I'm nailed on by Christians or any other religious group---their argument asserting god's existence fails scrutiny. That isn't to say your argument that love is quantifiable fails... you fail to provide one to be examined.

No, your arguments are simply flawed or nonexistent.

No, your arguments are flawed, ICO. Your arguments are simply flawed. You can go on telling yourself otherwise and put yourself up on your pedestal all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you aren't getting the support from the Gay Community on this one, and that is something you are going to have to deal with.

You imply that Attention is not a component of love. And that is a flawed argument in it's own right. Let's see a Husband divide up his attention amongst ten or twenty wives, and let's ask those wives to rate their love for their husband, versus a loving couple with simply one spouse married to the other. Obviously, that spouse can provide much more attention to the single wife as compared to 10 or 20 wives. Attention and the ability to provide it is a HUGE component of love.

Your definition of love is simply perverted and is not the norm of society. You are simply looking for an excuse to have several spouses so you can legally have sex with all of them, and take advantage of exemptions on your taxes. That's all it is. And the rest of us with common sense, know it.

So, deny deny deny all you want, you aren't getting anywhere with your argument. Don't forget, that it isn't me that has an argument to win here with the public. It's you, that has to win this argument with the public. And you are climbing a very serious uphill battle.

First, you have the Left who seems to overwhelmingly disagree with you. Do you think you'll do any better with the Right?

Now, I'll let you get back to kicking and stomping your feet, and having your little temper tantrum since your arguments aren't resonating here on JUB with anyone.

 

[MystikWizard]

Assertions again, so let's see if you provide proof.

Logical fallacies attacking me, which has nothing to do with the argument in question, and appealing to the majority with regards to the community-at-large. There is also the fallacy of the equivocation, in that you are doing a sleight-of-hand with the argument that there is nothing wrong with polygamy (which you assert there is) with the other argument that the two shouldn't be combined. If you'd take your slack ass back through the posts, you'd notice I answered 'no' to the poll and admitted as such.

Then, I challenge you to post your own poll and ask if Polygamy should be legalized. Do it. And ask if as many exemptions should be claimed as there are spouses.

Not really, you did. You listed them as two separate things in your questions.

I will ask you another question. Is "attention" a component of marriage?

You should consider that prior to asking your questions.

I did. I don't think you considered it, though.

Neither is homosexuality allegedly, but you seem to overlook this logical fallacy appealing to tradition/society when it benefits yourself, but not for others. How quaint and convenient! And historically, polygamy was acceptable, if you wish to make those traditional appeals. They fail though, so I don't and why you shouldn't.

Polygamy IS a choice. Homosexuality is NOT. With Gay Marriage, we are talking about actual people not being allowed to marry each other because of their gender, and thus deny them happiness, even though they can not CHOOSE their sexual orientation.

With Polygamy, we are talking about a CHOICE. We are talking about individuals who are upset because their customs are NOT being recognized by the state. Well, we have a lot of customs not recognized by the state, either, so join the crowd.

However, You CHOOSE to have many spouses, as has been demonstrated, which you simply wish to poke your head in the sand with-- one can not provide equal love to 10 or 20 spouses than he can for one spouse.

What you are looking to do is change the definition of love to allow for relationships to be made simply out of sex, as opposed to true love, attention, and commitment.

And I know you may want that, but you know ... sometimes you don't get everything you want in life.

Here, you have people fighting to give you the right to marry another man in this country, and yet that still isn't enough for you. Just because you can't keep your fucking dick in your pants and feel the need to whore yourself out to as many people as possible.

I can have sex with as many people as I can regardless of marriage.

Then, when Gay Marriage becomes legal, feel free to get married, and then have sex with as many other people during that marriage as you want, because you can't keep your dick in your pants. Just because you have a Sex Addiction, that doesn't mean that the country is going to coddle to your Addiction. Instead, it might be worth checking into getting some treatment and counseling.

That is not how society, at this point, wishes to define matrimony at this stage. I don't ever see us going in that direction either, but we'll see. Why don't you get out there and rally the troops, so that way you can get the Gay Marriage Initiative shut down too, while you're at it?

How childish. Enjoy your bigoted opinions you share with so many.

I will, thank you.

Calling me a bigot won't get me to change my opinion, though. So keep it up, if you want.

It seems your attempt to justify yourself is similar to those who found slavery and segregation ok because so many others agreed or they were able to obfuscate the actual argument with other arguments (ie economic or eugenics). No proofs though, no evidence... I remain unconvinced.

Yes, we have norms in our society, ICO. That is what helps keep up to be a civilized group of people, unlike what you appear to be advocating, which is total anarchy.

I don't really care if you remain unconvinced or not. You're the one with the case to prove. Not me.

Here's another aspect you fail to address with this 'love' and 'attention' bullshit. We have divorce.

No, shit we have divorce. That's because perhaps two people who thought they were compatible with one another, discovered that they weren't. However, they still had the opportunity to devote all their love to their spouse, yet it evidently wasn't enough.

I'd love to see the divorce rate with having multiple spouses.

 

[MystikWizard]

What does this actually accomplish with regards to your lack of proof that polygamy is bad, which is your argument? Hm? It's a logical fallacy.

You ask a lot of questions for someone who has yet fulfilled his obligation to his own argument.

Obviously, you did not, because it points out the flaw in your logic.

Homosexuality is NOT gay marriage... gay marriage is a choice. Straight marriage is a choice too. You are equivocating again.

You make this assertion over and over again, but haven't proven it yet. The fact is, you don't know. You have a bias and you're running with it and you think you can get away with fallacious defenses because you have the benefit of the support of the majority. Just so you know, antagonists to gay marriage have that same luxury.

Equivocating again... it's about marriage, not love. And you accuse me of changing a definition for an abstraction you've YET to define, despite how you love to pretend it's quantifiable.

Like how you don't get gay marriage! Poor argument.

Fallacious argument. I've no plan to marry a man or several spouses... but I don't like rights being robbed for no good reason. And my dick enters all sorts of people and all sorts of orifices regardless of marriage status... so it's just another obfuscation by you.

TPoor argument... that can be turned right back around on you: Just because you have an addiction to fucking men doesn't mean the country should coddle to your addiction. They do have gay treatment and counseling though.

I'll do what I want, in spite of bigotry and tyranny.

Calling me names isn't going to produce an actual argument from thin air, but keep trying.

How does my disagreement with tyranny promote total anarchy?

No, you're the one with the case to prove. The fact you can't without all of these fallacies and the directions your posts are going in show you have no argument..

No shit indeed. And if someone chooses to join others in a multiple marriage, that ought to be their choice. End of story. So, polygamy can happen just as well as gay marriage and our society would survive.

Your entire post was just as much of a blah, blah, blah argument as you made mine out to be. You have no arguments, either. Only opinions.

And no I do not have the argument to prove. You do. You are the one that wants polygamy legalized. Is polygamy currently legal in this country and recognized by the states? No. Therefore, no I am not the one with the argument to prove. You are. So my best advice is to get your ass out there and start canvassing, if you want it so bad.

And that sir, is the End of the Story.

 

[sfaccentboy]

Yes, equality for all. Its not a finite resource, so why cant we all have it.

 

[opinterph]

And no I do not have the argument to prove. You do. You are the one that wants polygamy legalized. Is polygamy currently legal in this country and recognized by the states? No. Therefore, no I am not the one with the argument to prove.

Just as some people suggest that homosexuality/gay marriage “is simply perverted and is not the norm of society,” so too can some of the other logical devices found in this thread cut both ways.

The right question then, is “Why should there be legalized gay marriage?” It is important to recognize that the burden of proof is entirely on the ‘pro-‘ side, which needs to provide a positive proof of why society needs to officially recognize same-sex relationships, since human civilization has arguably gotten along well enough without it for thousands of years. [The Waters of Mormon (blog)]

 

[MystikWizard]

You apparently have no idea what the definitions of 'argument' and 'opinion' are also. What a fallacious mess. You lied too, in the last post about what was the argument. You said polygamists fail at loving. Then you change the argument when scrutiny befalls you into polygamy marriage.

Again, ICO. I have nothing to prove. You do. And thus far, you have made quite a mess of your own in doing so? Where is all this support, ICO? I fail to see it.

 

[MystikWizard]

What support, Midnight, do I even need? If anyone fails anything it is a viable argument justifying your broken opinion regarding public policy. I suggest you mosey your ass back through this thread and see what the disagreement was. You very much have the burden. And I'm not referring to the actual topic either, on which I've already voiced my opinion (and placed my vote).

All you have done is provided an opinion, ICO. That is all you have done, as well. Your opinion is just as broken as mine. You have provided zero justification of your own in supporting it. None.

If you are the one that wants it legalized, the burden is on you, buddy boy. Not me.

You refuse to even admit if attention is a component of a loving relationship, so that right there tells me that I am not dealing with a rational person. Then, even though the answer is obvious to all but those trying to win a little pissie argument, such as yourself, you still can not say whether one can provide the same degree of committed love to 10 spouses, if they only had one spouse.

This isn't rocket science. Rather, it is common sense.

So why don't you mosey your own fucking ass back to the drawing board. Oh, and try to do so without whipping your dick out at anything that moves, along the way.

 

[MystikWizard]

I've evaluated the arguments and found them fallacious or flawed, and gave explanations. And again, it isn't that I'm arguing for the marriage, my default position is for liberty and not tyranny, and I argue against tyranny. It is you arguing FOR tyranny, thus the burden is on you. You do keep dredging up and repeating the same bullshit, and though I have said consistency is commendable, consistent failure should be cause for concern. Just saying. Take for instance, that whole "love" and/or "attention" thing... so what, Midnight? I've pointed this out far too many times---if the individuals involved consent to the marriage and have no desire for divorce, why the fuck does it matter what you think about their lives? For once, why don't YOU answer.

Whether you like it or not, we the people establish the norms for the societies we live in. We do so with respect to the laws of our land, and by voting.

In your defense of liberty, I suppose we shouldn't prohibit bestiality from being recognized by the state, either, right? I mean, hey, if it feels good, then do it, right? That would be discriminatory against those that do want to take a pig as a spouse, right? Plus, it doesn't affect us any, either.

I don't think it is fair to the other spouses that a husband or wife is free to devote their love to other spouses, and risk some wives/husbands from being less-loved by their spouse, simply because he can not control his sexual urges. Less attention ultimately leads to less love.

Furthermore, what about children? Let's say a man has 5 wives, and has an average of two children with each wife. Therefore, there are 10 children total with one father. Is the father going to be able to provide for and love all 10 of those children equally, especially when the wives won't even be physically able to live all in the same house? How is this fair to the children? We have enough problem with single parent families in the Black Community, and this is only going to increase the number of single parent families.

Third, of course, are the tax exemptions, and people abusing the system by taking away tax dollars that could go to worthwhile causes, simply because of sexual desires and greed. I still have not got an answer from you in the cutoff point for the number of exemptions one should be allowed to claim and why.

Now you can complain all you want to about me butting my nose in other people's business, but I do have a say about the norms of our society in our votes.

Your rights aren't being taken away, because you can still marry the person of the sex of your choice (well, soon anyway). You aren't being denied marriage, however you are being restricted to one spouse and only one spouse. That is simply what our society deems to be morally appropriate. And there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Gays have made headway with their case, because of hard work in convincing society that sexuality is not a choice, and therefore it isn't right to deny two Gays the right to get married based on one's orientation. However, one's orientation and one's preferred choice via customs are two completely different topics.

The point is, you may not like it, but we the people do have a say in what we deem the norms of our society to be. Call it bigotry. Call it invasion of privacy. Call it unfair. Call it whatever you will. But it is what it is, and there really isn't anything you can do about it, except do your best to plead your case to others.

You aren't getting any sympathy from me and nor are you changing my opinion, so I suggest simply ending this conversation, and you make your case with someone else.

 

[MystikWizard]

Those are a lot of words ... anywhere in that did you actually answer my question? I stopped reading because of this:
This is why we shouldn't have gay marriage too. The SAME argument as those against gay marriage and STILL utterly ridiculous.

You can stop reading all you want.

The point was that you were all about not infringing on the rights of individuals in the pursuit of happiness, and not interfering in their personal lives. I simply asked you what about people discriminating against others, simply because they want to marry a pig? Isn't it their right to marry a pig, if they choose? Shouldn't they be allowed to claim an exemption, if they so choose?

How about another case. What about incest, while we're at it? Shouldn't people be able to marry their brother or sister, if they so choose, and not be worried about the state telling them who they can or can not marry? Is that a cause you support, as well?

I voiced my concerns. Now, get out and start canvassing, little trooper.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ Wow, now that you've brought up changing the traditional definition of marriage by mentioning bestiality and incest, then it makes perfect sense to be against gay marriage. Time to go out and canvass--- gay marriage must be abolished and prohibited in this country, because that's what tradition and Midnight77 (now MystikWizard) dictates will prevent polygamy, bestial and incestual marriages, and who knows what else you religious right folk believe will occur from your fallacious slippery slopes.

Like I have stated many, many times in this thread. I have no problem with Gay Marriage. The marriage is still between two and only two people. I simply have a problem with marriage being amongst several people, as I do not feel that equals true love, as opposed to having relationships out of sex. I don't think it's fair to the other spouses. I don't think it's fair to all the children. And I don't think it's fair to the taxpayers. So for those reasons, I don't feel it should be considered a norm for our society.

I've made my thoughts known. Time for you to bitch to someone else, because you can clearly see you aren't getting anywhere with me.

BTW, I'm not religious.

 

[MystikWizard]

Don't worry, your asinine so-called "thoughts" haven't gotten anywhere with me.

The problem is that you are the one who is for trying to change an established norm in our society. Not me. I don't have to get "anywhere" with you. You have to get "somewhere" with everyone else.

As Jockboy said, it is inane to think that one can love 10 spouses to the same degree as one can love one spouse.

This isn't fair to the spouses.

This isn't fair to the children to all of those spouses, to have a father (or mother) dividing his/her attention amongst the children of all of the spouses (who undoubtedly will live in separate homes ... and therefore the children won't see their father or mother as often).

And it isn't fair to the taxpayers.

Those thoughts aren't asinine. But rather, both logical and common-sensical.

 

[Spensed]

A further point is that, outside of the bizarre cult context, there isn't, as far as I have come across, any significant movement towards plural marriage in the sense that gay couples lived with each other as married couples long before civil unions and gay marriages.

I personally don't know of any groups of more than two, living in a pseudo-marriage situation, who would get married as a group, if that were allowed.

So, unless my experience isn't typical, this whole debate about plural marriage really is mainly at the academic or reduction to the absurd level that the anti-gay marriage gang always trot out. It's not a growing or unrecognized civil rights movement.

And to introduce it as such isn't a gay issue and only helps the gay marriage foes.

Another aspect to the can-you-love-ten-others-as-much-as-one-other issue is to look at thr reality of plural marriages as they exist in the world.

As far as I know, most of Mormon inspired unions or Muslims, with many wives, are based on the bull servicing his herd of cows pattern. No a problem if you willingly choose to be a cow, but typically exploitative and abuse of such secondary members of he group. To me, it's all part of the same servant-master crap that white Bible thumpers use to keep their wives barefoot in the kitchen. This type of family structure, as it appears in practice, seems to be inherently about, not equality, but subservience.

 

[CaptainRush]

I stand by saying no, the gay movement should not support polygamy because we can't afford to.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ Spensed, I agree, it seems to be an academic exercise as well, as I'm unfamiliar of any movement. Your last paragraph does nothing though---if the parties are so willing and have the legitimate option for divorce, it wouldn't matter. The entire argument against it though is rather petty and duplicated from those against gay marriage---if you validate it for one discrimination you validate it for all.

The word you are looking for is 'fallacious', which would definitely not be logicial... the use of 'common-sensical' is an example of a fallacy. You've trotted all of these out before and they do NOT stand scrutiny. That you cling to them so strongly is odd... the only one that actually concerns you, as you are obviously incapable of being in such a marriage, is the taxpayer one (which Michael Steele has used recently against gay marriage). I'm having a hard time imagining how much multiple marriages would cost the taxpayer.

You can say that the arguments are illogical all you want to, in your little obsession in this thread to "get the last word in". I've accused a regular opponent of yours of being nothing but an attention-seeker on the Forum, however with the behavior you are demonstrating, you are fitting that bill perfectly yourself.

The arguments I've raised are logical in my mind, and they do stand scrutiny. They are fallacious in your mind. Just note that someone like yourself can scream and stomp your feet shouting that "the sky is green" all you want to. That doesn't mean that it is.

Therefore, let the people decide. Oh ... wait a minute, it seems like not only do a majority of the American people agree with my stance ... but there isn't even a movement to support legalizing polygamy going on in the country. Assumingly because a majority of the country feels the same way I, and others on this board do.

Polygamy equals less attention, and therefore less of an effort at love made to the spouses.

Most importantly of all, the children of these spouses have absolutely zero say in the matter ... and therefore will grow up without the frequency of the presence of one of the spouses. We already acknowledge the widespread problem this is causing in the Black Community. However, the children have absolutely zero say in the matter at all. Is that fair to them that their father, who may want to have 10 wives or more, isn't going to have the time to give them the attention he would if he was living in the same household with his children?

And to be frank, the exemption argument I have made is not necessarily a greater factor than the others. Quite frankly, I am more concerned with the effect these relationships will have on other spouses and more particularly, the children, who as I pointed out in the last paragraph, have no say in the matter at all. And I don't think that's fair to them and their childhoods to be raised in such an environment, where they wouldn't be receiving the same degree of love and attention as they would if there were two parents and only two parents living in the same household.

Regarding the exemption argument, how would you feel if the government legalized polygamy nationally, however only provided for a maximum of one exemption? I haven't heard you comment on that as of yet.

 

[MystikWizard]

I have a regular opponent? And how is your behavior any different than mine?

That is not the metric by which 'logical' is decided.

As long as those in our country have a say in the norms of our society through voting on issues like this, our own individualized standards of what is logical in our mind are indeed relevant.

Argue all you want, throw as many temper tantrums as you want, scream and holler how "it isn't fair" all you want. At the end of the day, polygamy isn't legal, and nor will it be anytime soon. As I can see that this is a passionate topic of yours, that must really burn you, doesn't it?

The color of the sky is objective. Your argument regarding love, a subjective and unquantifiable abstract, is not the same.

Love may not be quantifiable in your mind. It is in mine, and millions of other people. And there is absolutely nothing you can do to change people's opinions on that topic. Again, you lose.

It's none of your business anyway. You should stop validating the arguments of those in opposition to gay marriage by co-opting their very same fallacious arguments. It's preposterous.

You don't get it. Or you plain and simply aren't living in the Real World. I don't care if you don't think it is any of my business. Let me say it again. I DO NOT CARE. I am making it my business, as does every other voter who cares about the society with which we live in.

I don't want spouses viewed simply as sex objects. You don't think it's my business? Too Fucking bad. I'm making it my business, because I view it as my moral obligation to the society with which we live in to allow for partners to provide their full love, attention, and support to each other.

I want children to be given the opportunity to receive the full love and support from each of their parents. Why? Because I feel that each child deserves that. You don't think it's my business? Again, too Fucking bad. I am making it my business. Why? Because I feel that it is my moral obligation to ensure that children receive as much attention and love as humanly possible from both parents. I've made the argument about problems with Single Parent families in the Black Community, and the same logic applies here.

The fact of the matter is that despite your ideologies of how our country should be, we vote on issues such as this. If you view it as Unfair, or an Invasion of Privacy, again you are simply going to have to have a temper tantrum. Because that really is too bad.

I, as a voter, have an equal say in what I want the norms of our society to be, just like everyone else. So, my best suggestion is if you feel so strongly that Polygamy should be legalized across the country, bring it up to your Congressman. And we'll see what happens.

You know as well as I do that this isn't getting passed anytime soon, and that is just fine with me. And that is something you are just going to have to deal with, whether you like it or not.