• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Its official... Same sex marriage April 27th

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

what you missed was these fools who are trying desperately to get those of us who are for gay marriage to also approve of polygamy as a form of marriage.......

Polygamy and gay marriage are not even conceptually related!!
They absolutely are. Call it a lifestyle choice, whatever. Its about you in a loving relationship with another person who is consentually in a loving relationship.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,774
8,164
146
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.


Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
I think you missed the point.
What did I miss?
Well maybe it looks like I was aiming it at Shira, which I wasn't - more sort of agreeing with him.
what you missed was these fools who are trying desperately to get those of us who are for gay marriage to also approve of polygamy as a form of marriage.......

Polygamy and gay marriage are not even conceptually related!!
I agree with everything you said, except my missing the point.

The point I was making and that JD50 blew past again at warp 9, (because he's being purposely dense , or honestly clueless) is that the logical argument that allows gay marriage doesn't automatically allow polygamy or sex with pets or anything else, because they are different!

Basically the state says:

Any man and woman can get married and we'll treat you as a single legal entity!
Next they pass equal rights protection. This means we legally won't discriminate against any persons, religion, sex, creed, or race.

Now they cannot discriminate between any two people for those reasons.


NOWHERE does that argument say anything about numbers greater than 2 entering into a single union

The point is marriage per the govt, is a legal union between 2 people. The equal protection clause cannot be used to circumvent the number of people in the union and allow polygamy.

Clearer?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement... It's absolutely eerie to me that statements like this could have just as easily been used to oppose desegregation, women's suffrage, etc.
Then why do we even need legislatures? Why do we not leave everything up to the courts, who know best?
It's called checks and balances. This is like 5th grade civics. :confused:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: Paratus

I agree with everything you said, except my missing the point.

The point I was making and that JD50 blew past again at warp 9, (because he's being purposely dense , or honestly clueless) is that the logical argument that allows gay marriage doesn't automatically allow polygamy or sex with pets or anything else, because they are different!

Basically the state says:

Any man and woman can get married and we'll treat you as a single legal entity!
Next they pass equal rights protection. This means we legally won't discriminate against any persons, religion, sex, creed, or race.

Now they cannot discriminate between any two people for those reasons.


NOWHERE does that argument say anything about numbers greater than 2 entering into a single union

The point is marriage per the govt, is a legal union between 2 people. The equal protection clause cannot be used to circumvent the number of people in the union and allow polygamy.

Clearer?
And I think you are missing the point JD50 was making. Not so long ago marriage was legally between a man and a woman. But, as things do, it has changed. OK, fine. The law says two people. Does that make the law RIGHT? Absolutely not. Laws change all the time. ust like laws are changing to include gay couples, right? Maybe its time to change to include polygamy as well. The two are very much related.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
you are so flat out wrong..

they are upholding what is guaranteed to them by being citizens of america
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement... It's absolutely eerie to me that statements like this could have just as easily been used to oppose desegregation, women's suffrage, etc.
Then why do we even need legislatures? Why do we not leave everything up to the courts, who know best?
The court IS upholding the law, it takes none of their opinion.

You make me fucking sick with your pseudo philosophical rants.

You are nothing but an intolerant fraud. You think god is in your corner. You're like a little kid who hides behind an imaginary friend to justify his hatred and intolerance of others.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,873
44
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Paratus

I agree with everything you said, except my missing the point.

The point I was making and that JD50 blew past again at warp 9, (because he's being purposely dense , or honestly clueless) is that the logical argument that allows gay marriage doesn't automatically allow polygamy or sex with pets or anything else, because they are different!

Basically the state says:

Any man and woman can get married and we'll treat you as a single legal entity!
Next they pass equal rights protection. This means we legally won't discriminate against any persons, religion, sex, creed, or race.

Now they cannot discriminate between any two people for those reasons.


NOWHERE does that argument say anything about numbers greater than 2 entering into a single union

The point is marriage per the govt, is a legal union between 2 people. The equal protection clause cannot be used to circumvent the number of people in the union and allow polygamy.

Clearer?
And I think you are missing the point JD50 was making. Not so long ago marriage was legally between a man and a woman. But, as things do, it has changed. OK, fine. The law says two people. Does that make the law RIGHT? Absolutely not. Laws change all the time. ust like laws are changing to include gay couples, right? Maybe its time to change to include polygamy as well. The two are very much related.

Why bring polygamy into a gay marriage issue at all? How are the two related? (I would support polygamy as well, I dont give a fuck what two consenting adults do).
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Yeah, I don't know why this is so hard for them to understand. Our political system (constitutional republic) is specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Legislative bodies can pass anything they want; it's not their job to determine constitutionality, that's up to the courts. And unsurprisingly, legislature passes a lot of unconstitutional laws, which the court then throws out. The fact that you guys find something wrong with this system honestly scares the crap out of me. Do you propose we just scrap the Bill of Rights? It seems like what you guys want is pure democracy where the majority can simply walk all over everyone else. Fortunately the founders of our country had a lot more sense and built safeguards into the political system to prevent these abuses.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,445
4,259
136
Originally posted by: JD50
Cool, so let's make it illegal for gays to marry in every state. Hell, why stop there? Let's make it inter-racial marriage illegal in every state too. It wouldn't be discrimination because no state would allow it. Brilliant!
Look, WE ALL KNOW you oppose gay marriage. WE ALL KNOW what you equate it with.

You don't come out and admit you oppose gay marriage; you are simply not honest about it. Why?

I think it's because you are a bigot but don't want to admit it, so you cover it up with high-sounding legal arguments.

Your abject dishonesty is a HUGE clue.

But you're not fooling anyone; you're especially not fooling me.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Paratus

I agree with everything you said, except my missing the point.

The point I was making and that JD50 blew past again at warp 9, (because he's being purposely dense , or honestly clueless) is that the logical argument that allows gay marriage doesn't automatically allow polygamy or sex with pets or anything else, because they are different!

Basically the state says:

Any man and woman can get married and we'll treat you as a single legal entity!
Next they pass equal rights protection. This means we legally won't discriminate against any persons, religion, sex, creed, or race.

Now they cannot discriminate between any two people for those reasons.


NOWHERE does that argument say anything about numbers greater than 2 entering into a single union

The point is marriage per the govt, is a legal union between 2 people. The equal protection clause cannot be used to circumvent the number of people in the union and allow polygamy.

Clearer?
And I think you are missing the point JD50 was making. Not so long ago marriage was legally between a man and a woman. But, as things do, it has changed. OK, fine. The law says two people. Does that make the law RIGHT? Absolutely not. Laws change all the time. ust like laws are changing to include gay couples, right? Maybe its time to change to include polygamy as well. The two are very much related.

Why bring polygamy into a gay marriage issue at all? How are the two related? (I would support polygamy as well, I dont give a fuck what two consenting adults do).
Because theyre both alternative lifestyles (or whatever the PC word is now for this)? I dunno ask whoever brought it up first *shrug* I was just commenting.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
OK, but what about those of us like me who couldnt care less one way or the other? I wont lose sleep if gays can or cant marry. So although Im not rip-roaring FOR gay marriage, Im not against it either. Then you throw in the fact that I think multi-partner marriages SHOULD be included, as this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage, so S relevant.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,873
44
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
OK, but what about those of us like me who couldnt care less one way or the other? I wont lose sleep if gays can or cant marry. So although Im not rip-roaring FOR gay marriage, Im not against it either. Then you throw in the fact that I think multi-partner marriages SHOULD be included, as this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage, so S relevant.
But the current issue is gay marriage, brining polygamy into it is a duuuuuhversion.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
OK, but what about those of us like me who couldnt care less one way or the other? I wont lose sleep if gays can or cant marry. So although Im not rip-roaring FOR gay marriage, Im not against it either. Then you throw in the fact that I think multi-partner marriages SHOULD be included, as this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage, so S relevant.
no it is not relevant to anything other than your OPINION that you THINK multi-partner marriages should be "included." But that has nothing to do with anything.

There is no legal, legislative, or social challenge to support polgamy ANYWHERE in the United States. You might as well be arguing that since marrying pigs is illegal then marrying pigs is relevant to the gay marriage debate. That is absurd.

OR here is one: Since I THINK that marrying lampposts should be "included" as "this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage" so it IS relevant to the gay marriage debate.

argue the anti-gay marriage position without having to resort to distractions or diversions.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

You forgot to bold religion, since most polygamists do so because of their religion.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

That's a ridiculous argument. Just because it's not legal anywhere doesn't mean that it's not descrimination.

Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
How wrong can you be?

No one is allowed to be married to multiple partners. No one. Everyone is allowed to get married to the person they love....unless that person is of the same sex.

Is that distinction really that hard to see?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
OK, but what about those of us like me who couldnt care less one way or the other? I wont lose sleep if gays can or cant marry. So although Im not rip-roaring FOR gay marriage, Im not against it either. Then you throw in the fact that I think multi-partner marriages SHOULD be included, as this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage, so S relevant.
no it is not relevant to anything other than your OPINION that you THINK multi-partner marriages should be "included." But that has nothing to do with anything.

There is no legal, legislative, or social challenge to support polgamy ANYWHERE in the United States. You might as well be arguing that since marrying pigs is illegal then marrying pigs is relevant to the gay marriage debate. That is absurd.

OR here is one: Since I THINK that marrying lampposts should be "included" as "this again differs from the traditional meaning of marriage" so it IS relevant to the gay marriage debate.

argue the anti-gay marriage position without having to resort to distractions or diversions.
You're pretty dense. I wasnt arguing against gay marriage, nor would I. Like I said...I couldnt care less one way or the other.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1

You're pretty dense. I wasnt arguing against gay marriage, nor would I. Like I said...I couldnt care less one way or the other.
wow...yeah that really put me in my place. :roll:

you are still wrong. Polygamy is not relevant.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,824
804
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1

You're pretty dense. I wasnt arguing against gay marriage, nor would I. Like I said...I couldnt care less one way or the other.
wow...yeah that really put me in my place. :roll:

you are still wrong. Polygamy is not relevant.
Wasnt thrown as an insult. We'll agree to disagree.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1

You're pretty dense. I wasnt arguing against gay marriage, nor would I. Like I said...I couldnt care less one way or the other.
wow...yeah that really put me in my place. :roll:

you are still wrong. Polygamy is not relevant.
Wasnt thrown as an insult. We'll agree to disagree.
yeah fvck it.

cheers!
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,104
471
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: JD50
Cool, so let's make it illegal for gays to marry in every state. Hell, why stop there? Let's make it inter-racial marriage illegal in every state too. It wouldn't be discrimination because no state would allow it. Brilliant!
Look, WE ALL KNOW you oppose gay marriage. WE ALL KNOW what you equate it with.

You don't come out and admit you oppose gay marriage; you are simply not honest about it. Why?

I think it's because you are a bigot but don't want to admit it, so you cover it up with high-sounding legal arguments.

Your abject dishonesty is a HUGE clue.

But you're not fooling anyone; you're especially not fooling me.
Are you fucking stupid? I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, I've said it many, many times. I'm sure if you search you'll even see the post where I said how I used to be against it, but then I grew up and now I have no problem with it. I'm not bringing up any legal arguments, I'm bringing up common sense. If people want to marry someone of the same sex, let them, it's a free country. If people want to marry more than one other person, let them, it's a free country. Stop butting into peoples private lives douchebag.

How does gay marriage affect you and your family? It doesn't.
How does polygamy affect you and your family? It doesn't.

You and the other hypocritical morons here pretend that you are for equal rights for everyone. You make great arguments in support of gay marriage which I usually agree with. You also shout down and insult anyone that disagrees with gay marriage. Fine. But then you go and do the exact opposite when someone brings up polygamy, you're hypocrites. It's all the same issue, people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, providing all parties are adults.

I honestly don't care very much about either polygamy or gay marriage, neither of those two lifestyles affect me at all, my only point is pointing out yours and others dishonesty on the issue.

Anyways, you're not worth the effort that I put into this post. If you're just going to respond and call me a bigot again, then save yourself the time and just go fuck yourself.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,104
471
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

You forgot to bold religion, since most polygamists do so because of their religion.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

That's a ridiculous argument. Just because it's not legal anywhere doesn't mean that it's not descrimination.

Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
How wrong can you be?

No one is allowed to be married to multiple partners. No one. Everyone is allowed to get married to the person they love....unless that person is of the same sex.

Is that distinction really that hard to see?
And up until a few years ago no one was allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Anti-gay marriage people made the exact argument that you're making. How about you just butt out of people's lives and let them do what they want to do?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,104
471
126
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
Was that directed at me? I agree with everything you said, but it also applies to polygamy or any other alternative lifestyle as well. That's my point.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,648
3,134
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: shira
Those who introduce polygamy and marriage-to-animals into the same-sex-marriage debate do so because they know they can't win the same-sex-marriage debate on the merits.

First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.

Next, they argued that the main purpose of marriage was child-rearing. But exactly how allowing same-sex couples to marry in any way impedes child-rearing by marrieds (both same-sex and opposite-sex) is conventiently left out. And the fact that the child-rearing argument would appear to also bar the elderly or sterile from marrying is conveniently ignored.

Next, they argue that laws banning same-sex marriage don't deprive homosexuals of exactly the same marriage rights as straights, since (they argue) all a homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. That argument is absurd on its face, as the concept of marriage includes the notions of attraction, romantic love, and affection.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
Was that directed at me? I agree with everything you said, but it also applies to polygamy or any other alternative lifestyle as well. That's my point.
Your point is invalid!!
We are not talking about "Alternate " lifestyles.
We are talking about a 2 person relationship.
A woman and woman and man and man or a woman and a man.
We are not talking about 3 men and 6 women or a man and five women..

You people who try to throw polygamy into the mix are using it to try to derail the equal rights for all movement concerning 2 people getting married.

There are many online sites that tell about the troubles people have who have been in polygamous relationships.

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,445
4,259
136
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Perknose
But you're not fooling anyone; you're especially not fooling me.
Are you fucking stupid? I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, I've said it many, many times. I'm sure if you search you'll even see the post where I said how I used to be against it, but then I grew up and now I have no problem with it.
Grow up some more, you fucking tool, you've got a long way to go. Just go do it elsewhere and on your own time, and spare the rest of us your growing pains:

Originally posted by: JD50
I am against gay marriage for several reasons, sanctity of marriage and nature being the main ones.
Every time the subject of gay marriage comes up, you try like hell to equate it with incest and polygamy. You are in one big ball of denial about what lies in your ugly little heart, but again, you're fooling NO ONE:

Originally posted by: JD50
Sanctity of marriage - if you let anyone marry anyone/anything and as many of them as you like certainly does devalue marriage, just like letting a high school dropout into Harvard devalues a degree from Harvard (I was not equating the two, just throwing out an example). Nature - well, obviously they can't have kids.
The subject of gay marriage comes up yet again and here you are, like clockwork, with NINE freaking posts. You just can't help yourself, can you?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
We need to be fair to the anti-gay marriage arguments, as we debunk them.

Originally posted by: shira
First, they argued that they wanted to "defend marriage." But exactly how same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages is conveniently left out.
There's more of a point to their argument than the pro-gay-marriage usually recognizes.

Let's take the Medal of Honor. Say the President decided to keep awarding it for what it's awarded for now - but to add, say, big political donors, or soldiers who find ways to save the government a lot of money. Nothing changed for those who get it for the usual reason, but most of us would say it was diluted, and you could describe opponents as 'defending' the traditional Medal of Honor.

So, they have more of a point than just 'there's no difference'; they see the same sort of dilution.

Arguing to them that there's no difference doesn't persuade them, because to them there is, just as arguing there's no difference with the Medal of Honor wouldn't be convincing.

The proble they have is, that the difference rests on bigotry. In the case of the Medal of Honor, there is a qualitative difference between the traditional standard and the new standard, so there is justification for saying it cheapens it. On gay marriage, the diffference they think there is is caused by *their bigotry* to see gays as less deserving, as not having 'real' marriages - so to them it's rea. But they're wrong about gays.

In fact, there areguments generally rest on just that bigotry - including the 'marry your car' type arguments they make.

The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd knows that its arguments are without merit. They see the momentum building in support of same-sex marriage. All they have left is scare tactics.
I don't think they know their arguments are without merit. They're generally just bigots grasping for justification, and thinking they have it with these bogus arguments.

As long as they can feel they're part of a community united 'for principles' to 'oppose the wrongful gay marriage advocates', it's easy for them to kep 'fighting the good fight'.

I think we should all look from time to time at the photos of white mobs who gathered to menacingly threaten the admission of black students in the early 60's. Look at the 'Leave it to Beaver' appearance middle class white people - and the twisted hate on their faces for such a misguided cause, to 'defend' their state honor or whatever the catch phrase was.

Bigots grasping for justification.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY