The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:billions of muslims oppose gay marriage and support polygamy.

Huh? There are not even billions of muslims in existence. Moreover, not all of them support polygamy and some support gay marriage.

#1 Currently, the most up to date report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion. With 60% in Asia and 20% of Muslims living in the Middle East and North Africa.

#2 In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia, West and East Africa (In Sudan it is encouraged from the president as female population is high).[57] Among the 22 member states of the Arab League, Tunisia alone explicitly prohibits polygamy; however, it is generally frowned-upon in many of the more secularized or Westernized Arab states, such as Egypt, Morocco, and Lebanon. Few other countries including Libya require the written permission of the first wife if her husband wishes to marry a second, third, or fourth wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

so YOU can tell us who we can and cannot marry? My tradition is that a man can have more than one wife. Why so close minded?

Honestly, I don't get that worked up about polygamy. I don't care too much one way or the other, and in this country it's a moot point because there is not currently any movement of any size to legalize polygamy. But for the purposes of this straw man argument, it makes perfect sense that a government could allow a man to marry another man and not change the definition of marriage to include multiple parties. Right now, it's an issue of equal protection. Let's let each of us, gay and straight, decide the one person that we want to marry.

Polygamy is a separate, entirely unrelated issue. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Disagree. It is also about choice, and the government deciding what rights we have. If a set of adults agree to polygamy, then why should we say no?
To me the arguments ARE the same. It is just that when we look at it from a different perspective, it gets uncomfortable for some people.
BTW, the movement is heating up. Many otherwise law abiding citizens of this country were persecuted and murdered over the issue of polygamy. Who are we to say what is right.

[Anonymous]

I am pro-gay marriage, but am disappointed that the gay marriage issue seems to have become the dominant gay rights issue. While many states (and the District of Columbia) ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, there is not a federal anti-discrimination law similar to those federal civil rights statutes prohibiting discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin or gender. The irony is that the gay rights movement of the 1990s did such a good job that most people now think that such federal protections exist, when they do not. So, for example, it is perfectly legal in South Carolina to fire someone, or refuse to rent them an apartment, just because they happen to be gay. (unless there have been legal advancements in SC of which I'm unaware).

And, while a significant percentage---or even a majority---of Americans aren't ready to embrace gay marriage, I believe that a sizable majority now believe that it is wrong for someone to lose their job, or be denied housing, just for being gay.

If Bill Clinton had pursued gay civil rights legislation instead of the more inflammatory "gays in the military" issue, then that sort of federal gay rights protection could have come about in the early 1990s. Instead, all hopes for a federal anti-discrimination statute protecting gays and lesbians disappeared for 14 years with the Republican congressional takeover and subsequent presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. It is baffling to me to watch the same mistake being made again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-gay marriage, but am disappointed that the gay marriage issue seems to have become the dominant gay rights issue. While many states (and the District of Columbia) ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, there is not a federal anti-discrimination law similar to those federal civil rights statutes prohibiting discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin or gender. The irony is that the gay rights movement of the 1990s did such a good job that most people now think that such federal protections exist, when they do not. So, for example, it is perfectly legal in South Carolina to fire someone, or refuse to rent them an apartment, just because they happen to be gay. (unless there have been legal advancements in SC of which I'm unaware).

And, while a significant percentage---or even a majority---of Americans aren't ready to embrace gay marriage, I believe that a sizable majority now believe that it is wrong for someone to lose their job, or be denied housing, just for being gay.

If Bill Clinton had pursued gay civil rights legislation instead of the more inflammatory "gays in the military" issue, then that sort of federal gay rights protection could have come about in the early 1990s. Instead, all hopes for a federal anti-discrimination statute protecting gays and lesbians disappeared for 14 years with the Republican congressional takeover and subsequent presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. It is baffling to me to watch the same mistake being made again.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

If the pro-polygamy movement is "heating up," as you say, then there will be plenty of time to discuss it in a polygamy thread. This thread is about gay marriage. If the only argument you can make about gay marriage is that polygamy is wrong, you don't have a very good argument.

[jsteele]

The "slippery slope" argument can be made about almost anything (and generally is). But, such slopes are not necessarily bad. At the time of the formation of the United States, only property-owning men could vote. It would be nearly a century before the 15th Amendment would remove the color barrier. I'm sure that many argued that tradition should be respected and others warned that the slippery slope would lead to women voting. Of course, their worst fears were realized when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. When the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18, I'm sure there were people warning that this would be the end of our society and lead to children, dogs, and box turtles being given the vote.

Since there was a clear cut slippery slope in this case, should we return to allowing only property-owning (and generally white) men being allowed to vote? Or, were the fears of those warning about about slippery slopes based on out-of-date and not entirely rational fears?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the pro-polygamy movement is "heating up," as you say, then there will be plenty of time to discuss it in a polygamy thread. This thread is about gay marriage. If the only argument you can make about gay marriage is that polygamy is wrong, you don't have a very good argument.

Never said that polygamy is wrong, just can't understand why they can't be compared.

[Anonymous]

So you think polygamy is okay, but gay marriage isn't?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:billions of muslims oppose gay marriage and support polygamy.

Huh? There are not even billions of muslims in existence. Moreover, not all of them support polygamy and some support gay marriage.

#1 Currently, the most up to date report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion. With 60% in Asia and 20% of Muslims living in the Middle East and North Africa.

#2 In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia, West and East Africa (In Sudan it is encouraged from the president as female population is high).[57] Among the 22 member states of the Arab League, Tunisia alone explicitly prohibits polygamy; however, it is generally frowned-upon in many of the more secularized or Westernized Arab states, such as Egypt, Morocco, and Lebanon. Few other countries including Libya require the written permission of the first wife if her husband wishes to marry a second, third, or fourth wife.

Assuming that you agree that 1.57 billion is less than "billions", you are supporting everything I said.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The "slippery slope" argument can be made about almost anything (and generally is). But, such slopes are not necessarily bad. At the time of the formation of the United States, only property-owning men could vote. It would be nearly a century before the 15th Amendment would remove the color barrier. I'm sure that many argued that tradition should be respected and others warned that the slippery slope would lead to women voting. Of course, their worst fears were realized when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. When the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18, I'm sure there were people warning that this would be the end of our society and lead to children, dogs, and box turtles being given the vote.

Since there was a clear cut slippery slope in this case, should we return to allowing only property-owning (and generally white) men being allowed to vote? Or, were the fears of those warning about about slippery slopes based on out-of-date and not entirely rational fears?

Jeff, I am really kind of playing devils advocate because I think that a lot of liberals have their pet issues, and fail to expand their views. I am not a fan of the idea of polygamy and I can see the problems that can come of it. But there might be some benefits to it too. I try to be open minded, but as a result, I started to make this connection. Just because many believe that fundamentailst Mormons are nuts, does not make it right to deny them the privilege of marriage. Many would say gays are crazy. Remember, homosexuality had a psychiatric diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think polygamy is okay, but gay marriage isn't?

No

[Anonymous]

Hey, folks, how about equal time for polyandry? A woman is far more capable of handling several men than vice-versa.

But the real solution to all of this is to get the state out of legislating private morality. If people want to enter a voluntary contract, treat is as a business matter, and don't make a fuss about it or fog it up with questions about what goes on in their bedroom.

[Anonymous]

OK, then if we want to treat it as a business matter, then what about green card marriages or prostitution. It can get complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, then if we want to treat it as a business matter, then what about green card marriages or prostitution. It can get complicated.

I think it would actually simplify things. The green card problem would disappear, since a contract between a foreigner and a citizen would not affect the foreigner's status. And if prostitution were accepted as a business transaction, it would free a lot of police and court time.

Or, if you prefer, you could recognize that there is no reason why marriage as contract would force any change in how the other two issues were treated. The fact that you see an analogy between two things does not mean the government has to recognize that analogy. In fact, the government can even ignore iron-clad logic.

[Anonymous]

This Catholic Republican thinks it's about time that her gay friends are able to marry. There needs to be a landmark case like, The Lovings Vs Virginia.