ROBERTS: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I find it interesting that the concept of the state has been around as long as it has, and Godless' notion has only existed for less than a dozen or two years.  Yet he states it with such surety, as if the notion was so obviously above reproach, it needs no justification or persuasion.

 

When one is Godless, it is easier to justify most anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BYU might have a challenge remaining such a steal for a great college education. And to think all they (LGBTs) wanted was to be left alone so they could live their lives. Sheesh! 

 

Have you heard about the $125,000 the Christian bakers have to pay the lesbians because of their 90 symptoms related to stress and heartbreak after being denied a cake for their wedding? Seriously absurd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Why is romantically bound a requirement?

 

 

I suppose it technically isn't. It's not unheard of for people to get married strictly for legal and financial benefits. And in such cases, procreation is usually off the table, so my original point still stands. Desire/ability to have children is not and should not be a prerequisite for marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it technically isn't. It's not unheard of for people to get married strictly for legal and financial benefits. And in such cases, procreation is usually off the table, so my original point still stands. Desire/ability to have children is not and should not be a prerequisite for marriage.

 

Backwards logic.  I'm surprised every time I hear this. It is so elementary that no conservative can even come up with an answer to it. It's just so off base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Backwards logic.  I'm surprised every time I hear this. It is so elementary that no conservative can even come up with an answer to it. It's just so off base. 

 

I feel the same way about the argument that legalization of gay marriage will lead to legalized incest, bestiality, and polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I often hear is that polygyny is inherently oppressive to the females in the relationship.

 

Now, if you allowed polyandry (multiple husbands to one wife) as well as polygny--it would be hard to keep making the oppression argument.  But then you're basically creating state-recognized sex rings of fundamentally unlimited size, which even more obviously begs the question of why the heck the state is subsidizing marriage in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I THINK that the logic basically went like this: 

1.  The nonprofit statute (501( c)(3)) says that the institution has to work towards the public good

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1963 says racial discrimination is bad

3.  Bob Jones University discriminated on the basis of race.

4.  Since Bob Jones University is doing something that Congress has declared to be bad, it cannot be said to be working towards the public good.  

 

  Bob Jones University does not deserve tax-exempt status under 501( c)(3).

 

 

 

I like it when what the judges take 50 or more pages of complex verbiage to say can be reduced down to a few points that are easy for everyone to understand. Thanks JAG :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the concept of the state has been around as long as it has, and Godless' notion has only existed for less than a dozen or two years.  Yet he states it with such surety, as if the notion was so obviously above reproach, it needs no justification or persuasion.

 

Not really, up until the middle 1800s most states didn't issue marriage licences, up until that point common law marriages were the norm and prior to that religious organizations issued marriage licences.

 

Many of the states who did pass laws requiring marriage licences did so to restrict and prohibit marriages between whites and blacks.

 

The concept that marriage should be removed from the purview of the state is not a recent idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

So what? If it's consensual it's consensual. Isn't that the catch-concept of the day. Consenting adults?

In most (probably all) cases, consent for polygamous marriage is derived through theocratic coercion and borderline brainwashing. I know of no scenario outside of religious cults like fLDS in which polygamy is given any kind of thought whatsoever. It's an absolute non-issue in mainstream society. To suggest that it has any correlation to gay marriage is "backwards logic" and "just so off base". That's all I have to say on the issue as it's very difficult for me to take seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most (probably all) cases, consent for polygamous marriage is derived through theocratic coercion and borderline brainwashing. I know of no scenario outside of religious cults like fLDS in which polygamy is given any kind of thought whatsoever. It's an absolute non-issue in mainstream society. To suggest that it has any correlation to gay marriage is "backwards logic" and "just so off base". That's all I have to say on the issue as it's very difficult for me to take seriously.

?? Polygamy has been practiced for centuries and is practiced today around the world . . . unless you consider being Muslim a religious cult and/or theocratic coercion and brainwashing.  A blanket statement like the above, indicates a lack of research into this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Godless:  If you're going to play the moral relativism card, ya gotta go whole hog.  There are something like two billion bigamists in the world today.  That's almost six times the total number of gay people on the earth (350 million, if you assume 5% of a population of 7 billion); and the majority of the polygamists would say that it's actually people in homosexual relationships who are being enslaved by their cultures and by their own baser instincts.

 

But, coming back to the US:  If state-sanctioned marriage really is just about formally recognizing who's "in love" with whom--then logically, you have to validate that "love" wherever, and in whatever form, you find it.  On what basis do you deny legal recognition to the several tens of thousands of polygamous American families who have zero affiliation with any sort of Mormon or Mormon offshoot group?  Why are their constitutional rights inferior to the rest of ours?

 

And, come to think of it, couldn't one make an argument that serial monogamy is just as oppressive to women as outright polygamy?  Have we not already created a culture where a man can get what he wants from a plethora of willing women, without having to incur the expense and inconvenience that traditionally ran with maintaining a harem?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most (probably all) cases, consent for polygamous marriage is derived through theocratic coercion and borderline brainwashing.

 

I would say the exact same thing about homosexuality -- except for replace theocratic with secular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

?? Polygamy has been practiced for centuries and is practiced today around the world . . . unless you consider being Muslim a religious cult and/or theocratic coercion.

So we're using Islam to demonstrate that polygamy isn't oppressive to women? Seriously, I think you already know my answer to your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're using Islam to demonstrate that polygamy isn't oppressive to women? Seriously, I think you already know my answer to your question.

Dude, if you think that just being part of the the religion of Islam means one is oppressive to woman, you've got some serious issues. Polygamy in and of itself is oppressive to no one; as long as each party enters into the agreement free of choice it's not oppressive. (which can be said the same of any marriage as long as it is entered into free of choice one does not force another human being to do something with the threat of physical violence it's not oppressive.)

 

Proponents of homosexual unions who oppose polygamy have absolutely 0 leg to stand on.  They are hypocrites.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the LBGT community generally oppose polygamy?  If so, why?  Frankly, it has a stronger historic tradition, and there are religious motivations.  Why deny those?  Why would an LBGT person--especially one who insists on same-sex marriage--dare judge the loving, committed relationships of a man or woman and his/her spouses?  My tongue is not in my cheek.  I'm completely serious.  Personally, I've always thought polygamy had much stronger grounds to stand on than same-sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My youngest daughter (now 30) is gay...she has a "wife", I have decades members long friends who have grown cold to me as a result. My daughter helped with my youngest son (via assistance help pay for his mission) and comes over every Sunday with her spouse for Sunday dinner. Some of my LDS friends think I am encouraging her by letting her come over with he spouse. My daughter nd I are very close. But I love her as I do with all of my other 3 childern. I love her with all my heart and would lay down my life in an instant for here. As far as any childern she might adopt or have through artificially, I would treat that child I would treat like my other 8 grandchildren. But God and nature has already passed judgment on the children of those...they cannot reproduce and even if adopted, in short they cannot ensure if they would be gay. But like all others we should be loving and compassionate, just like all God's children, that we remain blameless before our Father and Saviour, that we remain the worthy children of our Father in Heaven. Because I need to remain forgiven and bathed in the blood of Christ. God help us all to b the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share