what goes more against what America is supposed to be about..banning gay marriage or

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
CONSENSUAL AGE.

Get it yet?

You're missing the point. In deciding whether to allow or proscribe a behavior, the state determines the overall impact of the behavior - for good or ill.

Right now, polygamy is illegal in the U.S., because it's clear that polygamy almost always entails child abuse: polygamists collect together in communities, and the furtherance of their multi-wife ways leads to coercion of underage females, since that's the primary way men wanting more wives can ensure themselves of a ready supply: force the 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-year-old girls to marry while they're still under the control of their parents.

Legalizing polygamy among "consenting adults" would do nothing but make the child abuse even more difficult to prevent. So the state has a valid reason for keeping it illegal.

Edit: I think you're hung on the phrase "consenting adults," as if that solves everything. But let me provide you with an analogy:

Suppose there's a move to legalize possession of nuclear armaments by private citizens "of sound mind." Would you support passage of such a law?
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Shouldn't people be allowed to marry ants? Why are folks so bigoted? What do they have against ants. Sure, ants can't consent or sign contracts, but who the fuck cares?

What difference does it make if some dude wants to fuck a colony of ants. For most of us and ant is something you kill as soon as you can. Marrying them would be a form of altruism.

What a bunch of bastards you all are with your prejudice against people who fall head over heals in love with ants.

Your bigotry and self hate is clouding your mind beyond logic, this isn't about being able to marry animals, it's about consenting adults. Funny, you sound like someone fighting against gay marriage, comparing it to marrying animals, so much self hate.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Your bigotry and self hate is clouding your mind beyond logic, this isn't about being able to marry animals, it's about consenting adults. Funny, you sound like someone fighting against gay marriage, comparing it to marrying animals, so much self hate.

I think you may have missed something in Moonbeam's post.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You're missing the point. In deciding whether to allow or proscribe a behavior, the state determines the overall impact of the behavior - for good or ill.

Right now, polygamy is illegal in the U.S., because it's clear that polygamy almost always entails child abuse: polygamists collect together in communities, and the furtherance of their multi-wife ways leads to coercion of underage females, since that's the primary way men wanting more wives can ensure themselves of a ready supply: force the 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-year-old girls to marry while they're still under the control of their parents.

Legalizing polygamy among "consenting adults" would do nothing but make the child abuse even more difficult to prevent. So the state has a valid reason for keeping it illegal.

Wow, you sound just like the people making arguments against gay marriage. Why are you such a bigot?
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,164
1,637
126
Judges are not supposed to care about or follow "the will of the people" they are supposed to care about and follow a nonpolitical, logical and rational interpretation of the constitution. In this case. A ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, so the judge did his job. Open and shut case IMO. If it gets appealed, the same thing will happen in the appears court. If it goes to the supreme court, same thing will again happen.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Wow, you sound just like the people making arguments against gay marriage. Why are you such a bigot?

Really? You see a similarity between objectively proven harm caused by polygamists and totally unfounded claims made about gays?

Why are you such a fool?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Really? You see a similarity between objectively proven harm caused by polygamists and totally unfounded claims made about gays?

Why are you such a fool?

All the same arguments have been made by anti-gays. "Objectively proven harm"? LOL. Where's the "objectively proven harm" in letting consenting adults marry who makes them happy?

Why are you such a fool, and a bigot?

I repeat. I think you may have missed something. Think harder.

Nope, don't think so, same ramblings, self hate, and bigotry. Repeat it till you turn blue in the face for all I care.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
There's a reason that our country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The will of 51 percent of the voters doesn't determine everything. That being said, judges should only overrule the majority if what they voted for is clearly not constitutional. I have no problem with gay marriage, but the idea that it's a right which is protect by the Constitution is, ah, highly questionable.

Have you read the judge's ruling before spouting your expert constitutional opinion?

Of course not. You could learn by reading it and then post better.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
You're missing the point. In deciding whether to allow or proscribe a behavior, the state determines the overall impact of the behavior - for good or ill.

Right now, polygamy is illegal in the U.S., because it's clear that polygamy almost always entails child abuse: polygamists collect together in communities, and the furtherance of their multi-wife ways leads to coercion of underage females, since that's the primary way men wanting more wives can ensure themselves of a ready supply: force the 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-year-old girls to marry while they're still under the control of their parents.

Legalizing polygamy among "consenting adults" would do nothing but make the child abuse even more difficult to prevent. So the state has a valid reason for keeping it illegal.

Edit: I think you're hung on the phrase "consenting adults," as if that solves everything. But let me provide you with an analogy:

Suppose there's a move to legalize possession of nuclear armaments by private citizens "of sound mind." Would you support passage of such a law?

I'm sorry, but your argument is bullshit.

It is already illegal for a child under the age of consent to marry, period. So A has nothing to do with B.

If cults have popped up that practice polygamy AND child abuse, that does NOT mean that all polygamy results in child abuse. The logic is faulty.

If marriage itself was banned, and underground cults sprung up that married children, would your argument against marriage itself be "it results in child abuse?"

Of course not.

This is just another version of the same old tired argument against prostitution. Those who favor bans point to underground brothels and say "prostitution leads to the abuse of women and children."

No, the banning of prostitution leads to that... Because when you ban it, you drive it underground and into the hands of criminals.

The same thing with polygamy. Just because underground cults use polygamy to abuse children does NOT mean that polygamy itself leads to child abuse.

Now, if you wish to oppose polygamy, find another argument. Yours is based on faulty logic, and will only paint you in a corner.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
All the same arguments have been made by anti-gays. "Objectively proven harm"? LOL. Where's the "objectively proven harm" in letting consenting adults marry who makes them happy?

Why are you such a fool, and a bigot?



Nope, don't think so, same ramblings, self hate, and bigotry. Repeat it till you turn blue in the face for all I care.

Do you still see giant spiders crawling all over the walls of your room? Maybe you should ask the nice doctors in the white coats to say the magic incantation.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Do you still see giant spiders crawling all over the walls of your room? Maybe you should ask the nice doctors in the white coats to say the magic incantation.

Ahh complete avoidance, and trying to turn it back on me pretending that I am crazy, so original, and admittedly excepted, your bigotry is as deep and unrelenting as Moonies. Have a look at Amused post to disrupt you regularly scheduled fallacy.

It's amusing watching you clamor on about rights until it's something you don't approve of, and then watching you use the same tired lines the very people you protest use is just icing on the hypocrite cake.
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,155
1
81
Whether or not you think polygamy and incest is the same as gay marriage doesn't matter.

You need to ask - is it in the state's interest to make incest illegal? (I'm talking between two consenting adults.) This is what the court would look at (state interest test). It's been proven that there is a much higher chance of birth defects with incest and inbreeding. The further down the line you go with inbreeding the higher the percentage. Does the state's interest in making sure that the negative effect of inbreeding and incest on society trump someone's right to engage in that activity? You'd be hard pressed to find a court that would rule against the state.

The same for polygamy. Does the state's interest in banning polygamy trump the right of a consenting adult to marry 4 people? This is a trickier question, but you can be sure that if overwhelming evidence was presented in court that the majority of polygamous relationships resulted in abuse or coercion, the court would find that the state's interest trumps the right of the person.

Now for gay marriage, the judge ruled that there is no legitimate state interest that makes the banning of gay marriage legal. Even the lead attorney for Prop 8 supporters could not name one reason why banning gay marriage is ok when asked point blank from the judge. Nevermind the argument that gay parents are worse than straight parents (which the judge ripped apart since there was absolutely no scientific evidence presented during trial).

When this case gets to the SC, it will be interesting to see if the ruling will pass the strict scrutiny test.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
There's a reason that our country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The will of 51 percent of the voters doesn't determine everything. That being said, judges should only overrule the majority if what they voted for is clearly not constitutional. I have no problem with gay marriage, but the idea that it's a right which is protect by the Constitution is, ah, highly questionable.
Everyone should be treated equally. IMO Marriage should not have anything to do with the government. You should not be able to file taxes together, you should be treated as single entities as far as the government is concerned.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
I'm sorry, but your argument is bullshit.

It is already illegal for a child under the age of consent to marry, period. So A has nothing to do with B.

If cults have popped up that practice polygamy AND child abuse, that does NOT mean that all polygamy results in child abuse. The logic is faulty.

If marriage itself was banned, and underground cults sprung up that married children, would your argument against marriage itself be "it results in child abuse?"

Of course not.

This is just another version of the same old tired argument against prostitution. Those who favor bans point to underground brothels and say "prostitution leads to the abuse of women and children."

No, the banning of prostitution leads to that... Because when you ban it, you drive it underground and into the hands of criminals.

The same thing with polygamy. Just because underground cults use polygamy to abuse children does NOT mean that polygamy itself leads to child abuse.

Now, if you wish to oppose polygamy, find another argument. Yours is based on faulty logic, and will only paint you in a corner.

I don't care a fig about polygamy. I contend that establishing the constitutionality of gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of polygamy. Society can be as biased as they choose so long as it does not violate constitutional rights. Prostitution is illegal. That's it. That's the law. When society sees that it creates problems with bans it may change the law. But the law won't be changed on the basis that it is unconstitutional but that enough people think differently then they once did. We will see legalized drugs and legalized prostitution, I think, before we see legalized polygamy.

Polygamy is illegal essentially because the Supreme court says it is in
Reynolds v. U.S. where polygamy was ruled “an offense against society.” The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres. Hehehehehehe, you are free to challenge it all you want but watch out you don't get stoned.

Who knows, the SC may rule the same on gay marriage.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
I don't care a fig about polygamy. I contend that establishing the constitutionality of gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of polygamy. Society can be as biased as they choose so long as it does not violate constitutional rights. Prostitution is illegal. That's it. That's the law. When society sees that it creates problems with bans it may change the law. But the law won't be changed on the basis that it is unconstitutional but that enough people think differently then they once did. We will see legalized drugs and legalized prostitution, I think, before we see legalized polygamy.

Polygamy is illegal essentially because the Supreme court says it is in
Reynolds v. U.S. where polygamy was ruled “an offense against society.” The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres. Hehehehehehe, you are free to challenge it all you want but watch out you don't get stoned.

Who knows, the SC may rule the same on gay marriage.

I merely pointed out the illogical nature of the argument, Moonie.

I couldn't care less about polygamy either.

But if I am going to read an argument against it, I WILL point out any errors in logic.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
The thing is, is that the "will of the voters" was at the state level and the Constitution says something like "it shall be up to the states to define marriage."

So the Court's decision was Unconstitutional just like the Supreme Court's ruling on polygamy was.

You would have been better off to keep quiet and have everybody believe you were not a fool...instead you opened your mouth and proved it!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I merely pointed out the illogical nature of the argument, Moonie.

I couldn't care less about polygamy either.

But if I am going to read an argument against it, I WILL point out any errors in logic.

For oen who claims to not care about polygamy you sure have a rebid taste for regurgitating the subject every chance you get....
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I don't care a fig about polygamy. I contend that establishing the constitutionality of gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of polygamy. Society can be as biased as they choose so long as it does not violate constitutional rights. Prostitution is illegal. That's it. That's the law. When society sees that it creates problems with bans it may change the law. But the law won't be changed on the basis that it is unconstitutional but that enough people think differently then they once did. We will see legalized drugs and legalized prostitution, I think, before we see legalized polygamy.

Polygamy is illegal essentially because the Supreme court says it is in
Reynolds v. U.S. where polygamy was ruled “an offense against society.” The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres. Hehehehehehe, you are free to challenge it all you want but watch out you don't get stoned.

Who knows, the SC may rule the same on gay marriage.

Why are you such a hypocritical bigot? Where are gay rights protected in the Constitution that polygamy is not?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
For oen who claims to not care about polygamy you sure have a rebid taste for regurgitating the subject every chance you get....

Um, no. In fact, I never bring it up. I ONLY respond when people make REALLY bad arguments about it.

I am, however, in favor of allowing LEGAL gay marriage. For there is no harm in allowing consenting adults to enter into a miserable legal contract with each other, thus no logical or Constitutional reason to ban it.