Serious Legalization of Polygamy

[dice]

gay marriage wasn't very productive.

i agree with saz chan insofar as the state's involvement being destructive, however, on a totally different line of logic.

it's discriminatory to not allow gays to marry given that marriage creates rights and privileges that aren't obtainable otherwise. civil partnerships have been proven to treat gays as 2nd class citizens and effectively ostracize homosexual people even further through social stigma. oppressing gays through lack of access on the basis of fearmongering further addendums and protecting the sanctity of marriage is silly. civil marriages do exist and marriage isn't solely a religious institution. the implicit msg of the slippery slope argument is that gays are tantamount to other minority groups. not all minority groups were created equal.

the thing is though, gay marriage helped the rich wypipo with a dick that happened to like dick. that's about it.

gay marriage being an 'end all' gameplan to a lot of lgbtq+ agendas has been inherently destructive. i believe that this has been even more evidenced through ignoring the oppression many queer and trans woc in particular have faced throughout the years since the legalization of gay marriage.

we should have rights, but the vehicle in which we received them ignored even more pressing problems. the access to marriage has hampered the lgbtq+ movement of less privileged people bc, in many ways, it stopped pushing forward.

fuk marriage as a whole tho really

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

gay marriage wasn't very productive.

i agree with saz chan insofar as the state's involvement being destructive, however, on a totally different line of logic.

it's discriminatory to not allow gays to marry given that marriage creates rights and privileges that aren't obtainable otherwise. civil partnerships have been proven to treat gays as 2nd class citizens and effectively ostracize homosexual people even further through social stigma. oppressing gays through lack of access on the basis of fearmongering further addendums and protecting the sanctity of marriage is silly. civil marriages do exist and marriage isn't solely a religious institution. the implicit msg of the slippery slope argument is that gays are tantamount to other minority groups. not all minority groups were created equal.

the thing is though, gay marriage helped the rich wypipo with a dick that happened to like dick. that's about it.

gay marriage being an 'end all' gameplan to a lot of lgbtq+ agendas has been inherently destructive. i believe that this has been even more evidenced through ignoring the oppression many queer and trans woc in particular have faced throughout the years since the legalization of gay marriage.

we should have rights, but the vehicle in which we received them ignored even more pressing problems. the access to marriage has hampered the lgbtq+ movement of less privileged people bc, in many ways, it stopped pushing forward.

fuk marriage as a whole tho really

What's with people thinking that "discriminatory" is a dirty word? Of course traditional marriage discriminates against gay people. It also discriminates against the incestuous, the bestial, and the polyamorous. When serving people alcohol, we discriminate against non-adults. When hiring people for a job, we discriminate against those who are less well qualified. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. What is objectionable is discriminating against people without sufficient reason. But, in the case of gay marriage and polygamy, we do have a reason: marriage is what it is, and the Government should leave this be.

Even if we grant that there is a significant social stigma against homosexuals, I don't see how this is the product of their only having access to civil partnership, nor how this would be solved by instituting gay marriage. I'd like to hear some specific examples of this so I can engage with something more substantial. And in any case, why is it the Government's job to combat social stigma? As far as I am concerned, it has never been the Government's role to combat bigotry, or impose an ideology on people.

I'd like to think that I have argued nice and clearly exactly why safeguarding the definition of marriage from Government tyranny is important, and that doing so does not constitute an act of "oppression". You are absolutely right that homosexuals are not on a par with other minorities: the difference between them is that the homosexuals have influence. But they will not be unique in this forever. All it takes is a Hollwood film to have a sympathetic character who is attracted to children, or a prominent liberal personality who has the hots for their sibling, and the ball will start rolling in new directions.

 

[Ortheore]

But, in the case of gay marriage and polygamy, we do have a reason: marriage is what it is, and the Government should leave this be.

Sooooooo that's your good reason. It is what it is. Wow. Amazing. Well, I'm convinced, there's no point in continuing this thread might as well lock it now, debate solved. In fact while we're at it can we undo all the racial equality movements and make black people slaves again? After all, the rock-solid argument "it is what it is" would've applied just as strongly to the notion of white supremacy in that time, so overlooking that argument was really misguided. #shitineverthoughtidpost

I'd like to think that I have argued nice and clearly exactly why safeguarding the definition of marriage from Government tyranny is important, and that doing so does not constitute an act of "oppression". You are absolutely right that homosexuals are not on a par with other minorities: the difference between them is that the homosexuals have influence. But they will not be unique in this forever. All it takes is a Hollwood film to have a sympathetic character who is attracted to children, or a prominent liberal personality who has the hots for their sibling, and the ball will start rolling in new directions.

Lmao, what does it take for you to realise that the people who disagree with you have their own principles? Seriously, do you really believe that we're one hollywood film away from exploiting children sexually? This is exactly the kind of exaggerated strawman bullshit that derails discussions.

Also as a side note, pedophilia and incest aren't exactly new to fiction. A Clockwork Orange and Lolita are two highly regarded classic novels which feature pedophilia, and if you want something closer to "pop" culture, look no further than A Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones). Guess what? Don't see anyone pushing for either of those things to occur. Before you bring up the whole "sympathetic" thing as a counter-argument I'd like to point out that there are literally zero works of fiction that are effective without characters that you can sympathise with. Also all for all of the examples I just gave, it's the main character that's committing these acts (although Jaime Lannister is one of multiple "main" characters), so you can't get away with not sympathising with them

Also the whole "the government shouldn't get to define it" thing strikes me as just wishful thinking for those dreaming of an anarchist society. The reality is, the government isn't going anywhere and they fucking have to define it because there's a whole bunch of laws that revolve around marriage. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that if you live in a western country, you have a democracy, which means that when it comes to stuff like this the government generally acts on behalf of the people.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

Sooooooo that's your good reason. It is what it is. Wow. Amazing. Well, I'm convinced, there's no point in continuing this thread might as well lock it now, debate solved. In fact while we're at it can we undo all the racial equality movements and make black people slaves again? After all, the rock-solid argument "it is what it is" would've applied just as strongly to the notion of white supremacy in that time, so overlooking that argument was really misguided. #shitineverthoughtidpost

Lmao, what does it take for you to realise that the people who disagree with you have their own principles? Seriously, do you really believe that we're one hollywood film away from exploiting children sexually? This is exactly the kind of exaggerated strawman bullshit that derails discussions.

Also as a side note, pedophilia and incest aren't exactly new to fiction. A Clockwork Orange and Lolita are two highly regarded classic novels which feature pedophilia, and if you want something closer to "pop" culture, look no further than A Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones). Guess what? Don't see anyone pushing for either of those things to occur. Before you bring up the whole "sympathetic" thing as a counter-argument I'd like to point out that there are literally zero works of fiction that are effective without characters that you can sympathise with. Also all for all of the examples I just gave, it's the main character that's committing these acts (although Jaime Lannister is one of multiple "main" characters), so you can't get away with not sympathising with them

Also the whole "the government shouldn't get to define it" thing strikes me as just wishful thinking for those dreaming of an anarchist society. The reality is, the government isn't going anywhere and they fucking have to define it because there's a whole bunch of laws that revolve around marriage. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that if you live in a western country, you have a democracy, which means that when it comes to stuff like this the government generally acts on behalf of the people.

I love the selective responding, first of all. That's the second time you have missed out one of my rebuttals to you, and moved right on to one that wasn't even directed to you at all. I thought I had already dispatched you after my previous post over a week ago. Go back and read it, if you haven't done so in a while. It is actually quite devastating, if I do say so myself.

I believe I have already given my arguments amply in previous posts. I know you don't agree with me, but my case has already been made. I don't need to make it again. If you had taken the time to understand my position as opposed to, you know, not, you would see that there is no parallel between this issue and that of racial equality.

I am only too aware of the fact that we are coming at this from different principles. But, consequently, I have my principles, and it is these which I am presenting. Other people present theirs, and we discuss them. That is what happens in a debate.

I don't believe I said we were one Hollywood film away from sexual exploitation of children. What I suggested is that pop culture has a major role in shaping people's perception of what is acceptable. One could see this happening before one's eyes in the case of homosexuality as, over the decades, more and more celebrities became more conspicuous in their homosexuality. A Clockwork Orange and Lolita may well be "classics" but I would hardly describe them as being formative of pop culture. A Clockwork Orange, in particular, would more properly be described as a "cult classic", which I think speaks for itself.

Anecdotally, in the debate society of my own university, a debate famously took place a number of years ago, from before I started attending and yet is still talked about today, over the morality of incest. And it was motivated by the very Game of Thrones characters you mention (I don't watch it, personally). The LGBTQZ4batmansymbol society has members who are pushing for incest rights in public forums. In the general news, in 2014 there was a case in Germany of a husband and wife who later discovered that they were long-lost brother and sister. They wished to stay married, having had three children together, but the courts ruled that their marriage was never legitimate. Heck, even I sympathised with them, and I don't even agree with incest. What I actually said is that all it would take is a few cases such as this to get the ball rolling and start changing people's minds and perceptions when it comes to incest. And lo and behold, this is already happening.

To suggest that the Government should not have legislative control over natural language is not an anarchist claim, it is a libertarian claim. I am 100% in favour of our having a Government. I simply believe that the roles, responsibilities and powers of the Government should be extremely limited, and crisply defined. Government should be powerful, but only in those areas that lie within its mandate. To say that the Government has to define marriage because there are so many laws which pertain to it is a fairly question-begging argument, with which I have already amply dealt in previous posts, if you would but take the time to read them.

On a side note, I would be interested to hear why you believe incest to be wrong, if in fact you do. Is it simply the risk of in-breeding? And, if so, would you be in favour of two brothers marrying, in which this would not be an issue?

 

[Ortheore]

I thought I had already dispatched you after my previous post over a week ago. Go back and read it, if you haven't done so in a while. It is actually quite devastating, if I do say so myself.

not sure if trolling or genuinely delusional.

I believe I have already given my arguments amply in previous posts. I know you don't agree with me, but my case has already been made. I don't need to make it again. If you had taken the time to understand my position as opposed to, you know, not, you would see that there is no parallel between this issue and that of racial equality.

Ah, the nice and lazy approach- assume that the person disagreeing is deficient to avoid addressing a point. Also "it is what it is" is just generally a terrible reason for anything. Racial equality happens to be a conveniently similar area, but I could've picked practically anything

I am only too aware of the fact that we are coming at this from different principles. But, consequently, I have my principles, and it is these which I am presenting. Other people present theirs, and we discuss them. That is what happens in a debate

If you can bring yourself to stop wallowing in condescension and look up briefly, you'll see my point passing over your head. You insisted earlier that your slippery slope argument wasn't a fallacy but still you continue to suggest that progressive ideologies will lead to people condoning pedophilia and the like, despite the fact that to reach that point other factors like informed consent become an issue, which means a majority of people would be compromising their existing principles.

I don't believe I said we were one Hollywood film away from sexual exploitation of children.

I'd like to think that I have argued nice and clearly exactly why safeguarding the definition of marriage from Government tyranny is important, and that doing so does not constitute an act of "oppression". You are absolutely right that homosexuals are not on a par with other minorities: the difference between them is that the homosexuals have influence. But they will not be unique in this forever. All it takes is a Hollwood film to have a sympathetic character who is attracted to children, or a prominent liberal personality who has the hots for their sibling, and the ball will start rolling in new directions.

Pretty damn close js

I can see how requiring that the government define marriage because of the existing laws can seem question-begging, but stuff like tax implications and being able to see dying relatives are stuff that are coded into law and depend on the concept of marriage. This means that many of the practical consequences depend on the government defining what they are. If the whole thing is not defined by the government, how can those real consequences of marriage be made to have any effect?

Also for the selective responding, either what you said I didn't feel was worthwhile responding to, or I'd decided to stop posting in this thread, only for something you'd posted to be so egregious as to override that intention. I'm still not particularly interested in posting so there's a good chance that when you respond to this I won't bother saying anything in return

 

[EV]

Why did a thread on polygamy become another cesspool of blatant homophobia?
Like the OP even asks "How do you stand on polygamy?" not "Okay start by using gay marriage as a proxy and then just harp the fuck out of it."

I personally do not believe that marriage should be defined in law at all, be it religious or secular, homosexual or heterosexual, mono-amorous or poly-amorous.

What's your alternative?

Judging by the line "If I wished to marry, then as far as I am concerned I would have the right to do so whether or not the State says that I may," I'm guessing your answer is something along the lines of a purely personal contract between two (or more?) consenting adults, but if I'm wrong please correct me and clarify. How would such a contract be enforced, or would it not be?

 

[Shrug]

Why did a thread on polygamy become another cesspool of blatant homophobia?

because the main reason for a thread on polygamy is to throw overt jabs at gays bein married. "WELL IF THE FUKIN HOMOS CAN DO IT, THEN WHATS TO STOP SOME ONE FROM TAKING 35 WIVES IF WE DONT HAVE WHATS NORMAL ANY MORE". same w/ incest. IF SOME DUDES ANUS IS OK THEN WHY ISNT MY SISTERS VAGINA. ofc these dudes are not on the side of polygamy. it's tryna convince u that theres a slippery slope here, but not a slippery slope made out of ice, one that's constructed from a towering framework of dildos papered over by gay porn magazines and made slippery by a truly titanic quantity of lube. the slippery slope is aimed at Our Children, tied-down and defenseless, and there is a train of Evil Super Gay Men willing to slide down to forcefully sodomize them to turn them away from jesus. the eventual end to the slippery slope is everyone's (metaphorical) asshole being so wide open everyone and everything is allowed in, which of course would the collapse of our social order - what makes us Great. i dont think it takes being overly cynical to see that this - slope-fearmongering - is the intent of dis thread or ones like it. if u need more evidence, this thread was created 07/08/15 - a few days after Hodges.

if u think the timbre of this post is unfair to the smogcons who just want two genders and real marriage back - why cant u understand keith? - i urge u to read posts in this thread and ones like it. seeing some of the horrors of the oncoming sexually unmored state had me repeatedly checking myself to affirm my continued heterosexuality and status as a member of the Real America who stands for virtue.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

Why did a thread on polygamy become another cesspool of blatant homophobia?
Like the OP even asks "How do you stand on polygamy?" not "Okay start by using gay marriage as a proxy and then just harp the fuck out of it."


What's your alternative?

Judging by the line "If I wished to marry, then as far as I am concerned I would have the right to do so whether or not the State says that I may," I'm guessing your answer is something along the lines of a purely personal contract between two (or more?) consenting adults, but if I'm wrong please correct me and clarify. How would such a contract be enforced, or would it not be?

Homophobia - such a lazy word. It is part of a vocabulary toolbox that leftism has adopted in order to do away with the only kind of diversity that it doesn't tolerate: intellectual diversity. It really is a nonsense; I don't know a single person who fears homosexuals, and it is amazing to me that having a conscientious and historically-sensitive wariness of government overreach constitutes some kind of hatred. This really is very woolly thinking.

The reason why homosexuality has been brought into the discussion is for the perfectly obvious reason that there is a close analogue between the act of legalising homosexual marriage and that of legalising polygamy. Both involve the very same legislative act: namely, the government's taking it upon itself to take a defining, not a peripheral, characteristic of a venerable institution and doing away with it. This is why leftism, insofar as it seeks to be culturally progressive, is an authoritarian ideology.

To answer your question: yes, marriage is something that concerns only the individuals who enter into it. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "enforcing" a marriage contract. I suspect you are talking about all of the legislative baggage that goes along with it at the present time, but as I pointed out above, it is quite circular to suggest that it is the Government's place to define marriage on behalf of all of society simply because they have already legislated upon it in myriad other ways. Maybe if you gave me a specific difficulty you feel like we would have if we had a more limited Government, then I could speak to it specifically.

 

[vonFiedler]

Homophobia - such a lazy word. It is part of a vocabulary toolbox that leftism has adopted in order to do away with the only kind of diversity that it doesn't tolerate: intellectual diversity.

There's nothing intellectual about the oppression of people who happen to different from you. There is absolutely no reason to tolerate you whatsoever. Vices and human character flaws need not be tolerated.

 

[KM]

Polygamy is THE, I repeat, THE "marital structure" decided by nature. It's in our instinct and it's primarily in One Man:Many Woman ratio. So legalizing polygamy would be a big step in the right direction, embracing the law of nature. As long as it's consented, I don't see why the government has any right to stick their nose in polygamy, especially when freaking gay people were allowed to get married. I'm heavily against this but whatever. I don't see where the unnatural, freakish and blalantly immoral act of same sex intercourse have got the green card, yet the perfectly natural Polygamy still remains illegal.

when u use animal behavior to justify polygamy but then conveniently ignore it wrt homosexuality because ynot

Homophobia - such a lazy word. It is part of a vocabulary toolbox that leftism has adopted in order to do away with the only kind of diversity that it doesn't tolerate: intellectual diversity. It really is a nonsense; I don't know a single person who fears homosexuals, and it is amazing to me that having a conscientious and historically-sensitive wariness of government overreach constitutes some kind of hatred. This really is very woolly thinking.

The reason why homosexuality has been brought into the discussion is for the perfectly obvious reason that there is a close analogue between the act of legalising homosexual marriage and that of legalising polygamy. Both involve the very same legislative act: namely, the government's taking it upon itself to take a defining, not a peripheral, characteristic of a venerable institution and doing away with it. This is why leftism, insofar as it seeks to be culturally progressive, is an authoritarian ideology.

To answer your question: yes, marriage is something that concerns only the individuals who enter into it. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "enforcing" a marriage contract. I suspect you are talking about all of the legislative baggage that goes along with it at the present time, but as I pointed out above, it is quite circular to suggest that it is the Government's place to define marriage on behalf of all of society simply because they have already legislated upon it in myriad other ways. Maybe if you gave me a specific difficulty you feel like we would have if we had a more limited Government, then I could speak to it specifically.

you know perfectly well what homophobia means, and you know that the "look mom i know greek roots" argument is juvenile bullshit, so i'm not even going to really respond to that. if you're uncomfortable with the fact that wanting to deny the rights you enjoy to others makes you a bigot, that's your own problem, but don't pretend for a second that your stance is coming from some macro-level concernedness for the almost negligent practical effects of extending the right to marry to homosexual couples.

marriage is a shitty institution. marriage is a cold, unfeeling governmental tool designed to promote fertility and childbearing, and is at least partially responsible for a lot of highly toxic beliefs and cultural norms within American society. that said, the abolition of marriage is unlikely in the near future, and as such it is progress when its benefits are extended to those who were previously left at the wayside.

gay marriage was legalized because there were no more discernable and [on a majority level, at least] socially acceptable reasons to deny it. as homophobia shifted from being the norm to being slightly more frowned upon, and gay [admittedly, usually white, male, and stereotypical] people began to be folded into media, it became "not weird enough" to enough straight people that they decided to let us into the party. even though the cake is shitty and mostly gone and the music is trash and it's still hella hard to get in for minorities and poor people, we're here.

the theoretical polygamous marriage is very different. there is no history of systemic oppression against polygamous people. there is no large push by polygamous people to obtain polygamous marriage, because it really does not matter that much. it'd be nice to have for a couple of people, but it is not even remotely similar to gay marriage. you can not isolate the practical effects of a legislative change from the symbolic meaning - and although the extension of marriage to homosexual couples primarily benefitted the whitest and cissest of those couples, it still is some marker of progress.

 

[EV]

Homophobia - such a lazy word. It is part of a vocabulary toolbox that leftism has adopted in order to do away with the only kind of diversity that it doesn't tolerate: intellectual diversity. It really is a nonsense; I don't know a single person who fears homosexuals, and it is amazing to me that having a conscientious and historically-sensitive wariness of government overreach constitutes some kind of hatred. This really is very woolly thinking.

Don't shit in my litterbox and tell me the cat did it.

Hand-waving away homophobia as lazy is just ... lazy. It's a very effective way of disappearing the concerns of the parties affected and really quite patronizing. And for the record "having a conscientious and historically-sensitive wariness of government overreach constitutes some kind of hatred" is not why I said this thread reeked of homophobia. I actually agree with some of the points you raised wrt government overreach.

 

[Ash Borer]

because the main reason for a thread on polygamy is to throw overt jabs at gays bein married. "WELL IF THE FUKIN HOMOS CAN DO IT, THEN WHATS TO STOP SOME ONE FROM TAKING 35 WIVES IF WE DONT HAVE WHATS NORMAL ANY MORE".

you should probably have a bit more respect for people with differing opinion, instead of just reducing them to ALL CAPS STRAW MAN PARODIES. I want to make it clear that I'm not against gay marriage. But, it's something I've thought critically about, instead of just considered it to be self evidently right.

Conservatism is not an inherently flawed viewpoint as your mannerisms would imply you believe. The society and culture we live in, it's done us a lot of good. It's also done a lot of bad. When you consider conservatism to be utterly stupid you throw the baby out with the bathwater, by considering whats bad only. Unfortunately most arguments against gay marriage that I've heard tend to be really poorly articulated, but let me try and give you a decent one, so you can actually see why people might oppose it. Monogamous heterosexual marriage as the norm is quite a foundational piece of our culture. It is what is responsible for raising children by making sure they are raised by both of their parent (much better than just one!), it is what is responsible for making sure that the large majority of the population can have a partner which is generally good for happiness and overall well being, and it is what is responsible for facilitating reproduction, as of course any society that fails to create another generation will simply die off.

Now if you think about this, you might be able to understand why someone would be against gay marriage. Of course children being raised at a higher rate by unsuitable parents would be a bad outcome. As you add more into the definition of marriage, you do dilute the meaning of it, which could have a subtle but veritable negative effect on the society. But, when I personally considered the possible effects that gay marriage would mostly likely have on our society and culture, and the benefit of legalizing it (that is the freedom of oppression for gay people), legalizing it made more sense. As for as sociology goes in regards to the raising of children by same-sex couples, there is still some fuzziness and uncertainty associated with the data, but the effects appear compared to heterosex marriages to be small at worst. Then in regards to encouraging reproduction or people to have partners, I really can't imagine that gay marriage would diminish these in any way, but it's also feasible. So this is my opinion on gay marriage, but only because I've thought critically about. Can you see now that maybe there are people that have reached different conclusions, and not in an entirely dishonest and ignorant way? That maybe they just have low compassion for the rights of gay people to marry and they are very vigilant about preserving marriage because it has done us some good?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Now my problem with polygamy is that if we again think critically about it, it would appear to be more harmful than gay marriage ever could be. My main concern is that polygamy is dangerous, because a possible outcome is that the most attractive and successful males are going to take up a hugely disproportionate amount of women, and the men that in a monogamous society would have wives, do not. There is a danger that a lot of these men would find this intolerable and it would cause a lot of social unrest, or worse more extreme or violent measures to prove themselves to be superior to the other men around them.

I'm not talking about committing murder to attract women, I mean crime. The highest rates of crime are in the places where relative poverty is the worst. Where everyone lives in poverty, crime is much lower, there is no upper class to take from, the men do not feel inferior, poor and needing to prove themselves when everyone around them are just as poor. Where there is relative poverty the men become more desperate to prove themselves as winners, and it works. Successful criminals make a lot more money than someone working an honest life in poverty. Currently in our society the prospect of an honest hardworking life includes the high probability of marriage. When this probability now becomes much, much lesser because the more privileged men now have multiple wives, hard work and law abiding behavior becomes less attractive, and thus crime grows. Yes, this is very speculative and hypothetical, but it's something to consider when you think about legalizing polygamy.

 

[Ortheore]

Conservatism is not an inherently flawed viewpoint as your mannerisms would imply you believe. The society and culture we live in, it's done us a lot of good. It's also done a lot of bad. When you consider conservatism to be utterly stupid you throw the baby out with the bathwater, by considering whats bad.

Hmm, this strikes me as a bit of a simplification, simply because most (maybe not all) people who aren't conservative wouldn't advocate for a total overhaul of society. Instead it's working with what we've already got and then asking what can be done better. The issue I think people who dislike conservatism have with it is that it's easy to see it as uncritically valuing what already exists to the point where proposed improvements are opposed on the grounds of "tradition" or whatever, which is a nonsense reason to a lot of people.

 

[Ash Borer]

Hmm, this strikes me as a bit of a simplification, simply because most (maybe not all) people who aren't conservative wouldn't advocate for a total overhaul of society. Instead it's working with what we've already got and then asking what can be done better. The issue I think people who dislike conservatism have with it is that it's easy to see it as uncritically valuing what already exists to the point where proposed improvements are opposed on the grounds of "tradition" or whatever, which is a nonsense reason to a lot of people.

no, you're definitely right, there are more moderate progressives than radical ones, and conservatism warrants just as much criticism as progressivism. However, I do worry that there are a lot of people out there that, while not being explicitly radical that do look down upon conservatism. They are very quick to consider the answer to issues like gay marriage and polygamy for example as obviously self evident, rather than something that requires a lot of thought and consideration of both sides.

If you really want to free yourself of biases like this play devil's advocate with yourself. Try your hardest to construct an argument in favour of what you disagree with, do the research, and then blow it to pieces, as I did with my explanation on gay marriage. If you find yourself unable to do that, then maybe reconsider your position.

 

[termi]

This is why leftism, insofar as it seeks to be culturally progressive, is an authoritarian ideology.

The rest of your post has been sufficiently broken down, but I'd just like to point out how fundamentally wrong it is to think that giving more rights to more people (in this case, giving marriage rights to people regardless of their sexual preference) is somehow linked to "authoritarianism" - a form of government that is defined by limited individual liberties. If you're looking for authoritarianism, try looking at the other side of the political spectrum (ie. the Republican Party) instead of calling out "leftism", whatever that may be.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

It seems as though any content I post as of now gets deleted instantaneously. It is interesting that my arguments should be hidden as opposed to being publicly visible for rebuttal, if they are so bad. Very curious. In any case, I think that I have stated my position clearly enough in what I have presented thus far, even if it doesn't always get accurately represented.

If someone wants to carry the discussion on with me in particular then message me personally or on my wall, depending on whether you want it to be private or public. I am happy to duke it out for really as long as necessary, whether you want to do it respectfully or not. I have thick skin so it doesn't bother me either way. That goes for Kitten Milk, Ortheore, Eevee General, Robert Alfons, vonFiedler or anyone late to the party.