An argument against gay marriage-double standards.

Well, your leaving out 90 something % of the cases where children live with "gay couples" one of which had sex with someone of the opposite sex, the father or mother of the child. Just as the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children/grandchildren together for over a decade, didn't procreate, neither did the gay couple with child from a previous.....or current heterosexual relationship. And if the "gay couple" or the single mother and grandmother decide to adopt a child, still neither couple is procreating.
And I have no preference as to how children are conceived and instead merely recognize that in fact millions of them, 99 point something percent of them are conceived because a man and a woman had sexual relations and ZERO percent of them because a "gay couple" had sex. Heterosexual sex has a strong natural tendency to lead to procreation while homosexual sex has no such tendency. Heterosexual couples haven't been required or encouraged to marry for thousands of years so that they will procreate, but instead because they are the only ones that do. If you want to make an exception for "gay couples" when it comes to children, you need some justification for excluding the single mother and grandmother.

???? I have no problem at all. The "gay couple" with children is no more entitled to equal protection than the single mother and grandmother with children. You are the one who seems to have a problem with giving them the equal protection you reserve for "gay couples". Why would government create a preference for sexual couples when it comes to the formation of families? You are wanting to tie this concept of marriage intended to reduce the spread of STDs, to the process of building families, while insisting that we cant tie the concept of marriage that only men and women create families to the process of building families.

 

Case overturned by legislature

 

And you know WHY I'm leaving out those randomly ass-pulled statistical families out of the debate? Because this is the Gay & Lesbian subforum where we are generally here to discuss their civil rights, not the civil rights of single moms and so on and so forth. Your entire argument against gay marriage is based entirely on this fallacy - Tu quoque.

Stop trying to take the focus off of which group of people we are actually discussing here, which are gays and lesbians. Every time you bring up single moms and guardians raising kids (all of whom may still marry any opposite sex partner they choose) you are basically throwing out a distracting red herring.

You refuse to stay on the actual scope of the argument and instead venture out to every other group of people raising kids because you KNOW you cannot refute our arguments without using these fallacious arguments.

 

I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but a federal district court just legalized polygamy in Utah: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...lygamy-and-privacy-sister-wives-gay-marriage/

This is simply the next, logical step to the gay marriage agenda. If privacy rights mean that two consenting adults can't be prosecuted for their sexual and co-habitation behavior, why should three, or four, or any number of consenting adults be punished for such?

The arguments from conservatives that polygamy has negative long-term effects are mostly the same arguments used against gay marriage: I call them "social consequence" arguments. These arguments have been categorically dismissed by the left, so the same arguments cannot be used in the polygamy context.

Notably, the other argument against polygamy has been that it gives men too much power over women. This argument doesn't hold anymore because marriage does not actually give a man power over a woman anymore. In terms of power in the relationship, modern marriage does nothing to empower the man over the woman but does create a financial incentive for a woman to divorce her husband. As such, modern marriage also creates a disincentive against getting married for the man.

Other state courts are likely to follow Utah's path here since the categorical rejection of "social consequence" arguments have left us with no strong discourse against polygamy.

 

Not exactly true. Individuals in Utah can still only marry one person. What was struck down was the portion of the law prohibiting "cohabitation." Polygamy is still illegal.

 

As I said after the first line of my post, what's illegal is prosecuting polygamy. This makes it "effectively" legal. That the same rationale from gay marriage cases was used to do that speaks volumes.

 

Well then go argue for polygamy. Do you want tons of wives? Be my guest. But that is not the argument here.

Also, have you told your girlfriend you want tons of wives? What did she say?

 

Points well made!

 

I am talking about "gay couples"

 

No you're not. You're apparently talking about single moms and guardians in this forum, which I am really not interested in going completely off-topic to discuss their rights.

 

Totally off-topic. This subforum is for the discussion of gay and lesbian civil rights, not civil rights for single moms, polygamists, and legal guardians. What is WITH all these people who come here to discuss polygamy, single moms and legal guardians in threads that are about civil rights for gays and lesbians? I don't get it.

 

Because this THREAD is about the "double standard" applicable to gays but not the others you dont want to talk about.

 

That isn't an argument against same sexual marriage.

 

Nooo, you were talking about the gay couples with adopted children or children obtained through the use of a sperm donor or surrogate mother, while I was talking about all homosexual couples with children. 90+ something % of which have children from a previous heterosexual relationship.

- - - Updated - - -

Only because you embrace the double standard.

 

Exactly.

I appreciate you acknowledging the double standard that is applied to gays.

 

What does this have to do with same sex marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman

 

Evidence to support that claim?

And relevance?

Assuming that your number was correct- are the remaining 10% just not important?

Though what relevance any of this has to do with the double standard that gay marriage is held to I don't know.

 

Do you really expect a coherent answer?

 

It's called not having a legitimate argument to make against the narrow topic of same-sex couples marrying, so they have to attack it through other means.

 

Another one bites the dust folks!! Maybe some of you homophobes on here will pack your bags for India now.....or Russia, or Saudi Arabia...maybe Pakistan.....by by

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/19/new_mexico_legalizes_gay_marriage/

 

Great question. I'll explain how polygamy is relevant to this thread.

Why are you okay with gay marriage being legalized, but not okay with polygamy being legalized? The main argument that people use to justify legalizing gay marriage is "they aren't infringing on anyone's rights, so why shouldn't it be legal for gay couples to marry each other"? Okay, that's a valid argument. But if you apply that argument to other forms of marriage (such as polygamy), it doesn't work, even among people who support gay marriage rights. A double standard exists.

 

Perhaps I can help out here because this is something that annoys the hell out of me and I have been giving it much thought.

Polygamy is an anachronism and It’s ridiculous to even be talking about it. Where in western culture , aside from an occasional religious cult is it found? To oppose polygamy while supporting same sex marriage is not a double standard, it is not hypocrisy because they are very different animals. Same sex marriage is about an equal relationship between two consenting adults. Polygamy is a form of male domination over multiple females who do not themselves have the option of having multiple spouses. Often, the females are younger than the male and emotionally vulnerable and the arrangement is inherently unequal and sexist. That is not acceptable.

Now if you want to talk about other variations on traditional marriage we can do that. For instance there is the concept of group marriage, also known as polyamory where men and women all participate on an equal basis. Unlike polygamy, I have no objection to this concept, and in fact, I have been involved in such arrangements.

Having said that, I will add…The question of other alternative to traditional marriage is an interesting one but irrelevant to the current discussion of marriage equality for gays. This question obfuscates the real issue of marriage equality and stokes fears of what might come next when gay couples want nothing more than to have the same rights as hetero couples. I submit to you that these discussions of other alternative sexual lifestyles is a logical fallacy, an argumentative slight of hand know as Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. It is also a false or at best weak analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations which is another favorite trick of people trying to win an argument when there argument is inherently weak. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Furthermore, issue of other sexual preferences is not on the table and has NOTHING to do with the current debate. Equality means equal to what heterosexual people can do that is generally accepted by society and is legal. When, and if the issues of further changing the definition of marriage comes up, it will be an entirely different discussion. Why, because it won’t just concern gays but rather everyone who engages in or wishes to engage in marriage, not to mention society as a whole. If anyone thinks that marriage equality as it is currently being discussed will upset the applecart of society think what that would do. AGAIN, it is not now an issue. Those using as an issue are engaging in scare tactics ….the old slippery slope argument and it’s a bogus one. Even if you can make the argument that to redefine marriage will embolden others to further alter it down the road, you can not penalize people who want something now, because of what it may lead to later.

 

Polygamy has nothing to do with the merits of same-sex marriage. There are of course separate legal issues relating to polygamy that don't apply to two people of the same gender marrying. There is no more a double standard here than there is between someone who supports interracial marriage but not SSM.

 

What if the polygamy was between consenting adults? Should that be legalized, in your opinion?

 

Why are you okay with interracial marriage being legalized, but not okay with polygamy being legalized? The main argument that people use to justify legalizing interracial marriage is "they aren't infringing on anyone's rights, so why shouldn't it be legal for interracial couples to marry each other"? Okay, that's a valid argument. But if you apply that argument to other forms of marriage (such as polygamy), it doesn't work, even among people who support interracial marriage rights. A double standard exists.

See what I just did there? You polygamy argument applies equally to interracial couples.