Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down By Federal Judge

[Tgo01]

Woo! We're getting there. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/wisconsin-gay-marriage_n_5462121.html)


Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage has been struck down by a federal judge.

"Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between same-sex couples are unconstitutional," U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her ruling.

This is the 14th federal ruling against state marriage bans since last June, when the Supreme Court ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

Below, more from the AP:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling it unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb issued the ruling Friday, but it wasn't clear whether same-sex marriages could immediately begin.

But the ruling makes Wisconsin the 27th state where same-sex couples can marry under law or where a judge has ruled they ought to be allowed to wed.

Clerks in the state's two largest cities of Milwaukee and Madison had been preparing for such a ruling by bringing in extra staff to handle an expected flood of marriage-license applicants.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of eight same-sex couples.

Gov. Scott Walker has been a strong proponent of the constitutional same-sex marriage ban that was approved by state voters in 2006.

I wonder how many people have married horses in those states with legalized gay marriage.

[Tenlaar]

We're getting there.

http://oi53.tinypic.com/20if0r6.jpg

[Tgo01]

Hey there is nothing wrong with sticking your penis into an anus.

[Tenlaar]

I agree, more power to you if that's your thing. I'm happy about the advancements of your people.

[Tgo01]

I agree, more power to you if that's your thing. I'm happy about the advancements of your people.

What do you mean by "your people"?!

[Wrathbringer]

Hey there is nothing wrong with sticking your penis into an anus.

LOL

Edit: yes I'm 12.

[AnticorRifling]

I still dont understand the arguement against gay marriage. If youre not gay this effects you zero.

[Tenlaar]

You don't understand it because there is not one. There are just sad, nonsensical attempts by sad, nonsensical bigots.

[Allereli]

I still dont understand the arguement against gay marriage. If youre not gay this effects you zero.

haven't you seen the travesty in Massachusetts over the past 10 years? they've all starting marrying horses

[Taernath]

http://eatthattoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-05-21.gif

[Androidpk]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/newser-man-wants-to-marry-porn-filled-laptop/8761997/

[Jarvan]

Here is a point in favor of marrying animals....

People can leave assets in their will to a pet. If a pet can be legally allowed to "own" things, then why not allow them to marry people?

(I think it's fucking stupid, just having fun with it)

[Androidpk]

People can leave assets in their will to a pet. If a pet can be legally allowed to "own" things, then why not allow them to marry people?


Uhh.. what the fuck fuck? Assets as in..a pet bed or something?

[AnticorRifling]

Assets as in all their money in a trust with instructiona for care, it is nuts.

[Warriorbird]

Apart from being a silly anti gay retort so thus convenient this was already possible. Leona Helmsley left like 12 mil for a poodle.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/leona-helmsleys-dog-trouble-richest-world-dies-12/story?id=13810168

[Dwaar]

If gay marriage is legal, then polygamy should be legal too. Who are we to tell 3 or more people they can't live in harmony, if they so choose.

I still think in a legal sense, people should all be recognized as a "civil union". That would apply to their standing with regards to the government.

"Marriage" should be maintained by the religious institutions (whatever your religion may be), and if people wish to have that ceremony then they should.

I think that distinction would be reasonable.

[Gelston]

Animals can't say yes or sign marriage documents.

[Dwaar]

Animals can't say yes or sign marriage documents.

My dog always knew when I was talking to him, and would reply with a "woof!".

"You hungry little buddy?"... "WOOF!"

"You need to go outside you crazy boy?"... "WOOF!"

"You want to get married my sexy, furry bundle of joy!?".. "WOOF, WOOF!"

[Tgo01]

My dog always knew when I was talking to him, and would reply with a "woof!".

"You hungry little buddy?"... "WOOF!"

"You need to go outside you crazy boy?"... "WOOF!"

"You want to get married my sexy, furry bundle of joy!?".. "WOOF, WOOF!"

How did he respond when you asked "You want me to take you to the vet to get your balls snipped off, big guy?"

[Dwaar]

How did he respond when you asked "You want me to take you to the vet to get your balls snipped off, big guy?"

Hahaha. Good one.

[Tenlaar]

If gay marriage is legal, then polygamy should be legal too. Who are we to tell 3 or more people they can't live in harmony, if they so choose.

I can't tell if you are serious or using that in the same sense as the "what's next, marrying a goat?" comments, but it's true.

[Dwaar]

I can't tell if you are serious or using that in the same sense as the "what's next, marrying a goat?" comments, but it's true.

Why wouldn't I be serious? I'm not making an argument for or against. I'm simply stating, if 3 or more consenting adults want to live together and consider themselves married/in a union, then why shouldn't they.

If we as a society accept homosexual unions, then I don't see why polygamy shouldn't be allowed.

[Astray]

The title is lackluster.

"Gay Ban gets slammed in the ass by Judge" would have a nicer ring to it.

[waywardgs]

My dog always knew when I was talking to him, and would reply with a "woof!".

"You hungry little buddy?"... "WOOF!"

"You need to go outside you crazy boy?"... "WOOF!"

"You want to get married my sexy, furry bundle of joy!?".. "WOOF, WOOF!"

Two woofs obviously means "No, you crazy fuck, stay the hell away from me."

[Candor]

Why wouldn't I be serious? I'm not making an argument for or against. I'm simply stating, if 3 or more consenting adults want to live together and consider themselves married/in a union, then why shouldn't they.

If we as a society accept homosexual unions, then I don't see why polygamy shouldn't be allowed.

I assume you realize that a lot of current polygamous relationships are not really consensual on the part of the woman (or teenage girl in many cases)? You are opening a big can of worms here.

[Taernath]

I assume you realize that a lot of current polygamous relationships are not really consensual on the part of the woman (or teenage girl in many cases)? You are opening a big can of worms here.

Consenting is the keyword.

[Parkbandit]

I assume you realize that a lot of current polygamous relationships are not really consensual on the part of the woman (or teenage girl in many cases)? You are opening a big can of worms here.

How so.. if all 3 are consenting? Or 4 for that matter? Or 10?

[Warriorbird]

How so.. if all 3 are consenting? Or 4 for that matter? Or 10?

Cats and dogs living together in the streets!

[Jarvan]

Why wouldn't I be serious? I'm not making an argument for or against. I'm simply stating, if 3 or more consenting adults want to live together and consider themselves married/in a union, then why shouldn't they.

If we as a society accept homosexual unions, then I don't see why polygamy shouldn't be allowed.

Go one step further, Incest should be legal then as well. If a 27 year old woman wants to marry her 43 year old Uncle, who is anyone to say no to that? Why are other people imparting their morality on someone else?

And you really can't use the children excuse. Because what if a son wanted to marry his father, they certainly couldn't have children.

People may think incest is disgusting, but that is a moral distinction. Aren't we passed moral distinctions?

(And yes, I think it is as well, but that's my point. You can't be FOR Gay marriage, and against polygamy and Incest)

[Allereli]

(And yes, I think it is as well, but that's my point. You can't be FOR Gay marriage, and against polygamy and Incest)

no, you're wrong, and a bigot

[Androidpk]

You know in the future people are going to want to marry their sex robot(s).

[Warriorbird]

Go one step further, Incest should be legal then as well. If a 27 year old woman wants to marry her 43 year old Uncle, who is anyone to say no to that? Why are other people imparting their morality on someone else?

And you really can't use the children excuse. Because what if a son wanted to marry his father, they certainly couldn't have children.

People may think incest is disgusting, but that is a moral distinction. Aren't we passed moral distinctions?

(And yes, I think it is as well, but that's my point. You can't be FOR Gay marriage, and against polygamy and Incest)

All these same stunning lines of argument were used to oppose interracial marriage. You're a real winner.

[Latrinsorm]

You know in the future people are going to want to marry their sex robot(s).Our Founding Fathers explicitly intended for people to impregnate their slaves, not marry them. It's called the Constitution, Andy, look it up.

[waywardgs]

All these same stunning lines of argument were used to oppose interracial marriage. You're a real winner.

In jarvan's defense, he's against that too.

[Hightower]

Seriously, why SHOULDN'T polygamy be allowed? I understand that in its current form it is often nothing more than an excuse for men in very insular communities to dominate several women and control their lives, but spousal abuse, underage marriage, forced marriage, etc. should be against the law and the people engaging in these behaviors against the law should be prosecuted. The only reason I can see why polygamy itself is a problem is because it just isn't the way most of us are used to doing things. But if it's all truly between consenting adults, I don't see a problem. It may be a problem for various religious institutions, but we're not talking about religion. We're talking law.

As for the slippery slope beyond that? Let's cut the bullshit already. Is this really a thing? Is there a large movement pressing for incest, horse marriage, marriage to inanimate objects, etc? Why can't we just cross that bridge when we come to it? I'm pretty sure it will never come up. All law is a social contract. It simply doesn't follow that because you allow gay marriage it opens the door to horse marriage, incest, etc. That's just ridiculous.

When it comes to gay marriage I just say let it be. It's not my business. What is my business is ensuring equal protection under the law. That's America, last I checked. I wish we'd follow our own ideals a little better than we do.

~Taverkin

[Tgo01]

The only problem I would have with polygamy is the various laws we have in place that are setup to help married couples. Key word there being couples. Those laws weren't created at a time when a man could have 20 wives.

[Androidpk]

Seriously, why SHOULDN'T polygamy be allowed? I understand that in its current form it is often nothing more than an excuse for men in very insular communities to dominate several women and control their lives, but spousal abuse, underage marriage, forced marriage, etc. should be against the law and the people engaging in these behaviors against the law should be prosecuted. The only reason I can see why polygamy itself is a problem is because it just isn't the way most of us are used to doing things. But if it's all truly between consenting adults, I don't see a problem. It may be a problem for various religious institutions, but we're not talking about religion. We're talking law.

As for the slippery slope beyond that? Let's cut the bullshit already. Is this really a thing? Is there a large movement pressing for incest, horse marriage, marriage to inanimate objects, etc? Why can't we just cross that bridge when we come to it? I'm pretty sure it will never come up. All law is a social contract. It simply doesn't follow that because you allow gay marriage it opens the door to horse marriage, incest, etc. That's just ridiculous.

When it comes to gay marriage I just say let it be. It's not my business. What is my business is ensuring equal protection under the law. That's America, last I checked. I wish we'd follow our own ideals a little better than we do.

~Taverkin

Christianity is why. Not the only reason, but one of the larger reasons.

[Jarvan]

All these same stunning lines of argument were used to oppose interracial marriage. You're a real winner.

Umm.. maybe you can't read. I actually think we should allow them. I am not opposed to Gay marriage, polygamy or incest. Hell, marry a sheep for all I care.

I am just pointing it out. If you are Against polygamy, and incest, bust FOR gay marriage, you are a hypocrite. Period. There is no if ans and buts about it. it's not an argument to not allow gay marriage.

And yes, I am a winner. Thanks. Sadly, you are a loser.

[Jarvan]

no, you're wrong, and a bigot

So you are saying your morals are superior then another persons?

Good to know.

[Warriorbird]

Umm.. maybe you can't read. I actually think we should allow them. I am not opposed to Gay marriage, polygamy or incest. Hell, marry a sheep for all I care.

I am just pointing it out. If you are Against polygamy, and incest, bust FOR gay marriage, you are a hypocrite. Period. There is no if ans and buts about it. it's not an argument to not allow gay marriage.

And yes, I am a winner. Thanks. Sadly, you are a loser.

Of course you're not opposed to them. You're just in favor of false equivalencies and moral relativism (in spite of being a Republican). Got it.

[Jarvan]

The only problem I would have with polygamy is the various laws we have in place that are setup to help married couples. Key word there being couples. Those laws weren't created at a time when a man could have 20 wives.

So you are saying we shouldn't do something because it would be too hard.

-chuckles-

I know you are not saying that exactly, but that's the argument a lot would use.

[Elantari]

So you are saying we shouldn't do something because it would be too hard.

-chuckles-

I know you are not saying that exactly, but that's the argument a lot would use.

You're a little princess. You look good in that tutu. It suits you. Looking good, kid:

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000fVme95f1AME/s/750/750/PigOnPoint.jpg

[Dwaar]

The only problem I would have with polygamy is the various laws we have in place that are setup to help married couples. Key word there being couples. Those laws weren't created at a time when a man could have 20 wives.

Weren't created when two men or two women wanted to marry either.

[Dwaar]

It does make me sort of chuckle, that people are trying to defend gay marriage, but offended at the idea of polygamy between consenting adults.

Seems odd that you would defend one, but not the other (whatever the reason - as every reason could as easily be applied to gay marriage as well).

I personally don't care what people do in their personal lives, bang who you want to bang. There is one fact that will always be true, two men or two women together, cannot procreate naturally, thus ensuring human existence.

[Allereli]

two of them are a lifestyle choice, one is not. The gay marriage movement is based on the fact that people are born gay, and do not choose to be so. it's not about being against polyamorous relationships, it's that you don't understand that gay is not a choice.

incest is not so outlawed when it comes to first cousins http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx in general it's bad for the gene pool.

[Tenlaar]

it's that you don't understand that gay is not a choice.

Neither is wanting to bang more than one chick!

[Androidpk]

gay is not a choice

I agree that people are born gay but I don't think it's impossible or unreasonable to suggest for someone to make the choice themselves. Free will and all that.

[Dwaar]

two of them are a lifestyle choice, one is not. The gay marriage movement is based on the fact that people are born gay, and do not choose to be so. it's not about being against polyamorous relationships, it's that you don't understand that gay is not a choice.

incest is not so outlawed when it comes to first cousins http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx in general it's bad for the gene pool.

Some people are born with the capability to love more than one person. Most people enjoy the company of more than just one person. Most people enjoy sex with more than just one person. Most people enjoy talking to more than just one person. Those all seem natural, and people are born that way.

So I guess people that want to be in a polygamous relationship are born that way too.

As for, "gay is not a choice" or "people are born gay".... then you have to apply that same rational to other deviant behaviors that people are "born with". Some people can't help themselves, they are attracted to children - does that make it right? Some people are born with the desire to murder and kill - does that make it right? Some people are born with the desire to inflict harm on themselves - does that make it right? Some people are born truly violent and beat others - does that make it right?

We are all "born" a certain way. People have desires, wants, wishes, and fantasies that truly turn them on. Do we all act out on those desires? Or is there a line which shouldn't be crossed?

So you're right, I guess "gay is not a choice". But if you are going to make that argument, then you have to allow and understand many other lifestyles.

As for incest, your argument is it is "bad for the gene pool"? Gay couples can't even procreate, so I guess that would "be REALLY bad for the gene pool".

-- Again, I don't care what people do with their personal lives. It just cracks me up that you try to say one lifestyle is wrong, when you support a different lifestyle.

Don't be a bigot! You polygamy hater!

[Allereli]

you're still comparing apples to oranges.

[Dwaar]

you're still comparing apples to oranges.

No.. I'm not. You just don't want to admit you "accept" one lifestyle, but argue against others, using the same arguments that could be used against gay marriage/unions.

You think it's as easy to just say "well people are born gay", and the argument is finished. Then just hide behind "you're comparing apples to oranges", as if I don't understand what we are talking about.

You just don't want to admit, that if you accept one as fact, you have to accept the other.

[Allereli]

No.. I'm not. You just don't want to admit you "accept" one lifestyle, but argue against others, using the same arguments that could be used against gay marriage/unions.

You think it's as easy to just say "well people are born gay", and the argument is finished. Then just hide behind "you're comparing apples to oranges", as if I don't understand what we are talking about.

You just don't want to admit, that if you accept one as fact, you have to accept the other.

I honestly don't care if polyamory becomes legal. but it is not the same as the denying two people of the same sex the same right to marry as two people of the opposite sex.

[Dwaar]

I honestly don't care if polyamory becomes legal. but it is not the same as the denying two people of the same sex the same right to marry as two people of the opposite sex.

(Caveat) - I don't care who marries who either.

Now... how is it not the same? If your argument is... two people of the opposite sex can marry... therefore two people of the same sex should be able to marry... then how is that different than two or more women, or men, want to marry the same person? It is the exact same argument.

The only thing I can think is, in your mind, polygamy isn't "right"... you can't really explain why you think it isn't right, but you just know it is for some reason. Somewhere in you, it doesn't make sense. And because it doesn't make sense, it just isn't the same. If I'm off on that, please let us know.

[panapple]

No one is born killers, wanting to hurt themselves, or to molest children/animals. These have been researched to be a combination of biological, developmental and experiential factors. Yes, some people may be more psychologically "wired" towards violence, but it takes other factors to make them "snap". Whereas when we're talking about being born gay, that is strictly biological in nature.

As for polygamous relationships, we're talking about a same sex couple having the same rights as a straight couple when it comes to marriage, aren't we? So yes, polygamy is NOT the same (we're not talking about a man wanting to marry two or more other men), so why is it even being compared to? That's its own thing involving other factors, like a man marrying two women, but with no marriage bond between the women, etc., so like Allereli said, apples to oranges. And just cause you "enjoy sex with more than just one person" doesn't give you the basis for love or marriage. Marriage is devotion between people, not getting to sleep around cause you "enjoy" it. That's just an excuse for having your pie and eating it too!

Please just stop blowing this political "smokescreen" cause it only spreads ignorance, and even though you're trying to sound fair and righteous, you're really just diminishing and slandering the devotion between people that truly love each other by comparing them to ie. murderers.

[Jeril]

No one is born killers, wanting to hurt themselves, or to molest children/animals. These have been researched to be a combination of biological, developmental and experiential factors. Yes, some people may be more psychologically "wired" towards violence, but it takes other factors to make them "snap". Whereas when we're talking about being born gay, that is strictly biological in nature.

As for polygamous relationships, we're talking about a same sex couple having the same rights as a straight couple when it comes to marriage, aren't we? So yes, polygamy is NOT the same (we're not talking about a man wanting to marry two or more other men), so why is it even being compared to? That's its own thing involving other factors, like a man marrying two women, but with no marriage bond between the women, etc., so like Allereli said, apples to oranges. And just cause you "enjoy sex with more than just one person" doesn't give you the basis for love or marriage. Marriage is devotion between people, not getting to sleep around cause you "enjoy" it. That's just an excuse for having your pie and eating it too!

Please just stop blowing this political "smokescreen" cause it only spreads ignorance, and even though you're trying to sound fair and righteous, you're really just diminishing and slandering the devotion between people that truly love each other by comparing them to ie. murderers.

You say apples to oranges and I say you are wrong. In both cases people are only morally opposed to it and in both cases those people show an incredible lack of understanding about the issue in question, your post clearly shows this. You say that marriage is devotion between two people but it is a lot more then that and in this country can often be much less, just look at the divorce rate. The ideal reasons and emotions to get married can exist between more then just two people, and you can hardly measure against the ideal when so few do anyway.

[Warriorbird]

You say apples to oranges and I say you are wrong. In both cases people are only morally opposed to it and in both cases those people show an incredible lack of understanding about the issue in question, your post clearly shows this. You say that marriage is devotion between two people but it is a lot more then that and in this country can often be much less, just look at the divorce rate. The ideal reasons and emotions to get married can exist between more then just two people, and you can hardly measure against the ideal when so few do anyway.

You know enough to know it is still a false equivalency. With that said, if people are stupid enough to want the Muslim equivalent of polygamy? Let them go for it. In America it's mostly an issue due to the issues with fundamentalist Mormonism, which are actually different issues but people who don't want gay people to marry want to drag in more issues to try to attack gay marriage in any way possible. Some of them are in this very thread.

[Parkbandit]

You know enough to know it is still a false equivalency. With that said, if people are stupid enough to want the Muslim equivalent of polygamy? Let them go for it. In America it's mostly an issue due to the issues with fundamentalist Mormonism, which are actually different issues but people who don't want gay people to marry want to drag in more issues to try to attack gay marriage in any way possible. Some of them are in this very thread.

Wait.. if you bring up polygamy.. you are attacking gay marriage?

Stop being so ultra sensitive. Sometimes things aren't actually an attack.

[Warriorbird]

Wait.. if you bring up polygamy.. you are attacking gay marriage?

Stop being so ultra sensitive. Sometimes things aren't actually an attack.

Of course you are. It's the same stuff that got brought up to attack interracial marriage. "Animals! Polygamy! Derp!"

[Parkbandit]

Of course you are. It's the same stuff that got brought up to attack interracial marriage. "Animals! Polygamy! Derp!"

Ok.

So you are being ultra sensitive and can't help it. It's probably just like your all white conservatives are racists rule.

[Warriorbird]

Ok.

So you are being ultra sensitive and can't help it. It's probably just like your all white conservatives are racists rule.

No. You're declaring people ultra sensitive when people are using it as an attack in this thread. Rather unsurprising.

[Parkbandit]

No. You're declaring people ultra sensitive when people are using it as an attack in this thread. Rather unsurprising.

No, I am calling YOU ultra sensitive because YOU believe that anyone who brings up polygamy is attacking gay marriage.

[Jeril]

No, I am calling YOU ultra sensitive because YOU believe that anyone who brings up polygamy is attacking gay marriage.

I think this is true, it isn't an attack on gay marriage but on those who support it in a hypocritical fashion.

[Warriorbird]

No, I am calling YOU ultra sensitive because YOU believe that anyone who brings up polygamy is attacking gay marriage.

Since you're actively trying to have something stupid to have a fight over I'll have to clarify. It's difficult with you being a moron and hyper focusing on particular posts rather than an entire conversation or even the thread that it's in, but that's how you work. When people go "But polygamy!" in a conversation about opposition to gay marriage they are attempting to attack gay marriage. It's pretty obvious to everybody else except maybe Jarvan, but people aren't required to believe he supports gay marriage when he tells people they "Must accept incest and polygamy!"


I think this is true, it isn't an attack on gay marriage but on those who support it in a hypocritical fashion.

Because telling people they must accept incest and polygamy is totally not an attack on gay marriage? You're smarter than that.

[Jeril]

Because telling people they must accept incest and polygamy is totally not an attack on gay marriage? You're smarter than that.

Do you have anything against polygamy and incest when it is between consenting adults? If so, why?

[Warriorbird]

Do you have anything against polygamy and incest when it is between consenting adults? If so, why?

Incest past a certain degree of consanguinity actively damages the gene pool. Apart from that, it's quite legal. As I've previously stated in this thread I don't have a problem with polygamy "between consenting adults" that isn't clearly a tax dodge.

Neither of those have any bearing on my understanding that "YOU MUST ACCEPT INCEST AND POLYGAMY" with no modifiers on it is an attack on gay marriage.

[Parkbandit]

Since you're actively trying to have something stupid to have a fight over I'll have to clarify. It's difficult with you being a moron and hyper focusing on particular posts rather than an entire conversation or even the thread that it's in, but that's how you work. When people go "But polygamy!" in a conversation about opposition to gay marriage they are attempting to attack gay marriage. It's pretty obvious to everybody else except maybe Jarvan, but people aren't required to believe he supports gay marriage when he tells people they "Must accept incest and polygamy!"

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone like you who believes he can read people's minds and he knows what people are thinking. I brought up polygamy and I have no issue with 2 gay people getting married. But in your tiny little head, I must be actually attacking gay marriage because I said something about polygamy.

You're an idiot.

[Warriorbird]

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone like you who believes he can read people's minds and he knows what people are thinking. I brought up polygamy and I have no issue with 2 gay people getting married. But in your tiny little head, I must be actually attacking gay marriage because I said something about polygamy.

You're an idiot.

It's also difficult to have a conversation with a sniper who only comes into a conversation to attack somebody. You "believe you can read people's minds" quite frequently (like your last post) but it's only an issue to you when you claim somebody else is.

It doesn't matter if you believe you have "no issue with gay people getting married." Jarvan declared that people who accept gay marriage "Must accept incest and polygamy!" He claims he doesn't have any issue with it either. It doesn't mean it isn't an attack on it. I'd love to see how you brought it up related to gay marriage in a way that wasn't an attack.

[Jeril]

Incest past a certain degree of consanguinity actively damages the gene pool. Apart from that, it's quite legal. As I've previously stated in this thread I don't have a problem with polygamy "between consenting adults" that isn't clearly a tax dodge.

Neither of those have any bearing on my understanding that "YOU MUST ACCEPT INCEST AND POLYGAMY" with no modifiers on it is an attack on gay marriage.

Most people who don't put the modifiers are making the assumption that you are going to be a reasonable adult about it and assume that those modifiers are there. Much in the same way that we assume a normal marriage is between consenting adults. People like me only put those modifiers on there in the hopes of stopping stupid back and forth word games that other people use as a lame defense.

[Warriorbird]

Most people who don't put the modifiers are making the assumption that you are going to be a reasonable adult about it and assume that those modifiers are there. Much in the same way that we assume a normal marriage is between consenting adults. People like me only put those modifiers on there in the hopes of stopping stupid back and forth word games that other people use as a lame defense.

It doesn't mean it isn't still a false equivalence or an attack (the second being all I claimed). It doesn't also mean that Jarvan is those most people. I'm more willing to give Parkbandit the benefit of the doubt (deserve it or not) but I still haven't seen how he posted it.

[Jeril]

It doesn't mean it isn't still a false equivalence or an attack. It doesn't also mean that Jarvan is those most people. I'm more willing to give Parkbandit the benefit of the doubt (deserve it or not) but I still haven't seen how he posted it.

Why do you consider it a false equivalence? I also never said it wasn't an attack, I simply disagree with the target of said attack.


e·quiv·a·lence
[ih-kwiv-uh-luhns or for 3, ee-kwuh-vey-luhns] Show IPA
noun Also, equivalency (for defs 1, 2).
1.
the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, significance, etc.
2.
an instance of this; an equivalent.
3.
Chemistry . the quality of having equal valence.
4.
Logic, Mathematics .
a.
Also called material implication. the relation between two propositions such that the second is not false when the first is true.
b.
Also called material equivalence. the relation between two propositions such that they are either both true or both false.
c.
the relation between two propositions such that each logically implies the other.
adjective
5.
(of a logical or mathematical relationship) reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive.

[Parkbandit]

It's also difficult to have a conversation with a sniper who only comes into a conversation to attack somebody. You "believe you can read people's minds" quite frequently (like your last post) but it's only an issue to you when you claim somebody else is.

I posted in the thread already.. and it was about polygamy. Then you came in, sniped "If you bring up polygamy, you are attacking gay marriage!" I pointed out how not everything is an attack and it's gone downhill via your stupidity from there.


It doesn't matter if you believe you have "no issue with gay people getting married." I have declared you did and there is no alternative.

This is essentially what you are actually saying.

[panapple]

You say apples to oranges and I say you are wrong. In both cases people are only morally opposed to it and in both cases those people show an incredible lack of understanding about the issue in question, your post clearly shows this. You say that marriage is devotion between two people but it is a lot more then that and in this country can often be much less, just look at the divorce rate. The ideal reasons and emotions to get married can exist between more then just two people, and you can hardly measure against the ideal when so few do anyway.

I agree, people do show an incredible lack of understanding about gay marriage, evident in this thread. Please tell me you're gay, Jeril, that'd be so cool, lol. Also, then I can't say that your post clearly shows that you lack understanding of one of the fundamental reasons (of course I know there are many more facets involved with marriage) why gays are fighting for this right. It also shows how much people are taking marriage for granted, which by looking at the divorce rate, is much higher in straight marriages. So I guess gays are the "few" that do measure the ideal... so far. Harder to take for granted, when it's so hard to come by.

Also, nowhere in my post do I say marriage (in general) is between just TWO people. But in this thread about gay marriage, we're talking about gays having the same rights as a straight marriage in the US, which IS between TWO people. That's why bringing in polygamy, as Warriorbird said, is a false equivalency and shouldn't even be an issue to compare against, and I won't even presume to know enough about it to do so. And unless you're a polygamist, I would hope people would have enough common courtesy not to presume what they want either.

But I'll be a super optimist here, and say that it's encouraging to see that despite the ridiculous comparisons being thrown out, people are saying they are not entirely against the idea of gay marriage. It's a start, and I'll leave this thread on that "positive" note.

[Warriorbird]

I posted in the thread already.. and it was about polygamy. Then you came in, sniped "If you bring up polygamy, you are attacking gay marriage!" I pointed out how not everything is an attack and it's gone downhill via your stupidity from there.



This is essentially what you are actually saying.

Except not. I came into the thread in response to someone suggesting that saying gay marriage and polygamy were the same was a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Then you decided to get butthurt because you apparently somehow brought up polygamy related to gay marriage in a way that wasn't an attack. I'd still like to see that.

EDIT:

Because you didn't. You just defended polygamy. Your point is invalid.

[Wrathbringer]

Polygamy is fine unless it's gay polygamy. That's just gross.

[Wrathbringer]

No one is born killers, wanting to hurt themselves, or to molest children/animals. These have been researched to be a combination of biological, developmental and experiential factors. Yes, some people may be more psychologically "wired" towards violence, but it takes other factors to make them "snap". Whereas when we're talking about being born gay, that is strictly biological in nature.

Source?

[Parkbandit]

Except not. I came into the thread in response to someone suggesting that saying gay marriage and polygamy were the same was a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Then you decided to get butthurt because you apparently somehow brought up polygamy related to gay marriage in a way that wasn't an attack. I'd still like to see that.

EDIT:

Because you didn't. You just defended polygamy. Your point is invalid.

It's scary you actually teach our young... and that some of them actually look at you as someone intelligent.

I simply stated that if someone brings up polygamy, it's not necessarily an attack on gay marriage. That's it.

The only one butthurt here is you.

[Jeril]

Also, nowhere in my post do I say marriage (in general) is between just TWO people. But in this thread about gay marriage, we're talking about gays having the same rights as a straight marriage in the US, which IS between TWO people. That's why bringing in polygamy, as Warriorbird said, is a false equivalency and shouldn't even be an issue to compare against, and I won't even presume to know enough about it to do so. And unless you're a polygamist, I would hope people would have enough common courtesy not to presume what they want either.


The whole marriage between two people is part of the whole it being a moral issue. People are/were opposed to gay marriage for moral reasons. If you can recognize that it is a moral issue and that the main concern should be that the parties involved are consenting when the people are gay, why can't you do the same for the other situations?

[Warriorbird]

It's scary you actually teach our young... and that some of them actually look at you as someone intelligent.

I simply stated that if someone brings up polygamy, it's not necessarily an attack on gay marriage. That's it.

The only one butthurt here is you.

I'm sure your children look up to you too. I wonder if they know just how often you call people stupid. Maybe, just maybe, it's slightly off base from reality.

You somehow deciding that me making a point about false equivalences had something to do with you defending polygamy is just sad.


The whole marriage between two people is part of the whole it being a moral issue. People are/were opposed to gay marriage for moral reasons. If you can recognize that it is a moral issue and that the main concern should be that the parties involved are consenting when the people are gay, why can't you do the same for the other situations?

It's just most people can. You talk about how bad liberals are when doing the same thing you claim they do.

[Elantari]

Hmmm....


Wait.. if you bring up marriage between a man and his dog.. you are attacking gay marriage? Stop being so ultra sensitive. Sometimes things aren't actually an attack.

[Elantari]

Look at the little neo-con fluffing his intellectual tutu:


I simply stated that if someone brings up marrying their pet, it's not necessarily an attack on gay marriage. That's it.

We know exactly what racist, homophobic bigots like you are up to, PigBandit. Stop trying to play innocent. Anyways, we all know you lost your innocence when your little sister pinned you down so her black, ex-con boyfriend could fist you.

[Jeril]

It's just most people can. You talk about how bad liberals are when doing the same thing you claim they do.

If most people can it would be a simple enough thing to tell people like Jarvan that you agree with what he said and move on instead of trying to pick at it.


You talk about how bad liberals are when doing the same thing you claim they do.

Example?

[Warriorbird]

If most people can it would be a simple enough thing to tell people like Jarvan that you agree with what he said and move on instead of trying to pick at it.

The suggestion that people must agree with marrying pets, parents, or a grand series of people if they support gay marriage is always nonsense. Why wouldn't you point that out?



Example?


If you can recognize that it is a moral issue and that the main concern should be that the parties involved are consenting when the people are gay, why can't you do the same for the other situations?

You're doing what you complain about because most people here can. I suspect that (other than in Utah) if you polled supporters of gay marriage they'd end up being a lot more likely to accept polygamy than opposers of it.

[Androidpk]

Polygamy is fine unless it's gay polygamy. That's just gross.

Talk about a circle jerk. Literally.

[Jeril]

The suggestion that people must agree with marrying pets, parents, or a grand series of people if they support gay marriage is always nonsense. Why wouldn't you point that out?

The pets part is silly. But why don't you stop and think about why people want to get married then apply it? And I haven't said that they must agree, simply that if they do disagree they are being hypocrites.

[Warriorbird]

The pets part is silly. But why don't you stop and think about why people want to get married then apply it? And I haven't said that they must agree, simply that if they do disagree they are being hypocrites.

I always find conservative defenses of moral relativism entertaining. It'd certainly be a lot closer if it were just polygamy. Unfortunately for your lot I tend to hear pets and incest much sooner (which is funnier because most cousin based incest actually is legal... who knew West Virginia actually had political power?).

[Jeril]

I always find conservative defenses of moral relativism entertaining. It'd certainly be a lot closer if it were just polygamy. Unfortunately for your lot I tend to hear pets and incest much sooner (which is funnier because most cousin based incest actually is legal... who knew West Virginia actually had political power?).

Why do you feel the need to try and label me? Especially incorrectly?

[Warriorbird]

Why do you feel the need to try and label me? Especially incorrectly?

Why does everybody want to label themselves an independent?

[waywardgs]

Affording a homosexual couple the same liberties and rights we give heterosexual couples has nothing to do with incest, bestiality OR polygamy, and it's ridiculous to make the comparison. If you feel the need to discuss those, by all means, go ahead- but it's got nothing to do with gay marriage.

[Tenlaar]

Nobody is saying that they are related to gay marriage. They are saying that they are related to the same moral judgements about what is "right" that have kept gay people from being able to marry for all of these years.

The argument is not that if you accept gay marriage you have to accept polygamy and incest. The argument is that if you oppose restrictions placed on peoples' personal relationships due to moral arguments you must oppose it across the board, or you are a hypocrite.

[Jeril]

Why does everybody want to label themselves an independent?

You could label me nothing, I don't want to be lumped into a group of people. Along with those labels come stereotypes that I want no part of. I also don't agree with either side on several issues so putting me in one camp or another is a mistake.


Affording a homosexual couple the same liberties and rights we give heterosexual couples has nothing to do with incest, bestiality OR polygamy, and it's ridiculous to make the comparison. If you feel the need to discuss those, by all means, go ahead- but it's got nothing to do with gay marriage.


Nobody is saying that they are related to gay marriage. They are saying that they are related to the same moral judgements about what is "right" that have kept gay people from being able to marry for all of these years.

The argument is not that if you accept gay marriage you have to accept polygamy and incest. The argument is that if you oppose restrictions placed on peoples' personal relationships due to moral arguments you must oppose it across the board, or you are a hypocrite.

Just take out the bestiality, I don't care what some nut jobs may say but an animal can't consent to it because they can't understand it.

[Tenlaar]

Yeah, I left bestiality out because that really is in no way related to consenting adults. It being included is a clear sign to me when an argument is being made from a place of "but my book of choice says these are wrong."

[Hightower]

Do you have anything against polygamy and incest when it is between consenting adults? If so, why?

Well, you could argue against incest on the grounds that it is likely to cause significant harm in the event of pregnancy. But the moral aspect is a social convention. I can't say for certain, but I expect somewhere along the line people realized that brother and sister marrying each other was a bad idea because of the children it produces. That explains the extreme negative reaction we have to it. If brother and sister were unable to procreate and produce offspring with...problems, then it's likely we never would have developed this reaction and Jeril would have a good chance of being married to Jerilette.

I agree with the point, but in practice I don't see any good coming from legalizing incest. Subjective, I'll grant you, but law itself is subjective. It's a social contract. In the case of gay marriage, the population is increasingly in favor of allowing people to make their own decisions, and affording them the same rights as anyone else. So no marrying dogs and cats, no polygamy, and no incest. We'll cross that bridge if it ever comes up. I'm betting that in the case of polygamy, eventually it will. Incest and horse-love? Not so much.

~Taverkin

[Hightower]

Wait.. if you bring up polygamy.. you are attacking gay marriage?

Stop being so ultra sensitive. Sometimes things aren't actually an attack.


Wow. Do people like yourself and Latrinsorm actually read the responses you come up with? What are you, retarded? No, of course not. You're just here to win the internet! Get over yourselves!

You know perfectly well what he's saying. While bringing up polygamy isn't itself related to gay marriage, it's on the short list of items that are given as arguments against gay marriage. As Jeril and others point out, the logical defense of gay marriage applies equally to polygamy (although not to incest and horse-love!), thus it would appear at first glance to be a valid criticism. However, it is taken out of context. Please see my previous post regarding the social contract for more information!

~Taverkin

[waywardgs]

Homosexuality is biological in nature. Polygamy is not. Not related.

[Parkbandit]

Nobody is saying that they are related to gay marriage. They are saying that they are related to the same moral judgements about what is "right" that have kept gay people from being able to marry for all of these years.

The argument is not that if you accept gay marriage you have to accept polygamy and incest. The argument is that if you oppose restrictions placed on peoples' personal relationships due to moral arguments you must oppose it across the board, or you are a hypocrite.

You brought up polygamy and therefore you are attacking gay marriage.

[Parkbandit]

Homosexuality is biological in nature. Polygamy is not. Not related.

If polygamy isn't biological in nature, then you would have sex with 1 person your entire life.

Yes, I know.. I'm attacking gay marriage.

[Parkbandit]

Wow. Do people like yourself and Latrinsorm actually read the responses you come up with? What are you, retarded? No, of course not. You're just here to win the internet! Get over yourselves!

You know perfectly well what he's saying. While bringing up polygamy isn't itself related to gay marriage, it's on the short list of items that are given as arguments against gay marriage. As Jeril and others point out, the logical defense of gay marriage applies equally to polygamy (although not to incest and horse-love!), thus it would appear at first glance to be a valid criticism. However, it is taken out of context. Please see my previous post regarding the social contract for more information!

~Taverkin

I see absolutely no distinction between gay marriage and polygamy.. as long as they are all consenting adults. Neither one is for me, but I don't care what other people do.

[waywardgs]

If polygamy isn't biological in nature, then you would have sex with 1 person your entire life.

Yes, I know.. I'm attacking gay marriage.

Having sex with more than one person is a choice. Being attracted to one sex vs the other isn't. That's the difference.

[Parkbandit]

Having sex with more than one person is a choice. Bein attracted to one sex vs the other isn't. That's the difference.

So you don't believe there is a biological urge people have to mate with other people?

[waywardgs]

And bring up polygamy all you like, but the two have nothing to do with one another.

[Parkbandit]

And bring up polygamy all you like, but the two have nothing to do with one another.

Because you say so?

ok.

[waywardgs]

So you don't believe there is a biological urge people have to mate with other people?

So you believe wanting to fuck a bunch of people is equivalent to the overriding context of what sex a person is attracted to? Keep in mind I don't care either way about polygamy and I'm in favor of giving people equal rights, but it's not a useful comparison.

[Parkbandit]

So you believe wanting to fuck a bunch of people is equivalent to the overriding context of what sex a person is attracted to? Keep in mind I don't care either way about polygamy and I'm in favor of giving people equal rights, but it's not a useful comparison.

I believe that the government has no business in anyone's sexual business between consenting adults.

If the essence of marriage is the right to marry who you love then I don't see how we can say yes to one and no to the other.

I do not see the difference.

[waywardgs]

I believe that the government has no business in anyone's sexual business between consenting adults.

If the essence of marriage is the right to marry who you love then I don't see how we can say yes to one and no to the other.

I do not see the difference.

I agree that both should be allowed, but not because they are somehow morally equivalent.

[Parkbandit]

I agree that both should be allowed, but not because they are somehow morally equivalent.

I just illustrated why they are considered morally equivalent.

[waywardgs]

I just illustrated why they are considered morally equivalent.

If you say so, bud.

[Candor]

Consenting is the keyword.

If you allow polygamy, you will create an environment where many women (especially younger women) will be forced into relationships they do not want to have. You say the woman will have to "consent", but certain religions and families will exert vast pressure to force the woman to "consent".

News flash guys: Most women will not enter a polygamous relationship of their own free will. Duh.

[Gelston]

Regular arranged marriages exist to. The obvious answer is to get rid of all marriage since 1 spouse may not have been fully consenting.

[Dwaar]

So you believe wanting to fuck a bunch of people is equivalent to the overriding context of what sex a person is attracted to? Keep in mind I don't care either way about polygamy and I'm in favor of giving people equal rights, but it's not a useful comparison.

World English Dictionary

nymphomania (ˌnɪmfəˈmeɪnɪə)

— n
Compare satyriasis a neurotic condition in women in which the symptoms are a compulsion to have sexual intercourse with as many men as possible and an inability to have lasting relationships with them

---- I don't say it... the doctors and science do.

[Dwaar]

If you allow polygamy, you will create an environment where many women (especially younger women) will be forced into relationships they do not want to have. You say the woman will have to "consent", but certain religions and families will exert vast pressure to force the woman to "consent".

News flash guys: Most women will not enter a polygamous relationship of their own free will. Duh.

bi·sex·u·al adjective \(ˌ)bī-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -shəl\

: sexually attracted to both men and women

: having both male and female sex parts

: relating to or involving two sexes

Full Definition of BISEXUAL

a : possessing characters of both sexes : hermaphroditic

b : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes

: of, relating to, or involving both sexes


---- I don't say it... doctors and science do.

If you allow gay marriage, you will create an EVIRONMENT where many men/women (especially younger - children) will be forced/persuaded into relationships they may not want to have. You say the man/woman will have to "consent" but certain "organizations" and families will exert vast pressure to force the man/woman to "consent".

[Taernath]

If you allow gay marriage, you will create an EVIRONMENT where many men/women (especially younger - children) will be forced/persuaded into relationships they may not want to have. You say the man/woman will have to "consent" but certain "organizations" and families will exert vast pressure to force the man/woman to "consent".

So gay marriage leads to rape and pedophilia. That's a completely logical argument.

[Gelston]

So gay marriage leads to rape and pedophilia. That's a completely logical argument.

Couldn't you just change a few words in Dwaar's statement and make it an argument against straight marriage? Was this his intent?

[Candor]

If you allow gay marriage, you will create an EVIRONMENT where many men/women (especially younger - children) will be forced/persuaded into relationships they may not want to have. You say the man/woman will have to "consent" but certain "organizations" and families will exert vast pressure to force the man/woman to "consent".

Our society does not have a significant problem with people being forced into gay marriages. I'm not saying it's never happened (although I personally haven't heard of such a case), but I think it is safe to say it is pretty rare. As gay marriage becomes more acceptable the problem might increase a bit, but I guess I don't ever see it becoming a major problem.

Women being forced into polygamous relationships is, however, a problem.

Comparing the two issues makes no sense.

[Taernath]

Couldn't you just change a few words in Dwaar's statement and make it an argument against straight marriage? Was this his intent?

Oh, he was quoting/parodying Candor, I think. NEVERMIND

[Dwaar]

So gay marriage leads to rape and pedophilia. That's a completely logical argument.

I am NOT saying gay marriage leads to that. Holy hell. Did you read what I was replying to? Candor said that the reason polygamy is different than gay marriage was what he typed. I simply added the definition of bi-sexual, and how due to ENVIRONMENT, could unduly sway others to one lifestyle or another... as he made the argument that polygamy would force women into marriage.

AGAIN.. I don't care if people are gay... I think both gay and straight people should be able to have civil unions in regards to how the government sees them. But all of the arguments that people hate about "polygamy" is absurd, considering the exact same things can be said about gay marriage.

It is not simply, "well people are born gay and you don't understand". People are born MANY different ways, some people deem socially acceptable, while others they do not. I'm simply asking the question.... WHERE is the line drawn.

I'm very liberal about what people want to do with their lives.. so long as they do not hurt others physically or mentally. Otherwise do what you want. I am arguing the merits of your all trying to defend gay marriage, but the simple idea of polygamy is wrong in your eyes though. I want to know why you think this way.

[Dwaar]

Our society does not have a significant problem with people being forced into gay marriages. I'm not saying it's never happened (although I personally haven't heard of such a case), but I think it is safe to say it is pretty rare.

Women being forced into polygamous relationships is, however, a problem.

Comparing the two issues makes no sense.

I'm not saying one is more of an issue than the other. But I do find the way you stated your case against polygamy, off.. because you use the term "environment", "younger", "forced/persuaded", "vast pressure"...... all can be applied to gay marriage as well.

Additionally.. I have tried in every post to make sure to say "consenting adults"... any argument that someone would be forced to do something should be condemned no matter what the action that is occurring. Forcing someone to do anything is wrong no matter what.

[Candor]

I'm not saying one is more of an issue than the other. But I do find the way you stated your case against polygamy, off.. because you use the term "environment", "younger", "forced/persuaded", "vast pressure"...... all can be applied to gay marriage as well.

Additionally.. I have tried in every post to make sure to say "consenting adults"... any argument that someone would be forced to do something should be condemned no matter what the action that is occurring. Forcing someone to do anything is wrong no matter what.

You allow polygamy, you are going to increase the number of woman forced into these relationships. IMHO, it will be a lot of women. Why that doesn't give you pause, I don't understand.

[Parkbandit]

You allow polygamy, you are going to increase the number of woman forced into these relationships. IMHO, it will be a lot of women. Why that doesn't give you pause, I don't understand.

Are the number of women forced into polygamy greater than the number of women forced into traditional marriage?

[Dwaar]

You allow polygamy, you are going to increase the number of woman forced into these relationships. IMHO, it will be a lot of women. Why that doesn't give you pause, I don't understand.

Okay... so that is your social argument against Polygamy. That it would result in women being "forced" into relationships. So for you that is a societal line you think should not be crossed. Do I have this correct?

I can infer from your statement, that you then believe that polygamy is wrong, because those that practice it would negatively affect society.

So the actions of a bad person (ie. man forcing a woman to marry him), can only occur in a polygamous relationship. So the actions of a bad person should influence what we allow CONSENTING ADULTS to do?


---- And again you just read over the part where I go out of my way to say "consenting adults" and forcing someone to do anything they don't want to, regardless of the action is wrong. Stop trying to make it seem like that I think forcing a woman or man to do anything is okay.

[Dwaar]

No one is born killers, wanting to hurt themselves, or to molest children/animals. These have been researched to be a combination of biological, developmental and experiential factors. Yes, some people may be more psychologically "wired" towards violence, but it takes other factors to make them "snap". Whereas when we're talking about being born gay, that is strictly biological in nature.

As for polygamous relationships, we're talking about a same sex couple having the same rights as a straight couple when it comes to marriage, aren't we? So yes, polygamy is NOT the same (we're not talking about a man wanting to marry two or more other men), so why is it even being compared to? That's its own thing involving other factors, like a man marrying two women, but with no marriage bond between the women, etc., so like Allereli said, apples to oranges. And just cause you "enjoy sex with more than just one person" doesn't give you the basis for love or marriage. Marriage is devotion between people, not getting to sleep around cause you "enjoy" it. That's just an excuse for having your pie and eating it too!

Please just stop blowing this political "smokescreen" cause it only spreads ignorance, and even though you're trying to sound fair and righteous, you're really just diminishing and slandering the devotion between people that truly love each other by comparing them to ie. murderers.

You contradict yourself so much in this, it's amazing. You say "been researched to be a combination of BIOLOGICAL, developmental and experiential factors. Then you go on to say, "some may be more psychologically wired towards violence, bit it takes other factors to make them snap".

So you agree that people are BORN a certain way, but try to make the argument that it is not the same as those BORN gay. Some may be more physiologically wired towards enjoying sex with the same sex, but it takes other factors to make them accept that. Is that not true?

Some may be more physiologically wired to do violence http://www.hgalert.org/topics/behavGenetics/geneticsviolence.html (and lots more research on it).... but we as a society have deemed violent behavior not acceptable. But using your argument... "they were BORN that way", so it must be okay... that is YOUR argument. Then you caveat it, by saying oh it's not the same though.

I am not diminishing or slandering anything. I am saying that you can not simply make the argument, "well people are BORN gay!" and then just ignore all the other ways people are born. People are born ALL TYPES of ways. Some society deems acceptable, others society does not.

I am simply trying to understand where people draw the line. I fully understand people are born certain ways, I also fully understand that we accept some and don't others. Where is that line eventually drawn... and that line will always be changing.

[Hightower]

Having sex with more than one person is a choice. Being attracted to one sex vs the other isn't. That's the difference.

It's a difference, true. However, the distinction is arbitrary. Why does it matter how many people you marry and/or have sex with? To some people, having sex outside of marriage is frowned upon. For others having sex with just one person your entire life is strange. What's the difference?

Edit: Alright, on second thought, that doesn't really answer the question. What I'm saying is, I can see where they're coming from. Marriage itself is just a social construct. We assign all of its significance. We don't change the biological basis for attraction one bit in doing so. From my perspective, the moral question is one of harm. It's very much a subjective interpretation as law, by nature, must be. And from that perspective, it's difficult to see how polygamy itself is morally objectionable (logical morality, not religious-based!).

~Taverkin

[waywardgs]

It's a difference, true. However, the distinction is arbitrary. Why does it matter how many people you marry and/or have sex with? To some people, having sex outside of marriage is frowned upon. For others having sex with just one person your entire life is strange. What's the difference?

Edit: Alright, on second thought, that doesn't really answer the question. What I'm saying is, I can see where they're coming from. Marriage itself is just a social construct. We assign all of its significance. We don't change the biological basis for attraction one bit in doing so. From my perspective, the moral question is one of harm. It's very much a subjective interpretation as law, by nature, must be. And from that perspective, it's difficult to see how polygamy itself is morally objectionable (logical morality, not religious-based!).

~Taverkin

I don't object to polygamy if it's in good faith and not just a group of people interested in reducing their tax exposure. Frany I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating marriage at all- the term shouldn't even appear on the law books. Civil unions, and open to all consenting adults. As far as polygamy, there should probably be some kind of limit to the number of people involved. Sure such a limit will be arbitrary, but do we really want a whole town claiming civil union? Let's say... 5? Heh. Who knows.

[Jarvan]

two of them are a lifestyle choice, one is not. The gay marriage movement is based on the fact that people are born gay, and do not choose to be so. it's not about being against polyamorous relationships, it's that you don't understand that gay is not a choice.

incest is not so outlawed when it comes to first cousins http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx in general it's bad for the gene pool.

Gene pool argument would be valid if there was like.. 20k or less people in the pool. As it is now, there is just a chance for mutations, damaged genes, or such. Frankly, the odds are higher for those same issues for women over 43 that have kids. So if you say that for example, a father and daughter can't get married cause they could have a child with a disability, then you should say women over 43 can't have kids for the same reason.

I know it's hard for some of the people here to imagine, but I don't agree with polygamy myself, nor incest. But the point is it's still a moral issue.

I understand gay is not a choice. That is immaterial to the discussion.

Ultimately it is the same thing. If one one loves another woman, there is nothing wrong with that. If both women also love the same man, who loves them, now it's wrong? Every argument I have ever heard for gay marriage would also apply to polygamy and incest. I just find it funny when gay rights advocates get bent out of shape when you want to extend those same rights to those other groups. I know why they do, because they generally think you are using it as an argument Against gay rights. But this is not always the case.

[Dwaar]

Gene pool argument would be valid if there was like.. 20k or less people in the pool. As it is now, there is just a chance for mutations, damaged genes, or such. Frankly, the odds are higher for those same issues for women over 43 that have kids. So if you say that for example, a father and daughter can't get married cause they could have a child with a disability, then you should say women over 43 can't have kids for the same reason.

I know it's hard for some of the people here to imagine, but I don't agree with polygamy myself, nor incest. But the point is it's still a moral issue.

I understand gay is not a choice. That is immaterial to the discussion.

Ultimately it is the same thing. If one one loves another woman, there is nothing wrong with that. If both women also love the same man, who loves them, now it's wrong? Every argument I have ever heard for gay marriage would also apply to polygamy and incest. I just find it funny when gay rights advocates get bent out of shape when you want to extend those same rights to those other groups. I know why they do, because they generally think you are using it as an argument Against gay rights. But this is not always the case.

Agree Jarvan... I think people are taking my talking points (or others), as being against gay marriage. I'm not.

I simply detest hypocrisy and am trying to figure out, what is the line we draw something at, and why. I don't care either way.

If an argument to support gay marriage is used, and that same argument is used to support another alternative lifestyle, it amazes me that people get worked up. They come up with all types of reasons why that is "wrong" or "you don't understand" or "it's not the same". Makes me laugh really.

We all accept certain things, I'm trying to understand why people accept one thing, but not another. I can really only think, deep down it just "feels" wrong. You can't say why it does, it just does. Then you will try to manipulate the argument any way you can to support that "feeling", when all logical arguments can be made to support either idea.

[Warriorbird]

False equivalences are false equivalences. Your assertions have no particular effect on that.

You're building up a straw man RE: people who support gay rights being against polygamy however.

[Dwaar]

False equivalences are false equivalences. Your assertions have no particular effect on that.

You're building up a straw man RE: people who support gay rights being against polygamy however.

Again, no I'm not. I'm using the very arguments people use to support gay marriage, to support the idea of polygamy.

Others are saying that is wrong to do. Not for any real reason, you all just simply say "it's not the same".

That same argument was used to fight against the idea of gay marriage, by those that only support straight marriage. When another alternative lifestyle is offered as a counterpoint, it's pure hypocrisy to all of a sudden say, "oh it's just wrong", or "that's different, its a choice", or "well they aren't born that way"; when science proves people are born all types of different ways.

[Warriorbird]

When another alternative lifestyle is offered as a counterpoint, it's pure hypocrisy to all of a sudden say, "oh it's just wrong", or "that's different, its a choice", or "well they aren't born that way"; when science proves people are born all types of different ways.

Nobody's actually done that which makes it extra silly.


Agree Jarvan... I think people are taking my talking points (or others), as being against gay marriage. I'm not.


Instead you just want to be a jerk to people who support it. Got it. That's very pro gay marriage.

[waywardgs]

Again, no I'm not. I'm using the very arguments people use to support gay marriage, to support the idea of polygamy.

Others are saying that is wrong to do. Not for any real reason, you all just simply say "it's not the same".

That same argument was used to fight against the idea of gay marriage, by those that only support straight marriage. When another alternative lifestyle is offered as a counterpoint, it's pure hypocrisy to all of a sudden say, "oh it's just wrong", or "that's different, its a choice", or "well they aren't born that way"; when science proves people are born all types of different ways.

Again, people aren't "born polygamous." That's like saying people are born doctors or stock brokers or Christian or whatever else. It's something you become. That's distinctly different than being born gay or with red hair or seven feet tall.

Edit: that's a damn big baby.

[Candor]

Again, people aren't "born polygamous." That's like saying people are born doctors or stock brokers or Christian or whatever else. It's something you become. That's distinctly different than being born gay or with red hair or seven feet tall.

I predict some people will start saying they are born polygamous if the issue makes a ballot.

[Parkbandit]

False equivalences are false equivalences. Your assertions have no particular effect on that.

You're building up a straw man RE: people who support gay rights being against polygamy however.

What about your straw man RE: People who bring up polygamy are attacking gay marriage?

[Parkbandit]

Again, people aren't "born polygamous."

We sure about that?

There are many, many examples in the animal world where 1 male takes multiple partners. Americans don't do it because society has determined that it's not morally right.. but there are many cultures around the world that practice polygamy.

[Warriorbird]

What about your straw man RE: People who bring up polygamy are attacking gay marriage?

Primarily the construction of you. I do think Jarvan and Dwaar are attacking gay marriage in spite of their claims. You weren't even discussing gay marriage with what you said, so it's a really silly point to cling to (not that that's ever stopped you before).

[Tisket]

Again, people aren't "born polygamous."

Well, we aren't born monogamous either.

Or so a cheating ex-boyfriend once told me.

[Parkbandit]

Primarily the construction of you. I do think Jarvan and Dwaar are attacking gay marriage in spite of their claims. You weren't even discussing gay marriage with what you said, so it's a really silly point to cling to (not that that's ever stopped you before).

You do realize this is the "WISCONSIN GAY MARRIAGE" thread.. right?

And you "think" they are attacking gay marriage, even though both have stated a number of times they are not opposed to it?

You "think"?

You are a real piece of work. Keep up the hypocrisy.

[Dwaar]

Primarily the construction of you. I do think Jarvan and Dwaar are attacking gay marriage in spite of their claims. You weren't even discussing gay marriage with what you said, so it's a really silly point to cling to (not that that's ever stopped you before).

And this is what stalls a conversation. You can only "think" Jarvan and I are attacking gay marriage. We are not what so ever. You just don't want to accept, that the arguments made for gay marriage, could apply to something as simple as polygamy.

It is such an easy out to just say "you don't get it" or "you hate gay marriage" and end the conversation. This whole time I have asked the question... and my reason for joining in this conversation...

Where do people draw the line on certain behaviors, when people are born certain ways. How do we as a society deem an act acceptable, but something else as not?

Just like I said many posts back, the simple argument, "well people are born gay, but not violent or polygamous or hyper-sexualized or any number of other things" is absurd. People are born all types of ways. WB, you just seem to think it's okay to support one lifestyle, but not another. I'm trying to get at the root of why that is.

[Warriorbird]

You do realize this is the "WISCONSIN GAY MARRIAGE" thread.. right?

And you "think" they are attacking gay marriage, even though both have stated a number of times they are not opposed to it?

You "think"?

You are a real piece of work. Keep up the hypocrisy.

Because thinking that you not referring to gay marriage at all yet defending polygamy is completely unrelated to that title is somehow hypocritical.

In addition, just because somebody says they feel one way doesn't make it so.

That shovel broke there. As expected though.


And this is what stalls a conversation. You can only "think" Jarvan and I are attacking gay marriage. We are not what so ever. You just don't want to accept, that the arguments made for gay marriage, could apply to something as simple as polygamy.

It is such an easy out to just say "you don't get it" or "you hate gay marriage" and end the conversation. This whole time I have asked the question... and my reason for joining in this conversation...

Where do people draw the line on certain behaviors, when people are born certain ways. How do we as a society deem an act acceptable, but something else as not?

Just like I said many posts back, the simple argument, "well people are born gay, but not violent or polygamous or hyper-sexualized or any number of other things" is absurd. People are born all types of ways. WB, you just seem to think it's okay to support one lifestyle, but not another. I'm trying to get at the root of why that is.

This would have a point if I didn't support both of them.

Far more likely to be disguised reactionary thinking in the claimed service of "liberty." Your aim isn't to get polygamy and incest approved of, just to attack people who support gay marriage.

[Tgo01]

So you are saying we shouldn't do something because it would be too hard.

-chuckles-

I know you are not saying that exactly, but that's the argument a lot would use.

I'm weak :(

[Androidpk]

We sure about that?

There are many, many examples in the animal world where 1 male takes multiple partners. Americans don't do it because society has determined that it's not morally right.. but there are many cultures around the world that practice polygamy.

I'm not sure why it even matters. People aren't born with religion yet we don't discount people because they choose to become a Christian or Muslim or Pastafarian. If someone is all for gay marriage then it seems pretty odd for them to be against polygamy.

[Dwaar]

I'm not sure why it even matters. People aren't born with religion yet we don't discount people because they choose to become a Christian or Muslim or Pastafarian. If someone is all for gay marriage then it seems pretty odd for them to be against polygamy.

Exactly!

I know this is just a forum with a few voices, it's just so interesting to try and understand the dynamics of WHY certain things are rationalized, and others are not. Really does intrigue me where that distinction occurs and why.

[Warriorbird]

Exactly!

I know this is just a forum with a few voices, it's just so interesting to try and understand the dynamics of WHY certain things are rationalized, and others are not. Really does intrigue me where that distinction occurs and why.

I'm still waiting to find these straw people who are in favor of gay marriage but opposed to polygamy.

[Dwaar]

I'm still waiting to find these straw people who are in favor of gay marriage but opposed to polygamy.

Just read back through this thread. A number of people have argued for gay marriage, but tried to make an argument for why that is... hmmm.. natural I guess?, but polygamy is not. Or any other action that occurs because they are "born" with that desire/inclination/pre-disposition.

I'm trying to determine the rationale behind people feeling or acceptancing of certain ways of life, as opposed to others. Gay marriage and polygamy, just happen to be the two examples we are using in this thread.

[Warriorbird]

Just read back through this thread. A number of people have argued for gay marriage, but tried to make an argument for why that is... hmmm.. natural I guess?, but polygamy is not. Or any other action that occurs because they are "born" with that desire/inclination/pre-disposition.

I'm trying to determine the rationale behind people feeling or acceptancing of certain ways of life, as opposed to others. Gay marriage and polygamy, just happen to be the two examples we are using in this thread.

Seems to me like more people suggesting that false equivalences shouldn't be part of the debate.

[Dwaar]

Seems to me like more people suggesting that false equivalences shouldn't be part of the debate.

/sigh

It is not a false equivalence. People argue "people are born gay". Hence gay marriage (rightly so) should be allowed, because those "born straight" are allowed to marry.

I simply say, "people are born" with desires to be any number of things. What makes those things wrong, but being "born gay" is accepted by most. It is exactly the same argument. I am just trying to understand why that is.

[Warriorbird]

/sigh

It is not a false equivalence. People argue "people are born gay". Hence gay marriage (rightly so) should be allowed, because those "born straight" are allowed to marry.

I simply say, "people are born" with desires to be any number of things. What makes those things wrong, but being "born gay" is accepted by most. It is exactly the same argument. I am just trying to understand why that is.

And this right here is what makes you think people oppose it. I don't oppose polygamy. You can repeat it after me a few times if you want. I just don't think it belongs in this discussion.

[Dwaar]

And this right here is what makes you think people oppose it. I don't oppose polygamy. You can repeat it after me a few times if you want. I just don't think it belongs in this discussion.

I don't support or oppose gay marriage or polygamy. I support a persons right to do whatever they damn well please, so long they don't hurt others doing it. I support free will. This is neither a gay or straight issue, it is an individual's issue, regardless of your sex or inclination.

Excellent, we're making progress. Maybe we should start a new thread then, since you think the title of the thread should limit where our conversation goes.

Maybe, "Societal acceptance? What should we allow or not allow?". I'm all for starting a new conversation to hear alternate viewpoints on it. As said, it truly intrigues me what people accept or don't accept, and how they defend certain actions over others. Trying to find that balance is the most interesting part of all this for myself.

[Androidpk]

And this right here is what makes you think people oppose it. I don't oppose polygamy. You can repeat it after me a few times if you want. I just don't think it belongs in this discussion.




In addition, just because somebody says they feel one way doesn't make it so.


Why do you oppose polygamists!?!

[Androidpk]

Dwaar, you sound like a dirty Libertarian.

[Dwaar]

Dwaar, you sound like a dirty Libertarian.

Hahaha.. maybe I am. Who knows. :)

[Warriorbird]

Why do you oppose polygamists!?!

Only smile this thread has generated for me.

[Latrinsorm]

As for the slippery slope beyond that? Let's cut the bullshit already. Is this really a thing?I have never seen an instance where allegations of a slippery slope proved true.
Do people like yourself and Latrinsorm...Mets fans?
What are you, retarded?...Mets fans. :(
Don't be a bigot! You polygamy hater!If someone who discriminates against race is a racist, does that mean someone who discriminates against polygamy is a polygamist?
So you don't believe there is a biological urge people have to mate with other people?Not all sex is (or is designed to be) reproductive.
A number of people have argued for gay marriage, but tried to make an argument for why that is... hmmm.. natural I guess?, but polygamy is not.People can disagree with your argument without disagreeing with your conclusion. Suppose you say 2 and 2 make 4 because it is so written in the Fifth Commandment, and someone responds that it says no such thing. It does not follow that you can mock them for disbelieving that 2 and 2 make 4. Mockery is mine, sayeth the Lord.

[Parkbandit]

Because thinking that you not referring to gay marriage at all yet defending polygamy is completely unrelated to that title is somehow hypocritical.

In addition, just because somebody says they feel one way doesn't make it so.

That shovel broke there. As expected though.



But since you can see inside what someone is "thinking", you can make any bullshit claim you want.. like "If you bring up polygamy, you are attacking gay marriage"

Stop.

[Warriorbird]

But since you can see inside what someone is "thinking", you can make any bullshit claim you want.. like "If you bring up polygamy, you are attacking gay marriage"

Stop.

Sounds a lot like what you do every day. Clearly I'm a terrible person.

[Dwaar]

I have never seen an instance where allegations of a slippery slope proved true....Mets fans?...Mets fans. :(If someone who discriminates against race is a racist, does that mean someone who discriminates against polygamy is a polygamist?Not all sex is (or is designed to be) reproductive.People can disagree with your argument without disagreeing with your conclusion. Suppose you say 2 and 2 make 4 because it is so written in the Fifth Commandment, and someone responds that it says no such thing. It does not follow that you can mock them for disbelieving that 2 and 2 make 4. Mockery is mine, sayeth the Lord.

I'm not mocking anyone. I'm simply using the points of discussion people use to defend gay marriage, to defend polygamy. But people like to say it's not the same, when I'm using the exact same argument they used!

That is what I'm getting at, the distinction between where that line is drawn.

One that I really enjoy discussing is assisted suicide... now that is an intriguing social conversation to have.

[Parkbandit]

Sounds a lot like what you do every day. Clearly I'm a terrible person.

No, you are an idiot for claiming that everyone who is bringing up polygamy is attacking gay marriage. Had you simply posted "You know, you are right. It was stupid of me to make that connection." this conversation would have been over hours ago.

But you doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on stupid instead.

Seriously, just stop. It was stupid at 7am.. it's just sad and stupid now.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not mocking anyone. I'm simply using the points of discussion people use to defend gay marriage, to defend polygamy. But people like to say it's not the same, when I'm using the exact same argument they used!

That is what I'm getting at, the distinction between where that line is drawn.

One that I really enjoy discussing is assisted suicide... now that is an intriguing social conversation to have.

Polygamists aren't a big enough voting block to worry about it, so fuck them.

[Warriorbird]

No, you are an idiot for claiming that everyone who is bringing up polygamy is attacking gay marriage. Had you simply posted "You know, you are right. It was stupid of me to make that connection." this conversation would have been over hours ago.

But you doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on stupid instead.

Seriously, just stop. It was stupid at 7am.. it's just sad and stupid now.

And this is you digging in those heels. I meant in the context that Jarvan was and now Dwaar is, not a random defense of polygamy inserted in a thread with no connections to gay marriage in said defense.

I understand you like pointless conflict though, so have at it. Call more people stupid and talk about what they're doing.

It really highlights your point about my alleged improper posting when you do what you accuse me of.

[Dwaar]

Polygamists aren't a big enough voting block to worry about it, so fuck them.

Hahahaha... I like that response. But, you are correct. One of those interesting societal occurrences. Only important if helps the power elite (in our case the Repubs or Dems - pick your poison).

I did research a few articles by census reports, they come out around 4% of the population in America identifies itself as LBGT. So that 4% apparently is enough to influence American Society and the voting polls.

Hmmm.. that would be another interesting topic for another thread. When does the "normal activities" of 96% of the population get outweighed or influenced by the other 4%.

[waywardgs]

Hmmm.. that would be another interesting topic for another thread. When does the "normal activities" of 96% of the population get outweighed or influenced by the other 4%.

When it's unconstitutional to restrict that 4%.

[Dwaar]

When it's unconstitutional to restrict that 4%.

I started a new thread to discuss this idea, don't want to anger the "stay on topic" nazis. :)

[waywardgs]

I'm not sure why it even matters. People aren't born with religion yet we don't discount people because they choose to become a Christian or Muslim or Pastafarian. If someone is all for gay marriage then it seems pretty odd for them to be against polygamy.

Pastafarians:
http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/30/47/578eb437944f2455e5860bb52ac668fc-duck-face-turned-into-spaghetti-eating-face.jpg

[Elantari]

Again, people aren't "born polygamous.


We sure about that? There are many, many examples in the animal world where 1 male takes multiple partners.

Are you comparing non-human animals, who don't enter into marital relationships, to human animals, who do? If so, that is one hell of an impressive display of asinine stupidity.

[Elantari]

But since you can see inside what someone is "thinking", you can make any bullshit claim you want.. like "If you bring up bestial marriage, you are attacking gay marriage"

Correct.


If you bring up gay marriage, you are attacking gay marriage.

Correct.

Stop it.

[Jarvan]

Again, people aren't "born polygamous." That's like saying people are born doctors or stock brokers or Christian or whatever else. It's something you become. That's distinctly different than being born gay or with red hair or seven feet tall.

Edit: that's a damn big baby.

Just curious. Have they found the gay gene then? I know people say it isn't a choice, it's biological. If that's the case, there must be something somewhere that is different then a straight person.

Now.. no matter what I say next people are going to bitch... but I am just asking question, I really don't care what the answers are frankly.

But is it a biological abnormality? Is it just a gene that is (for example no idea since I am not a biologist) positive instead of negative? Is this gene a mutation, or is it something else?

If there is a gay gene, does that mean that one day we can decide ahead of time if a person will be gay or not by manipulation this gene? How would that impact the idea of choice?

Some people are born with a chemical imbalance in their brain that makes them different. We treat this with medication to make them normal. We normally treat genetic abnormalities.

Why wouldn't it make sense to treat people with the "Gay Gene" then?

Seriously though.. if someone is "born gay" that MUST mean there is something biologically different then "straight" people. If there WAS a treatment to alter this.. what would people's feelings be about it.

And talk about moral questions... if you COULD decide what sex your child would want to form a lasting relationship with.. do you have the right to?

[Jarvan]

Primarily the construction of you. I do think Jarvan and Dwaar are attacking gay marriage in spite of their claims. You weren't even discussing gay marriage with what you said, so it's a really silly point to cling to (not that that's ever stopped you before).

I actually have a friend that used to play GS that is now in basically a polygamous relationship. They officially can't multi marry.. but they are still living the life. As for the incest aspect, I know a couple in PA that are living together "in sin" as it were, that are first cousins. (not my relatives, someone I knew from HS) Which it's illegal here in PA.

I just really don't see why their relationships are illegal and wrong, while gay marriage is ok.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with the word "marriage" and should only preside over civil unions. Let the churches marry people. But I don't think that we should be imposing moral rules on one group and not the other.

That's all they are really.. moral rules.

Oh.. people are afraid that if you allow polygamy then multitudes of women will be forced into marriage against there will. Umm.. the only ones that is likely to happen to.. are likely ALREADY in that kind of relationship. It's illegal now, it would be illegal then. Of course, you can't stop criminals from committing a crime.. but oh well.

Unless of course people think that out of no where, women all over the country will sudden revert back to meek timid things from prior to the 1700's. Doing what the big strong man tells them they must do. I can't think of one woman I know that would meekly go along with marrying someone they didn't want to just because they were told to. But people can think what they want.

I didn't used to believe in gay marriage .. I thought it was wrong, and frankly disgusting. Know what changed my mind? Finding out my uncle (technically my mom's uncle, we just all called him uncle) was gay, dying, and that his family cut his life partner out of everything. Wasn't allowed to see him in the hospital at all. of course.. they got the last laugh, he left everything to his life partner. Even the family antiques. Pissed them off royally.

Of course WB, you can believe anything you want, you will in any case.

[Androidpk]

I'm sure someday it will be fully possible to have designer babies where parents are going to be able to basically build their offspring how they see fit. Talk about a gigantic can of worms.

[Jarvan]

I'm sure someday it will be fully possible to have designer babies where parents are going to be able to basically build their offspring how they see fit. Talk about a gigantic can of worms.

I am sure it will as well. Frankly, will bring a whole new idea of the word "humanity".

I can imagine some of the future fights now.

[waywardgs]

You think we have classes now? Wait till rich people can design their own superhuman offspring.

[Androidpk]

You think we have classes now? Wait till rich people can design their own superhuman offspring.

The rich will have all the desirable jobs and the robots will have the rest.

[Latrinsorm]

We normally treat genetic abnormalities.Blue eyes and white skin are genetic abnormalities.

[Dwaar]

Blue eyes and white skin are genetic abnormalities.

That's why Swedish blondes are so hot.

[Latrinsorm]

Mutie lover!!!

[Candor]

Blue eyes and white skin are genetic abnormalities.

I always knew I was special...

[Elantari]

I actually have a friend that used to play GS that is now in basically a polygamous relationship. They officially can't multi marry.. but they are still living the life. As for the incest aspect, I know a couple in PA that are living together "in sin" as it were, that are first cousins. (not my relatives, someone I knew from HS) Which it's illegal here in PA.

I just really don't see why their relationships are illegal and wrong, while gay marriage is ok.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with the word "marriage" and should only preside over civil unions. Let the churches marry people. But I don't think that we should be imposing moral rules on one group and not the other.

That's all they are really.. moral rules.

Oh.. people are afraid that if you allow polygamy then multitudes of women will be forced into marriage against there will. Umm.. the only ones that is likely to happen to.. are likely ALREADY in that kind of relationship. It's illegal now, it would be illegal then. Of course, you can't stop criminals from committing a crime.. but oh well.

Unless of course people think that out of no where, women all over the country will sudden revert back to meek timid things from prior to the 1700's. Doing what the big strong man tells them they must do. I can't think of one woman I know that would meekly go along with marrying someone they didn't want to just because they were told to. But people can think what they want.

I didn't used to believe in gay marriage .. I thought it was wrong, and frankly disgusting. Know what changed my mind? Finding out my uncle (technically my mom's uncle, we just all called him uncle) was gay, dying, and that his family cut his life partner out of everything. Wasn't allowed to see him in the hospital at all. of course.. they got the last laugh, he left everything to his life partner. Even the family antiques. Pissed them off royally.

Of course WB, you can believe anything you want, you will in any case.

Did Jesus slap you upside the face with his make-you-stupid dick?

[Ashlander]

Did Jesus slap you upside the face with his make-you-stupid dick?

I don't think that was one of his super powers.

[Parkbandit]

And this is you digging in those heels. I meant in the context that Jarvan was and now Dwaar is, not a random defense of polygamy inserted in a thread with no connections to gay marriage in said defense.


You "meant"? Oh, ok. Here is what happened:


Wait.. if you bring up polygamy.. you are attacking gay marriage?

Stop being so ultra sensitive. Sometimes things aren't actually an attack.



Of course you are. It's the same stuff that got brought up to attack interracial marriage. "Animals! Polygamy! Derp!"

[Androidpk]

Wait, I'm confused.. if bringing up polygamy is an attack on gay marriage then why would the federal judge who overruled the gay marriage ban bring it up??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html

[Parkbandit]

Wait, I'm confused.. if bringing up polygamy is an attack on gay marriage then why would the federal judge who overruled the gay marriage ban bring it up??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html

Because despite him overturning the gay marriage ban, he's really attacking it.

Duh.