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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
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.

Oh my, I see major confusion in your frontal lobe area over the concepts of arguments "against" and arguments "for".

I suppose trying to explain "sense" would be like trying to explain the "spirit" of law.

It would be futile and pointless, but at least, these and other posts like yours certainly seem to solidify with absolute certainty that humans are not equal and were never meant to be.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Arguments against multiple marriages:

1) It is not beneficial for a society

Moot

1.5) It destabilizes societies

An outlandish claim based on pure speculation.

2) It is not beneficial for children

Another

3) It is not beneficial for the State

Moot

3.5) The State has an interest in encouraging stabilization (one goal of marriage), not destabilization

Moot when it comes to rights.

4) It is open to abuse

So is marriage itself. Abuse is illegal already.

5) It is a source of abuse

Says who? Societies that don't have equal rights for men and women? Of course it is. But that's moot here as well.

6) It violates sense of equality

Only if restricted to one sex.

7) It violates women's equality

Again.

8) It burdens the state with insufficient taxation

Why?

9) If 3 people can be married, then why not 500 people?

Why not?

10) Why can't corporations marry each other and gain tax benefits?

Why don't they now?

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

I see no logical arguments not to ban monogamous marriages for most of those reasons.

How can something that is open to all equally be unequal?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Oh my, I see major confusion in your frontal lobe area over the concepts of arguments "against" and arguments "for".

I suppose trying to explain "sense" would be like trying to explain the "spirit" of law.

It would be futile and pointless, but at least, these and other posts like yours certainly seem to solidify with absolute certainty that humans are not equal and were never meant to be.

Psstt - since you obviously refused to see the arguments FOR are similar - I figured I'd take on your little list of nonsense against polygamy on for fun. :) Try to keep up junior. Hint: it'd help if you'd quit thrashing first... but carry on.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I find it rather funny that those very same people who advocate gay marriage fail to see the fact that the same arguments for gay marriage apply to polyamory or polygamy as well as incest.

MJinZ, no matter how many walls-of-text you produce, your argument still boils down to "I don't think it's right to have multiple people marry each other, but I think two individuals should be able to regardless of gender". That's a simple arbitrary distinction with no logical basis. You can go ahead and do your usual name calling and all that jazz which certainly does not help your credibility, but the fact will still remain.

Some people continue to argue that gay marriage is a right, because marriage itself is a right, and that equal protection means everyone should be able to exercise that right regardless of gender. First, I disagree with that assessment, society can place all sorts of restrictions on any rights since they are not absolute. You have the right to free speech but it can be restricted based on societal norms. Similarly, you have the right to marry but society can put restrictions on it. In fact, it already does, it prevents you from marrying a parent/sibling etc, and prevents you from marrying multiple people. Those distinctions are nothing but arbitrary distinctions. At least if you hold the position that gay marriage should be legal, then don't be a hypocrite and say that other forms of non-traditional marriage are not. Either they all are, or they are not.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I see no logical arguments not to ban monogamous marriages for most of those reasons.

How can something that is open to all equally be unequal?

If I had to hold your hand through each bullet point, it would be like attempting to teach you what you should have learned through High School from basic civics, history, and logic.

Marriages ARE beneficial to society and are a stabilizing force. That is the State's position (see the Decision by Judge Walker) and if you want to fucking argue with it, you better bring some bigger guns that "moot, shens, or BS".

Polygamys ARE destabilizing, and if you had a brain, you could logically deduce this, or perhaps pick up a history book, current events, read through the news, and or any other avenue.

Benefits to the State are the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF LAWS. It is designed to bring order and justice to a society. The reason why State's are in the business of marriage is that it wants to PROMOTE it for good reasons.

Abuse? Are you really that stupid? Child Abuse? Tax Fraud? Do I really need to spell it out?

#9 and #10 were rhetorical questions. That fact that you think Corporations and Groups have the same rights as individuals is absolutefuckingly hilarious.

Add one to the retard brigade.

I see dumb people? LMFAO, stop admiring yourself in the mirror please. :awe:
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I find it rather funny that those very same people who advocate gay marriage fail to see the fact that the same arguments for gay marriage apply to polyamory or polygamy as well as incest.

MJinZ, no matter how many walls-of-text you produce, your argument still boils down to "I don't think it's right to have multiple people marry each other, but I think two individuals should be able to regardless of gender". That's a simple arbitrary distinction with no logical basis. You can go ahead and do your usual name calling and all that jazz which certainly does not help your credibility, but the fact will still remain.

Some people continue to argue that gay marriage is a right, because marriage itself is a right, and that equal protection means everyone should be able to exercise that right regardless of gender. First, I disagree with that assessment, society can place all sorts of restrictions on any rights since they are not absolute. You have the right to free speech but it can be restricted based on societal norms. Similarly, you have the right to marry but society can put restrictions on it. In fact, it already does, it prevents you from marrying a parent/sibling etc, and prevents you from marrying multiple people. Those distinctions are nothing but arbitrary distinctions. At least if you hold the position that gay marriage should be legal, then don't be a hypocrite and say that other forms of non-traditional marriage are not. Either they all are, or they are not.

The Sun does not Exist.

Oh rly?

I love how all the fucktards think they have some reasonable argument formulated in their head is sufficient as proof to claim something as fact, and when they sit down and try to put out the argument, they can't even get a single point out because ... well... it's not only that your argument is weak, pathetic, and a failure, but are actually mentally deficient to have arrived at such an argument.

Ah but the truth will burn, even if you can't see it.
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
The Sun does not Exist.

Oh rly?

I love how all the fucktards think they have some reasonable argument formulated in their head is sufficient as proof to claim something as fact, and when they sit down and try to put out the argument, they can't even get a single point out because ... well... it's not only that your argument is weak, pathetic, and a failure, but are actually mentally deficient to have arrived at such an argument.

Ah but the truth will burn, even if you can't see it.

LOL .. as predicted and expected, name-calling and other drivel. Sad, really.
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
The difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy and incest are this...

I am a gay man. Currently, in the eyes of the government, my sexuality is not seen as equal to that of the hetereosexual man next to me. By not allowing me to marry who I want, or by referring to my relationships as anything less indicates that I am not equal to the rest of you. It is basically saying that me as a person, as an individual am not validated in the eyes of the law. I was born this way, it was not a choice, thus I cannot simply "choose" to marry a woman. Separate but equal is not equal. If were to get a civil union, I would not call it so, I would call it a marriage, and I would say I have a husband. Referring to same-sex marriage as anything other then marriage is sickening. It's like referring to a marriage between a black and white a "mixed race marriage."



Polygamy and incest are choice relationships. The individuals involved are CHOOSING to enter into these relationships. A brother is not born to instinctually seek out his sister for love. A man is not hardwired to love three women at the same time. Gays and lesbians are BORN to love members of the same sex.

I am not for the polygamy or incest because they have a choice, I don't have a choice. What I want is my relationship, my life, my livelihood, my individualism to be not only recognised but protected under the law so that I can live a full and rich life as I was entitled to by birth.

If any of you opposers can gather at least a semblence from my post, the message is about validation and recognition of the way I live my life. It's about me wishing to be treated as an equal, as a peer. Same-sex marriage is about recognising that gays and lesbians have no choice just like straight people have no choice, in who they love. We did not decide one day that we wanted to love members of the same sex, just as straight people did not decide one day to love a member of the opposite sex. Sexuality is not a choice, just as skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, etc is not a choice.

Until you have realised what it is like to live your life seen as a second class citizen, you will never understand.
 
Last edited:

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
LOL .. as predicted and expected, name-calling and other drivel. Sad, really.

As expected, a one-liner with no substance.

It's typical of the boorish uneducated conservatives that they can't even put up a fight.

Like bringing F18s to a sword fight.

Why do we even bother?
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
I've said it a million times...

Gay Marriage or Any other Minority going on the chopping block for public opinion is unethical.

I believe that of course, interracial and gay marriages should be legal ... I don't have a problem with it...

But when the majority of the people IE, idiots are one man one woman and looking to their church to tell em how to vote what the fuck do you think the outcome is going to be?

Get it together people. I can't believe this issue still exists and Obama didn't grow a friggen pair and step in to end the madness that religious bush started.

Oh well ... my thoughts.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
The difference same-sex marriage and polygamy and incest are this...

I am a gay man. Currently, in the eyes of the government, my sexuality is not seen as equal to that of the hetereosexual man next to me. By not allowing me to marry who I want, or by referring to my relationships as anything less indicates that I am not equal to the rest of you. It is basically saying that me as a person, as an individual am not validated in the eyes of the law. I was born this way, it was not a choice, thus I cannot simply "choose" to marry a woman. Separate but equal is not equal. If were to get a civil union, I would not call it so, I would call it a marriage, and I would say I have a husband. Referring to same-sex marriage as anything other then marriage is sickening. It's like referring to a marriage between a black and white a "mixed race marriage."



Polygamy and incest are choice relationships. The individuals involved are CHOOSING to enter into these relationships. A brother is not born to instinctually seek out his sister for love. A man is not hardwired to love three women at the same time. Gays and lesbians are BORN to love members of the same sex.

I am not for the polygamy or incest because they have a choice, I don't have a choice. What I want is my relationship, my life, my livelihood, my individualism to be not only recognised but protected under the law so that I can live a full and rich life as I was entitled to by birth.

This is one of the major, strong and sound arguments for (and against polygamy) gay marriage.

I would also be perfectly happy to ask that Society (Government and State) abolish the term "marriage" all together and that everyone be allowed to enter into legal contracts of Civil Unions with each other. Even if the Christians and whatever want to get married in their Churches, that's just fine and dandy, no one would give a fuck, as no one really gives a shit what ceremonies Jewish people perform or Muslims perform. As the State ceases to recognize marriage as legal entity, then the problem ends.

What ever benefits the State then chooses to allow to "poly-civil-unionists" would then, rightfully, be non existent. Though they are certainly free to draft up a useless document stating that the bunch of them are united. Or Unionized. Or Partnershipped. Or Incorporated.

Oh wait, those already exist.
 
Last edited:

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I've said it a million times...

Gay Marriage or Any other Minority going on the chopping block for public opinion is unethical.

I believe that of course, interracial and gay marriages should be legal ... I don't have a problem with it...

But when the majority of the people IE, idiots are one man one woman and looking to their church to tell em how to vote what the fuck do you think the outcome is going to be?

Get it together people. I can't believe this issue still exists and Obama didn't grow a friggen pair and step in to end the madness that religious bush started.

Oh well ... my thoughts.

People wonder how long the USA can last? Honesty, with all the fucking idiots we have, I don't think for very long.

What was longest society in history? USA has done it for 200 something years. See if it can go for 300. :rolleyes:
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
People wonder how long the USA can last? Honesty, with all the fucking idiots we have, I don't think for very long.

What was longest society in history? USA has done it for 200 something years. See if it can go for 300. :rolleyes:


Well eventually history is suppose to repeat itself. We'll see.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I find it rather funny that those very same people who advocate gay marriage fail to see the fact that the same arguments for gay marriage apply to polyamory or polygamy as well as incest.

MJinZ, no matter how many walls-of-text you produce, your argument still boils down to "I don't think it's right to have multiple people marry each other, but I think two individuals should be able to regardless of gender". That's a simple arbitrary distinction with no logical basis. You can go ahead and do your usual name calling and all that jazz which certainly does not help your credibility, but the fact will still remain.

Some people continue to argue that gay marriage is a right, because marriage itself is a right, and that equal protection means everyone should be able to exercise that right regardless of gender. First, I disagree with that assessment, society can place all sorts of restrictions on any rights since they are not absolute. You have the right to free speech but it can be restricted based on societal norms. Similarly, you have the right to marry but society can put restrictions on it. In fact, it already does, it prevents you from marrying a parent/sibling etc, and prevents you from marrying multiple people. Those distinctions are nothing but arbitrary distinctions. At least if you hold the position that gay marriage should be legal, then don't be a hypocrite and say that other forms of non-traditional marriage are not. Either they all are, or they are not.

There are actually quite a few problems, first off you will no longer just have two individuals so for the law and taxes and anything else that is written for two people would have to be changed. Now I don't know all the implications and how it would work with the kids. What happens if something happens between one or multiple of these people. How many total people would be able to get married together? Is there some limit?

There would be a huge number of questions that would have to be answered first, and how it exactly all these things would work.

This is VERY different than gay marriage, where you are only stoping them from marring someone they love because they are the same gender. There would be no other major questions that haven't already been answered. There wouldn't be anything different than a normal marriage except that both partners are of the same sex.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Banning Religion would give far more beneficial results than banning Gay Marriage.

Yeah ya know... It would be great if the chrsitians that were in the minority in roam went up against public opinion... Feed em to the lions!

I mean.. Damn... They want to be fair right? I bet they wish they had the majority vote. Damn, Not enough lions! MORE lions!!! Quick!

:D

:p

Of course I am kidding and making an example out of how ridiculous it really is. Tho if the other shoe were on the other foot those religious freaks would be locking and loading to get the point across.

Religion is radical and dangerous. Ya gotta be a realist: Certain groups of people – muslim fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana – are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time. That’s the reality. Angry men in combat fatigues talking to god on a two-way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are eventually going to provide us with a great deal of entertainment.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
While through law, the legal meaning of marriage can be changed, it will still have the traditional meaning to the majority. Its obvious from the majority vote that people want the traditional meaning to be the same. It is a similar situation that happened to the tomato. The tomato was legally named a vegetable by the supreme court in 1893. Most will still call it a fruit because botanically that is what it is.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
While through law, the legal meaning of marriage can be changed, it will still have the traditional meaning to the majority. Its obvious from the majority vote that people want the traditional meaning to be the same. It is a similar situation that happened to the tomato. The tomato was legally named a vegetable by the supreme court in 1893. Most will still call it a fruit because botanically that is what it is.

That's fine. Just as long as Gays can still Marry.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
If I had to hold your hand through each bullet point, it would be like attempting to teach you what you should have learned through High School from basic civics, history, and logic.

Marriages ARE beneficial to society and are a stabilizing force. That is the State's position (see the Decision by Judge Walker) and if you want to fucking argue with it, you better bring some bigger guns that "moot, shens, or BS".

Polygamys ARE destabilizing, and if you had a brain, you could logically deduce this, or perhaps pick up a history book, current events, read through the news, and or any other avenue.

Benefits to the State are the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF LAWS. It is designed to bring order and justice to a society. The reason why State's are in the business of marriage is that it wants to PROMOTE it for good reasons.

Abuse? Are you really that stupid? Child Abuse? Tax Fraud? Do I really need to spell it out?

#9 and #10 were rhetorical questions. That fact that you think Corporations and Groups have the same rights as individuals is absolutefuckingly hilarious.

Add one to the retard brigade.

I see dumb people? LMFAO, stop admiring yourself in the mirror please. :awe:

All your same arguments have been applied to gay marriage. You hypocritical bigots are making the worst neo-con, right wing, extremist, christian look sane.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Now I don't know all the implications and how it would work with the kids.

ZOMG, what happens when Bill and Ted get divorced!?! Will the kids go with dad, or ...dad :eek: I figure it'd be really simple and the kids would go with one of the biological parents if there were more than one "mother" or "father" in the house. As far as property, wow another brainstorm acomin' ...hmmm, just like any normal will, or settlement that divides property up among multiple family members?
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
xjohnx, I've seen your posts and while you oppose gay marriage, you make no "valid" arguments why. And clearly you have not fully read or comprehend why people are for same-sex marriage.

I would challenge you to meet me, look into my eyes, and wholeheartedly tell me point blank holding the American constitution that all men are not created equal. Tell me that I am not an equal to you, that I deserve less out of life because of the way I am BORN and who I am BORN to love, not who I CHOOSE to love.

You can base your decision on your faith or personal morals all you want, but you must remember that not everyone in this world shares your worldviews. Instructing me on how to live my life based on what you believe in RIGHT is unethical and immoral.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
xjohnx, I've seen your posts and while you oppose gay marriage, you make no "valid" arguments why. And clearly you have not fully read or comprehend why people are for same-sex marriage.

I would challenge you to meet me, look into my eyes, and wholeheartedly tell me point blank holding the American constitution that all men are not created equal. Tell me that I am not an equal to you, that I deserve less out of life because of the way I am BORN and who I am BORN to love, not who I CHOOSE to love.

You can base your decision on your faith or personal morals all you want, but you must remember that not everyone in this world shares your worldviews. Instructing me on how to live my life based on what you believe in RIGHT is unethical and immoral.

Apparently you have not seen my post, or at least you haven't read them ...I support gay marriage. I am not being sarcastic when I call people that oppose polygamy but support gay marriage hypocrite, they are.
 

onlyCOpunk

Platinum Member
May 25, 2003
2,532
1
0
So are you saying then that because you support same sex marriage you support polygamy?

If you read my previous post you will understand why it is not hypocritical to support same sex marriage and not support polygamy.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
So are you saying then that because you support same sex marriage you support polygamy?

No. I am saying I support consenting adults rights to marry whichever other consenting adult(s) they want to.

If you read my previous post you will understand why it is not hypocritical to support same sex marriage and not support polygamy.

I read your post, I just don't agree with it. Is it someone's "choice" if they fall in love with more than one person? About as much as it is yours that you fall in love with men. All that is, is applying the anti-gay marriage arguments to polygamy. "It's not a choice", "it's socially unstable", "what about the kids!?!"
 

shira

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

Sorry, but it's your argument that's BS.

First of all, you've made an false analogy. You've imagined an alternative reality where those who engage in marriage disproportionately commit child abuse as compared with those who don't marry. And guess what, if this alternate reality were true - if child abuse were a tautology with marriage - then marriage would remain illegal, for the same reason that polygamy is illegal.

Your comparison between prostitution and polygamy is totally invalid. As you acknowledge, the crime and abuse of women associated with prostitution exist because of the ILLEGALITY of prostitution - because a black market for the valuable product called sex has been created - not because of prostitution per se. But the harms caused by polygamy in America have NOTHING to do with it's illegality. There's no "black market effect." And your claim that the fact that polygamy is practiced "underground" somehow leads to child-abuse is preposterous. Polygamists in America abuse underage girls (and boys, as a consequence) because it's an essential feature of polygamy: If girls are allowed to fully mature - to leave the community and get a college education - the polygamists will lose their source of extra wives.

Your arguments are nonsense.
 

shira

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

By your previous posts, you've proven yourself to be either astoundingly stupid, psychotic, or a troll. Whichever of those you are - and a troll is my vote - it's futile to carry on a dialog with you.