Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

You have no idea how badly I want to change your title to "Has lived the dream!"

HAHA!!! Go nuts! That would be cool. Though at times it was also 'Has lived the nightmare!' Haha!

Seriously, it's different and it was sure a great experience, but I can't say it's any better than a regular 'normal' monogamous relationship. There are pros and cons to both.

Ahhhh who am I kidding, I'd repeat it in a second if I had the chance...

[photon]

Lol I just thought if I changed it it would prompt people to ask "what dream?!" and that's a pretty personal question considering what the answer ends up being.

[wcaminne]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As I've said before: The government should define marriage as between one man and one woman because the benefit that particular construction of a family brings to society. It almost always ends in children being born and provides the best environment to convey our societies collective values to that new generation of Canadians. They get both a male and female perspective on what it is to be Canadian. I can think of no better special interest group that deserves the support of our government than this family model. Most of us have benefited greatly by having a Mom and Dad guiding us.

And for those of us who were raised by a same-sex couple?

As of the 2006 Canada census, there were 45345 same-sex couples in Canada, 9% of which had at least one child under the age of 24 living under their care. That's, at minimum, 4081 children who you'd apparently single out simply because they don't "get both a male and female perspective on what it is to be Canadian." So sorry to disagree, but I have a great perspective on what it means to be Canadian.

Justifiable infringement of religious freedoms, I say. Frege64 is right - gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.

[onetwo_threefour]

[quote=Calgaryborn;1623431]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nothing has changed. Gay people getting married has zero effect on "traditional families" and the social benefits they provide.

What are the negatives?[/quote]

We've already gone over this territory in another thread . This thread is about polygamy. After this post you can have the last word on this topic. I don't need it.

The answer to your question is that "special" ceases to be "special" when extended to a ever widening group. Same sex marriage widens the definition to any two people committed to living together and having sex. Polygamy would widen the definition further to include any number of people committed to living together and having sex. Someone next will ask why sex is even a part of the equation. If you are living with someone and holding things in common you should count too. The next group to complain will be the single who will rightly ask why the government is giving special treatment to all these people when they already benefit from the sharing of meals, utilities, ect. At that point I for one couldn't answer that question. Living together and having sex doesn't seem like a justification in itself for special treatment/considerations. What makes a committed heterosexual union of special interest to all Canadians isn't the shared address or the sex but, what that pairing has the potential of producing and raising. Mom and Dads make the next generation of Canadians and with our support are the best method of nurturing them on their journey to adulthood.

If that's really the problem, there's a simple solution I've thrown out before when debating this. If you want to give benefits to parents raising children only, then do it. Rather than having spousal exemptions and tax breaks, make them child-centric. Simply getting married should not produce a benefit if what you really want to do is promote child-rearing, giving benefits to families with children will. It's a pretty easy answer to the objection.

Oh, and as to the AB, AC, BC, ABC thing brought up earlier, it's an interesting point certainly. If we are talking about a new kind of polygamy (polyamory) different than the historical versions, then there may be less concerns about power differentials. But it would certainly take some careful consideration on how to allow the ABC marriage without being constitutionally bound to allow the AB, AC version. It's all well and good to hypothesize that one harms society and one does not, but there is a dearth of evidence to justify a distinction since the ABC form is largely unknown in anthropology.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by wcaminne

And for those of us who were raised by a same-sex couple?

As of the 2006 Canada census, there were 45345 same-sex couples in Canada, 9% of which had at least one child under the age of 24 living under their care. That's, at minimum, 4081 children who you'd apparently single out simply because they don't "get both a male and female perspective on what it is to be Canadian." So sorry to disagree, but I have a great perspective on what it means to be Canadian.

Justifiable infringement of religious freedoms, I say. Frege64 is right - gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.

He's not saying same-sex parents don't do a great job, he's saying that the male-female relationship probably provides the best model for all of society. That's pretty much an indisputable social scientific fact, but it's just an ideal. I'm sure if a same-sex couple is monogamous, trusting, and loving they would do a better job than lots of dysfunctional hetero couples out there.

By the way... one child under 24...? Okay... So the actual number of children raised by same-sex couples is even smaller than 9%. We're talking about a tiny, tiny minority here.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No, I think it's just YOU and the minority that can't handle it. The majority or 'normal' if you want to call it seems to be okay with it as Canada was one of the first to legalize gay marriage.

I think you have a funny opinion on normal, or where you stand in the spectrum...

Besides, PDA isn't necessarily flaunting it. People have a right to that, especially at their own wedding! And I certainly have no problem seeing to males kiss or two females kiss.

Like I said I'm old school, I'm most likely a lot older than yourself and we didn't grow up watching this life style in front of our eyes, Yeah we saw it on TV with the gay pride stuff in San Fran but in small town Nova Scotia in the 70's it just didn't happen and to be perfectly honest if someone was even suspected to be gay they moved fast or healthy life as they knew ceased to exist. Times have changed I can respect that for the most part but to put on some fruitloop show in front another 180 guests is plain wrong, old folks were shaking their heads and little kids had this look of bewilderment on their faces. As did the bride and groom.

As far as your comment on what I call "normal" I don't realy think a guy spreading his arse for another man is remotely normal...Again, call me old school

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's pretty much an indisputable social scientific fact

It is?

I'm not coming at this to say yay or nay, or that's good or bad or whatever. Given that, what are/is the "indisputable social scientific fact(s)"?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine.

Defensive, much? If someone asking "why" is considered an attack on your opinion then perhaps you need to be fitted for your sound proof, protective bubble...

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Like I said I'm old school, I'm most likely a lot older than yourself and we didn't grow up watching this life style in front of our eyes, Yeah we saw it on TV with the gay pride stuff in San Fran but in small town Nova Scotia in the 70's it just didn't happen and to be perfectly honest if someone was even suspected to be gay they moved fast or healthy life as they knew ceased to exist. Times have changed I can respect that for the most part but to put on some fruitloop show in front another 180 guests is plain wrong, old folks were shaking their heads and little kids had this look of bewilderment on their faces. As did the bride and groom.

As far as your comment on what I call "normal" I don't realy think a guy spreading his arse for another man is remotely normal...Again, call me old school

Hey old school is fine. And you're opinions are fine. I just think you're overestimating where your ideas might be in the spectrum.

As for the wedding, I'm not exactly sure what you or the other guests were expecting. I mean if you knew it was a gay wedding you'd have to assume there would be some gay action, lol.

Lastly, 'normal' may not be the correct word. It's probably not fair to homosexuals or hetrosexuals. Plus it's not like it's anything new. Sure maybe in our culture, but apparently it was pretty 'normal' in ancient Greece.

Probably best just to stay away from that word.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Hey old school is fine. And you're opinions are fine. I just think you're overestimating where your ideas might be in the spectrum.

As for the wedding, I'm not exactly sure what you or the other guests were expecting. I mean if you knew it was a gay wedding you'd have to assume there would be some gay action, lol.

Lastly, 'normal' may not be the correct word. It's probably not fair to homosexuals or hetrosexuals. Plus it's not like it's anything new. Sure maybe in our culture, but apparently it was pretty 'normal' in ancient Greece.

Probably best just to say away from that word.

Where did i mention it was a gay wedding? one of the gays was the brides cousin.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Where did i mention it was a gay wedding? one of the gays was the brides cousin.

Ohhh, sorry,must have read it wrong. For the record I wasn't the only one confused by the original statement, a few other thought that you meant you were at a gay wedding too. Check the original responses...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

It is?

I'm not coming at this to say yay or nay, or that's good or bad or whatever. Given that, what are/is the "indisputable social scientific fact(s)"?

The ideal is probably more of a monogamous couple with strong kinship ties.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by peter12

The ideal is probably more of a monogamous couple with strong kinship ties.

Sorry was your post (that I quoted) saying that about any monogamous couple (heterosexual or same-sex) - i.e. as long as they are monogamous etc - or were you saying that it is indisputable social scientific fact that heterosexual couples "are the best model for society" over same-sex? Sorry I'm just a bit confused.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ohhh, sorry,must have read it wrong. For the record I wasn't the only one confused by the original statement, a few other thought that you meant you were at a gay wedding too. Check the original responses...

I thought they were joking

Long day in hell before I ever attend a gay marriage.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by T@T

I thought they were joking

Long day in hell before I ever attend a gay marriage.

That's why it was so confusing for us, lol.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by T@T

I thought they were joking

Long day in hell before I ever attend a gay marriage.

See, now I'm in the same age group you are (presumably - I just turned 41 a couple weeks ago), and I don't get why you think it is OK to be homophobic because you are "old school"?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by T@T

As far as your comment on what I call "normal" I don't realy think a guy spreading his arse for another man is remotely normal...Again, call me old school

There are plenty of woman who do this for men. Are they normal?

BTW, that is a retorical question.

Who really detemines what "normal" is?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by First Lady

There are plenty of woman who do this for men. Are they normal?

BTW, that is a retorical question.

Who really detemines what "normal" is?

I don't care if a woman wants to offer her ear or armpit

Male + Female = Normal

And this isn't just about the human race...this is nature in general. Anybody who thinks differently is NOT normal. Period.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

See, now I'm in the same age group you are (presumably - I just turned 41 a couple weeks ago), and I don't get why you think it is OK to be homophobic because you are "old school"?

I have about 5 years on you..maybe that's enough to make a small difference.

Homophobic means having a fear of being gay does it not?

Lets be clear, I have ZERO fear of gays and what any kind of effect they could do to my mind-set. I played golf on a regular basis with a gay guy for 5 years in the 80's, he was married with 2 kids and told me and our group about his homosexuality only when he was diagnosed with HIV. This was the only time I ever talked to someone about being gay and he basically said every once in a while he would go downtown and get (and I quote) "a strange thrill" and then go back to being a "normal" husband and father. We continued to play at our club for another season and sadly the HIV turned to AIDS and he lost his life. He was truly a great guy and I still miss his humor and honesty.

Like I said, I don't have not problem with gays as long as they don't flaunt it as being "normal" because it isn't!. Most gays know this and never flaunt it. If they feel the need to show how proud they are of their boyfriends and girlfriends I'm sure they have the ability to do it with their own groups.

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=onetwo_threefour;1624581]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If that's really the problem, there's a simple solution I've thrown out before when debating this. If you want to give benefits to parents raising children only, then do it. Rather than having spousal exemptions and tax breaks, make them child-centric. Simply getting married should not produce a benefit if what you really want to do is promote child-rearing, giving benefits to families with children will. It's a pretty easy answer to the objection.

Men and women who are in stable monogamist relationships tend to more interested in taking on the huge commitment of having/raising children. They are also better equipped as a unit to take on the task than a single women. Women know this and tend to wait for such stability before considering having children. Of course with what 50% of marriages ending in divorce many don't feel too terribly comfortable even when married. Financial stress is a leading cause of marriage breakdown and logically has a direct bearing on a couples decisions on when to have children. The government can assist in creating that stable environment by letting these couples keep a little more of their money. I'm all in favour of the government providing special benefits to family units of all kinds that are raising children. But, I think there is a lot of merit in also supporting the one family unit that can actually produce children without outside help.

[Gozer]

Too bad this otherwise intelligent thread got dragged down with gaybashing.