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

[SirStev0]

I personally don't think polygamy is that big of a problem as long as all parties involved are comfortable with the arrangement.

Millions of people cheat on their significant others every day.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

so polygamy is a cultural norm here in america??

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

so polygamy is a cultural norm here in america??

I believe he is trying to turn the argument around on you since there are quite a few cultures where multiple spouses are acceptable.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

so polygamy is a cultural norm here in america??

I believe he is trying to turn the argument around on you since there are quite a few cultures where multiple spouses are acceptable.

YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
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...

Yes, because anyone who has a different opinion than you must be "ignorant". Typical. :roll:

So what makes it OK to change the definition of marriage to include partners of the same gender, but not OK to change the number of partners?? Oh, that's right, there's no logic to it, other than you've decided that one is a "right" and the other is not.

 

[Mackie2k]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
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...

Yes, because anyone who has a different opinion than you must be "ignorant". Typical. :roll:

So what makes it OK to change the definition of marriage to include partners of the same gender, but not OK to change the number of partners?? Oh, that's right, there's no logic to it, other than you've decided that one is a "right" and the other is not.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

 

[miketheidiot]

i don't really have a problem with poly-marriages (i don't think it will a be very common demand), and if their is a demand for it, i don't really see a reason to object as long as everyone is consenting.

That said, the equal protection argument would not seem to apply, or at least not without some serious logical gymnastics.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you're going to argue that society does not have the right to deny someone the ability to marry another person, then how do you turn around and argue that it's perfectly fine for society to deny that same right to people who want to marry a sibling?... or a parent? ... or who want to marry more than one person? Either the government / society has the right to set restrictions or not.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
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...

Yes, because anyone who has a different opinion than you must be "ignorant". Typical. :roll:

So what makes it OK to change the definition of marriage to include partners of the same gender, but not OK to change the number of partners?? Oh, that's right, there's no logic to it, other than you've decided that one is a "right" and the other is not.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Western society has determined that polygamy should be outlawed for reasons beyond your comprehension. You and rest of the bigots who opposed gay marriage need to remember that the church does not govern the state.

You want to live in a theocracy, move to another country.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
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...

Yes, because anyone who has a different opinion than you must be "ignorant". Typical. :roll:

So what makes it OK to change the definition of marriage to include partners of the same gender, but not OK to change the number of partners?? Oh, that's right, there's no logic to it, other than you've decided that one is a "right" and the other is not.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Uh no. Your "point" was a slippery slope argument that people would next be marrying statues, or at least you expressed your desire to do so.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
If you're going to argue that society does not have the right to deny someone the ability to marry another person, then how do you turn around and argue that it's perfectly fine for society to deny that same right to people who want to marry a sibling?... or a parent? ... or who want to marry more than one person? Either the government / society has the right to set restrictions or not.

I honestly couldn't care less about what two or more consenting adults do. If someone wants to marry their sister, more power to them IMO. Polygamy is a more complex issue than marriage between two persons and would require changes in the way our laws work (for example, if a guy is married to two women and a medical decision needs to be made, which wife has the final say?), but again, work these issues out and let people have multiple spouses, I don't give a shit.

But these slippery slope arguments people bring up in these same-sex marriage debates are ridiculous. Do you guys have any good arguments against same-sex marriage that don't involve straw men?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

so polygamy is a cultural norm here in america??

I believe he is trying to turn the argument around on you since there are quite a few cultures where multiple spouses are acceptable.

YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules.

"Rules" should not be set in stone for their own sake.

IMO anything that consenting adults choose to do with their sexuality is fine with me.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Do you guys have any good arguments against same-sex marriage that don't involve straw men?

Nope, we've been asking them for over a year now I think.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.

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...

Why do you hate other cultures?

so polygamy is a cultural norm here in america??

I believe he is trying to turn the argument around on you since there are quite a few cultures where multiple spouses are acceptable.

YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules.

So what other things that are culturally new to the US can people "GTFO" and go somewhere else?

Gay marriage is not a cultural norm in this country... so they must be free to leave then too, right?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules.

How is that any different from saying that if gay people in the US want to get married they should move to a country that permits it? I doubt you'd agree with that sentiment, yet you seem to support it when the situation doesn't suit your personal preference?

I fully support gay marriage as well as multiple-spouse marriage. Anyone who supports gay marriage and doesn't support multiple-spouse marriage is, at the core, a hypocrite.

 

[rudder]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is the government in the business of "marriage" to begin with?

Because there are benefits to being married. Tax breaks for one, or I can make decisions about my wifes assets if she dies (hmmmmm), etc. So the government is in the marriage business.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.


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".

No, you just want to tell gay people who they can and can't marry. Dipshit. :|

Oh, and your comment about de-valuing marriage is a fucking joke. With the divorce rate in this country near 50% I think it's pretty clear how much value we really place on marriage.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: rudder

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is the government in the business of "marriage" to begin with?

Because there are benefits to being married. Tax breaks for one, or I can make decisions about my wifes assets if she dies (hmmmmm), etc. So the government is in the marriage business.

What they're talking about is renaming government marriage to 'civil unions', with the same rights, and making marriage a private religious term, not a government function.

One suspicious thing about this is how you don't hear a lot about it, until gay marriage comes up. Then it's suddenly a priority.

One way to block reform is to demand a solution that's impractical. if you say the only solution to gay marriage is civil unions for all, that can cause the issue to go nowhere.

So I'd say, pursue that if you want - but gays have to get the right to marry in the meantime. No using the issue to maintain injustice.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
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".

How does someone else's marriage devalue the marriage between a man and a woman? Doesn't divorce devalue marriage? Should we make that illegal? It would do wonders for the value of marriage; the divorce rate would be zero. And we'll make adultery punishable by death, because adultery kind of undermines the value of a marriage, and we can't have that now can we. And hey, as long as we're trying to really raise the value of marriage, let's make marriage licenses cost $50,000. No, $100,000. That way, we can be sure only the right class of people is actually getting married. It really helps make marriage more valuable. And if you can't afford it, that's not a problem; you can spend the rest of your life with your "life buddy." Just as long as you don't devalue my marriage. Peasant.

 

[jonks]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry --Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912

In 1958, 95% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Times change, and we look back at what some have said in the past, and shudder. You are a relic of the past defending a doomed ideology. Good luck with that, hope your children can forgive you.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jonks

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.

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"

In 1958, 95% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Times change, and we look back at what some have said in the past, and shudder. You are a relic of the past defending a doomed ideology. Good luck with that, hope your children can forgive you.

wow, thanks for the quote.

That really puts this in perspective. I can't believe that was in 1958. I would have guessed 1858...

 

[IGBT]

or animals for that matter. once the barn door is flung open anybody's concept of marriage must be considered.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
EDIT: ...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".

The point is, when you devalue homosexual people as people, and devalue their feelings and relationships so that thay can't have 'real marriage' because their relationship is less than heterosexuals' relationships, then you end up thinking that there is a comparison between a gay couple, and a man-mannequin couple.

All you have done is to further document your own bigotry.

 

[Mackie2k]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
EDIT: ...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".

The point is, when you devalue homosexual people as people, and devalue their feelings and relationships so that thay can't have 'real marriage' because their relationship is less than heterosexuals' relationships, then you end up thinking that there is a comparison between a gay couple, and a man-mannequin couple.

All you have done is to further document your own bigotry.

It's not Less, but it's not equal.

Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's bad.

I think Marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's not being a bigot. I have no issues with Gay people. Glad they got Civil Unions, get your benefits, I think that is great.

Marriage is something I believe is man/woman. Your inability to respect my point of view, makes you the real bigot.