patrickaa317 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people
That would be me, though I could change my mind. First, I want to put forward that a lot of unmarried people today are essentially polygamist/polyandrists. The problme with unmarried people having multiple kids from different partners is partly the same as with polygamy/ployandry, but not entirely.
I will start with the difference. The difference is commitment and, usually, consent. (For this debate, I will exclude the Warren Jeffs type scenario, becuase I believe that is an aberration. Kids should not be engaging in sex. Most of those actually wanting legalized polygamy see that as abhorrant as well). That makes a big difference, since the fundamental historical reason for marriage is "legitimacy" of children and securing inheritances. Polygamy/Polyandry do that as well as any other kind of marriage. However, biologically, there is a huge difference in Polygamy. One man having a hundred kids is, biologically and socially very different from one man having 12- 20 kids from the same woman. Today, there is some question emerging on whether having that many kids from one woman is really a moral choice. (note, I said, "there is a question/debate" on this and that it is "emerging".. I am NOT saying I have this opinion!). That is still an emerging debate with many complications, but society has already declared a problem with polygamy and the idea of the power one man can have by having 100 kids is very much a part of the issue.
This multiple children bit is also part of the problem with umarried individuals, though in that case, it is often tinged with a failure to support or take responsibility for the progeny.
Interestingly, polyandry would not pose this problem, but is more universally rejected. I think that gets into the roles and views of women. Many anthropologists point to the fact that while men absolutely require women to have and raise children, the need is nowhere near as great in the reverse. The needs that are established are historic, based on the need for protection and security.. and those needs are not necessarily the same today. That may be part of what can make polygamy now a more viable option, ironically. However, the fact that more men can easily support multiple women now does not negate the problem of multiple births.
Take reproduction out of the equation, are you ok with three men or three women all marrying each other then?
You cannot take reproduction out of the question, because reproduction, defining legitimacy is the historical reason for marriage. In today's age we look at other things, like companionship/general security, but children is still primary, and therefore cannot be excluded from the definition, even though many couples are childless.
When you get into polygamy and polyandry, I have more concerns, mostly because polygamy is so often tied to oppression of women. Among other things, you tend to have either polygamy or polyandry... not both. That alone is an issue, it says that women and men are not treated equally in those relationships. That, on top of the reproduction makes it more questionable than a mutually agreeable homosexual union. That said, my opposition to polygamy is not necessarily firm. I just cannot say that I am in favor of it, and definitely do see it as a distinct issue from homosexual unions.
Beyond that, you seem to think that legalization of homosexuality is equal to agreement. That is not the case, and is part of the problem with this debate, in general. Too many people want to claim that homosexual unions cannot be legalized simply becuase it goes against their personnal beliefs. Yet, in most other formats from the basic religious views one holds to any number of other lifestyle issues, the fundamental value is "you do as you wish, you let me do as I wish... as long as it doesn't cause harm to unwilling others". (I add that last to get around the bit about some religions being restrictive, considered harmful by others).
I actually don't "agree" with homosexuality, in the sense that I think heterosexuality is the "correct" way to be, etc. Its just that I know I consider it fundamental to our society that people be allowed to do as they want unless it harms others. In adecades past, homosexuality was seen as a great harm. It was thought it lead to pedophilia, that homosexuals were generally just lest honest and generally "good" people (in the sense of living by societies' rules). Now we know differently. As Maya D'Angelo has said "When we knew better, we did better". We cannot pretend any longer that homosexuality is this great threat to society, becuase it just is not. At least, it is no more a threat than other religions, beliefs, ideas.
I have enough faith in my beliefs, my family not to feel threatened by homosexuality. I have found out, as an adult, that some of those I knew as a child were (unbeknownst to me at the time) homosexual. That type of experience is what has changed most people's minds on this. That, and just seeing how terrible homosexuals are treated in some cases.
For me, a lot of my thinking on the marriage issue changed when I became more aware of the impact not being married had on medical choices, raising children who were in loving and caring homes. (tell homosexuals not to aopt when there are no children left to languish in foster care or held off from adoptions is my basic stance on that).
Whether I think homosexuality is OK or not is simply irrelevant. It does not cause me harm. There are valid protections they seek from marriage that are being denied them now. They are facing direct harm by not being allowed to be legally married. That is what makes the choice clear.
For us to say they cannot marry is not a nuetral choice, it is an antagonistic and directly harmful choice that cause homosexual couples and families harm.
