Polyamory and Marriage

[chucky2]

Chucky your level of stupidity is impressive. I truly am impressed.

If you can't comprehend that homosexuals are having their civil rights denied them due to their sexual orientation then I'm sorry. See if you can wrap your head around it by using historical references. See if you can wrap your head around it by talking to some homosexuals in your community.

What you need to stop doing though is being a bigot and arguing semantics. It's unbecoming of you.

See above to smackababy.

 

[nehalem256]

The rights granted by marriage EXIST! They were created by the US government. They are denied to people who are homosexual.

They are denied to unmarried people. Most unmarried people are heterosexual.

The rest of your post is just stupidity. You think gays are less important or whatever... I am done here. You refuse to answer the question and continue to try and pretend gays are not be persecuted.

I did answer the question. The rights are granted only to marriage relationships, which are regarded as important to society and not to relationships that are not important to society.

It is not just me that thinks that same-sex relationships are less important. It is 2000+ years of human civilization. Including civilizations which were clearly not homophobic.

Not granting recognition to your relationship is not persecution.

A "relationship" is completely worthless to society, a fact that should be evident from every species that does not participate in monogamy.

I didn't say "worthless" as in no value. I said "worth<space> less" as in having less value.

Many relationships are not afford special recognition in society. It is not just same-sex sexual relationships.

 

[jackstar7]

Would this be a definition under a non-PC/Bleeding Heart society, or, under what we can now recognize as anything society thinks at this moment is correct society? The distinction is important so I'd need that answered before answering your question.

However you choose to define it is fine. Simply present your context if you believe that it impacts how a cloud is defined.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

(other past societies had "interracial" marriage but obviously never even considered outrageously perverting the understanding of marriage to include gays/poly

Poly was an assumed state for marriage well before mono even under Christian tradition (see the New Testament, pastors must be the husband of but one wife). And so we need only your misunderstanding of the concept to show how "perverted" your own definition is.

That language is dynamic and mailable to the spirit of the day is unquestionably the case.

 

[Craig234]

It amazes me, like in the 17 year old thug thread, how many times examples that have been debunked already keep coming back up. If the "interracial" (what a stupid phrase btw, it should be interethnicity IMO) argument is the strongest argument pro-gay "marriage" proponents have to perverting the word marriage, you've lost really before you started. They two are not comparable. One was a particular society being racist (other past societies had "interracial" marriage but obviously never even considered outrageously perverting the understanding of marriage to include gays/poly), the other is the later same society just being PC and perverting a word for PC sake (and legal, but that could be solved by civil union).

Mentioning that examples keep coming up isn't an argument against them.

Claiming they've been 'debunked' when they have not is not an argument against them.

You typed a lot of words without saying anything. No, they haven't 'lost'.

BTW, it's not just inter-racial; blacks have also been prevented from marrying blacks. They can't really 'marry' like whites can, it would pervert marriage, don'tcha know?

Those are just analogies to help you. You ignored the point that the burden is on you as someone who wants to deny people equal rights to justify that.

It's funny, you just decide that racial issues are 'legitimate' as bigotry, and anti-gay is not legitimate as bigotry, that's "PC".

No, it can't be solved by civil union, because that's 'separate but equal' to pretend that gays are second class citizens not deserving the same word "marriage". They do.

 

[Pulsar]

DOMA ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court:

"The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. “'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"

That last sentence is horribly written. They need to actually speak English correctly rather than trying to sound all flowery.

 

[nehalem256]

DOMA ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court:

"The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. &#8220;'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"

That last sentence is horribly written. They need to actually speak English correctly rather than trying to sound all flowery.

Actually what DOMA says is that the "marriage" isn't a marriage.

EDIT: And very clearly same-sex relationships are of less value than opposite-sex relationships which is why opposite-sex relationships have had special recognition of 1000s of years.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And very clearly same-sex relationships are of less value than opposite-sex relationships which is why opposite-sex relationships have had special recognition of 1000s of years.

same-sex blood brothers and oaths have sent men to war far more often than hetero marriage.

Also every point you made has been decimated:

Poly was an assumed state for marriage well before mono even under Christian tradition (see the New Testament, pastors must be the husband of but one wife). And so we need only your misunderstanding of the concept to show how "perverted" your own definition is.

 

[Pulsar]

Actually what DOMA says is that the "marriage" isn't a marriage.

EDIT: And very clearly same-sex relationships are of less value than opposite-sex relationships which is why opposite-sex relationships have had special recognition of 1000s of years.

Your viewpoint has been ruled unconstitutional, and yet you're sticking by it.

Congratulations.