Poll of the Day: Gay Marriage
- Thread starter alyster
- Start date
- Status
Rin
Oathkeeper
This is a blurry topic because marriage means different things in different countries. For some, it's inheritance and tax breaks. In other countries all that can be arranged without legally marrying.
I personally don't like gay marriage, but only because it redefines marriage. Let's also universally recognize child marriage, polygamy (both multiple husbands and wives), and marriage to animals.
I have nothing against homosexuality. But polygamy has been recognized in many places long before homosexual marriage was and I think it's unfair that many Western countries still don't legally recognize it.
I personally don't like gay marriage, but only because it redefines marriage. Let's also universally recognize child marriage, polygamy (both multiple husbands and wives), and marriage to animals.
I have nothing against homosexuality. But polygamy has been recognized in many places long before homosexual marriage was and I think it's unfair that many Western countries still don't legally recognize it.
Lord Bagel
Active member
I respect my right to marry Alyster
alyster
Well-known member
Nascar will get upset.
This I don't get how people jump from gay to zoophilia in one second. Even though I find sex between a man and a woman unnatural and gross I never think that the next step is a dog.
Deus
Almighty
alyster
Well-known member
RoboMonkey
Active member
I really have never understood the whole "it redefines marriage" argument. Who cares? You'd rather millions of people not have equal treatment because you want some arbitrary word that humans created out of some arbitrary symbols based on some arbitrary grunting sounds that come out of our vocal cords to retain its "original" meaning? I understand marriage is a cultural spectacle in a variety of places but no one cares. When your culture oppresses people for no reason you change it. And when your language is seeded with an underlying homophobia, you change it in order to give everyone equal opportunity. At least that's what happens, and has been happening in the developing world (black people hello?). Marriage itself never even had this strict definition you are talking about. That argument was just some sly way conservative homophobes were able to make their ideas sound less evil. All there doing is asking not to redefine the current model of marriage. That does not mean marriage was always defined as one man and one woman. It would be illogical to make that connection. Marriage used to be between one white woman and one white man. Obviously that changed. "Redefining marriage" is just some conservative bullshit argument in order to push their political views to the masses. It's useless and irrelevant, and ultimately is void of any rational basis.
You want to support equal rights while still helping to retain the original homophobic (and not at all original meaning of the word/institution) meaning of marriage at the same time? Then tell government is has no place in marriage. Personally I advocate for no special rights from getting married at all. Wouldn't that make all the straight people grumpy.
You want to support equal rights while still helping to retain the original homophobic (and not at all original meaning of the word/institution) meaning of marriage at the same time? Then tell government is has no place in marriage. Personally I advocate for no special rights from getting married at all. Wouldn't that make all the straight people grumpy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rin
Oathkeeper
Zoophilia is an insulting term that implies the relationship is just for sex. I'm talking about the people who want to marry animal demigods. Or believe that their dead spouse had reincarnated into a horse. Or just like living with their 9 cats very much.
It doesn't have to be a sexual relationship. In fact many homosexual relationships are not sexual. It just has to be a family unit.
I know some grandmothers who married at 13. They lived happy lives. It was not an arranged marriage, by consent. Instead of assuming all child marriages are abusive, just trial the abusive ones individually and recognize the consensual ones.
What about the guy who buys a waifu pillow and wants to legally marry it? Or someone who reincarnates their wife into a porcelain doll?
What about when AI is sufficiently advanced and more charismatic than humans? What if someone falls in love with their robot butler?
What about asexuals who don't want to be recognized as either gender but maybe actually love someone and want to live together and raise kids together?
Who is to tell them that they're crazy and shouldn't be married? Are they crazy just because they don't feel and think the same as everyone else?
And even if they really are crazy, if they sincerely believe in what they're doing, they're not hurting anyone.
I just feel that only asking for gay marriages is selfish and actually makes it harder to recognize all other forms of marriage in the future.
It is best to just remove the recognition of marriage from the law and let people define it however they want.
How is it selfish because gay couples doesn't procreate normally? If a couple gets married can't have or choices not to have children does that make them selfish as well?
And plenty of gay couples choice to adopt a child & adoption is far less selfish than procreation, imo.
Also animals nor objects can give consent to marriage so they're ruled out and should remain illegal, consent from all parties is necessary for a relationship let alone marriage. Children can just wait to get married, there is no need for them to get married that early in life. AI ethics are whole different can of worms that humanity will have to deal with when we get there.
I mean I am not all opposed to allowing them to be married, but I am pretty sure that's more about the government recognizing more than two genders than marriage, since marriage is already between any two people now.
I am not entirely opposed to that option, but it would require a lot be done with our current laws because taxes aside, there is a lot of benefits & rights granted for marriage that aren't as easy to allow without it especially for things like being considered next of kin, or hospital/jail visitation rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, most definitely.
Now for the slippery slope arguments:
It would create legal issues because our system is designed around marriage being between two people, but other than that I see no issue with legalizing polygamy.
Animals, objects, and children can't consent.
Now for the slippery slope arguments:
It would create legal issues because our system is designed around marriage being between two people, but other than that I see no issue with legalizing polygamy.
Animals, objects, and children can't consent.
Rin
Oathkeeper
Lol back up. I never said anything about procreation. I'm not a trolling conservative; I'm an anarchist who believes in zero government intervention.
It's funny that the same arguments have been repeated so many times that everyone had their defenses up right away against zoophilia, sanctity of marriage, procreation, slippery slope, etc. But that's not the argument being made.
I meant to fight for gay marriage is a selfish fight. It costs a lot of political capital to redefine marriage. Why not redefine it to suit all other forms of marriage?
Gay marriage is viewed as a liberal 'victory', and leads to situations like this where people worry it will make it difficult to gain more rights in the future.
A big part of oppression comes from laws. You can have old scriptures and legal documents saying that only heterosexual people can be married. People assume that being gay is a bad thing only because of these laws. Like there's literally no reason to hate people for being gay.
Whenever any society denies two entities the permission to get married, society immediately criticizes that couple. Marriage was never meant to be an oppressive tool, but it will continue to oppress those who can't get married.
Artificial General Intelligence is expected to happen around 2045. That's not necessarily AI you can fall in love with, but within that range. It's something that we will make the call on.
If a 15 year old can get a college degree, are they still unable to consent? If a machine can handle customer service better than humans, is it still unable to consent?
The average 15 year old doesn't know what it wants, but some are definitely smart enough. I think Konakoga made a good point that they have time to decide, but I see it happen a lot with my grandparents and it has never been a regretted decision.
You weren't entirely but you were partially.
If you mean to approve polygamy then sure why not, but I feel like that would have driven to be even harder to push for, especially with the stigma around how so cultures have used it in the past. (Though I don't think anything is wrong with polygamy at all) Other changes I've said my reasons against.
And I am part of the LGBTQ community, so naturally I am aware of that concern, but I don't think such a concern should mean all the rights needed for the LGBTQ community shouldn't be pushed for, to give up on some fronts for that concern is absurd to me.
I'd argue scriptures play a much bigger role in than laws, as cultures with scriptures against it tend to be the harsher ones, compared to ones with just laws, since many of those laws were caused by people spreading those scriptures.
We're generally lacking AI ethics in a far to many areas under that before we can decide that (like their general rights), & AI of that level is still theoretical and not near practical.
If there was some abnormal circumstance where the marriage's legal benefits would actually benefit them at that age then I could see an argument for some exceptions, but generally I don't think the waiting is bad for them since til they're old enough is when they'd be able to make use for rights & benefits, plus marriage isn't something to be rushed into anyways.
alyster
Well-known member
Automated solutions in IT do what we tell them to do. Quite literally. A programmer's wife sends the programmer to the store to get a bread. She adds that if there are apples he takes twelve. Programmer comes back with 12 breads.
Yeah it's one of the debates where it's hard to find fresh ideas.
- Status