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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,554
9,905
146
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.

Well put all around, sir. :thumbsup:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
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.

I'm not sure where the illogic is. If it is quite common for prostitution to be a last resort for desperate women being used by pimps and the law therefore attempts to alleviate that by making it illegal, how does the fact that other women who know they have something valuable to sell and can do so consensually suddenly make the law unfair? If it is impossible to distinguish between when selling sex is harmless and when it's a form of exploitation, why should that stymie all efforts to end such exploitation? On what basis does one establish a state interest in anything?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
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.

Are you similarly in favor of polygamy?
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
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?

See the bolded; using that theory, any state can decide to ban gay marriage, because the state in question decides it is "for ill". You don't want to use that one for your argument here, unless of course, you're secretly bigoted against gay marriage. Take your pick.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
See the bolded; using that theory, any state can decide to ban gay marriage, because the state in question decides it is "for ill". You don't want to use that one for your argument here, unless of course, you're secretly bigoted against gay marriage. Take your pick.

States cannot decide the value of constitutionally protected behavior. The state can't decide that divorce is bad and outlaw marriage because marriage is a right. The state can't disallow gays to marry because it's not illegal to be gay and it is illegal to discriminate on the basis sex. It is legal to discriminate against Polygamists and it has already been done. Polygamy was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. No constitutional reason has yet been found as to why such a law can't be enforced.

Polygamy and gay marriage are completely different issues and one has nothing at all to do with the other.

You can't marry under a certain age. That discriminates against mature younger people. Yup, and it's tough shit but the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on age. Discrimination is a quality not a defect. You discriminate to try to pick an age for marriage that comports with reason and you do the same in determining how many wifes one can have. It is folk who discriminate irrationally we need to look out for and they do it on the basis of race, religion, and gender, things that have been determined to be unconstitutional.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Are you similarly in favor of polygamy?

I've not heard a logical argument against it, nor do I think it's been legally practiced in a country that protects the rights of men and women equally long enough to be judged.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
I'm not sure where the illogic is. If it is quite common for prostitution to be a last resort for desperate women being used by pimps and the law therefore attempts to alleviate that by making it illegal, how does the fact that other women who know they have something valuable to sell and can do so consensually suddenly make the law unfair? If it is impossible to distinguish between when selling sex is harmless and when it's a form of exploitation, why should that stymie all efforts to end such exploitation? On what basis does one establish a state interest in anything?

Tell me, what is the rate of abuse among prostitutes where prostitution is legal and regulated compaired to where it is illegal, and thus underground and unregulated?

Making vice illegal only increases the damage of the vice. Period. We've learned this lesson the hard way time and time again, yet refuse to believe it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
I've not heard a logical argument against it, nor do I think it's been legally practiced in a country that protects the rights of men and women equally long enough to be judged.

I think there is more interest in polygamy than polyandry which will mean that there will be more men looking for wives then women looking for men. They already have a problem like that in China and it is a big concern there. Logic tells me the same thing. Marriage is good for people from what I've heard though I take it from your remarks above you may disagree.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Tell me, what is the rate of abuse among prostitutes where prostitution is legal and regulated compaired to where it is illegal, and thus underground and unregulated?

Making vice illegal only increases the damage of the vice. Period. We've learned this lesson the hard way time and time again, yet refuse to believe it.

I don't see how you can have a universal truth here. Are you saying, for example, that we shouldn't outlaw theft or murder because it makes folk steal and kill?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
an activist judge totally dismissing the will of the voters?

I for one have no problem with gays getting married, why should they be discriminated against? They shouldn't, what's next..banning interracial marriages?

Which is worse in your opinion?

Both are outside the scope of the Federal Gov't so both. :)
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
It is comical to me, because I support sam-sex marriage, that people who oppose it really have no relevant argument against it.

Clearly this fact was proven in court. It's as if people oppose have suddenly come up with some great argument. All I can say if for the people who use the polygamy and incest cards to try and oppose sam-sex marriage, why don't you take your "facts" down to the supreme court and testify? Why not? Because you can't. Those myths have been debunked.

When you can think of some other logical argument against same-sex marriage, then please come back and present it. And preferably ones that don't rely on religious morals and belief because if I recall correctly America was founded and the Constitution created with the intent of keeping religion OUT of government.

P.S. True on a note America was not founded with the intent to give gays rights, but neither was it founded to give blacks right. People and societies are forever evolving. But you wouldn't believe that either because you probably believe in Creationism.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
The issue I have with gay marriage is the word itself , it has always been defined as between a man and a woman. If gays want to have the same rights under the law I have no problem with that but it needs its own term.

If we start taking words that have had one meaning for a very long time and change it to mean something else it will never stop. Look at the confusion in the gay community itself when asking two gay people which is husband and wife ,they often don't know how to respond or respond with husband and husband or wife and wife, which doesn't apply under those definitions either.

Lets suppose the term were allowed to continue as they are and applied to everyone regardless of what sexual preference you are , say 20 years from now. Now imagine reading a story written in 1990 and it says that a man was married 3 times and had 2 children. Present day people read that as 3 females and presume that he had children by those females. In the future though the issue becomes , was he married to men or women ? Did he adopt all the children if he was married to a man ? Were all the 3 partners women or was he bisexual ?

Unless you specified the gender of the other partner the word marriage would lose part of its meaning.

for example:
"Taylor was married in 1920, before Taylor died in 1943 , Taylor raised 3 wonderful children."

Was Taylor male or female ? Whose children were they ? Was he married to a man or woman ?

OMG YOU ARE TEH EXPERT ON TEH GAY!!!

The lesbian couples I know are both, shockers... wives.

Holy shit that was a difficult concept!
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I've not heard a logical argument against it, nor do I think it's been legally practiced in a country that protects the rights of men and women equally long enough to be judged.

Why is this duplicate thread a duplicate thread?

Was the other 200+ post main thread about this not sufficient?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
It is comical to me, because I support sam-sex marriage, that people who oppose it really have no relevant argument against it.

Clearly this fact was proven in court. It's as if people oppose have suddenly come up with some great argument. All I can say if for the people who use the polygamy and incest cards to try and oppose sam-sex marriage, why don't you take your "facts" down to the supreme court and testify? Why not? Because you can't. Those myths have been debunked.

When you can think of some other logical argument against same-sex marriage, then please come back and present it. And preferably ones that don't rely on religious morals and belief because if I recall correctly America was founded and the Constitution created with the intent of keeping religion OUT of government.

P.S. True on a note America was not founded with the intent to give gays rights, but neither was it founded to give blacks right. People and societies are forever evolving. But you wouldn't believe that either because you probably believe in Creationism.

This sort of BS needs to end. The notion that polygamy doesn't have exactly the same arguments of the gay lobby is stupid. The very same argument could be used - only difference is the #. Incest could also have a similar argument. So while some of you only seem to want to dwell on the arguments against something - why don't you open your eyes to the arguments FOR these things and how similar they are.

Anyway - the only relevant argument is that it falls outside the scope of the Federal gov't... but yes, I already know you libs have and will continue to twist the Constitution away from it's original intent.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
This sort of BS needs to end. The notion that polygamy doesn't have exactly the same arguments of the gay lobby is stupid. The very same argument could be used - only difference is the #. Incest could also have a similar argument. So while some of you only seem to want to dwell on the arguments against something - why don't you open your eyes to the arguments FOR these things and how similar they are.

Anyway - the only relevant argument is that it falls outside the scope of the Federal gov't... but yes, I already know you libs have and will continue to twist the Constitution away from it's original intent.

Oh damn, another one joins the fucking retard list.

Mods, can we start a list of confirmed retards on the forum? It makes it easier to point and laugh.

I'll post this again so you guys with your puny little minds can get a taste of some semblance of rationality.

Here's your fucktard argument: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

And now, polygamy.
With the sweetly titled HBO series "Big Love," polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline "Polygamists, Unite!" Newsweek informs us of "polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement." Says one evangelical Christian big lover: "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle."
Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With "Big Love" it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."
ad_label_leftjust.gif


But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was "Jules et Jim" (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an "activity" or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?
To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?
What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.
I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to, or assault on, traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long, slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.
As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it is a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.
Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.
Class in session:


Here is an article that explains my point of view better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I can see how primitives can agree with that. This is going to be hilarious AND fun. Peonyu, pay attention, you might activate a few brain cells here:

And now, polygamy.



With the sweetly titled HBO series "Big Love," polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline "Polygamists, Unite!" Newsweek informs us of "polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement." Says one evangelical Christian big lover: "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle."
Irrelevant, but ironic that Christian "big lover".





Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs.
It still is, because that's all there is.



With "Big Love" it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.
About 1 in a hundred million.



As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage.


Indeed, the same stirrings from the deepest recesses of the primitive minds of mass market American Idiots.



In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
Oh I would love to see this utterly logical essay. :rolleyes:



Let's break down your retard logic here:


Using your definition: Marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender.


It does not follow that one aspect in a statement being attacked as prejudiced means all other aspects are prejudced. Non sequitur. Illogical.


Example: Marriage is defined as the union of two animals of opposite gender.


See what I did there retards? Marriage's requirement for humans is neither arbitrary, discriminatory nor indefensible denial of "individual choice".



(So what's next after Polygamy, bestiality? LOL!)


Similarly, the inference that just because gender is "arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice." does not mean that number restriction is "arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.".



You provided no support for the implied argument, so here, I will break it down for you:



Gender (Gay Marriage):




Logic of Arbitrariness: The use of gender is not "arbitrary". It is directly related to the fact that most people are straight and thus, naturally a male-female couple.


Just because gender is not an "arbitrary" assignment (aka - there is a REASON) for it, does not mean that it does not mean the reason is either bigotted, discriminatory, or ignorant. The fact that marriage used to be restricted to Whites in the USA had a very very clear reason. That was because Blacks were slaves and not viewed as equals. That does not mean that non-inter-racial marriage was thus justified because there was A reason. The reason is not arbitrary, but then, it is also not a good reason.


Your rational basis test of both Gay Marriage and Polygamy have already failed test #1 (according to you) - the test of Arbitrariness.



Logic of Discriminatory: You are correct that in that using gender is discriminatory, and thus, may be examined as a reason for repeal. Note that discriminatory is not an automatic ground for dismissing an idea - the fact that we discriminate against criminals, sex offenders, etc etc are all very legal and for very good reason.

Your rational basis test passes Discriminatory for now. (This one was easy, even a monkey could have gotten this one).


Logic of Denial of Individual Choice: Using the rationale of "denial of individual choice" is not an argument often used by gay marriage activists, and is conversely, highly insinuating of "choice" in the matter.


As any straight (honest) man will tell you, he did not wake up one day and consciously decide (choose) to fuck a pussy. As any gay man or woman will tell you, they did not choose to want cock/pussy. While a choice of partner is obvious, the choice of the gender of partner is not a choice at all.


Your rational basis test for "Denial of Individual Choice" fails (utterly) for the issue of Gay Marriage.


Analysis


Now, you similarly applied 2 out of 3 irrelevant rationales to Polygamy. Why is this important? Because this demonstrates that you are in fact completely wrong about:


1) The reasons why gay marriage is proposed (well you got 1 out 3)

2) The inferred (faulty) transitive logic of it similarly applying to polygamists.


Conclusion 1, for the sake of Argument

Because you can not logically apply the same rational basis tests using the transitive property, you can not produce a logical argument for the support for polygamy using the same properties.

Thus, you do not have an argument at all and the discussion ceases here.



Conclusion 2, for the sake of argument

For the sake of argument, transitively applying (illogically) the same three rational basis tests, we have remaining ONE possible candidate that actually applies to Gay Marriage - Discriminatory.



Let's examine Discriminatory in light of Polygamy:


Is it OK to be discriminatory to polygamists for any reason on the matter of marriage?


Arguments for (yes, it is OK):


1) Gender inequality - most polygamists in a relatively patriarchal society (like ours) more deeply enshrines gender inequality towards woman. One man and many woman. This is largely due to biology, because woman can carry one gestation at once, and are the child-takers by nature (generally). Men seek to seed.


Promoting polygamy hugely promotes the denegration of women as unequal to men.



2) Stability:


The governmental goal and purpose of marriage is to foster stability (insert quote from the decision here from Judge Walker).



One can not reconcile stability with a polygamist's family because of the inherent unequal distribution of power, much like a fascist regime with a dictator at the top. Other forms of stability, like Economic stability are even more suspect, as the reliance on governmental subsidies would likely increase due to having decreases number of "parents per child".


Polygamist families are hugely unstable. History illustrates best.

3) Group vs Individual Rights and Abuse:


Discrimination against polygamists can be argued that Individuals are treated differently than groups in the eyes of the Law. Prima facie - if the dynamics are inherently different, then the discrimination is inherently present. The same way we treat corporate entities differently (discriminate for or against) than an individual.

Polygamists are group entities and thus subject to inherently set of scrutiny and protection/regulation.


There are more reasons, but I will stop here for now.

Conclusion 3, for the sake of argument

The third conclusion, for the sake of argument, assumes that you can illogical use the transition property AND that even though they are generally unapplicable to the Gay Marriage proponents. Let's explore all three rational basis tests for Polygamy, for shits and giggles really:


Test of Arbitrariness -



Inherently, the number of members in a marriage is the farthest away from arbitrary as you can imagine.


I could list the reasons, but I will save my breath for your imagination. I'm sure you can come up with something (hint: much has already been touched upon above)



Test of Discrimination (this was done above, see above)


Test of Denial of Individual Choice


The Denial of Individual Choice is not a reasonable argument for prohibiting or allowing something. It is an individual's choice to do many illegal and criminal things. It is an individual's choice to love as many people as you want (polyamory). It is an individuals choice to do travel, eat, and live as they please - yet all of these aspects of life are regulated because we live in a society. If you'd like the definition of a society, I would check out Wikipedia. You give up certain "freedoms" in exchange for others, and also benefits and protections in a society.


The matter of Individual Choice, then, a useless measure of what we do and do not approve of in a society.



Conclusion 3 debunks your theory EVEN while using a non sequitur , AND 2 properties that are irrelevant to the Gay Marriage debate.


It's like saying you're a retard, you're brain damaged, and you're probably a fucking primitive monkey for coming up with this shit, and similarly 1/3 of this is likely true.







This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there.
Yes, actually you did, fucktard.


Their argument does.
No, actually your play house 5 year old "argument" does.


Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."
That's a valid argument. It is saying that homosexuals do not have a choice in the matter of sex and love (in choosing gender, that is). Polygamists have a choice in how they exercise their capacity to love.


No one is saying humans are restricted from loving multiple people at once. Psychologists probably have differing ideas of how possible this actually is (I have a theory that it's actually just bullshit, and you just want a bunch of fuck buddies and a ton of baby machines).


Hell, I have trouble dealing with loving more than one person at once. Wars are fought over 1 fucking person. People kill each other, rape each other, go fucking nuts for 1 fucking person and betrayal of the love.


I would love to see actual data for *really* loving more than one person, but I reserve my judgment until I do because I do not purport to know for sure, only the evidence put before me and the reason that my mind allows for.


However, the GOVERNMENT, for the sake of marriage, has no interest in granting marriages to a group of fucking people. It does not promote anything, except a license for man-card for the Man in the family.


That is the crucial take-away point from this. Gay Marriage does not undermine marriages. Polygamy undermines Marriage. Marrying pigs and sheep undermine marriages.
















ad_label_leftjust.gif


But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was "Jules et Jim" (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an "activity" or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?
This is babble used to support your own false argument against Andrew Sullivan, as I had already argued above.



To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?
On every single ground already explained above, which are both not arbitrary and for very good fucking reason of a marriage to begin with.


While the idea of gay polygamists makes the argument of women's equality moot, the rest apply completely.



What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful.
For completely legitimate reasons, as Gay Marriage is an acceptance of an inherent part of humanity - gay people - yes they are your kids, possibly your parents, brothers and sisters.


Polygamy undermines the concept of marriage itself.



Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history.




On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.
Hoooo shit, you did not just act like a fucking retarded apeshit that you are... arguing that History is justification for policies? I could use slavery, genocide, women, wars etc, and fuck, if you even knew what those words mean, you wouldn't have thought to put up such a retarded line right there.





Holy fuck you are cursed by the Moron Church of the Latter-day Saints.



I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to, or assault on, traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long, slow suicide, thank you.
Well, that's great that you recognize the 50% divorce rate and may not actually be a bigot.


It still really sucks to be you because of your apparent mental disability.



Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.


As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it is a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.
You recognize that Gays and their Plight, yet can not fathom your own fucking idiocy and the droves of American Idiots just like you who actually ARE bigots, in that the democratically, your tyranny of the majority would be the ultimate irony of a civilized society.



Humans. Would. Fucking. Fail. If. Not. For. Select. Minds. Of. Brilliance. and. Reason.










Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.
I just did moron. Now it's up to God whether you can logically work out where you went horribly astray with your fallacies, and to realize just how ridiculous you sound.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
I don't see how you can have a universal truth here. Are you saying, for example, that we shouldn't outlaw theft or murder because it makes folk steal and kill?

Um, no. Theft and murder inherently violate the rights of the victims.

In vice, there is NO victim. No one's rights are being violated.

But when vice is made illegal, it goes underground. It gives power to the criminals who peddle vice for huge profits and commit violence to protect their markets.

Apples and oranges, Moonie.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Oh damn, another one joins the fucking retard list.

Mods, can we start a list of confirmed retards on the forum? It makes it easier to point and laugh.

I'll post this again so you guys with your puny little minds can get a taste of some semblance of rationality.

Here's your fucktard argument: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

Try again junior. You can thrash around all you want but it doesn't change the facts. The argument people make FOR gay marriage can be used with polygamy. I know some of you supposedly "open minded" twits won't accept that but it's just the way it is.
Me personally I don't give two shits about any of it - the Fed gov't shouldn't be involved period, nor should the state have anything to do with anything other than enforcing contracts. But yeah... I guess you're way smarter than me with my puny little mind.:rolleyes:
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I've not heard a logical argument against it, nor do I think it's been legally practiced in a country that protects the rights of men and women equally long enough to be judged.

Arguments against multiple marriages:

1) It is not beneficial for a society
1.5) It destabilizes societies
2) It is not beneficial for children
3) It is not beneficial for the State
3.5) The State has an interest in encouraging stabilization (one goal of marriage), not destabilization
4) It is open to abuse
5) It is a source of abuse
6) It violates sense of equality
7) It violates women's equality
8) It burdens the state with insufficient taxation
9) If 3 people can be married, then why not 500 people?
10) Why can't corporations marry each other and gain tax benefits?

I can go on but I'm guessing you've just never actually used your brain much.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Try again junior. You can thrash around all you want but it doesn't change the facts. The argument people make FOR gay marriage can be used with polygamy. I know some of you supposedly "open minded" twits won't accept that but it's just the way it is.
Me personally I don't give two shits about any of it - the Fed gov't shouldn't be involved period, nor should the state have anything to do with anything other than enforcing contracts. But yeah... I guess you're way smarter than me with my puny little mind.:rolleyes:

Of course I am.

It's like you just read my post which painted a picture of the Sun in the sky and blatantly claimed the "Sun doesn't exist".

But of course, being blind, you could never even begin to understand what "sight" actually is.

Do you also pick up Physics and Math books, thumb through them in puzzled bereavement, huff and puff and continue to claim that fairy magic keeps the moon orbiting around the Earth?
 
Last edited:

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Of course I am.

It's like you just read my post which painted a picture of the Sun in the sky and blatantly claimed the "Sun doesn't exist".

But of course, being blind, you could never even begin to understand what "sight" actually is.

Do you also pick up Physics and Math books, thumb through them in puzzled bereavement, huff and puff and continue to claim that fairy magic keeps the moon orbiting around the Earth?

still thrashing I see... oh well...
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
still thrashing I see... oh well...

Still proclaiming things your primitive mind can't even formulate into a arguments I see.

I might pursue a career as a jurist just so I can categorically tell people like you that "you're an idiot" and watch the blood drain from your face. :awe:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Still proclaiming things your primitive mind can't even formulate into a arguments I see.

If you say so...:rolleyes:

The only point you have in response to Amused is maybe #8 if you're a lib who thinks that money is the gov't first and the lack of taking one's earnings is "burdening" said gov't. The rest are either no different than arguing about "gay marriage" or are complete bullshit. "sense" since when do you open minded thrashers have any "sense"? Or rather I should say - who is the authority of said "sense"? You people just need to learn when to stop with the BS arguments.

... but you won't ... so thrash away.