Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
The issue isn't the presence or absence of strident voices on either side, but the weight those voices hold in each side's respective public discourse. And frankly, Keynes said it best: “Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.” He was talking about economic policy, but it's a universal truism.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, by now Morg should know how much you like to go on and on about yourself.
I've never actually seen the knee-jerk reactionary stuff from the left when it comes to gay rights. I've seen it in IR a lot (supporting dictatorships because they are dictatorships who annoy the US) but not when it comes to Gay Rights.
edited 16th Apr '13 12:31:54 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI don't know. I mean, clearly "homosexuality is disgusting, just like pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality" is a disgusting sentiment on the part of the right, but I have seen an uncomfortably large number of leftists respond to it with "And what's wrong with pedophila, polygamy, and bestiality?", just to annoy the right. It's like they take the right's "gay rights are anti-family" rhetoric to heart, and decide to be consciously anti-family.
I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been EndarkenedThose people are baiting their critics; I don't know any LGBT rights advocates who actually think that bestiality or pedophilia should be legal as well, or even that it's a legitimate slippery slope. Polygamy is a different issue, of course, but the same arguments would seem to apply as for other forms of marriage. If it hurts nobody to allow it, then what's the problem?
The oft-cited example is abusive cult harem-style marriages, but those are no more typical of a polygamous group than the stereotype that gays are pedophiles.
The issue, as noted, is consent. Underage people and animals cannot consent to sex or marriage, period. With homosexual marriage (or even "normal" polygamy), consent is no more an issue than for heterosexual marriage.
edited 16th Apr '13 12:37:23 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What is wrong with polygamy? Because some fundie in the desert does it, no one can? Sounds a bit like Hitler Ate Sugar.
![]()
Well, there was NAMBLA, though they got isolated and died out pretty fast.
Only that it would require a massive reworking of our marriage laws, leading to some people wondering whether or not it's worth the time and effort. There's nothing inherently immoral about it, though.
edited 16th Apr '13 12:39:56 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?This might actually be an intelligent rhetorical question: by then going on to list exactly what is wrong with these, one can then say that these wrong traits are not shared with homosexuality, therefore rendering the association invalid.
Why North American Man-Boy Love Association specifically? Given some of the memes running around back then, such as the one that caused that particularly infamous segment in The Vagina Monologues about a woman who's happy another woman raped her as a teen, you'd think that other forms of pedophilia besides male-homosexual were known... I'm sorry, I just have a morbid curiosity for how these ideas and mentalities evolved, historically.
edited 16th Apr '13 12:42:57 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Eh, some idealized form of polygamy might be morally acceptable or even laudable, but unlike gay marriage, polygamy has a huge historical precedent of being a tool for the enforcement of hyperauthoritarian, hyperpatriarchical social structures that are antithetical to the conduction of a free society. Some idealized form of polygamy would be egalitarian, but in practice, throughout history, it's always been one central, ruling male with several subservient wives, often with one wife selected to be dominant to keep the others in line. This further leads to the dual problems of a huge demographic of angry single men who can only be used as soldiers, slaves, or criminals, and to the married men selecting ever-younger wives, thereby continually eroding the independence and consent of the women involved until we return to a society wherein daughters and wives are property sold by their fathers to their husbands around the onset of puberty.
I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been EndarkenedOne does have to be very careful to properly regulate polygamy such that it doesn't become a "one man owns many women" scenario. Frankly, it's not just dominant males who seek out those sorts of relationships; look at any celebrity and then at the number of women who would give anything to marry them. It's a throwback to a tribal, patriarchal pattern of behavior.
Still, there are happy, consenting, equal polyamorous relationships, and we would do a disservice to our ideals to discourage them. I would, however, like to remind everyone that polygamy is not the subject of this thread — let's please rerail.
edited 16th Apr '13 12:45:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer:
The leader of Qurac has just issued a decree: his sperm shall now be available at sperm banks for the candidates wishing to take it, who live up to the prerequisite standards. Among those are: high IQ, high income, a good public reputation, and a lack of history of hereditary diseases in the family. Children proven to be his offspring will have the title of Princes; mothers or guardians of princes shall receive a [very nice sum] stipend from the State. They will also be eligible for a number of fiscal and logistical benefits and advantages. The Princes themselves will be afforded all the privileges and advantages that come with the title, including priority access to education and travel opportunities, and eligibility to the highest political offices up to and including Head of State.
I have an evil mind, don't I?
edited 16th Apr '13 12:53:58 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Sounds like a means to wreck your country in a big hurry.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hmm, maybe. If you're trying to do an end run around systemic poverty, it could work, but the requirement for being free of hereditary diseases and such strikes me as a form of eugenics; not something that would appeal to human rights advocates.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Here's the thing, people who talk about legalizing polygamy aren't talking about some sort of idealized form of this sort of relationship that's distant and we need to work toward. We are talking about a relationship form that exists RIGHT NOW that is egalitarian. We are talking about over 500,000 relationships in the US alone that aren't the sort of hierarchical and hyperauthoritarian as the classical depiction of polygamy who don't get legal recognition while other relationships do.
When someone is in a monogamous marriage, is it a "one man owns one woman" scenario? Sometimes it is, certainly, but under law? Not really. With polygamous marriage, there would certainly be "one man owns many women" scenarios that crop up, but will they have any more or less legal recognition than monogamous "one man owns one woman" marriages.
Plus, the "one man owns many women" scenario would probably count as domestic abuse so we already have a legal framework to deal with those scenarios.

I won't deny those exist among the LGBT rights movement, but I doubt there are as many as you and others seem to think.