• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If Gay Marriage is ok, why not 3-somes?

M

Mackie2k

Senior member
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...eesome-marriages/full/

I find this interesting, and not surprising that when we support non-traditional marriage, more and more crazy idea's start coming forward. We really need to draw a line in the sand.

I don't really support Gay Marriage (I think civil unions are fine and benefits etc) because it leads to things like this.

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.


EDIT: If you can't read the sarcasm I'm laying on, STFU. Of course I don't want to marry a mannequin. The point is, when you de-value the normal marriage between a Man and a Woman to include gays, 3 ways, it has basically lost it's value to mean anything other than a piece of paper.

In that case, just get rid of the word marriage and call it "Life Buddies".
 
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to marry someone smarter than you?

We get it, you like making non-sensical slippery slope bigotted arguments. 50 years ago people like you preached that allowing blacks to marry whites would lead to the destruction of the family unit and the end of america, and armageddon in general. Your arguments are nearly identical.

 
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage just as there is nothing wrong with marriages of 3, 10, or 100 people. Why the fuck do you care what people do in their own god-damned mother fucking house? STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by: ScottyB
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage just as there is nothing wrong with marriages of 3, 10, or 100 people. Why the fuck do you care what people do in their own god-damned mother fucking house? STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Why is the government in the business of "marriage" to begin with?
 
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
I don't really support Gay Marriage (I think civil unions are fine and benefits etc) because it leads to things like this.

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

If you're going to go completely retarded in your argumentative tactics, at least apply it equally. Since you are apparently unable to differentiate between consenting adult humans and molded plastic, you'd have to admit that the government recognizing a marriage between two opposite sex individuals already frees people up to marry a mannequin that's molded after someone of the opposite sex. Legalizing gay marriage would just allow people to marry mannequins shaped like them, which is creepy dammit!

Or maybe there actually is a difference between people and mannequins that a human being with a functioning brain could actually identify. Don't worry, we won't ask you to make that strain.
 
The only safety a bigot can have is for everybody else to be a bigot like him. If not somebody like me might come along and point out to him he's an idiot and an asshole because he's running a bigot-bot program. Well, I guess, there is one other way to be safe and that's to outgrow the bigot program. And that is not so impossible to do, especially when you get expose to the people you hate, like MLKing who was so obviously superior to most of us when it came to being able to love.
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
I don't really support Gay Marriage (I think civil unions are fine and benefits etc) because it leads to things like this.

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

If you're going to go completely retarded in your argumentative tactics, at least apply it equally. Since you are apparently unable to differentiate between consenting adult humans and molded plastic, you'd have to admit that the government recognizing a marriage between two opposite sex individuals already frees people up to marry a mannequin that's molded after someone of the opposite sex. Legalizing gay marriage would just allow people to marry mannequins shaped like them, which is creepy dammit!

Or maybe there actually is a difference between people and mannequins that a human being with a functioning brain could actually identify. Don't worry, we won't ask you to make that strain.
Click to expand...

I as going to try and explain the legal concept of conscent to the OP, thanks for taking a stab at it (but I bet you he doesnt get it, when someone opens with that argument, they really just show how stupid they are)

 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to marry someone smarter than you?

We get it, you like making non-sensical slippery slope bigotted arguments. 50 years ago people like you preached that allowing blacks to marry whites would lead to the destruction of the family unit and the end of america, and armageddon in general. Your arguments are nearly identical.
Click to expand...

Well the arguement is true. If gays can marry, why can't 3 people get married? 50 years from now you will be the fool when we all have multiple spouces.
There is a minority there that feels they should be able to enter the holy matrimony or civil union whatever you want to call it shouldn't they be allowed to? It' doesn't hurt anyone.
BTW I'm speaking of gays in the last sentance, not 3-some marraiges. But the exact same sentance can be used for either group.
If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Well the arguement is true. If gays can marry, why can't 3 people get married? 50 years from now you will be the fool when we all have multiple spouces.
There is a minority there that feels they should be able to enter the holy matrimony or civil union whatever you want to call it shouldn't they be allowed to? It' doesn't hurt anyone.
BTW I'm speaking of gays in the last sentance, not 3-some marraiges. But the exact same sentance can be used for either group.
If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.
Click to expand...

So you agree with him that we will soon be able to marry inanimate objects if gay marriage is legalized?

IMO, if you can't spell marriage our spouse, you shouldn't be moralizing about them. But that's just me.

 
A man having multiple wives is common in many countries / cultures..so why is not legal here?

Why do you hate diversity?
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to marry someone smarter than you?

We get it, you like making non-sensical slippery slope bigotted arguments. 50 years ago people like you preached that allowing blacks to marry whites would lead to the destruction of the family unit and the end of america, and armageddon in general. Your arguments are nearly identical.
Click to expand...

Well the arguement is true. If gays can marry, why can't 3 people get married? 50 years from now you will be the fool when we all have multiple spouces.
There is a minority there that feels they should be able to enter the holy matrimony or civil union whatever you want to call it shouldn't they be allowed to? It' doesn't hurt anyone.
BTW I'm speaking of gays in the last sentance, not 3-some marraiges. But the exact same sentance can be used for either group.
If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.
Click to expand...
If you allow for one group to change the laws to allow that minority of the polulation to have "equal" rights, then you have to allow for every other "minority" in that situation.
Which means, that practicing Mormon's should be allowed to have multiple legal wives. They not only have a moral belief in it, it is a religous belief.

Also, in 33 states an employer can just simply fire a gay that got married to get his/her spouse insurance through the company because you can discriminate based on sexual orientation. But no religious beliefs as that is protected on a Federal level.

Face it gays are the minority and people don't have to accept them or their practices. It is as equally bigoted to force the homosexual beliefs on those that do not condone it.

 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Face it gays are the minority and people don't have to accept them or their practices. It is as equally bigoted to force the homosexual beliefs on those that do not condone it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying when gay people can legally marry, they will automatically force you into such unions?

Are you saying heterosexual marriage will no longer be possible?

How are they "forcing" their beliefs on those who "do not condone it." by asking for equal rights?
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
If you allow for one group to change the laws to allow that minority of the polulation to have "equal" rights, then you have to allow for every other "minority" in that situation.
Which means, that practicing Mormon's should be allowed to have multiple legal wives. They not only have a moral belief in it, it is a religous belief.

Also, in 33 states an employer can just simply fire a gay that got married to get his/her spouse insurance through the company because you can discriminate based on sexual orientation. But no religious beliefs as that is protected on a Federal level.

Face it gays are the minority and people don't have to accept them or their practices. It is as equally bigoted to force the homosexual beliefs on those that do not condone it.
Click to expand...
Maybe in ten or twenty years you'll learn a thing or two and when you read these earlier posts of yours you'll cringe at your ignorance. But I doubt it. That you'll learn anything that is. Or that you'll cringe.

I'm not explaining Con Law 101 or equal protection to you again. Read a book. The ones you aren't burning.
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Well the arguement is true. If gays can marry, why can't 3 people get married? 50 years from now you will be the fool when we all have multiple spouces.
There is a minority there that feels they should be able to enter the holy matrimony or civil union whatever you want to call it shouldn't they be allowed to? It' doesn't hurt anyone.
BTW I'm speaking of gays in the last sentance, not 3-some marraiges. But the exact same sentance can be used for either group.
If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.
Click to expand...

The argument presented in the OP was not about polygamy. I know, I know, it's in the Topic Title, but the specific argument that the OP raised was:

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...
That's not a threesome, that's a man marrying a molded plastic dummy. Are you supporting the OP's contention that gay marriage will open the door for people who wish to marry objects? If so, it's probably time to turn off the computer and return to your coloring book.

And I have to say, your username is ill-fitting. The Dude was a lazy drug-addled aging hippie pacifist with a live and let live attitude about everything. You want the government legislating the morality of people's private lives. It's ironic, I suppose, but ultimately you're just shitting on one of the better films of the past 15 years, and I take offense to it. Or I would if I didn't have this damn live and let live attitude about everything...
 
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
Click to expand...

Did the definition of marriage change when it went from "one white man and one white woman" to "one man and one woman"? Maybe it broaded a little bit, hmm? Maybe it can broaden again to "one person and another person" without the planet exploding.
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
Click to expand...
Consenting adults aren't involved in a man-woman marriage?
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
Click to expand...

Marriage has NOT always been defined as being between a man and a woman, so stop using that as an argument. First off, appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Second, it's simply untrue. Several religions, countries and states recognize gay marriage. Polygyny and polyandry have been practiced by several cultures for millenia. It is absurd to claim that marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman with so many examples to counter it.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ScottyB
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage just as there is nothing wrong with marriages of 3, 10, or 100 people. Why the fuck do you care what people do in their own god-damned mother fucking house? STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Why is the government in the business of "marriage" to begin with?
Click to expand...

Because there are tax and legal issues with marriage.
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
Click to expand...

Nope. You people are confused.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. They are entirely different issues.

Let's look at "marriage" first.

There's the traditional marriage, which has been conducted through centuries. This is conducted by religious bodies, etc, and varies depending on cultural traditions. When people talk about 'defending' marriage, this is what they're referring to. The unfortunate part is that they don't realize this is not under attack.

And then there's the government's 'marriage', which is really a contract between two people, recognizing the cultural/religious institution above, and providing certain rights to the two people under such a contract. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to be 'married' but not have the government recognize such a union. The Government is purely interested in protecting the rights of either partner when such a relationship is entered into, and has been doing so historically.

The trouble comes when the two are conflated. Marriage 'defenders' argue toward protecting a grand, timeless tradition. However, Government recognition of same sex marriage in no way influences the traditional institution. Considering that gay 'marriage' is essentially built on the same foundation as a traditional marriage, i.e., love, and a desire to enter a monogamous relationship with a person, there's really no reason for the government to discriminate based on the gender of the persons involved, as long as the purpose of the contract is the same as that of traditional marriage: to provide for some additional rights and protect the parties involved.

Polygamy is an entirely different topic. It also has historical roots and precedent, and there's sufficient reason for a debate to be taken up on whether to allow it or not. However, that debate is separate from the gay marriage debate.


 
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...eesome-marriages/full/

I find this interesting, and not surprising that when we support non-traditional marriage, more and more crazy idea's start coming forward. We really need to draw a line in the sand.

I don't really support Gay Marriage (I think civil unions are fine and benefits etc) because it leads to things like this.

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

another idiotic post!!!
Define non - traditional???
I would start with 2 adults whether they be man or woman....the key is the word -- two!!
Not three or four or five......
You don`t support gay marriage yet in your convoluted out look you believe it is OK to deny two -- again not three or four...you deny two adults the same right a "traditional" marriage enjoys....

Then you go on with your meaningless and convoluted dribble....Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.

Grow up......it`s very obvious you don`t support gay marriage......yet you support denying two adults of the same sex the same right as others enjoy!!

I am sorry but civil union is NOT the same.
Yet if the courts or the government did away with the traditional marriage license and made all marriages civil unions you would probably have major issues with that.....lol
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry anything/anyone we want. I've had my eye on this really cute Mannequin at the Mall. She doesn't talk much, but she's got rock hard abs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to marry someone smarter than you?

We get it, you like making non-sensical slippery slope bigotted arguments. 50 years ago people like you preached that allowing blacks to marry whites would lead to the destruction of the family unit and the end of america, and armageddon in general. Your arguments are nearly identical.
Click to expand...

Well the arguement is true. If gays can marry, why can't 3 people get married? 50 years from now you will be the fool when we all have multiple spouces.
There is a minority there that feels they should be able to enter the holy matrimony or civil union whatever you want to call it shouldn't they be allowed to? It' doesn't hurt anyone.
BTW I'm speaking of gays in the last sentance, not 3-some marraiges. But the exact same sentance can be used for either group.
If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.
Click to expand...

No you are way off base....when you say -- If you disprove of the 3-way marraige you are a bigot.

That is not bigoted in the least. Whats bigoted is whyen you deny two adults who are NOT married to anybody the right to marry based solely on gender. When the truth be told two men or two women should have the same right to marry as a man and a woman!

If we can agree that a marriage is between two non-married addults regardless of gender.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The only safety a bigot can have is for everybody else to be a bigot like him. If not somebody like me might come along and point out to him he's an idiot and an asshole because he's running a bigot-bot program. Well, I guess, there is one other way to be safe and that's to outgrow the bigot program. And that is not so impossible to do, especially when you get expose to the people you hate, like MLKing who was so obviously superior to most of us when it came to being able to love.
Click to expand...

My friend you are so correct!! :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. If we take the view that a marriage can be something other than that because everyone has a right to marry whomever they want in pursuit of happiness, then it's illogical to argue against polygamy, polyamory, etc etc. As long as consenting adults are involved, those are no different.
Click to expand...

No you are absoilutely wrong...what ignorant people like you conveniently leave out in order to judstify the polygamist argument is that a marriage is between two adults regarldess of gender...notice I said two..not three...or four....also we need to throw this in that a marriage is between two non-married adultd regardless of gender...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top