First Gay Marriage, now polyamory

[JimG]

Jim,

In my mind, bestiality and pedophilia are on the same tier. Accusations that Gay marriage or polygamy would lead to one are, to my mind, the same as saying that they would lead to the other. They are both crimes of victimization against a defenseless subject. Gay/Poly marriage are not.

However, I tend to agree with you that the institution is a broken shell when viewed from the position that it is a state-mediated affair. I simply disagree with how to defend it. We have moved beyond the time when marriage and procreation should be incentivized by the government. You said earlier that the only way to avoid relaxing all discrimination was to avoid relaxing any of them. This doesn’t make sense. Discrimination is inherently untenable in any form in today’s world.

So let’s draw back. Remove the benefits of marriage. On one hand, this will cut down on superfluous weddings, as there is no real benefit to be had. On the other, it will allow us a freedom to strongly believe as we do without having to defend ourselves against a never ending wave of attackers. If our marital status confers no additional benefit over theirs, what reason would they have to attack us?

For many Catholics, marriage would still be heavily attractive, since it is the only way one can legitimately engage in sexual behavior. Catholics (and many Christians) will continue to marry out of tradition and this very fruitful draw. I submit that others may enter the institution less frequently, and even when they do it is much easier for us to simply personally deny the validity of their unions.

And for the record, I DO want that “until death do us part, forever no matter what” stuff. I just happen to want it with two wonderful people instead of one.

-Arkalem

Just a few thoughts. Animals, by nature, cannot give consent in the same way that humans exercise free will. And children do not have the maturity to give informed consent. But I don’t consider the two instances identical. Children are human; animals aren’t.

As to whether marriage and procreation should be incentivized by the government, it seems to me that we may be at a time when they really should be so incentivized. Many European countries have a fertility rate that is below replacement level; thus their societies can be sustained only by immigration. The U.S. is barely above replacement level. Widespread contraception and abortion, and lack of family structure have led to what is rapidly becoming an underpopulation problem.

I think the statement that “discrimination is inherently untenable in any form in today’s world,” is a little too broad. Discrimination at root consists in making distinctions, and the making of distinctions is always necessary.

I’m reminded of an instance told to me by a mortgage loan officer who had denied an applicant. “You’re discriminating against me because I’m a veteran!” was the complaint. “Well no–this is after all a VA loan you applied for.” The applicant went through a few more alleged reasons for which he thought he was being discriminated against. Each time the loan officer would show the allegation had no basis. Finally he said, “you’re discriminating against me because I’m poor!” “Well, I guess so,” the loan officer replied. “You can’t afford the payments. And that’s a legal sort of discrimination.”

And if the government incentivizes marriage, does that discriminate against single people? Of course. Tax law is used to make just those sort of discriminants that the government believes will be beneficial to society.

I think possibly one reason marriage is in such a sad state is because it is viewed as a way to gain happiness. It is, but that is a byproduct, not a goal. If a man starts each day determined to make his wife happy, protected, and cherished, and if his wife begins each day by thinking how she can make her husband happy and appreciated, that marriage will produce happiness, but only as a byproduct of self-giving love.

 

[JimG]

Why would you equate the demonic NAMBLA to gay rights groups?? There are no GAY rights groups that are pushing for the rights for pedophiles to marry their victims! NONE! Are you really that ignorant or just trying to spew hate!?

And I’m not trying to make a pro gay rights argument here either just calling out your mistake.

I don’t equate the two, just pointing out that the arguments they make might be similar. As far as I know, groups like NAMBLA consist of what used to be known as pederasts. They are interested in post-pubescent children and adolescents, not pre-pubescent children. They would argue that such children are old enough to give consent, and their first line of attack would be in lowering the age of consent.

They would probably also argue that their own inclinations are every bit as deep seated as those attributed to same sex attraction.

Remember the case of Roman Polanski. When the incident with an underage girl occurred, many in the entertainment elites were quite willing to forgive him. Pedophilia had a certain cachet among some groups. That was tamped down when the child molestation crisis among priests came to light, but it remains an undercurrent, as the continuing instances of molestation of adolescents in the public school system attests.

 

[JimG]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG
Gay is not the opposite of straight.

Elucidate.

I mean that there are a large variety of types of sexual preferences. Even at it’s most basic, lesbian couples are not the same as homosexual male couples. It seems the two groups are quite different.

I might have added that “straight is not the opposite of gay” because the varieties of sexual preference among heterosexual couples also are quite varied. Everything from traditional mom and dad families, to swingers, to adulterers, to those who like group sex, and any number of other varieties which I won’t elucidate but for which internet porn has no doubt found a niche.

Yet, current marriage law limits actual marriage only one particular set, out of all those types of preferences. “Open marriage,” may be practiced, but legally it is not marriage.

Is it a good thing to so limit marriage?

Yes, I think it is good to use the model that has been used throughout all of history. I don’t see any advantage to culture or society in changing it.

PS–I’m going to be out of town for a week or so, so I apologize in advance that I won’t be able to keep up with the conversation.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The devil is just warming up…

Polyamory on NRO

Rest is in the link. And so it continues… Pretty soon we’ll have the right to be pedophiles…

John

John

“Oh no, that will never happen”, they promised. Yeah, right.

We need to get the 2-3 states more that we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment

 

[andyandely1997]

We also need to get all Christians to follow Christ with regards to marriage. There would be no gay marriage, if all so-called Christians stood up for true marriage. A lot of people claiming to believe in Christ, while at the same time making up their own teachings based not on the truth, or silently just going with the flow of the world.

 

[Fidelia]

We also need to get all Christians to follow Christ with regards to marriage. There would be no gay marriage, if all so-called Christians stood up for true marriage. A lot of people claiming to believe in Christ, while at the same time making up their own teachings based not on the truth, or silently just going with the flow of the world.

There would also be less divorce and fewer marriages found to be null if all Christians held to the true teaching about marriage. Those problems have been going on longer than legal homosexual unions. If people see marriage as a bond that can be easily broken, or entered invalidly with indifference, I think in a way it follows that people would then seek to apply the term “marriage” elsewhere.

Secondly, I have begun to see how once marriage ceases to mean one man and one woman, then it’s easier for people to try to argue, well, why just two people anyway? I think the Church’s teachings on marriage (the sacrament) are true and very strong. However, legal definitions of it are getting harder to understand (for me, anyway). I do wonder if it is such a bad thing if homosexual unions are recognized legally–as long as it’s only two people-- when there are worse things that should be put a end to (abortion, child porn, human trafficking, etc.)? This is probably swaying from the topic, so sorry about that. I do agree with the Church’s teachings on marriage very much, and hope they never change. But I just think there are worse things than legal gay unions to worry about (but among those worse things I would probably place legal polygamy and polyamory, though not as high as abortion etc.)

 

[mangy_dog]

The devil is just warming up…

Polyamory on NRO

Rest is in the link. And so it continues… Pretty soon we’ll have the right to be pedophiles…

John

John

The forces of antichrist are working over-time,

Eventually it will be that all that is wrong, bad or evil, will be considered right, good and benign…and visa versa.

Gospa Mir ora pro nobis.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Jim,

In my mind, bestiality and pedophilia are on the same tier. Accusations that Gay marriage or polygamy would lead to one are, to my mind, the same as saying that they would lead to the other. They are both crimes of victimization against a defenseless subject. Gay/Poly marriage are not.

I suggest you find and read the Masterboy case–it is very disturbing but I believe it is only a matter of time before you see the arguments from the case being raised with greater and greater frequency. This man tried to get 501(C)(3) status (that is charitable status) to advance the cause of legalizing adult/child relationships. He disagrees with you and see no harm to the child. I think he would argue the harm comes from our unacceptance of it and not from something inherently wrong with the relationship. Was not there a time in the not so distant past when people tended to marry at a much younger age? An age that many today would still consider a part of “childhood”? Anyway he lost his case. But it was advanced–and all sceptics about this should read the case and take note. With the increasing “sexualization” of our children on television and in advertising–is it surprising? Do you really think this society–which is running as fast as it can toward…is going to draw an immoveable line somewhere? I think we need to be on our guard–the attitude that it could never happen, that people will not accept this or that–is dangerous–as I think history has shown over and over again.

-Arkalem