homosexuality, women and the NT

[dwilhelmi]

No the solution was to recognise that black people were people.

Exactly. I think the solution here is to recognize that marriage is a committed relationship between two people in the same way that gay marriage is a committed relationship between two people. Marriage just has additional requirements. So lets come up with some all encompassing term that includes both marriage and gay marriage and common law marriage and any two adults that want to commit to each other.

I think that the comparison to the definition of "person" is a bit off regardless. The definition of "person" is scientifically verifiable. Black and white are both humans, prick them and they will bleed, etc. Therefore, defining "person" to be "white person" was a logical fallacy. Marriage is not a scientifically verifiable object, but rather a social activity. The definition of a social activity cannot be proven right or wrong, because it is a matter of opinion. You think marriage is one thing, I think it is another, and no scientific test will prove either one correct. That is why it should be up to a vote - or just left alone entirely from a governmental perspective.

[crispybits]

*sigh* I give up. You think the solution is to keep insisting on a discriminatory definition, and instead of recognising that discrimination just call it "additional requirements". Maybe we should go back to defining people as "white human beings" because the white bit isn't discriminatory right, it's just an "additional requirement".....

Edit - by the way there would be nothing wrong under a new definition of marriage to have christian marriages, muslim marriages, straight marriages, gay marriages, hindu marriages, common law marriages, etc etc. Nobody is trying to take anything away from your faith and your culture. A christian marriage, by definition, would be a subset of straight marriages. But it's not enough that you can have your own riules for your own cultural group, no they have to be applied universally too.

[2dimes]

prick them and they will bleed,

Oh my.

[Woodruff]

Personally, I don't think the "do no harm" is a good measure of right and wrong.

To be honest, it seems like an exactly perfect place to start, and I can only think of variation being toward "do more harm" on the "right side" (in other words, sometimes you must do harm in order to do the right thing), but I can't think of anything in the other direction.

[heavycola]

Just because a sin "does no harm" does not make it not a sin. Stable and loving heterosexual relationships are part of God's plan. Deciding that you know better than God what constitutes sin, and living your life in such a way as to embrace that sin, can be very damaging to yourself. There are many other sins that don't hurt anybody, but are still sins and can cause damage to yourself. Gluttony, for example. It doesn't hurt anybody else, in fact it helps a good number of people who are selling you all of your food. It is pleasing to yourself, as boy golly does food taste good. In the long run, however, it is very damaging to yourself, and is still sinful. A greater test is required than "does it hurt anybody".

The 'greater test' must be whether the bible says it is OK, then, and like every atheist i'm deeply suspicious of outsourcing moral questions to a book written by desert tribes thousands of years ago. But that is by the by.

Look, obviously the dalai lama doesn't give a toss about biblical definitions of sin. I quoted him as a fairly dispassionate and wise dude who, to my mind, sums up the most important aspect of this issue perfectly. It does no harm. Would he have replied the same way about gluttony? What do we mean by gluttony - a love of food? Or obesity? The former on its own does no harm, and any god that decides loving food is a sin can keep his poxy afterlife. The latter does plenty of harm - it leads to disability, immobility, chronic disease, and all of those have wider social and familial costs.

How about a thought experiment: if you, or anyone else who points to scripture as the final say on this, could pretend the bible doesn't exist and you had to come to your own moral conclusions about homosexuality - and I am talking about stable, loving and committed relationships here, like a string straight marriage - what would those conclusions be? and how would you arrive at them?

Here's the thing - I believe that the source of all morality, the very foundation of right and wrong, is God. Morality doesn't come from the Bible, that was just one way God attempted to reveal to us His morality.

At the end of the day, there has to be some ideal morality, some final goal of what is right and what is wrong - if there was not, then it would be impossible to have one group's set of morals be "more right" than others. It cannot be the group itself that defines this moral ideal, because then there would be no way of comparing them against each other. There must be some absolute right and wrong to point at and say "look, you guys are not doing what is right".

No, there doesn't. Millions of atheists live moral lives without recourse to a god or gods. I'd like to think I am one - at least, i can prove that god is not the source of my sense of morality because I see nothing immoral - quite the opposite - in a stable, loving gay relationship.

So to ask if something would be wrong if you were to take away the source of right and wrong? OK, then, no, if the source of right and wrong were removed then homosexuality would not be wrong. But I don't think that helps the conversation along very well .

But that's just it - an atheist has a 'source of right or wrong', based on his or her common sense, relationship with society and community, etc etc. Having no god or gods does not make someone amoral. I was asking you to put yourself in a non-believer's shoes and approach moral issues using your own innate sense of what is right and wrong.

Personally, I don't think the "do no harm" is a good measure of right and wrong. For one thing, it can be impossible to tell if something does harm. It could be that somebody gets into a homosexual, long term, committed relationship, and they lead a perfectly fine life. However, you can't know what "harm" might have been done there as compared to what that life would have been without getting into that relationship. If that person is now worse off than they would have been if they had chosen differently, then that decision did harm them. Without our handy dandy time machine, we can't know if any decision is harmful or not. So that in and of itself defeats using that as a test for right and wrong, in my opinion.

We're not talking about the possible route someone's life could have taken - that would be ridiculous. I could save someone from a burning car wreck - a moral thing to do - and they could turn out to be a mass murderer. Whatiffery is pointless here.
That said - what is a good measure of right or wrong?

[BigBallinStalin]

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

This I disagree with, given the way the situation is being approached. What do you think would happen to a church today that was unwilling to marry an interracial couple? Would it be OK? I don't think so. When the government labels something as discriminatory, that has very far reaching effects. However, if the definition of marriage was to be voted by the majority to be between any two people, I would not object to that. In that case, I would be content that the government defines it differently than I do, and be relatively content that I would be free to continue in my own beliefs.

I also agree that this is a valid concern for those against gay marriage.

It's unlikely that the government would implement its policy aggressively through removing tax-exempt status because

(1) it would irritate a lot of constituents, which would affect the voter-margins of politicians. The non-religious may favor politicians for pushing this, but not nearly as much as the animosity faced by the religious fundamentalists BUT also all the religious would oppose this.

(2) it would be difficult to slip this into a bill without anyone's notice since it's such a touchy issues (tax-exemption affects perhaps all believers)


So, since it's unlikely, I don't find this concern to be weighted enough to justify denying gay people from a state-recognized marital status.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just because a sin "does no harm" does not make it not a sin. Stable and loving heterosexual relationships are part of God's plan. Deciding that you know better than God what constitutes sin, and living your life in such a way as to embrace that sin, can be very damaging to yourself. There are many other sins that don't hurt anybody, but are still sins and can cause damage to yourself. Gluttony, for example. It doesn't hurt anybody else, in fact it helps a good number of people who are selling you all of your food. It is pleasing to yourself, as boy golly does food taste good. In the long run, however, it is very damaging to yourself, and is still sinful. A greater test is required than "does it hurt anybody".

The 'greater test' must be whether the bible says it is OK, then, and like every atheist i'm deeply suspicious of outsourcing moral questions to a book written by desert tribes thousands of years ago. But that is by the by.

Look, obviously the dalai lama doesn't give a toss about biblical definitions of sin. I quoted him as a fairly dispassionate and wise dude who, to my mind, sums up the most important aspect of this issue perfectly. It does no harm. Would he have replied the same way about gluttony? What do we mean by gluttony - a love of food? Or obesity? The former on its own does no harm, and any god that decides loving food is a sin can keep his poxy afterlife. The latter does plenty of harm - it leads to disability, immobility, chronic disease, and all of those have wider social and familial costs.

How about a thought experiment: if you, or anyone else who points to scripture as the final say on this, could pretend the bible doesn't exist and you had to come to your own moral conclusions about homosexuality - and I am talking about stable, loving and committed relationships here, like a string straight marriage - what would those conclusions be? and how would you arrive at them?

Should "Thou Shalt Not Be Obese, Fatass." be the 11th Commandment?

[Phatscotty]

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government.

Is there a place for imposing your sexual beliefs on society through the use of government?

[jimboston]

While the NT does a lot to cancel out a good portion of the OT restrictions...

How is that possible?

According to Christian beliefs... both the NT and OT are "THE WORD OF GOD".

How can God's "Word" cancel out God's "Word"?

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to admit that some people in the past have misinterpreted God's Word... and then revise the Book/Bible so that it only includes what we now believe to be the True Word???

No - the OT was given to us to show Absolute Perfection and Justus. something that we as humans are incapable of doing. When Jesus came, he did so to fulfill the requirements laid out in the OT on our behalf. The OT is designed to show us how impossible it is to be perfect, and how much we needed Jesus.

It's kinda like the letter of the law vs the intent of the law. In our legal system, the laws are all written out and defined. However, a lot of these laws have loopholes, ways to get around the actual intent of the law. Ways to misuse the law. Most rational people can look at a law and understand the intent behind it. There is a difference between the absolute letter of the law and what the law was actually designed to do.

The OT was God laying out the letter of the Law. It was His way of telling us all of the specific ins and outs of everything. Jesus and the NT is the heart behind the Law. So there are many things that we are no longer required to follow to the T from the letter of the Law, so long as we are still following the heart, the intent, of the Law.

You are contradicting yourself.

Just like that Bible contradicts itself.

You don't see that as a problem for the Bible... so I'm assuming you don't see it as a problem for yourself either.

How am I contradicting myself?

I quote you saying in one post that the NT cancels out a lot of the OT.

You then say "no".

That is a contradiction.

Also.. The discrepancies between OT and NT... and also with each testament itself... Is not at all like the analogy you are making to the "letter versus intent" of secular law.

Your arguement is a bunch of BS.

... and yes... You contradict yourself.

[Woodruff]

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government.

Is there a place for imposing your sexual beliefs on society through the use of government?

Yes, it's called the Republican National Convention.

[thegreekdog]

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government.

Is there a place for imposing your sexual beliefs on society through the use of government?

I need an example. Is the government forcing you to play catcher or something?

[thegreekdog]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

Bear with me here. If the government's definition of marriage is currently "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman entered into via license from a local jurisdiction" and the government changes it to "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman" you would have a problem with that? If that's your problem (the definition), then what if the government eliminates the word "marriage" from its lexicon and instead uses the phrase "interpersonal union" and defines that as "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman?" Does that solve your problem? In the interest of full disclosure, the phrase "interpresonal union" would apply only for government purposes and would apply equally to gay marriage and straight marriage. So for the purposes of the government, the interpersonal union of a man and a man would be accorded the same status as an interpersonal union of a man and a woman.

Yes, I would be fine with this. In fact, I've stated that a few times in this thread already . Marriage is a very charged term, that a lot of people hold very strong beliefs about. I would argue that taking the term out of the government entirely would be the best overall solution.

Good, then I think we've come to an agreement. The government removes the term marriage and replaces it with "interpersonal union" which is applied to any legal contract dealing with an interpersonal relationship between any person (of age) and any other person (of age). The benefits and detriments previously associated with marriage are not associated with "intepersonal union." We're done now.

[

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

This I disagree with, given the way the situation is being approached. What do you think would happen to a church today that was unwilling to marry an interracial couple? Would it be OK? I don't think so. When the government labels something as discriminatory, that has very far reaching effects. However, if the definition of marriage was to be voted by the majority to be between any two people, I would not object to that. In that case, I would be content that the government defines it differently than I do, and be relatively content that I would be free to continue in my own beliefs.

The government has no say as to whether a church refuses to marry an interracial couple or any couple at all. Simply put, the government recognition of gay marriage would literally change nothing about who churches can or cannot marry or recognize. Further, by defining the term "marriage" to include "gay marriage," the government is not labelling someone who does not recognize gay marriage discriminatory. Or maybe the government is, but it certainly cannot force a religious institution to recognize it. To put it another, more personal way, as a Roman Catholic, I would be vehemently against government recognition of gay marriage if the Catholic church was forced to recognize and/or marry gays.

Unfortunately, there are many ways in which someone can be "forced" to do something. For example, the government might say that churches can do whatever they want, but if they refuse to marry gay couples then they will simply lose their tax exempt status. Even though churches in that case would not be being forced to perform gay marriages, they might find themselves in a heap of trouble - losing tax exempt status can be a death blow to churches. That is a very real possibility, too - http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestax ... policy.htm

That's a WHOLE different story. First, I don't think the government would remove tax exempt status for religions because it would be politically unpopular (right now, maybe in the future if there are more atheists it would be, but I don't know many politicians who don't identify with some religion or whose constituents to identify with some religion). Second, tax exempt status is not necessarily granted because a religion is a religion; rather, the religion may provide some tangible benefits (assistance to the poor for example) and the tax-exempt status is granted on that basis. Third, unless #2 is true, I think tax-exempt status for religions should have been eliminated long ago. Fourth, Constitution.

[

There is no action you are required to take if gay marriage is recognized by the state. The government is not forcing you to act. What opponents of gay marriage are doing is prohibiting others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship because if offends their religions. Offending a religion is not a compelling state interest and is certainly not, in the history of this country, an adequate basis for the government to prevent someone from doing something.

I am not at all attempting to prohibit others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship. I have never once claimed that homosexuals should not be allowed to be together. They can have their relationship all they want.

You are attempting to prohibit others from having the same government-provided benefits (and detriments) as you are provided (if you are married). This is a violation of the equal protection clause.

I'm not suggesting you are a bigot. I'm just not sure you understand what "marriage" means in terms of the government or that there is a difference between government-defined marriage and religiously-defined marriage. Gays and their supporters are concerned merely with how the government defines marriage, not how religions define marriage.

I have no problem with others getting the same government-provided benefits. My problem is that I do not see a difference between government-defined marriage and religious-defined marriage. One bleeds over into the other. In the minds of the people, marriage is marriage. You can't separate it.

Right, it's the definition of the term or the term itself. If the term itself changes, then we're good to go (see above).

Now, the issue I have is that this is what we're getting hung up on. The definition of a freaking word. Simply put, to have a widespread national debate on the definition of the term "marriage" be the issue, such that people care more about the status of marriage than they do about mounting national debt, the economy, foreign wars, etc. is unbelievable and utterly ridiculous to me.

[PLAYER57832]

Personally, I don't think the "do no harm" is a good measure of right and wrong.

To be honest, it seems like an exactly perfect place to start, and I can only think of variation being toward "do more harm" on the "right side" (in other words, sometimes you must do harm in order to do the right thing), but I can't think of anything in the other direction.

In fact, seems pretty much what Christ meant when he said "above all else, love thy God and love they neighbor as thyself".

THAT commandment supercedes all others, because the others were just attempts to spell out to people, literalists in particular, the rules. Its sort of like how we tell a 5 year old to wait at the corner for an adult/hold hands/look both ways... and tell a teen "yeah, go on over to your friend's house". Even though those 3 rules really don't cover each and every situation, we expect teens to understand and be able to determine the means to stay safe. "Stay safe" is the REAL rule.. not "hold hands". "Hold hands" is just an easy means to that end. A teen can think of many situations when "holding hands" might be a very unsafe thing to do (not enough room, etc.)

[PLAYER57832]

1. There is evidence that polygamy is often tied to child brides and, though this is a more modern finding, in a lot of young men who are "at loose ends" and thus more prone to violence, etc. Warren Jeffs an admittedly extreme example is known for pushing out young boys. Even when its not done so blatently, it happens in more subtle fashions. The child bride bit is similarly tied to a lack of adult women to go around. Smaller groups can maintain the "ratio" bey "recruiting" women from outside, but whenever polygamy becomes more widespread, it results in a mis-match.

Not entirely, but yes, close.

I refute your statements.

Polygamy (as practiced by religious sects that are often persecuted by the mainstream) does/has produced many instances of child-brides, rape, etc.

Fine, we agree. So what are you refuting?

Polygamy does not (should not) be a religious issue.

NO more than homosexual, though marriage itself often has religious connotations for those involved.

Polygamy does not (should not) necessarily be a relationship where there is one husband and multiple wives.

Sorry, that's the definition. You can discuss other concepts, but you cannot simply redefine polygamy because you wish to do so.

It can equally be a relationship where there is one wife with multiple husbands.

No, actually that is Polyandry. I did not discuss polyandry.

Polygamy (or Polyamory) recognized by law and practiced in a secular manner would not (necessarily) produce child brides and rape.

Hmm... nice attempt at changing the words spoken there. Polygamy is just multiple women, one man. Polyamory can be multiple forms including polygamy, polyandry, and group marriages. I only discussed Polygamy... and referred to research, which, while I did not post in that thread, have posted previously where most of the folks posting here have not only seen it, but debated it already.

I have no problem with adults (men or women) participating in relationships that they want to participate in as adults.

Fine, but the comment I was refuting was greekdog saying that there is no evidence of polygamy resulting in increases of child brides, etc. I mentioned soem athropological studies, previously cited and discussed by greekdog, that do indicate such... they also point to an increase in male violance associated with such societies.

If gay marriage becomes accepted as legal in a secular manner... Polygamous and Polyamorous relationships should also be recognized.

This is just a different topic. It legitimately differs for the reasons given above. That said, I am open to consideration of this, am not firmly set in my ideas on it yet. Its just that saying "if homosexuals, then..." is not a valid argument because they are actually different.

If two men can marry each other... and two women can marry each other.... where does that leave a couple (man/woman) who are bisexual??? Should they not also be allowed to have a relationship with their chosen partners? By definition a bisexual person could not be fully satisfied with either a man or woman 'partner"... he/she would need both a man AND woman.

Not quit, but go ahead. While true homosexuality is pretty much accepted as a reality by the psycologists and such now, the idea of true bisexuality is still controversial. The main point is that we don't see numbers of people marching in the streets demanding bisexual marriage. They tend to satisfy that need outside the binds of marriage.

Now... I say if... because I think no married should be recognized by law... but that's another debate.

Recognizing marriage is a nice expedient for the state, to identify everything from legal next of kin to shared ownership, custody and so forth. I think it is possible to do these things universally outside of marriage, but the institution is so widely recognized, its just too handy to do away with completely. I can see changing legal marriage to a civil union... period, and allowing various types of partnerships.

I am not able to find the brief blurb, but I remember hearing about a change in the law in one country --- maybe Germany or the Netherlands, but it could have been elsewhere. I might have misunderstood, but the change that eliminated the idea of "marriage" as we know it, replacing it with some kind of civil agreement. Anyway, the statement was made that people might want to have their sister/child, etc designated in this way. It had nothing to do with sex, it was about giving the other person full access to finances, medical stuff, etc, etc.

Anyway... the exact details don't really matter, because it would be different in each country anyway. However, I could see the advantage of allowing people to have designated partners with authority similar to that now automatically given with marriage, with the possible exception of co-custody of children (though there might be cases warrenting that as well...).

[jimboston]

1. There is evidence that polygamy is often tied to child brides and, though this is a more modern finding, in a lot of young men who are "at loose ends" and thus more prone to violence, etc. Warren Jeffs an admittedly extreme example is known for pushing out young boys. Even when its not done so blatently, it happens in more subtle fashions. The child bride bit is similarly tied to a lack of adult women to go around. Smaller groups can maintain the "ratio" bey "recruiting" women from outside, but whenever polygamy becomes more widespread, it results in a mis-match.

Not entirely, but yes, close.

I refute your statements.

Polygamy (as practiced by religious sects that are often persecuted by the mainstream) does/has produced many instances of child-brides, rape, etc.

Fine, we agree. So what are you refuting?

Take a partial quote much?

[jimboston]

If two men can marry each other... and two women can marry each other.... where does that leave a couple (man/woman) who are bisexual??? Should they not also be allowed to have a relationship with their chosen partners? By definition a bisexual person could not be fully satisfied with either a man or woman 'partner"... he/she would need both a man AND woman.

Not quit, but go ahead. While true homosexuality is pretty much accepted as a reality by the psycologists and such now, the idea of true bisexuality is still controversial. The main point is that we don't see numbers of people marching in the streets demanding bisexual marriage. They tend to satisfy that need outside the binds of marriage.

"True" Homosexuality and "True" Bisexuality?

WTF does that even mean?

These things are not necessarily absolutes.

There are "degrees" of attraction to consider.

I'm not sure what psychologists you talk to... but maybe you should try talking to some bisexual people and you will see there are many flavors and varieties.

Why should these people have to satisfy their "needs" "outside the binds of marriage". Why should they not also be allowed to particpate in "marriage" with whomever they want.

Anyone who thinks gay/lesbian marriage is OK... then says that polygamy, polyandry, or any other "poly" type marriage is wrong is just a plain hypocrite.

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

[Woodruff]

Anyone who thinks gay/lesbian marriage is OK... then says that polygamy, polyandry, or any other "poly" type marriage is wrong is just a plain hypocrite.

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

I agree.

[thegreekdog]

Anyone who thinks gay/lesbian marriage is OK... then says that polygamy, polyandry, or any other "poly" type marriage is wrong is just a plain hypocrite.

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

I agree.

I was involved in a polygamist relationship in college wherein I dated two girls at the same time. And yes, they knew about each other (granted that was for about 5 minutes until I was thereafter in a monogamous relationship with my right hand).

[Woodruff]

Anyone who thinks gay/lesbian marriage is OK... then says that polygamy, polyandry, or any other "poly" type marriage is wrong is just a plain hypocrite.

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

I agree.

I was involved in a polygamist relationship in college wherein I dated two girls at the same time. And yes, they knew about each other (granted that was for about 5 minutes until I was thereafter in a monogamous relationship with my right hand).

TMMLOL.

[natty dread]

While true homosexuality is pretty much accepted as a reality by the psycologists and such now, the idea of true bisexuality is still controversial.

OMG player, no it is not.

The Kinsey scale was invented back in the 50's.

[natty dread]

Also, WTF is the world upside down today because I agree with Jimbo?

[PLAYER57832]

While true homosexuality is pretty much accepted as a reality by the psycologists and such now, the idea of true bisexuality is still controversial.

OMG player, no it is not.

The Kinsey scale was invented back in the 50's.

Kinsey was an intelligent idiot. His figures are long known to be way off because he concentrated heavily on disturbed people. He opened the discussion in a scientific way, but the science has moved on.

That said, I am not arguing the point, I am saying it IS argued among psycologists in ways that homosexuality is not any longer. Some claim that only women can be truly bisexual.. or that all women are bisexual.


My personal opinion, by the way, is just that we don't have a lot of societal examples of bisexual unions (unlike homosexuality), either in our society or historically. For that reason, I think it prudent to tread lightly and not just leap on "well, you allow homosexuals, so why not...". ANY form of multiple marriage needs to be dealt with independent of the homosexual marriage question.

[PLAYER57832]

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

It is seperate, yes.


However, it is also fact that polygamist societies, over time, tend toward younger and younger brides and more male violance.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... societies/

There is some cause/effect debate. Some have argued that polygamy becomes more popular when there is a lot of violance. Similarly, some argue that other social factors (the need for girls to remain virgins until married, for example, along with high death rates) lead to younger brides more than polygamy.

Rape is yet another issue. Rape is a matter of dominance and control. When men don't value women, rape is more prevalent. Today, that is seen as tied to polygamy in places like Suadis Arabia or the Mormon offshoots we have seen brough to court here in the US. (definitely NOT accepted by most LDS individuals!!!) Whether that is a real connection or not is debated heavily.

At any rate, my point was not to defend or debate that position so much as to point out that it is a valid debate and concern.

MY personal position is that polygamy differs because it results in more children that may not be supported. I don't say that is reason to completely outlaw it, but it is reason to consider it independent of other unions.

[jimboston]

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

It is seperate, yes.


However, it is also fact that polygamist societies, over time, tend toward younger and younger brides and more male violance.

These are all male-dominated societies... where women have no voice. This is NOT the case in Modern America.

Furthermore... my comments apply to all Poly-type relationships. I very much doubt any other these past example allowed for multi-person "relationships" aside from the standard polygamy.

[PLAYER57832]

The whole child bride issue is a completely seperate issue... and it is related to the stigmatism of polygamy and the religous nature of many polygamy practicing sects. It has nothing to do with ADULTS practicing poly relationships.

It is seperate, yes.


However, it is also fact that polygamist societies, over time, tend toward younger and younger brides and more male violance.

These are all male-dominated societies... where women have no voice. This is NOT the case in Modern America.

And do you have examples of societies where women are fully included that are also polygamist?
Because many assert that the lack is, itself, pretty telling. For my part, I know women ( in the US)who are willingly in caring polygamist relationships, who's children are all supported and treated reasonably well. They specifically do NOT use the "m" word, for legal reasons, but consider themselves "married under God". These are far from stupid women, far from meek "do whatever I am told" women.

I also know some African women who definitely consider having another women to "share the load" -- both work-wise (tending kids, the house,) and sexually as well as for companionship (always a friend about to talk) as important, but the men I know in those relationships are, well, rather arrogant asses. I don't consider those examples "representative" per se, but I also don't know of examples where that doesn't happen.

However, as has been pointed out many times, a few examples does not show much about what would happen if the practice were more widespread.

Furthermore... my comments apply to all Poly-type relationships. I very much doubt any other these past example allowed for multi-person "relationships" aside from the standard polygamy.

Mine were specifically NOT about the other types, and for the good reason that they are so few there has been very little conclusive research on those modes.

I say the lack of concrete and firm knowledge is reason enough to go slowly.