Manhattan Project

[none2_none2]

Actually it should be titled the Manhattan Declaration. However, it reminds me of the atomic bomb -- thus the name...

I'm sure you have all heard about the Manhattan Declaration:

http://manhattandeclaration.org/

I'm disgusted with it. If they claim that marriage needs to be one man & one woman. They forget to say that it has been modified to be one man & one woman at a time (divorce or an annulment), that while the purpose of marriage is for pro-creation they do not ban marriages with infertile, or post-fertile individuals. They also want to lump us in with polyamory and incest.

They are willing to go to jail to maintain their bigoted attitudes. I just love it when the majority feels like they are being persecuted.

 

[Etoile]

Reminds me of the people shown in Jesus Camp. Ew.

 

[BiBunny]

They also want to lump us in with polyamory and incest.

Because "we" are above those awful polyamorists?

 

[Safe_Bet]

I feel poetic this morning...

31500 assholes all in a row
They don’t lick pussy
Dicks they don’t blow

Wearing their bigotry so proudly
Haters with a common goal
To take away our right to marry

With a bible in each pious hand
They would gladly lynch us all cuz
They are the new Klu Klux Klan


(BTW, the 31500 is the number of signatures they have gathered)

 

[HarlotMinx]

I always find the whole marriage argument hilarious. I think in the entirety of the time it's even been debated in the US I haven't seen a SINGLE secular argument against gay marriage and in fact my favorite place to point to in support of gay marriage is "separation of religion and state". It's the number one reason I think the supreme court will eventually set federal precedent. I mean okay, I've seen a few people pull up the dictionary and point out "marriage" but that doesn't apply if you separate the religious function from a legal union and I'll take gay marriage under any name.

 

[none2_none2]

Because "we" are above those awful polyamorists?

If you say it is awful, I guess it must be true... It is also interesting that you left out incest. I take it you are above them too?

My point was that the issue was specifically gay marriage, but now all of a sudden now we are lumped with all sorts of other things that do not have anything to do with gay marriage.

 

[BiBunny]

If you say it is awful, I guess it must be true... It is also interesting that you left out incest. I take it you are above them too?

My point was that the issue was specifically gay marriage, but now all of a sudden now we are lumped with all sorts of other things that do not have anything to do with gay marriage.

I was being facetious. I really don't give a rat's ass what consenting adults do in their own time.

I do think it's incredibly tacky to say, "Oh, no, no, we're not like THOSE people," when, yes, for polyamorists, gay marriage is quite relevant to our interests.

 

[none2_none2]

I was being facetious. I really don't give a rat's ass what consenting adults do in their own time.

I do think it's incredibly tacky to say, "Oh, no, no, we're not like THOSE people," when, yes, for polyamorists, gay marriage is quite relevant to our interests.

What in the world does polyamory have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is truly about gender discrimination and the meddling with our doctrine of the separation of church and state.

If there are rules and responsibilities that one must carry out as the wife and only a female can carry them out and that likewise the same can be said for the role of the husband that only a man can carry out, then the laws should enumerate those rules and responsibilities. Assuming that the argument anti-gay marriage has to do with reproduction, then couples who do not have children (past the age, infertile, choose not to have children, etc.) should also not have the right to marriage.

If you think it is tacky to exclude others in the debate, then why didn't you also include incest? On one hand you have it in your mind that somehow their is some kind of condescending attitude by not including polygamists, yet the very fact that you exclude incest indicates that you yourself have some of those same condescending attitudes. Isn't that being hypocritical?

 

[Etoile]

What in the world does polyamory have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is truly about gender discrimination and the meddling with our doctrine of the separation of church and state.

It's about the right to marry who you love.

 

[John Doe]

What in the world does polyamory have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is truly about gender discrimination and the meddling with our doctrine of the separation of church and state.

If there are rules and responsibilities that one must carry out as the wife and only a female can carry them out and that likewise the same can be said for the role of the husband that only a man can carry out, then the laws should enumerate those rules and responsibilities. Assuming that the argument anti-gay marriage has to do with reproduction, then couples who do not have children (past the age, infertile, choose not to have children, etc.) should also not have the right to marriage.

If you think it is tacky to exclude others in the debate, then why didn't you also include incest? On one hand you have it in your mind that somehow their is some kind of condescending attitude by not including polygamists, yet the very fact that you exclude incest indicates that you yourself have some of those same condescending attitudes. Isn't that being hypocritical?

Have you discovered a third sex? If not then it's quite relevant. Polygamy requires at least two men or two women. Even if there's no sex between them many people will still infer it.

As to your incest arguments I'm not even sure where to start. Incest is illegal in so many more jurisdictions than homosexual sex and it's illegal for good reasons. Ethically they're not even remotely comparable.

 

[Etoile]

Have you discovered a third sex? If not then it's quite relevant. Polygamy requires at least two men or two women. Even if there's no sex between them many people will still infer it.

As to your incest arguments I'm not even sure where to start. Incest is illegal in so many more jurisdictions than homosexual sex and it's illegal for good reasons. Ethically they're not even remotely comparable.

Actually, that's quite true. Incest is usually only illegal up to the first-cousin level. More distant relations have less chance of birth defects, so it's considered acceptable for, say, second cousins to have a relationship. Incest is immoral because it harms the child psychologically, but it's only illegal because of the increased risk of birth issues that come with cosanguination.

 

[none2_none2]

Have you discovered a third sex? If not then it's quite relevant. Polygamy requires at least two men or two women. Even if there's no sex between them many people will still infer it.

As to your incest arguments I'm not even sure where to start. Incest is illegal in so many more jurisdictions than homosexual sex and it's illegal for good reasons. Ethically they're not even remotely comparable.

How are they ethically unrelated? You want to argue that the mechanics of polygamys MAY include homosexuality therefore it is related? That is a slim reason to connect the two different subject matters. The majority of polygamy in the world is one man, multiple women, and there isn't any lesbian sex involved. I don't think most people infer that lesbian sex is behind the scenes of polygamy.

How is it that you somehow equate the ethics between polygamy and gay marriage isn't logical. If you are worried about birth defects, it is just a matter that such is a higher probably with incest between heterosexuals. You could also have a higher probability of birth defects in any heterosexual situation if one of the members of the marriage (monogamy as well as polygamy) has a serious genetic defect.

If you are talking about incest being injurious to a child, how is that any different if the child is unrelated, and you force her to be a child bride in either a monogamous OR polygamous situation? The fact of the matter, we are talking about adults here -- not children.

 

[none2_none2]

It's about the right to marry who you love.

Love is an emotion. If you are talking about getting people to vote, emotions help. However, when you are writing laws, marriage is more about contractual rights and responsibilities. As marriage has become less and less about reproduction, the less those contractual rights and responsibilities get assigned via gender. Thus it makes no sense to exclude gay marriage based on gender.

Polygamy has less in common with gay marriage. Lets take one little example -- taking care of of a spouse. In marriage, the spouse decides what is best for the individual if that individual is unable to decide for themselves. When you get into polygamy it gets more complicated. Obviously the tradition is that the sole male calls all the shots. What if it is the male who is incapacitated? Should it be the wife who is the oldest who calls the shots? Should it be the first wife that came into the marriage? What if the one with health problems is one of the wives and she is a sister to at least one other wife. Should the sister wife have a higher say-so than even the husband since she has known her sister all of her life? While I'm on that topic, sororal polygamy is not that uncommon in polygamy. (One man marrying sisters.) Should that now be banned because of fear that there may be incestuous lesbian sex involved? (Banned not because the lesbian activities would be wrong, but because they are related by blood.)

Polygamy simply is a different topic from gay marriage.

 

[Etoile]

Love is an emotion. If you are talking about getting people to vote, emotions help. However, when you are writing laws, marriage is more about contractual rights and responsibilities. As marriage has become less and less about reproduction, the less those contractual rights and responsibilities get assigned via gender. Thus it makes no sense to exclude gay marriage based on gender.

Polygamy has less in common with gay marriage. Lets take one little example -- taking care of of a spouse. In marriage, the spouse decides what is best for the individual if that individual is unable to decide for themselves. When you get into polygamy it gets more complicated. Obviously the tradition is that the sole male calls all the shots. What if it is the male who is incapacitated? Should it be the wife who is the oldest who calls the shots? Should it be the first wife that came into the marriage? What if the one with health problems is one of the wives and she is a sister to at least one other wife. Should the sister wife have a higher say-so than even the husband since she has known her sister all of her life? While I'm on that topic, sororal polygamy is not that uncommon in polygamy. (One man marrying sisters.) Should that now be banned because of fear that there may be incestuous lesbian sex involved? (Banned not because the lesbian activities would be wrong, but because they are related by blood.)

Polygamy simply is a different topic from gay marriage.

It's still about love.

Just because same-sex marriage fits conveniently into the two-person model already established doesn't mean that multiple-people models are invalid.

If you support the right to marry who YOU love, you should support the right for other people to marry who THEY love. Sometimes that's more than one person.

 

[John Doe]

How are they ethically unrelated?

For starters incest is almost universally considered wrong as well as unwise. The right or wrong of homosexuality is a matter of considerable debate.

You want to argue that the mechanics of polygamys MAY include homosexuality therefore it is related? That is a slim reason to connect the two different subject matters. The majority of polygamy in the world is one man, multiple women, and there isn't any lesbian sex involved. I don't think most people infer that lesbian sex is behind the scenes of polygamy.

Perhaps, but they're not merely "related". They are already the same subject as Etoile pointed out.

How is it that you somehow equate the ethics between polygamy and gay marriage isn't logical.

That's because I don't.

If you are worried about birth defects, it is just a matter that such is a higher probably with incest between heterosexuals. You could also have a higher probability of birth defects in any heterosexual situation if one of the members of the marriage (monogamy as well as polygamy) has a serious genetic defect.

Aren't you worried about birth defects?

I believe it's unwise for the latter group to breed as well.

If you are talking about incest being injurious to a child, how is that any different if the child is unrelated, and you force her to be a child bride in either a monogamous OR polygamous situation? The fact of the matter, we are talking about adults here -- not children.

This should part should have been addressed to Etoile, but I'll answer anyway.

Practically speaking I suppose it's not different and yes we are talking about consenting adults.

If homosexual and plural marriages should be allowed should incestuous marriages be allowed too? If so, why or if not, why not?

 

[Etoile]

This should part should have been addressed to Etoile, but I'll answer anyway.

Practically speaking I suppose it's not different and yes we are talking about consenting adults.

If homosexual and plural marriages should be allowed should incestuous marriages be allowed too? If so, why or if not, why not?

In my opinion, they should, as long as they are between consenting adults and the relationship did not begin before both parties were 18 years of age.

If older mom's husband dies and adult son comforts her and they fall in love and get married, that's okay. If widower dad starts sleeping with daughter at 14 and they marry four years later, that's not okay (for child psychology reasons).

Interesting side note here: genetic sexual attraction involves the phenomenon of close blood relatives, separated their whole lives, who meet as adults and fall in love.

 

[John Doe]

In my opinion, they should, as long as they are between consenting adults and the relationship did not begin before both parties were 18 years of age.

If older mom's husband dies and adult son comforts her and they fall in love and get married, that's okay. If widower dad starts sleeping with daughter at 14 and they marry four years later, that's not okay (for child psychology reasons).

Interesting side note here: genetic sexual attraction involves the phenomenon of close blood relatives, separated their whole lives, who meet as adults and fall in love.

There are a few problems with that article.

 

[BiBunny]

It's still about love.

Just because same-sex marriage fits conveniently into the two-person model already established doesn't mean that multiple-people models are invalid.

If you support the right to marry who YOU love, you should support the right for other people to marry who THEY love. Sometimes that's more than one person.

I you.

It's about gay marriage for me because I'm in love with one man and two women. The man and one of them women are already married to one another. So, yes, there is *gasp* lesbian sex involved. Also, try not to confuse polygamy in what tends to be a religious context with polyamory.

And, yes, polyamorists tend to support gay marriage. There's probably some hypocritical asshole out there who doesn't, but as a rule, most of us do.

For the record, I didn't mention incest because a.) I have no experience with it, and b.) it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Etoile]

There are a few problems with that article.

Like all Wikipedia articles, it's an introduction to the subject, not a scholarly journal.

 

[John Doe]

Like all Wikipedia articles, it's an introduction to the subject, not a scholarly journal.

True.

 

[HarlotMinx]

In my opinion, they should, as long as they are between consenting adults and the relationship did not begin before both parties were 18 years of age.

If older mom's husband dies and adult son comforts her and they fall in love and get married, that's okay. If widower dad starts sleeping with daughter at 14 and they marry four years later, that's not okay (for child psychology reasons).

Interesting side note here: genetic sexual attraction involves the phenomenon of close blood relatives, separated their whole lives, who meet as adults and fall in love.

And actually a large part of the world practices incestuous marriage, marrying of first cousins is extremely common throughout much of the world, especially in many Islamic countries. Even marriage of sisters and brothers isn't unheard of, for example in Egypt. I think much of the stigma involving it stems from jeudo christian morals and a poor understanding by most people of how inbreeding relates to genetic disorders.

 

[none2_none2]

It's still about love.

Just because same-sex marriage fits conveniently into the two-person model already established doesn't mean that multiple-people models are invalid.

If you support the right to marry who YOU love, you should support the right for other people to marry who THEY love. Sometimes that's more than one person.

Marrying someone you love is a function of a religious marriage ceremony -- not the state. A state ceremony is nothing more than a contractual obligation. There was a time that that obligation was primarily for the protection of the descendants. A man would work outside the home. The woman would work inside the home, and they would have children together. The marriage was away of trying to assure that the children were his, and for the wife to assure someone to help her raise the kids and for inheritance reasons. People also tended to marry within the same class or higher to insure that the next generation was better off. Money was typically exchanged between the families.

In modern times, the reproduction portion of marriage has vastly dwindled. Plenty of people marry who have decided not to have kids, or cannot have kids. With the high divorce rate, there are plenty of individuals for which their true definition of traditional marriage is one man with one woman at a time with a certificate of divorce in between.

The gay marriage truly gets to the root of gender equality because you cannot say on one hand that reproduction and family creation are at the heart of marriage, and yet include heterosexual couples will cannot or will not have kids nor those that divorce and remarry.

As for love, you don't have to wait for state or federal laws to get married. One can always marry their loved one despite what the state says. This is not limited to Christian belief systems. I have heard of jewish and pagan gay people having ceremonies that satisfy their world views. It isn't recognized by the government, but then the government isn't really in the "love" business.

 

[none2_none2]

...For the record, I didn't mention incest because a.) I have no experience with it, and b.) it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

How is it that gay marriage & polyamory are apples and apples, and incest is not? If it turned out that one of the people you had in your group was related, would you kick them out or stop loving them? Would it somehow be "less than" or "more than" the another poly relationship just because of some blood relationship?

Also polygamy may be sanctioned in some cultures, but it isn't a function of religion. A muslim cannot marry multiple wives unless the first wife agrees AND he can afford it. That is a function of money -- not religion. Multiple wives is a status symbol. Mormon splinter groups have wrapped polygamy in the veil of religion, but think about the root reason behind group marriage. It is the fastest way to grow a belief system. Their very system is very repressive in that it requires disposing of surplus males. Young males that are kicked out, can be referred to as "lost boys". There is nothing God-inspiring about riding your community of males just to continue your way of life. We are talking about human beings -- not livestock. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life when you wish your patriarchal system to be perpetuated with many wives per man.
The Aboriginal people of Australia also used to practice polygamy. In their case, it was a matter of survival. Their cultures were more of hunter/gatherer. It takes a lot of effort to gather enough carbohydrates for everybody on marginal lands. So multiple women were more likely to gather enough seeds, fruits, etc for the family.

 

[BiBunny]

How is it that gay marriage & polyamory are apples and apples, and incest is not? If it turned out that one of the people you had in your group was related, would you kick them out or stop loving them? Would it somehow be "less than" or "more than" the another poly relationship just because of some blood relationship?

Also polygamy may be sanctioned in some cultures, but it isn't a function of religion. A muslim cannot marry multiple wives unless the first wife agrees AND he can afford it. That is a function of money -- not religion. Multiple wives is a status symbol. Mormon splinter groups have wrapped polygamy in the veil of religion, but think about the root reason behind group marriage. It is the fastest way to grow a belief system. Their very system is very repressive in that it requires disposing of surplus males. Young males that are kicked out, can be referred to as "lost boys". There is nothing God-inspiring about riding your community of males just to continue your way of life. We are talking about human beings -- not livestock. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life when you wish your patriarchal system to be perpetuated with many wives per man.
The Aboriginal people of Australia also used to practice polygamy. In their case, it was a matter of survival. Their cultures were more of hunter/gatherer. It takes a lot of effort to gather enough carbohydrates for everybody on marginal lands. So multiple women were more likely to gather enough seeds, fruits, etc for the family.

Did you even read anything I said?

 

[none2_none2]

Did you even read anything I said?

Yes, and your point is????