1.4 million petitions to flood U.S. senate

[imported_]

^^Okay, but if we just don't call them marriages, then that really simplifies things. A lot.

^What is generally meant by marriage being a building block of society, I believe, is that it is a part of our cultural that is very deeply ingrained us. Problem is, it's not deeply ingrained in all of us. We are a nation of many cultures, so when people try to define government policy by culture, it's just as bad as defining it by religion.

[Koga]

There actually has been an Olliver Cromwell (and other people who forced their religion on other people), but I know of no account of some atheist who sent religious people to death camps.

If marriage is defined as a contract between two consenting adults, you don't have to worry about polygamy.

It seems to me, PZoH, that the only arguments you've got against it is what might happen when same-sex marriages are legalised.

[Nick]

Originally posted by Lurch1982:
I'm glad that 1.4 million people are so kind as to speak for the roughly 290.7 million people in the country.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

You have the right to get married in this country. You have the right to get the benefits of marriage.

No, I don't. I'm a minor.

Religion is the only thing really saying it should be outlawed. And even people in that group are split. There was that whole schism thing going on a couple months ago.

There are enough people in America for the odds to be that at least one atheist is against same-sex marriages. Yes, most of the time it comes from religion. But often it only comes from the same background as religion: The desire to perserve national values. The desire for clear definitions and truths, free of human emotions and all that junk.

If marriage is the building block of society then a homosexual marriage should be just as much of a block as a heterosexual marriage.

Completely alter the building block? Not safe.

If homosexual marriages should be regarded as building blocks, then why not polygamy?

If homosexual marriage is legalized then I doubt heterosexuals will exercise their right to marry someone of the same sex.

That doesn't make a difference, because marriage will still have a COMPLETELY different definition in our children and grandchildren's eyes. Which is a treacherous thing. Contemporary marriage is already amuck because of how we've re-defined it in the past century from a political arrangement to an agreement of love. Yes, it's a good thing that women can now choose their own spouses without their fathers' approval. But in the process of switching from one idea of marriage to another, many of us have forgotten the committment part.

What is generally meant by marriage being a building block of society, I believe, is that it is a part of our cultural that is very deeply ingrained us. Problem is, it's not deeply ingrained in all of us. We are a nation of many cultures, so when people try to define government policy by culture, it's just as bad as defining it by religion.

Then what do we define it by? To define it by anything is bound to make some group unhappy.

but I know of no account of some atheist who sent religious people to death camps.

China.
Do you mean to say that you atheists are incapable of evil? Do you mean to say that oppression can only come from belief in a God? Even if history wasn't full of examples of the oppression of believers by religion-haters, what would that prove? You and I come from the same species. Atheism and theism are both ideas. Therefore you are capable of committing the same attrocities in the name of atheism as I am in the name of theism.

If marriage is defined as a contract between two consenting adults, you don't have to worry about polygamy.

How long will it stay defined that way, before some threesome complains about injustice? Before all of this came up, we were all saying, "As long as marriage is defined as a contract between male and female, we don't have to worry about homosexuality." If we're going to think liberally about marriage, then how long can we hold one definition?

It seems to me, PZoH, that the only arguments you've got against it is what might happen when same-sex marriages are legalised.

Not what might happen. What will happen, judging by what has already happened.

I'm glad that 1.4 million people are so kind as to speak for the roughly 290.7 million people in the country.

Yet they speak so cruelly of the majority of the country. Nobody wants to be called a pea-brained bigot.

[Rattan]

So what exactly will happen if it is allowed? Really what can happen? A bunch of people get pissed and start showing up at all the weddings of same sex marriages? Your saying its too dangerous to alter the block, yet what exactly is the risk of making the requirement more broad? what the hell is so important that one can't allow marriages between gays to occur? I don't see any problems excempt for a group getting pissy that they were given the shaft.

[Koga]

China.
Do you mean to say that you atheists are incapable of evil? Do you mean to say that oppression can only come from belief in a God? Even if history wasn't full of examples of the oppression of believers by religion-haters, what would that prove? You and I come from the same species. Atheism and theism are both ideas. Therefore you are capable of committing the same attrocities in the name of atheism as I am in the name of theism.

I did not know (or rather do not know) that Mao was such a guy.

Why the hell do you assume all that? The point is that religion plus government can lead to problems. That means we do not need an atheist government, but a secular one. Big difference.

How long will it stay defined that way, before some threesome complains about injustice? Before all of this came up, we were all saying, "As long as marriage is defined as a contract between male and female, we don't have to worry about homosexuality." If we're going to think liberally about marriage, then how long can we hold one definition?

Polygamy is not that big as homosexuality. There are few people who want more than one partner. and people who do have more than one usually have got one outside of marriage (i.e. a mistress). A homosexual marriage is almost the same as a heterosexual marriage, except that there are two of the same sex. Polygamic marriages would be totally different.

Not what might happen. What will happen, judging by what has already happened.

You're an idiot.

You have no idea what will happen and many of those things are rather unlikelty. The Netherlands have had same sex-marriages since 2001, and none of the things you've said have happened, nor are there any signs of them happening. I do not see any reason why it would be different in the USA or any other western country.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see what's inherently wrong with polygamy. Most polygamists are complete twits, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong.

But... there's a big difference. A marriage is a legal acknowledgement of a relationship, which grants certain privelidges with it. Allowing Gay Marriages merely acknowledges homosexual relationships as just as valid as heterosexual relationships. Polygamy, on the other hand, involves the government acknolwedging multiple relationships of the same person. This is a very different sort of change and, in my mind, far more meaningful. The heterosexual nature of marriage seems unneccesary, because we don't force people to have kids, or even consummate their marriage. The one-marriage-per-person property seems far more important, because many of the privelidges of marriage depend on there being only one spouse per person.

Having heterosexual sex is no longer the only way to have kids. Therefore, homosexuals may be able to not only have children, but to make children. Since children are one of the key parts of marriage, marriage should evolve to adapt to these advances in reproductive technologies.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

If this isn't my favorite argument in the world, then I don't know what is.

So what exactly will happen if it is allowed? Really what can happen? A bunch of people get pissed and start showing up at all the weddings of same sex marriages?Your saying its too dangerous to alter the block, yet what exactly is the risk of making the requirement more broad? what the hell is so important that one can't allow marriages between gays to occur? I don't see any problems excempt for a group getting pissy that they were given the shaft.

The danger of any redefinition of marriage is what it does to our brains. It has a domino effect. Once our generation has died out and our children and grandchildren don't remember a time when two people of the same sex couldn't marry, they'll find other ways to cry injustice. For instance, they might wonder why marriage has to be between TWO consenting partners, and what's so bad about threesomes and foursomes who are committed.

I did not know (or rather do not know) that Mao was such a guy.

Mao has been dead for decades. And from what I remember when I studied this last year, he was no angel.
I'm not sure exactly how the system works, but from what I know, in China, there are a handful of religions that a person can register under. I think it's only Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. A registered believer has to carry a special card to enter a worship center. The services are highly, highly censored.
Of course, there are a lot of people who break the law and form underground churches in basements or caves. These people, if they get caught, could either end up either labor camps or die, or both.

Why the hell do you assume all that? The point is that religion plus government can lead to problems.

Anything plus government can lead to problems. If anything, the point isn't to get religion away from the government, but to get the government away from religion.

Yes, I agree that our government should be without any official association with a church. But, the reality is, people vote based on their religious beliefs. Politicians make decisions based on their personal values. You can never totally eliminate religion from the government, because theism is a belief, and in a democracy all beliefs are entitled to representation. The point isn't to keep the religious out, but to invite the nonreligious in. That's the difference we're talking about between an atheistic government and a secular one.

Polygamy is not that big as homosexuality.

I'm pretty sure that, throughout your life, you will love more than one person. And so will everybody else in the world.

There are few people who want more than one partner.

That's because polygamy is frowned upon in this country, and nobody wants to become involved in it.

and people who do have more than one usually have got one outside of marriage (i.e. a mistress).

If we accepted polygamous unions, it would solve that problem and make adultery less of a suicidally terrible ordeal.

A homosexual marriage is almost the same as a heterosexual marriage, except that there are two of the same sex.

The thing is, it's never been allowed before. Until recently, it was thought to be unspeakably disgusting and even surreal. It's shocking. It IS completely different.

You're an idiot.

You're a poopyhead, too. Grow up.

You have no idea what will happen and many of those things are rather unlikelty.

Have you not seen it happen already, in the number of divorces that take place, in the number of marriages that fail as a result of people making decisions too quickly, or as a result of adultery, incest, etc.? It's because marriage has lost its Victorian rigidity. We redefined marriage, and from there practically everything has changed. Some for the better, definitely--I thank God I was never betrothed--but some for the absolute worst. Families are in bad shape, and because of this, kids are being raised more by material possessions, and drugs and alcohol, than by human parents. Marriage is the most fundamental part of society, because it produces family, and family is what broods capable individuals. If you change the concept of marriage, you change everything. And once people have grown used to the change and can no longer appreciate it, they ask for more.

The Netherlands have had same sex-marriages since 2001, and none of the things you've said have happened, nor are there any signs of them happening.

But this isn't the Netherlands. This is the USA. Two completely different societies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, involves the government acknolwedging multiple relationships of the same person. This is a very different sort of change and, in my mind, far more meaningful.

Of course polygamy is more dramatic than homosexual marriage. But homosexual marriage is still dramatic, considering we've never had it before and so many people are outraged at the thought of it. Once we've proven that we're not afraid to take the smaller big leap, we'll be willing to challenge ourselves to the bigger big leap. Polygamy will be to our children as homosexuality is to us. Something different, maybe "immoral" in the eyes of the tradition-keepers, but justifyable. The reason why we humans have science, technology, and society at all is because we're ambitious. Once we go high, we want to go higher. If we can't be willing to draw a rigid line at a certain point for "no particular reason except just because," we'll never stop.

The heterosexual nature of marriage seems unneccesary, because we don't force people to have kids, or even consummate their marriage.

It used to seem necessary. Until we redefined marriage. If we redefine it again, other crazy ideas will start to appear less crazy. We're humans. We always want something to complain about.

Since children are one of the key parts of marriage, marriage should evolve to adapt to these advances in reproductive technologies.

Absolutely not. We'll never agree on this point, because I value nature and life, and artificial methods are a way of profaning them. Yet another reason why I'm against homosexual marriages. Techology is not a game. Neither is childbirth. Dangerous stuff.

[Link47]

I see no problem with gays getting married- just as long as it's not to eachother.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see what's wrong with using reproductive technologies. Many problems come out of the fact that the method used to reproduce is also very very fun, and not the sort of thing you talk about in polite company. The fun aspect leads to kids being born into wedlock. But if we have new technologies for making kids which are not fun at all, it allows people to reproduce more by looking at it rationally, deciding if they're ready to have kids, and then heading off to the doctor to get some kids.

Because sex is funner than artificial insemination, people are more likely to treat sex as a game then any new methods we might develop.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

I don't see what's wrong with using reproductive technologies. Many problems come out of the fact that the method used to reproduce is also very very fun, and not the sort of thing you talk about in polite company. The fun aspect leads to kids being born into wedlock. But if we have new technologies for making kids which are not fun at all, it allows people to reproduce more by looking at it rationally, deciding if they're ready to have kids, and then heading off to the doctor to get some kids.

Just like you'd go to a tatoo parlor to get a tatoo, or a hair salon to get a trim. It doesn't seem right.

[UserGoogol]

Perhaps, but how is ****ing in the back seat of a car any better?

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

It's, um, natural?

[UserGoogol]

Alright, but what makes you think nature is so good?

(Hmm... I suppose this might be where we run into the fact that you believe in God. Better try to save that argument for another day.)

Nature is not good. It's full of death, pain, and nasty things. The natural way of doing things is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the best way. Earth is imperfect. Religious doctrine agrees with this. Heaven is the place where you wanna go if you wanna see some perfection.

Thusly, just because something is natural, does not mean it is better than something manmade.

[Koga]

Please stop quoting tiny parts of my paragraphs, that's what makes these topics so huge.

Yes, I agree that our government should be without any official association with a church. But, the reality is, people vote based on their religious beliefs. Politicians make decisions based on their personal values. You can never totally eliminate religion from the government, because theism is a belief, and in a democracy all beliefs are entitled to representation. The point isn't to keep the religious out, but to invite the nonreligious in. That's the difference we're talking about between an atheistic government and a secular one.

But there is no reason for a secular government to forbid a same-sex marriage.

I'm pretty sure that, throughout your life, you will love more than one person. And so will everybody else in the world.

I doubt I will love more than one person at the same time, as few people do.

If we accepted polygamous unions, it would solve that problem and make adultery less of a suicidally terrible ordeal.

Of course it would not solve that! Polygamy doesn't work if a man loves two women (spouse and mistress). The two women would have to love each other as well, or at least accept the fact that they share a husband (which I think only mor(m)ons do). Also when a man has a mistress, he usually either still loves his wife and only has a mistress for the sex, or he loves his mistress more than his wife and would like to get a divorce.

The thing is, it's never been allowed before. Until recently, it was thought to be unspeakably disgusting and even surreal. It's shocking. It IS completely different.

Things change. It's just as different as an interracial marriage used to be. Or if we go even further back, a marriage between two people of different classes.

Have you not seen it happen already, in the number of divorces that take place, in the number of marriages that fail as a result of people making decisions too quickly, or as a result of adultery, incest, etc.? It's because marriage has lost its Victorian rigidity. We redefined marriage, and from there practically everything has changed. Some for the better, definitely--I thank God I was never betrothed--but some for the absolute worst. Families are in bad shape, and because of this, kids are being raised more by material possessions, and drugs and alcohol, than by human parents. Marriage is the most fundamental part of society, because it produces family, and family is what broods capable individuals. If you change the concept of marriage, you change everything. And once people have grown used to the change and can no longer appreciate it, they ask for more.

So marriage already has all these problems and you still defend it as a holy union?! I think there would be less homosexual divorces (at least in the beginning), because the ones who really want to get married have been together for a long time.

How the hell do you know they will ask for more?! Stop assuming!

But this isn't the Netherlands. This is the USA. Two completely different societies.

They're not that different. They're both Christian western societies. Fact is that none of the things you say [i]will[i/] happen, nor do they show any signs of happening. You're just making foolish assumptions.

Of course polygamy is more dramatic than homosexual marriage. But homosexual marriage is still dramatic, considering we've never had it before and so many people are outraged at the thought of it. Once we've proven that we're not afraid to take the smaller big leap, we'll be willing to challenge ourselves to the bigger big leap. Polygamy will be to our children as homosexuality is to us. Something different, maybe "immoral" in the eyes of the tradition-keepers, but justifyable. The reason why we humans have science, technology, and society at all is because we're ambitious. Once we go high, we want to go higher. If we can't be willing to draw a rigid line at a certain point for "no particular reason except just because," we'll never stop.

There you make that stupid assumption again. It seems to me you have got a bigger problem with polygamy than homosexuality. It would be a far bigger step to change marriage so that it becomes a legal contract for more than two people. And once again, if polygamous people are eager to get married why a) don't they fight for it already b) haven't they started fighting for it in countries that do allow same-sex marriages.

[Sim Kid]

Originally posted by Perrin Aybara:
Yeah. Personally, I don't see why people are getting all worked up. I mean, I don't care if someone is gay. As long as they don't try to hit on me, they can do whatever they want.-jay

Words of a sage.

[Rattan]

Yet nobody listens.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Nature is not good. It's full of death, pain, and nasty things.

Pain saves lives by letting us know that something is wrong. Death keeps our planet from overpopulating. And gives us humans an incentive to think harder, work harder, just to conquer it.

Technology is only as good as the humans who create and use it, and are humans good?

The natural way of doing things is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the best way. Earth is imperfect. Religious doctrine agrees with this. Heaven is the place where you wanna go if you wanna see some perfection.

As if technology is perfect. Nature is nature. Technology is subject to humans, who are subject to nature.

I doubt I will love more than one person at the same time, as few people do.

You love more than one relative at the same time. I'm sure the kind of love you have for a spouse is different from what you have for a crush or a boy/girlfriend.

What if you were to get married, and then fall in love again?

Of course it would not solve that! Polygamy doesn't work if a man loves two women (spouse and mistress). The two women would have to love each other as well, or at least accept the fact that they share a husband (which I think only mor(m)ons do).

It's not impossible. Wives have had to put up with each other for thousands of years in practically every other culture on earth. It was easier for them back then, because polygamy was ACCEPTED in their society. It's hated in ours, even though we're about as polygamous and hypocritical as can be with all the adultery and incest. But if it were to be legalized for whatever reason, it would eventually work its way back into the culture.

Things change. It's just as different as an interracial marriage used to be. Or if we go even further back, a marriage between two people of different classes.

That WAS different back then. Shockingly. Now that it's been with us for generations, we hardly think about it. I'm telling you, it's real. You allow some things, then people gradually get bored with their privileges and ask for more.

So marriage already has all these problems and you still defend it as a holy union?!

I defend whatever sanity is left in it. The fact that it's bad doesn't justify the risk of making it worse. You may think we have nothing to lose. But things could be worse. At least we don't have polygamy yet.

How the hell do you know they will ask for more?! Stop assuming!

Because they're doing it already. First they asked to abolish betrothal. Then they asked to do away with dowries. Then they asked for the right to marry without any parental approval at all. Then they asked for more freedom to divorce. Now they're asking to marry people of their own gender. It's not an assumption. It's an educated guess.

They're not that different. They're both Christian western societies.

One is huge, the other is not so huge. One is on a pedestal in the world, the other enjoys a bit more privacy. One is stereotyped to be conservative, and the other is, as you seem to imply, extremely liberal. It's easier for a smaller country with fewer divisions to agree upon a change in culture.

Fact is that none of the things you say will happen, nor do they show any signs of happening. You're just making foolish assumptions.

You said homosexual unions in the Netherlands became legal in 2001. That was only three years ago. I'm talking decades. Generations.

It seems to me you have got a bigger problem with polygamy than homosexuality. It would be a far bigger step to change marriage so that it becomes a legal contract for more than two people.

A big step in our culture is just a series of small steps. Homosexual marriage, compared to polygamy, is a small step.

why a) don't they fight for it

In our culture, NOBODY speaks about polygamy. It's evil. It's disgusting. It's backwards. It's for the dirty Mormons and nobody else. Anybody caught between two lovers may choose one or none, but he'd better not let society think he's a two-timer.

b) haven't they started fighting for it in countries that do allow same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriages haven't been legal long enough for us to notice any difference.

[Jonathan Resop]

Nobody listens.-jay

[CaptHayfever]

^Yer tellin' me.

Originally posted by UserGoogol:
Perhaps, but how is ****ing in the back seat of a car any better?

Well, it's a heck of a lot more fun.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"