Are you serious? You want me to cite that humans are born to reproduce? That it’s an innate and natural characteristic, one so strong that we have to regulate how it’s done?
You have a penis, right? And a wife and a daughter? Presumably they spend hours in front of the mirror before special occasions, preening themselves for the opposite sex?
And you really think that this trait is designed to limit someone to only one member of the opposite sex?
You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just is.
But the Western world has tried to protect itself from innate biological characteristics for a long time so that we can be the ‘perfect’ human society. We reject things that aren’t like ‘us’: homosexuality (thankfully that’s changing), pre-tech cultures, polygamy, other religions, other forms of law, and so forth.
So?
I don’t think that recognizing that men and women are not meant for lifelong relationships is in any way immature. But, being Dio, you’d like to make it personal. OK. Do you have anything else to stand on?
Do you want to maybe contribute to the debate of monogamy or do you want to fling insults?
For militant atheist, you sure do have a thing for small-minded morals.
Actually, you lack the…well…I understand the 4th Amendment just fine. But if you mean 14th, well, Scalia has something to say about that. (Scalia is in no way my legal hero. But you have to consider that it is not you or I who make and rule on law here.)
As a married person, you are a class. Consider your health insurance benefits, your leave of absence benefits, your car insurance premiums, loans, and tax breaks. Saying that polygamists don’t exist is like saying that married gay people in South Dakota don’t exist and are therefore not a protected class. This isn’t an argument about the merits of polygamy, but you can’t fly off the handle on me and not expect some kind of response.
**
My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. **It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy?
Men marry women and have mistresses on the side all the time. Half of married couples have a cheater.
Marley, I am not trying to derail the thread. The thread has been derailed enough as we’re now talking about marriage and not the original Q. But if we’re talking about marriage, it’s only fair to talk about the reasoning behind it - and the reasoning behind legislating it.
The same-sex marriage debate forces us to reexamine our views on marriage.
Arguments for same sex marriage have been:
[ol]
[li]You can’t punish someone for what is biologically natural (to them)[/li][li]Married couples get rights that non married couples don’t[/li][li]Gay people will have sex anyway, and legalizing same sex marriage discourages promiscuity (resulting in a decline of STDs and AIDS)[/li][li]Children that are raised by these unions need protection[/li][li]It doesn’t hurt anyone else’s marriage[/li][li]It’s unconstitutional to outlaw it[/li][li]Denying them is a violation of religious freedom[/li][li]Financial benefits[/li][li]Legal protections[/li][/ol]
Polygamy and its related forms is practiced all over the world - including the U.S. Even Israel turns a blind eye to it. If it were so unnatural, it wouldn’t be all over the world in unrelated societies that had nothing to do with each other before meeting. Polygamous marriages existed on US soil before white people ever stepped foot on it.
You want to talk about what is natural and how it is wrong for the government to interfere? Well, open up your mind a little. Jeez.
I’m not making a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Stop freaking out. You’re assuming that something is inherently wrong with group or multiple marriage partners. You sound like a homophobe, actually, what with your ‘immoral’ and ‘unnatural’ arguments.
:dubious: Why should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again? For all the reasons I listed? Well, I am, but stop thinking that gays are such a protected class that they become a special class.