Why does every republican explanation for opposition to gay marriage always include the irrational argument that says "what's next? you can marry your dog?"

They try to claim gays are unnatural, but they're the ones that always seem to be thinking about sex with animals.

They don't typically. Unless they're either knuckleheads, or just screwing with you, or using it as an extreme. Although I don't doubt that there are some nuts out there on the other side who would argue for it.

But it's not "gay marriage" it's same-sex marriage and that does raise some more practical questions. There's nothing in the same-sex marriage decisions that requires that you're gay or makes gays special. Why can't I, for example, "marry" my brother or another relative for tax and/or other financial reasons or in order to get benefits?

And if I do, then why should I be limited to marrying just him? Why can't I have multiple marriages including with another woman? Bigamy laws seem kind of old fashioned at this point. Might as well get rid of them too. Can't be infringing on my civil rights to marry whomever I choose right?

The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I
> hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.


What slippery slope?

Please explain... How does "equal protection under the law" not apply to TWO CONSENTING ADULTS???

no they don't Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I
> > hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.
>
>
> What slippery slope?


Why cant more than two people get married for example. Why is that discrimination fine? Its hypocritical to be for gay marriage and against polygamy.

no they don't Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain... How does "equal protection under
> the law" not apply to TWO CONSENTING ADULTS???


Why only 2 why not more?

Why not brother and sister or other family members?

The government shouldnt be marrying people anyway

Marriage has always been between just two people. It was just a consenting man and consenting woman. Now its just two consenting people. Who cares. Doesn't hurt anyone. Don't waste time responding to me, I don't care about this.

facts again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marriage has always been between just two people.
> It was just a consenting man and consenting woman.
> Now its just two consenting people. Who cares.
> Doesn't hurt anyone. Don't waste time responding
> to me, I don't care about this.


So your argument is that not having gay marriage is discrimination but your fine discriminating against other?

Further more you justify that by saying marriage has always been between a man and a women?

Sorry you just changed the definition of marriage.

Youre argument just exposed the hypocrisy of gay marriage advocates.

Clearly you care to have posted even though your argument is garbage.

facts again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marriage has always been between just two people.
> It was just a consenting man and consenting woman.
> Now its just two consenting people. Who cares.
> Doesn't hurt anyone. Don't waste time responding
> to me, I don't care about this.


Apparently, you do care.

Marriage is being re-defined.

It is hypocritical for you, a supporter of gay marriage, to limit the rules of marriage to your own definition.

That is just fucked up.

AlioHandro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does every republican explanation for
> opposition to gay marriage always include the
> irrational argument that says "what's next? you
> can marry your dog?"
>
> They try to claim gays are unnatural, but they're
> the ones that always seem to be thinking about sex
> with animals.


So, you've been proven to be a hypocrite (it's OK for gays to marry, but not brothers & sisters or one man and 12 women, etc).

And gay sex is unnatural sex. Wanting to have sex with another guy is a sexual deviation. That is why some probably equate gay marriage to marriage to one's dog. I think the analogy is wrong (dog's can't conceive of marriage), but there is no denying that homo sex is an unnatural deviation of the normal human condition.

AlioHandro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does every republican explanation for
> opposition to gay marriage always include the
> irrational argument that says "what's next? you
> can marry your dog?"
>
> They try to claim gays are unnatural, but they're
> the ones that always seem to be thinking about sex
> with animals.


Have you seen Mary Cheney?

RushTurdededed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AlioHandro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why does every republican explanation for
> > opposition to gay marriage always include the
> > irrational argument that says "what's next? you
> > can marry your dog?"
> >
> > They try to claim gays are unnatural, but
> they're
> > the ones that always seem to be thinking about
> sex
> > with animals.
>
>
> Have you seen Mary Cheney?


Very average looking for a 40-something year old. Nothing great to look at, but not so ugly that kids would run away screaming. What's your point (or is this more of that great liberal acceptance that we always hear about)?
 
Attachments:

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I
> hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.

No, it does not.

Old model: 1 Man + 1 Woman = Married Couple (1 + 1 = 2)

New Model: 1 Man or 1 Woman + 1 Woman or 1 Man = Married Couple (1 + 1 = 2)

Same equation, different inputs, same result.

Fortune Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I
> > hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> Old model: 1 Man + 1 Woman = Married Couple (1 + 1
> = 2)
>
> New Model: 1 Man or 1 Woman +
> 1 Woman or 1 Man = Married
> Couple (1 + 1 = 2)
>
> Same equation, different inputs, same result.
>
>


1 Brother + 1 Sister = 1 Couple

Yep, no slippery slope there. Lib logic at it's finest.

boogie man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 Brother + 1
> Sister = 1 Couple
>
> Yep, no slippery slope there. Lib logic at it's
> finest.

Which has always been illegal. For what reason would that change under the new model? That's right: None.

Con-tard logic at it's finest.

Fortune Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boogie man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1 Brother + 1
> > Sister = 1 Couple
> >
> > Yep, no slippery slope there. Lib logic at
> it's
> > finest.
>
> Which has always been illegal. For what reason
> would that change under the new model? That's
> right: None.
>
> Con-tard logic at it's finest.


Homos marrying has always been illegal, until it wasn't anymore. It took the courts to make it so based on the shaky premise of equality. Thus, gays have no more (or less) right to marry than siblings. Your position is logically indefensible. Per usual, the illogic of the lib position is glaring. Discrimination is only bad for certain groups, IRS targeting is only good when done to certain non-liberal organizations, greed is only bad for certain classes, etc. The Divider-in-Chief and his sheeple, destroying this country by picking every divisive issue out there and shoving it down America's collective throat.

boggie man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Homos marrying has always been illegal, until it
> wasn't anymore. It took the courts to make it so
> based on the shaky premise of equality. Thus,
> gays have no more (or less) right to marry than
> siblings. Your position is logically
> indefensible. Per usual, the illogic of the lib
> position is glaring. Discrimination is only bad
> for certain groups, IRS targeting is only good
> when done to certain non-liberal organizations,
> greed is only bad for certain classes, etc. The
> Divider-in-Chief and his sheeple, destroying this
> country by picking every divisive issue out there
> and shoving it down America's collective throat.

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Attachments:

M6dn3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They don't typically. Unless they're either
> knuckleheads, or just screwing with you, or using
> it as an extreme. Although I don't doubt that
> there are some nuts out there on the other side
> who would argue for it.


That was the basis of Rick Santorum's campaign. He clearly stated that gay acts would lead to act of bestiality and wild sex orgies.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear...

It's same-sex marriage not gay marriage. There is no requirement to be gay.

All of the "committed relationship" test stuff is out the window now since there's no longer a need to differentiate.

So, if you want to "marry" your fishing buddy or roommate or gal pal to get on their health insurance, or want to set up sham same-sex marriages to get somebody into the country, for tax purposes, or for whatever other ways you can come up with to game the system, then you go right ahead.

Marrying immediate family members probably still is illegal most places but I'm sure that somebody will challenge that soon.

LiverLips Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M6dn3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They don't typically. Unless they're either
> > knuckleheads, or just screwing with you, or
> using
> > it as an extreme. Although I don't doubt that
> > there are some nuts out there on the other side
> > who would argue for it.
>
>
> That was the basis of Rick Santorum's campaign.
> He clearly stated that gay acts would lead to act
> of bestiality and wild sex orgies.


A disingenuous interpretation at best. What Santorum said was:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

pancreaslips Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LiverLips Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > M6dn3 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They don't typically. Unless they're either
> > > knuckleheads, or just screwing with you, or
> > using
> > > it as an extreme. Although I don't doubt
> that
> > > there are some nuts out there on the other
> side
> > > who would argue for it.
> >
> >
> > That was the basis of Rick Santorum's campaign.
>
> > He clearly stated that gay acts would lead to
> act
> > of bestiality and wild sex orgies.
>
>
> A disingenuous interpretation at best. What
> Santorum said was:
>
> "In every society, the definition of marriage has
> not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.
> That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you
> know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the
> case may be. It is one thing."

Stop trying to confuse them with facts.

You're going to ruin all of my brainwashing.

Obamaspeak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want to make one thing perfectly clear...
>
> It's same-sex marriage not gay marriage. There is
> no requirement to be gay.
>
> All of the "committed relationship" test stuff is
> out the window now since there's no longer a need
> to differentiate.
>
> So, if you want to "marry" your fishing buddy or
> roommate or gal pal to get on their health
> insurance, or want to set up sham same-sex
> marriages to get somebody into the country, for
> tax purposes, or for whatever other ways you can
> come up with to game the system, then you go right
> ahead.
>
> Marrying immediate family members probably still
> is illegal most places but I'm sure that somebody
> will challenge that soon.


Banning incestuous marriage should be challenged. As should polygamy, bigamy and anything else different than traditional definition of marriage. Soon, the hypocrisy of the left will once again be on blaring display (not that they care anymore). Just like Bush wiretapping bad, Obama wiretapping (Bush wiretapping on steroids) good.

Dear Idiots,

If enough people thought that brothers and sisters, fathers and sons, or people and dogs should be allowed to get married and elected enough representatives to government to get that legislation passed, then I guess that means such unions wouldn't be socially taboo. See how that works? This "what's next" argument is incredibly stupid because NOBODY is asking to marry their dog. MANY people are asking for same-sex marriage. I imagine if the internet existed in the 60's that people would be saying, "If we let black people have equal rights, what's next? Dogs are allowed to vote and attend school with white people?"

The only logical argument I've heard against same-sex marriage is its potential abuse for business purposes. For example, two straight men own successful companies and enter into a same-sex marriage for... whatever financial benefits you get from being married to someone. It's not a very strong argument, but it's the only one that wasn't based on "gays are unnatural."

Also, you should probably wait until the divorce rate in this country is lower than 50% before making any kind of "sanctity of marriage" arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

boggie man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fortune Teller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > boogie man Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 1 Brother + 1
> > > Sister = 1 Couple
> > >
> > > Yep, no slippery slope there. Lib logic at
> > it's
> > > finest.
> >
> > Which has always been illegal. For what reason
> > would that change under the new model? That's
> > right: None.
> >
> > Con-tard logic at it's finest.
>
>
> Homos marrying has always been illegal, until it
> wasn't anymore. It took the courts to make it so
> based on the shaky premise of equality. Thus,
> gays have no more (or less) right to marry than
> siblings. Your position is logically
> indefensible. Per usual, the illogic of the lib
> position is glaring. Discrimination is only bad
> for certain groups, IRS targeting is only good
> when done to certain non-liberal organizations,
> greed is only bad for certain classes, etc. The
> Divider-in-Chief and his sheeple, destroying this
> country by picking every divisive issue out there
> and shoving it down America's collective throat.


I think the words your looking for are fundamentally transform America. Oblamer told us he was going to do it and he's doing it. We are now quickly becoming a 2nd rate military power, economic power and diplomatic power. A 2nd rate America, what's not to like?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Idiots,
>
> If enough people thought that brothers and
> sisters, fathers and sons, or people and dogs
> should be allowed to get married and elected
> enough representatives to government to get that
> legislation passed, then I guess that means such
> unions wouldn't be socially taboo. See how that
> works? This "what's next" argument is incredibly
> stupid because NOBODY is asking to marry their
> dog. MANY people are asking for same-sex marriage.
> I imagine if the internet existed in the 60's that
> people would be saying, "If we let black people
> have equal rights, what's next? Dogs are allowed
> to vote and attend school with white people?"
>
> The only logical argument I've heard
> against same-sex marriage is its potential abuse
> for business purposes. For example, two straight
> men own successful companies and enter into a
> same-sex marriage for... whatever financial
> benefits you get from being married to someone.
> It's not a very strong argument, but it's the only
> one that wasn't based on "gays are unnatural."
>
> Also, you should probably wait until the divorce
> rate in this country is lower than 50% before
> making any kind of "sanctity of marriage"
> arguments.


So slavery was OK until enough people decided it wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK because enough people thought it was? Right and wrong is only what enough people think it is? Weak. And stupid.

Obamaspeak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want to make one thing perfectly clear...
>
> It's same-sex marriage not gay marriage. There is
> no requirement to be gay.
>
> All of the "committed relationship" test stuff is
> out the window now since there's no longer a need
> to differentiate.
>
> So, if you want to "marry" your fishing buddy or
> roommate or gal pal to get on their health
> insurance, or want to set up sham same-sex
> marriages to get somebody into the country, for
> tax purposes, or for whatever other ways you can
> come up with to game the system, then you go right
> ahead.
>
> Marrying immediate family members probably still
> is illegal most places but I'm sure that somebody
> will challenge that soon.

As if sham marriages don't happen between heteros.

So waht's your point?
Attachments:

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obamaspeak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I want to make one thing perfectly clear...
> >
> > It's same-sex marriage not gay marriage. There
> is
> > no requirement to be gay.
> >
> > All of the "committed relationship" test stuff
> is
> > out the window now since there's no longer a
> need
> > to differentiate.
> >
> > So, if you want to "marry" your fishing buddy
> or
> > roommate or gal pal to get on their health
> > insurance, or want to set up sham same-sex
> > marriages to get somebody into the country, for
> > tax purposes, or for whatever other ways you
> can
> > come up with to game the system, then you go
> right
> > ahead.
> >
> > Marrying immediate family members probably
> still
> > is illegal most places but I'm sure that
> somebody
> > will challenge that soon.
>
> As if sham marriages don't happen between
> heteros.
>
> So waht's your point?

True, but limited for a variety of reasons and this opens up a whole new range of possibilities and associated issues.

The most likely result of which longer term will be further marginalization of marriage as a social construct. As has been noted even by some advocates for same-sex marriage. Whatever your opinion of "gay marriage" there are some significant social benefits to the institution of marriage. Which is a big part of why it's been encouraged through various legal, financial, and other ways by societies. That likely will be diminshed by responses which will reduce the incentives for marriage generally.

Obamaspeak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> True, but limited for a variety of reasons and
> this opens up a whole new range of possibilities
> and associated issues.
>
> The most likely result of which longer term will
> be further marginalization of marriage as a social
> construct. As has been noted even by some
> advocates for same-sex marriage. Whatever your
> opinion of "gay marriage" there are some
> significant social benefits to the institution of
> marriage. Which is a big part of why it's been
> encouraged through various legal, financial, and
> other ways by societies. That likely will be
> diminshed by responses which will reduce the
> incentives for marriage generally.


This has never been about marriage. Civil unions, once universally available would have taken care of the benefits/taxes/visitation/etc issues. This is about acceptance of homosexuality as "normal". Homosexuality is no more normal than pedophilia, BDSM or any other deviant sexual behavior.

Obamaspeak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, but limited for a variety of reasons and
> this opens up a whole new range of possibilities
> and associated issues.
>
> The most likely result of which longer term will
> be further marginalization of marriage as a social
> construct. As has been noted even by some
> advocates for same-sex marriage. Whatever your
> opinion of "gay marriage" there are some
> significant social benefits to the institution of
> marriage. Which is a big part of why it's been
> encouraged through various legal, financial, and
> other ways by societies. That likely will be
> diminshed by responses which will reduce the
> incentives for marriage generally.

I'm still not sure what your issue is with same-sex marriage that does not apply equally to differnt-sex marriage.

I'm a doctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This has never been about marriage. Civil unions,
> once universally available would have taken care
> of the benefits/taxes/visitation/etc issues. This
> is about acceptance of homosexuality as "normal".
> Homosexuality is no more normal than pedophilia,
> BDSM or any other deviant sexual behavior.

No, not really. Replace 'marriage' with 'education':

"This has never been about education. Separate but equal, once universally available, would have taken care of learnin' for the darkies. This is about acceptance of darkies as human. Darkies are no more human than horses, cattle or any other animal."

It's about civil rights.

Thin Blew Line Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the words your looking for are
> fundamentally transform America. Oblamer
> told us he was going to do it and he's doing it.
> We are now quickly becoming a 2nd rate military
> power, economic power and diplomatic power. A 2nd
> rate America, what's not to like?

GOP-tards!

LoLz!

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obamaspeak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True, but limited for a variety of reasons and
> > this opens up a whole new range of
> possibilities
> > and associated issues.
> >
> > The most likely result of which longer term
> will
> > be further marginalization of marriage as a
> social
> > construct. As has been noted even by some
> > advocates for same-sex marriage. Whatever your
> > opinion of "gay marriage" there are some
> > significant social benefits to the institution
> of
> > marriage. Which is a big part of why it's been
> > encouraged through various legal, financial,
> and
> > other ways by societies. That likely will be
> > diminshed by responses which will reduce the
> > incentives for marriage generally.
>
> I'm still not sure what your issue is with
> same-sex marriage that does not apply equally to
> differnt-sex marriage.
>

Didn't say that I had an "issue" with it. Just noting that it does potentially change the basic nature and purposes of "marriage" and opens up a lot more possibilities. Just in terms of numbers you've doubled it. Practically speaking more so since people are more likely to have longer-term trusted friends and associates of the same than the opposite sex and a lot of the traditional social limitations that restrict marriages of convenience don't exist as much.

For example, there were times in my poor-ass past when I would have seriously considered "marrying" one of my long-term roommates in order to get health insurance or to help them out in some way. Not nearly as likely that I would have done the same with the very few trusted female friends I had or some random girlfriend.

The more that the advantages of that kind of thing become recognized and acceptable, the more it will happen, and in response the more restrictions will be imposed on (less likely) or simply removed from (more likely) the incentives provided for marriage.

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a doctor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This has never been about marriage. Civil
> unions,
> > once universally available would have taken
> care
> > of the benefits/taxes/visitation/etc issues.
> This
> > is about acceptance of homosexuality as
> "normal".
> > Homosexuality is no more normal than
> pedophilia,
> > BDSM or any other deviant sexual behavior.
>
> No, not really. Replace 'marriage' with
> 'education':
>
> "This has never been about education. Separate
> but equal, once universally available, would have
> taken care of learnin' for the darkies. This is
> about acceptance of darkies as human. Darkies are
> no more human than horses, cattle or any other
> animal."
>
> It's about civil rights.


Yes, really. Deviant behavior is deviant behavior. No matter how much you want homoism to be normal, it's not. It is about sexuality and it is deviant. Thus, it is sexually deviant.

You analogy is flawed as well. A better analogy would have been to compare gays to blacks & whites. Still a flawed analogy, but 100 times closer to the idea under discussion than education. "education = marriage" LOL

Sorry 'bout your fail there. But trying to defend the indefensible is tough, so I understand the contortions that gay marriage defenders have to go through and not also support every other kind of "marriage" any two people or group of people want to have.
(0)^(0)
Attachments:

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Idiots,
>

You lose credibility when you begin your post with the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance down a notch or two there buddy.

Just to END the "unnatural" rantings.........

Guess what you homophobic fucks - MEN fuck WOMEN in the ASS all the time.

I'm a doctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, really. Deviant behavior is deviant
> behavior. No matter how much you want homoism to
> be normal, it's not. It is about sexuality and it
> is deviant. Thus, it is sexually deviant.
>
> You analogy is flawed as well. A better analogy
> would have been to compare gays to blacks &
> whites. Still a flawed analogy, but 100 times
> closer to the idea under discussion than
> education. "education = marriage" LOL
>
> Sorry 'bout your fail there. But trying to defend
> the indefensible is tough, so I understand the
> contortions that gay marriage defenders have to go
> through and not also support every other kind of
> "marriage" any two people or group of people want
> to have.

GOP-tards!

LoLz!

I'm a doctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, really. Deviant behavior is deviant
> behavior. No matter how much you want homoism to
> be normal, it's not. It is about sexuality and it
> is deviant. Thus, it is sexually deviant.

Fighting the urge are we, Doctor? Pretending to be staright? Are you trapped in a sham marriage?

It is undeniably sad that you feel the need to closet yourself and lash out at those who are out in the world and free...free...they're free. When will you come out, Doctor?

pXmDC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to END the "unnatural" rantings.........
>
> Guess what you homophobic fucks - MEN fuck WOMEN
> in the ASS all the time.


LOL. Homoism isn't about anal sex. It's about being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. What an uneducated goober you are to not know the difference. Trust me, I'm a doctor so identifying you as an uneducated goober is a diagnosis, not just an opinion.

Homoism? Is this some bullshit academic term you learned in Sociology?

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a doctor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, really. Deviant behavior is deviant
> > behavior. No matter how much you want homoism
> to
> > be normal, it's not. It is about sexuality and
> it
> > is deviant. Thus, it is sexually deviant.
>
> Fighting the urge are we, Doctor? Pretending to
> be staright? Are you trapped in a sham marriage?
>
> It is undeniably sad that you feel the need to
> closet yourself and lash out at those who are out
> in the world and free...free...they're free. When
> will you come out, Doctor?


Yes, anyone who states the fact that homoism is deviant has to be a closeted homo. LOL. Your logic is as strong as ever (sadly for you).

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Homoism? Is this some bullshit academic term you
> learned in Sociology?


Don't sweat the small stuff eesh. Keep your eye on the prize.

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a doctor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This has never been about marriage. Civil
> unions,
> > once universally available would have taken
> care
> > of the benefits/taxes/visitation/etc issues.
> This
> > is about acceptance of homosexuality as
> "normal".
> > Homosexuality is no more normal than
> pedophilia,
> > BDSM or any other deviant sexual behavior.
>
> No, not really. Replace 'marriage' with
> 'education':
>
> "This has never been about education. Separate
> but equal, once universally available, would have
> taken care of learnin' for the darkies. This is
> about acceptance of darkies as human. Darkies are
> no more human than horses, cattle or any other
> animal."
>
> It's about civil rights.

So why dont you believe in civil rights for polygamists then or brothers and sisters that want to marry?

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why dont you believe in civil rights for
> polygamists then or brothers and sisters that want
> to marry?

New definition of marriage: 1 Man/1 Woman + 1 Woman/1 Man = Married Couple

MrsMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So slavery was OK until enough people decided it
> wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK because
> enough people thought it was? Right and wrong is
> only what enough people think it is? Weak. And
> stupid.

I'm not sure you understand how a society works. If the majority of people in a society think something is correct or acceptable, then to that society, that something is correct or acceptable. So yes, owning slaves in America was acceptable until enough people said that it was not, so we abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought that the systematic extermination of Jewish people was acceptable until enough people said that it was not (or, at least, until we killed most of the people who thought it was). That's how a society progresses.

If it sounds like moral relativism, it's because that's exactly what it is. Culture and society's opinions change as the society progresses.

mister big shot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose credibility when you begin your post with
> the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance down a
> notch or two there buddy.

How should I address a group of people that think same-sex marriage is essentially the same thing as dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrsMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So slavery was OK until enough people decided
> it
> > wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK because
> > enough people thought it was? Right and wrong
> is
> > only what enough people think it is? Weak.
> And
> > stupid.
>
> I'm not sure you understand how a society works.
> If the majority of people in a society think
> something is correct or acceptable, then to that
> society, that something is correct or acceptable.
> So yes, owning slaves in America was acceptable
> until enough people said that it was not, so we
> abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought that the
> systematic extermination of Jewish people was
> acceptable until enough people said that it was
> not (or, at least, until we killed most of the
> people who thought it was). That's how a society
> progresses.
>
> If it sounds like moral relativism, it's because
> that's exactly what it is. Culture and society's
> opinions change as the society progresses.
>
> mister big shot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You lose credibility when you begin your post
> with
> > the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance down
> a
> > notch or two there buddy.
>
> How should I address a group of people that think
> same-sex marriage is essentially the same thing as
> dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"

+1

Well said!

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> New definition of marriage: 1 Man/1 Woman + 1
> Woman/1 Man = Married Couple

That's how Webster's Dictionary defines it.

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So why dont you believe in civil rights for
> > polygamists then or brothers and sisters that
> want
> > to marry?
>
> New definition of marriage: 1 Man/1 Woman + 1
> Woman/1 Man = Married Couple


Youre using the definition of marriage argument against to support discrimination after just redefining it because we couldnt discriminate.

So in other words your answer is because you said so and discrimination against them is fine.

I want a legitimate reason why you feel the need to discriminate against brothers and sisters or family members and more than 2 people who want to get married. So far the best youve been able to do is use the definition of marriage which is very ironic.

I can do it but this just shows the hypocrisy of the gay marriage crowd and how you just argue on emotion for whatever you want when theres no moral consistency at all

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want a legitimate reason why you feel the need
> to discriminate against brothers and sisters or
> family members and more than 2 people who want to
> get married.

Read MrsMephisto's post @ 1:51 PM.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can do it but this just shows the hypocrisy of
> the gay marriage crowd and how you just argue on
> emotion for whatever you want when theres no moral
> consistency at all

Civil union provides identical rights. It's a "fuck you" to the religious institutions that look down upon homosexuality.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrsMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So slavery was OK until enough people decided
> it
> > wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK because
> > enough people thought it was? Right and wrong
> is
> > only what enough people think it is? Weak.
> And
> > stupid.
>
> I'm not sure you understand how a society works.
> If the majority of people in a society think
> something is correct or acceptable, then to that
> society, that something is correct or acceptable.
> So yes, owning slaves in America was acceptable
> until enough people said that it was not, so we
> abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought that the
> systematic extermination of Jewish people was
> acceptable until enough people said that it was
> not (or, at least, until we killed most of the
> people who thought it was). That's how a society
> progresses.
>
> If it sounds like moral relativism, it's because
> that's exactly what it is. Culture and society's
> opinions change as the society progresses.
>
> mister big shot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You lose credibility when you begin your post
> with
> > the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance down
> a
> > notch or two there buddy.
>
> How should I address a group of people that think
> same-sex marriage is essentially the same thing as
> dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"


And so, in California, which voted to define marriage as between only a man and women, your entire argument falls apart. Yet, I'm sure you support the SCOTUS overturning that decision on a fricking technicality. Oh Meph, you a weaker than normal today. And that, my gay friend, is really very weak.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civil union provides identical rights. It's a
> "fuck you" to the religious institutions that look
> down upon homosexuality.



"Separate but equal" doesn't fly any longer, my Brother.

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I want a legitimate reason why you feel the
> need
> > to discriminate against brothers and sisters or
> > family members and more than 2 people who want
> to
> > get married.
>
> Read MrsMephisto's post @ 1:51 PM.

His post is filled with the same hypocrisy. You cant make civil rights arguments for one group then just say eh we dont care about the others.

Further more the truth is the majority of society doesnt care or doesnt want gay marriage. Whenever its put to the voters it fails miserably far more often than it passes.

So again how to do you justify saying a court should overrule voters for that but not the other groups?

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can do it but this just shows the hypocrisy
> of
> > the gay marriage crowd and how you just argue
> on
> > emotion for whatever you want when theres no
> moral
> > consistency at all
>
> Civil union provides identical rights. It's a
> "fuck you" to the religious institutions that look
> down upon homosexuality.

Exactly. The next step will probably be a push to force churches to marry them. They could have had civil unions 15 years ago and it would a complete non issue.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrsMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So slavery was OK until enough people decided
> it
> > wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK because
> > enough people thought it was? Right and wrong
> is
> > only what enough people think it is? Weak.
> And
> > stupid.
>
> I'm not sure you understand how a society works.
> If the majority of people in a society think
> something is correct or acceptable, then to that
> society, that something is correct or acceptable.
> So yes, owning slaves in America was acceptable
> until enough people said that it was not, so we
> abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought that the
> systematic extermination of Jewish people was
> acceptable until enough people said that it was
> not (or, at least, until we killed most of the
> people who thought it was). That's how a society
> progresses.
>
> If it sounds like moral relativism, it's because
> that's exactly what it is. Culture and society's
> opinions change as the society progresses.
>
> mister big shot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You lose credibility when you begin your post
> with
> > the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance down
> a
> > notch or two there buddy.
>
> How should I address a group of people that think
> same-sex marriage is essentially the same thing as
> dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"


Acceptable and right are not the same thing. Letting fags marry is no more or less right than allowing siblings to marry. Whether or not the degeneration of society makes one more acceptable than the other does not make it right. Slavery was never right, but, as you acknowledge, it was acceptable. Right now, in Iran, it is acceptable to stone fags. Does that make it right?

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Further more the truth is the majority of society
> doesnt care or doesnt want gay marriage.

False - well over 70% favor the rights given, and for your terms "gay marriage".



> Whenever
> its put to the voters it fails miserably far more
> often than it passes.

Because people do not go out and vote on common sense issues unless they are AGAINST it personally.

The brother/sister and multiple wives does not hold water. It is just another way to avoid the basic simple rights given to people who are of the same sex.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Youre using the definition of marriage argument
> against to support discrimination after just
> redefining it because we couldnt discriminate.
>
> So in other words your answer is because you said
> so and discrimination against them is fine.
>
> I want a legitimate reason why you feel the need
> to discriminate against brothers and sisters or
> family members and more than 2 people who want to
> get married. So far the best youve been able to
> do is use the definition of marriage which is very
> ironic.
>
> I can do it but this just shows the hypocrisy of
> the gay marriage crowd and how you just argue on
> emotion for whatever you want when theres no moral
> consistency at all

Perhaps you should be the one to bring such a case before our judical system and see what happens? Do you have standing to do so?

TrueBlew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrsMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So slavery was OK until enough people decided
> > it
> > > wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK
> because
> > > enough people thought it was? Right and
> wrong
> > is
> > > only what enough people think it is? Weak.
> > And
> > > stupid.
> >
> > I'm not sure you understand how a society
> works.
> > If the majority of people in a society think
> > something is correct or acceptable, then to
> that
> > society, that something is correct or
> acceptable.
> > So yes, owning slaves in America was acceptable
> > until enough people said that it was not, so we
> > abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought that
> the
> > systematic extermination of Jewish people was
> > acceptable until enough people said that it was
> > not (or, at least, until we killed most of the
> > people who thought it was). That's how a
> society
> > progresses.
> >
> > If it sounds like moral relativism, it's
> because
> > that's exactly what it is. Culture and
> society's
> > opinions change as the society progresses.
> >
> > mister big shot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You lose credibility when you begin your post
> > with
> > > the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance
> down
> > a
> > > notch or two there buddy.
> >
> > How should I address a group of people that
> think
> > same-sex marriage is essentially the same thing
> as
> > dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"
>
>
> Acceptable and right are not the same thing.
> Letting fags marry is no more or less right than
> allowing siblings to marry. Whether or not the
> degeneration of society makes one more acceptable
> than the other does not make it right. Slavery
> was never right, but, as you acknowledge, it was
> acceptable. Right now, in Iran, it is acceptable
> to stone fags. Does that make it right?


No logic in your points, just avoidance of the rights won by same sex couples.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. The next step will probably be a push to
> force churches to marry them. They could have had
> civil unions 15 years ago and it would a complete
> non issue.

I don't think that would happen. The churches would refuse to do it, and the government would be powerless to force it.

Shamu The Marriage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Separate but equal" doesn't fly any longer, my
> Brother.

In this case, separate is equal.

GxFkc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TrueBlew Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > MrsMephisto Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So slavery was OK until enough people
> decided
> > > it
> > > > wasn't? Killing Jews in Germany was OK
> > because
> > > > enough people thought it was? Right and
> > wrong
> > > is
> > > > only what enough people think it is? Weak.
>
> > > And
> > > > stupid.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure you understand how a society
> > works.
> > > If the majority of people in a society think
> > > something is correct or acceptable, then to
> > that
> > > society, that something is correct or
> > acceptable.
> > > So yes, owning slaves in America was
> acceptable
> > > until enough people said that it was not, so
> we
> > > abolished slavery. Enough Germans thought
> that
> > the
> > > systematic extermination of Jewish people was
> > > acceptable until enough people said that it
> was
> > > not (or, at least, until we killed most of
> the
> > > people who thought it was). That's how a
> > society
> > > progresses.
> > >
> > > If it sounds like moral relativism, it's
> > because
> > > that's exactly what it is. Culture and
> > society's
> > > opinions change as the society progresses.
> > >
> > > mister big shot Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > You lose credibility when you begin your
> post
> > > with
> > > > the "idiot" comment. Take your arrogance
> > down
> > > a
> > > > notch or two there buddy.
> > >
> > > How should I address a group of people that
> > think
> > > same-sex marriage is essentially the same
> thing
> > as
> > > dog-fucking? "Dear Enlightened Geniuses?"
> >
> >
> > Acceptable and right are not the same thing.
> > Letting fags marry is no more or less right
> than
> > allowing siblings to marry. Whether or not the
> > degeneration of society makes one more
> acceptable
> > than the other does not make it right. Slavery
> > was never right, but, as you acknowledge, it
> was
> > acceptable. Right now, in Iran, it is
> acceptable
> > to stone fags. Does that make it right?
>
>
> No logic in your points, just avoidance of the
> rights won by same sex couples.


Avoidance seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Logic, on the other hand, is not. The logic is irrefutable or you would point out the deficiency. As someone much smarter than you, I can not find a flaw in the logic if the assumptions stated are true. Sorry, you just aren't smart enough to engage in this debate. Please retire to the side and let those of us who can think above a 4th grade level continue. Thanks in advance

 
Attachments:

Vmdev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Further more the truth is the majority of
> society
> > doesnt care or doesnt want gay marriage.
>
> False - well over 70% favor the rights given, and
> for your terms "gay marriage".

False its been outlawed in several states when the people were allowed to vote on it. Even Liberal California voters voted to outlaw it.


> Because people do not go out and vote on common
> sense issues unless they are AGAINST it
> personally.

Its put on normal ballots and usually a presidential election one, you dont have to go out to vote for or against it you do so as part of voting.

> The brother/sister and multiple wives does not
> hold water. It is just another way to avoid the
> basic simple rights given to people who are of the
> same sex.

It holds a lot of water, there are arguments against them but its quite clear you havent spent even the most minimal of effort to do so.

Your hypocrisy is noted.

Two guys having sex? That's just gross. Really, how can anyone find a naked guy attractive at all. Now two women, that I could understand.

Puffery The Clown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps you should be the one to bring such a case
> before our judical system and see what happens?
> Do you have standing to do so?

Im not for polygamy or brother sister marriages. I just wanted to see if the liberals on here had any moral consistency or were smart enough to argue against those in a way that can keep their position relevant. Weve seen they arent and the best theyve come up with is the equivalent of saying because I said so.

The truth is those other marriages are being discriminated against and now they do have more support for why they should be allowed to have it since marriage has been rewritten. At the very least they have a shot of having polygamy decriminalized though very strong arguments remain for why neither should be allowed. It has nothing to do with the definition of marriage though

Only those who go out to vote against it are crying. You see, most people do not vote, so my statement is FACT.

Over 70% of the public has no problem or supports their rights.

The other scenarios are just that, other scenarios.

Like the comparison of slavery being "ok" at one time and so on is just ridiculous logic.

Vmdev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Further more the truth is the majority of
> society
> > doesnt care or doesnt want gay marriage.
>
> False - well over 70% favor the rights given, and
> for your terms "gay marriage".
>


Very doubtful. Unless you get squirrelly with wording or you're cherry-picking some particularly favorable and non-representative survey.


> > Whenever
> > its put to the voters it fails miserably far
> more
> > often than it passes.
>
> Because people do not go out and vote on common
> sense issues unless they are AGAINST it
> personally.


Again, not really true.


>
> The brother/sister and multiple wives does not
> hold water. It is just another way to avoid the
> basic simple rights given to people who are of the
> same sex.


Sure it does.

You're just not open-minded enough to accept it.

Bigot.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vmdev Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The brother/sister and multiple wives does not
> hold water. It is just another way to avoid the
> basic simple rights given to people who are of the
> same sex.

Yeah, they don't care about that. All these Neanderthals want is to muddy the waters, stir up angst, & detract from the altogether glorious victory won by our gay brother & sisters.

VvxxY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only those who go out to vote against it are
> crying. You see, most people do not vote, so my
> statement is FACT.
>
> Over 70% of the public has no problem or supports
> their rights.
>
> The other scenarios are just that, other
> scenarios.
>
> Like the comparison of slavery being "ok" at one
> time and so on is just ridiculous logic.

Still waiting for an actual argument and not just made up facts from you.......

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The truth is those other marriages are being
> discriminated against and now they do have more
> support for why they should be allowed to have it
> since marriage has been rewritten. At the very
> least they have a shot of having polygamy
> decriminalized though very strong arguments remain
> for why neither should be allowed.

Well then, you go fight the good fight! Send letters!

VvxxY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only those who go out to vote against it are
> crying. You see, most people do not vote, so my
> statement is FACT.
>
> Over 70% of the public has no problem or supports
> their rights.
>
> The other scenarios are just that, other
> scenarios.
>
> Like the comparison of slavery being "ok" at one
> time and so on is just ridiculous logic.


The people of CA spoke by vote 4½ years ago. They voted down gay marriage. Do you support that vote? Well, do ya? Punk?

 
Attachments:

Puffery The Clown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The truth is those other marriages are being
> > discriminated against and now they do have more
> > support for why they should be allowed to have
> it
> > since marriage has been rewritten. At the very
> > least they have a shot of having polygamy
> > decriminalized though very strong arguments
> remain
> > for why neither should be allowed.
>
> Well then, you go fight the good fight! Send
> letters!


Nah, get a bunch of incestuous pervs into the entertainment business and then ram it down our throats in every fucking movie and TV show. Then have a bunch of these perverts teach in colleges and tell their stupid college pots of clay that it's good to embrace pervert behavior and its the civil rights issue of their time to let the incestuous perverts marry. Then, get perverts on the courts that just rule it into law after 80% of the states reject these pervert demands anyway. You know, just do what the fags did.

vGcY7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Nah, get a bunch of incestuous pervs into the
> entertainment business and then ram it down our
> throats in every fucking movie and TV show. Then
> have a bunch of these perverts teach in colleges
> and tell their stupid college pots of clay that
> it's good to embrace pervert behavior and its the
> civil rights issue of their time to let the
> incestuous perverts marry. Then, get perverts on
> the courts that just rule it into law after 80% of
> the states reject these pervert demands anyway.
> You know, just do what the fags did.


+100. So true and well said.

vGcY7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah, get a bunch of incestuous pervs into the
> entertainment business and then ram it down our
> throats in every fucking movie and TV show. Then
> have a bunch of these perverts teach in colleges
> and tell their stupid college pots of clay that
> it's good to embrace pervert behavior and its the
> civil rights issue of their time to let the
> incestuous perverts marry. Then, get perverts on
> the courts that just rule it into law after 80% of
> the states reject these pervert demands anyway.
> You know, just do what the fags did.

GOP-trads!

LoLz!

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vGcY7 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nah, get a bunch of incestuous pervs into the
> > entertainment business and then ram it down our
> > throats in every fucking movie and TV show.
> Then
> > have a bunch of these perverts teach in
> colleges
> > and tell their stupid college pots of clay that
> > it's good to embrace pervert behavior and its
> the
> > civil rights issue of their time to let the
> > incestuous perverts marry. Then, get perverts
> on
> > the courts that just rule it into law after 80%
> of
> > the states reject these pervert demands anyway.
>
> > You know, just do what the fags did.
>
> GOP-trads!
>
> LoLz!


"GOP-trads" write the super-genius. LuLzzzzzzzzzzz

Marriage is, in practice, extremely difficult to define. Cross-culturally marriage has taken so many forms (same sex couples, marriage to people who are already dead, polygyamy, polyandry, divorce, monogamy) that the 'new' notions of marriage are old as old. They've been around forever and the sky never fell. Marriage is what you say it is, period. It has never, ever been '1 man and 1 woman', just because it often takes the form of monogamy doesn't mean it 'should' or is so 'natural'. If anything, polygamy is the way of the world as the vast majority of cultures allow it, as does ours, kinda.

Legalizing polygyny - it'll be difficult, but it will happen. It has in many ways already happened - you can have kids with your 'second wife' and be forced to pay child support, you just can't 'do the right thing' and legally marry. It'll be a legal quagmire - how do you parse parental rights with an unrelated cowife? How do you portion out a man's estate when he dies intestate with two wives? Does first wife get all of it? Do you prorate? It'll mean a lengthy pre-nup for all involved and probably classes to make sure everyone is onboard. But it will happen, sure as sunrise, it's only a matter of time.

Oh, and to the original purpose of this thread - gay marriage and bestiality don't always get lumped together in the minds of conservative. True story: years ago a state senator in Utah tried to get a law passed outlawing sexual congress with horses. He couldn't even get it to a vote, an not because people were embarrassed to even think about it. It got sufficient news coverage that another state senator when on record with why he was against even voting on it: 'You just don't know what it's like growing up in rural Utah'. Things are not always what they seem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2013 01:03PM by abelard.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Legalizing polygyny - it'll be difficult, but it
> will happen. It has in many ways already happened
> - you can have kids with your 'second wife' and be
> forced to pay child support, you just can't 'do
> the right thing' and legally marry. It'll be a
> legal quagmire - how do you parse parental rights
> with an unrelated cowife? How do you portion out
> a man's estate when he dies intestate with two
> wives? Does first wife get all of it? Do you
> prorate? It'll mean a lengthy pre-nup for all
> involved and probably classes to make sure
> everyone is onboard. But it will happen, sure as
> sunrise, it's only a matter of time.


You seem to be REALLY confused. Your mistress isnt your second wife or a wife at all. She gets nothing but your DNA and at best child support theres no legal quagmire only in your mind. Its also completely illegal hence your actual wife would be able to take you to the cleaners in a divorce if she wanted too.

And no polyagmy wont be legal nor is it legal in the world unless you mean third world countries and the middle east. No developed nation allows it and theres very good reasons for it but the pro gay marriage crowd hasnt figured out what those are yet.

And no people arent allowed to marry dead people either like you mentioned in your rant.

>You seem to be REALLY confused.

>Your mistress isnt your second wife or a wife at all. She gets nothing but your DNA
>and at best child support theres no legal quagmire only in your mind. Its also
>completely illegal hence your actual wife would be able to take you to the cleaners
>in a divorce if she wanted too.

Perhaps I was being unclear - the way it stands right now informal second wives (which they are) can sue for child support. That's legal recognition (of a sort) for informal second wives. It need not be this way - a quick bit of legislation to say 'no marriage, no child support' and this'd shut right down.

The 'legal quagmire' comes if you want to make polygyny actually legal. It's legal now in all but name, but not in actual name. All clear now?

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps I was being unclear - the way it stands
> right now informal second wives (which they
> are) can sue for child support. That's legal
> recognition (of a sort) for informal second wives.
> It need not be this way - a quick bit of
> legislation to say 'no marriage, no child support'
> and this'd shut right down.

The only reason she can sue is because she had a child, other than that she has no legal standing for any of your stuff. In no way is that an informal recognition of a 2nd wife, its merely a recognition of making you support a child you created.

> The 'legal quagmire' comes if you want to make
> polygyny actually legal. It's legal now in
> all but name, but not in actual name. All
> clear now?

Polygamy is illegal in every single state. The majority of states its actually a felony. In no way shape or form is it legal in anyway

>Polygamy is illegal in every single state. The majority of states its actually a felony. In no way shape or form is it legal in anyway

One last try - all but legal, Liberal. All the important elements are there save one - legal recognition of a polygynous marriage. As a married man, there is no law that says I can't fool around on my wife (at least, none that anybody bothers to enforce, and even then it's usually women fooling around, not men). There could be (although it'd be hard to enforce) but there isn't. There is no law that says an unmarried woman with whom I fathered a child is unable to ask for child support (if I'm married). There could be, but there isn't. There isn't a law that says if I fool around outside my marriage that my current marriage is automatically void. There could be, but the nearest thing is that my current wife can (although she's not required to) divorce me and take me to the cleaners.

I can co-habitate with a woman not my wife, I can have children with her, I can be forced to support our children - all perfectly legal (although my current wife might have something to say about it). The ONLY THING I can't do is actually marry my informal (meaning 'not legally recognized') second wife. Again, the law will allow me to do pretty much anything with my informal second wife EXCEPT marrying her. That's illegal. Hence the phrasing 'it's all but legal' (meaning 'not actually legal').

What this tells me is that folks don't want to try to legally untangle the mess it'd create to make polygyny legal, but we're also not interested in making all the elements (even the important ones, like having kids) also illegal to prevent or even further discourage informal second marriages. We could, but we don't. I think any reasonable inquiry into why polygyny isn't legal can only begin with the fact that it's all but legal (meaning 'not actually legal') already.

Literally nothing you said is legal. Polygamy is literally a felony. Cheating on your wife is illegal that comes with civil law penalties. Co-Habitation with someone else is also has civil law penalties and possibly can put you in jail for tax purposes. The actual co-habitation is illegal in several states though not really enforced.

Your using a child to defend your point but all goes against your argument. The child itself is what gets the rights and supposed to get the money from you, the other women isnt entitled to anything. If it was legal she could get something from you just for being with you like your wife would in a divorce.

Polygamy being illegal has nothing to do with a legal mess. It has everything to do with the good of society. Since none of the idiots above have figured it out Ill actually give the real reasons its illegal.

Its illegal because it destroys societies and theres documented studies that have proven this. If you allow polygamy the richest most powerful men get an large disproportionate percentage of women which destroys genetic lines and creates massive imbalances of society that ultimately destroys it. Older less attractive women are discarded for a new younger more attractive bunch and you get the problem of some kids being out casts ect. When relationships are only based on sex society quickly crumbles. You also only have essentially single mothers raising every child since a father with 500 wives cant be a father to all their children.

It isnt legal now and will never be legal until were at the end of the great run America has had.

Fortune Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The issue is that the "gay marriage" (a term I
> > hate) rulings open up a very slippery slope.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> Old model: 1 Man + 1 Woman = Married Couple (1 + 1
> = 2)
>
> New Model: 1 Man or 1 Woman +
> 1 Woman or 1 Man = Married
> Couple (1 + 1 = 2)
>
> Same equation, different inputs, same result.
>
>


Marriage, throughout the history of man, has been between males and females. So your obsession on numbers vs. the "inputs" is stupid. Gay marriage isn't about 1 + 1, it's about two incompatible "inputs" now being called "married", the basic building block of a family. Unreal.

I love how the bigots insist on "rational arguments" to justify same sex marriage, when they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you might as well be talking to the wall trying to engage Liberal logic in an intelligent discussion. Half of your arguments he won't understand, the other half he will just ignore because they don't comport with his sense of "normal" behavior.

At least be honest - you just hate gay people.

Cut Me a Break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> arguments" to justify same sex marriage, when
> they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you might as
> well be talking to the wall trying to engage
> Liberal logic in an intelligent discussion. Half
> of your arguments he won't understand, the other
> half he will just ignore because they don't
> comport with his sense of "normal" behavior.
>
> At least be honest - you just hate gay people.

Perfect example of a complete idiot just doing what hes told who cant put together a rational thought to save his life.

Please go on with your sensationalized hysterics

Conservative math doesn't usually equate, their cognitive skills are usually less than logical, and their understanding of history is pretty much selective if not non-existent.

For example, GOP Conservatives say they are Pro-Life (to protect the sanctity of life) but at the same time they are Pro-Death Penalty and Pro-NRA and Anti-Universal Healthcare (which is all about life). They even voted 37 times to try and repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

Another example, GOP Conservatives say they want to protect the Constitution, but they legislate like the First Amendment to the Constitution never existed. They want to legislatively force their Christian Religion and Values upon Non-Christian Americans in school, in Government, in everyday life - as if the separation of church and state wasn't a basic founding principle of the United States.

GOP Conservatives talk about Christian values - yet the want to take away funding for public education, public services, social services, etc. for the poor, medically and mentally infirm, etc.. I thought Jesus was all about doing right by those less fortunate. Jesus cast the money lenders out of the temple - but the GOP grants them corporate personhood and turns over the keys of the Government to them.

My favorite GOP math fail is when they say “Obama has spent more than every other President in United States history—combined; and, Obama has doubled the National Debt.” These are two great big fucking outrageous lies that first grade math easily disproves.

The national debt when Obama took office was $10.6 trillion.
THe current national debt currently sits at $16.4 trillion.
That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion.

$5.8 trillion is half (50%) of the $10.6 trillion in debt that Obama inherited. It is not twice as much. If he had doubled the debt it would be at $21.2 trillion because he would have had o have spent $10.6 trillion to double the national debt.

Don't get me wrong - $5.8 trillion is indeed a lot of money. But about $1.4 trillion of that was actually deficit spending that occurred in 2009, and those were expenditures in the budget passed in 2008 under President Bush. That puts Obama Administration additions to our national debt under at about $4.4 trillion.

$4.4 trillion is nowhere near more than all the other President's debt spending combined.

What the GOP Conservatives do to math and logic and the American people is worse than bestiality.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> > arguments" to justify same sex marriage, when
> > they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you might as
> > well be talking to the wall trying to engage
> > Liberal logic in an intelligent discussion.
> Half
> > of your arguments he won't understand, the
> other
> > half he will just ignore because they don't
> > comport with his sense of "normal" behavior.
> >
> > At least be honest - you just hate gay people.
>
> Perfect example of a complete idiot just doing
> what hes told

Really. What was I told?

> who cant put together a rational
> thought to save his life.

Which of my irrational thoughts above do you disagree with?

> Please go on with your sensationalized hysterics

I wrote nothing sensationalized or hysterical. Unlike you.

And you still hate gay people.

Cut Me a Break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> > > arguments" to justify same sex marriage, when
> > > they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you might
> as
> > > well be talking to the wall trying to engage
> > > Liberal logic in an intelligent discussion.
> > Half
> > > of your arguments he won't understand, the
> > other
> > > half he will just ignore because they don't
> > > comport with his sense of "normal" behavior.
> > >
> > > At least be honest - you just hate gay
> people.
> >
> > Perfect example of a complete idiot just doing
> > what hes told
>
> Really. What was I told?
>
> > who cant put together a rational
> > thought to save his life.
>
> Which of my irrational thoughts above do you
> disagree with?
>
> > Please go on with your sensationalized
> hysterics
>
> I wrote nothing sensationalized or hysterical.
> Unlike you.
>
> And you still hate gay people.

Bla bla bla you hate gay people, typical.

All your doing is typing bullshit and calling people bigots because thats all you have to stand on.

Everything you wrote is idiotic because your trying to defend that polygamy is legal, I cant even type that without yelling.

I also laid out the argument on how someone could actually support gay marriage while being against the other kinds without coming off as a hypocrite since none of you idiots could do so and have just been name calling and using traditional marriage values as an argument which is laughable.

BelowMe. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conservative math doesn't usually equate, their
> cognitive skills are usually less than logical,
> and their understanding of history is pretty much
> selective if not non-existent.
>
> For example, GOP Conservatives say they are
> Pro-Life (to protect the sanctity of life) but at
> the same time they are Pro-Death Penalty and
> Pro-NRA and Anti-Universal Healthcare (which is
> all about life). They even voted 37 times to try
> and repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.
>
> Another example, GOP Conservatives say they want
> to protect the Constitution, but they legislate
> like the First Amendment to the Constitution never
> existed. They want to legislatively force their
> Christian Religion and Values upon Non-Christian
> Americans in school, in Government, in everyday
> life - as if the separation of church and state
> wasn't a basic founding principle of the United
> States.
>
> GOP Conservatives talk about Christian values -
> yet the want to take away funding for public
> education, public services, social services, etc.
> for the poor, medically and mentally infirm, etc..
> I thought Jesus was all about doing right by
> those less fortunate. Jesus cast the money
> lenders out of the temple - but the GOP grants
> them corporate personhood and turns over the keys
> of the Government to them.
>
> My favorite GOP math fail is when they say
> “Obama has spent more than every other President
> in United States history—combined; and, Obama
> has doubled the National Debt.” These are two
> great big fucking outrageous lies that first grade
> math easily disproves.
>
> The national debt when Obama took office was $10.6
> trillion.
> THe current national debt currently sits at $16.4
> trillion.
> That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion.
>
> $5.8 trillion is half (50%) of the $10.6 trillion
> in debt that Obama inherited. It is not twice as
> much. If he had doubled the debt it would be at
> $21.2 trillion because he would have had o have
> spent $10.6 trillion to double the national debt.
>
> Don't get me wrong - $5.8 trillion is indeed a lot
> of money. But about $1.4 trillion of that was
> actually deficit spending that occurred in 2009,
> and those were expenditures in the budget passed
> in 2008 under President Bush. That puts Obama
> Administration additions to our national debt
> under at about $4.4 trillion.
>
> $4.4 trillion is nowhere near more than all the
> other President's debt spending combined.
>
> What the GOP Conservatives do to math and logic
> and the American people is worse than bestiality.


Uh huh

 
Attachments:

BelowMe. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conservative math doesn't usually equate, their
> cognitive skills are usually less than logical,
> and their understanding of history is pretty much
> selective if not non-existent.
>
> For example, GOP Conservatives say they are
> Pro-Life (to protect the sanctity of life) but at
> the same time they are Pro-Death Penalty and
> Pro-NRA and Anti-Universal Healthcare (which is
> all about life). They even voted 37 times to try
> and repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.
>
> Another example, GOP Conservatives say they want
> to protect the Constitution, but they legislate
> like the First Amendment to the Constitution never
> existed. They want to legislatively force their
> Christian Religion and Values upon Non-Christian
> Americans in school, in Government, in everyday
> life - as if the separation of church and state
> wasn't a basic founding principle of the United
> States.
>
> GOP Conservatives talk about Christian values -
> yet the want to take away funding for public
> education, public services, social services, etc.
> for the poor, medically and mentally infirm, etc..
> I thought Jesus was all about doing right by
> those less fortunate. Jesus cast the money
> lenders out of the temple - but the GOP grants
> them corporate personhood and turns over the keys
> of the Government to them.
>
> My favorite GOP math fail is when they say
> “Obama has spent more than every other President
> in United States history—combined; and, Obama
> has doubled the National Debt.” These are two
> great big fucking outrageous lies that first grade
> math easily disproves.
>
> The national debt when Obama took office was $10.6
> trillion.
> THe current national debt currently sits at $16.4
> trillion.
> That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion.
>
> $5.8 trillion is half (50%) of the $10.6 trillion
> in debt that Obama inherited. It is not twice as
> much. If he had doubled the debt it would be at
> $21.2 trillion because he would have had o have
> spent $10.6 trillion to double the national debt.
>
> Don't get me wrong - $5.8 trillion is indeed a lot
> of money. But about $1.4 trillion of that was
> actually deficit spending that occurred in 2009,
> and those were expenditures in the budget passed
> in 2008 under President Bush. That puts Obama
> Administration additions to our national debt
> under at about $4.4 trillion.
>
> $4.4 trillion is nowhere near more than all the
> other President's debt spending combined.
>
> What the GOP Conservatives do to math and logic
> and the American people is worse than bestiality.


????

.
Attachments:

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> > > > arguments" to justify same sex marriage,
> when
> > > > they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you might
> > as
> > > > well be talking to the wall trying to
> engage
> > > > Liberal logic in an intelligent discussion.
> > > Half
> > > > of your arguments he won't understand, the
> > > other
> > > > half he will just ignore because they don't
> > > > comport with his sense of "normal" behavior.
>
> > > >
> > > > At least be honest - you just hate gay
> > people.
> > >
> > > Perfect example of a complete idiot just
> doing
> > > what hes told
> >
> > Really. What was I told?
> >
> > > who cant put together a rational
> > > thought to save his life.
> >
> > Which of my irrational thoughts above do you
> > disagree with?
> >
> > > Please go on with your sensationalized
> > hysterics
> >
> > I wrote nothing sensationalized or hysterical.
> > Unlike you.
> >
> > And you still hate gay people.
>
> Bla bla bla you hate gay people, typical.

Uh...you DO hate gay people.

> All your doing is typing bullshit and calling
> people bigots because thats all you have to stand
> on.

Uh...you ARE a bigot.

> Everything you wrote is idiotic because your
> trying to defend that polygamy is legal, I cant
> even type that without yelling.

WHAT??? I didn't say anything about polygamy.

> I also laid out the argument on how someone could
> actually support gay marriage while being against
> the other kinds without coming off as a hypocrite
> since none of you idiots could do so and have just
> been name calling and using traditional marriage
> values as an argument which is laughable.

Translating...translating...

What other kinds of marriage are you talking about? The ones between a man and his poodle, a woman and her begonia, and all the other ridiculous bullshit you people put out? They're a real threat, all right.

I'm against polygamy because it invariably goes only one way and is used as a means of subjugating women and enabling pedophilia. Same with incest.

You'd have more credibility if you stopped trying to rationalize your viewpoint while denigrating everyone else's and just admitted what everyone knows - you hate gay people.

Cut Me a Break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> > > > > arguments" to justify same sex marriage,
> > when
> > > > > they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you
> might
> > > as
> > > > > well be talking to the wall trying to
> > engage
> > > > > Liberal logic in an intelligent
> discussion.
> > > > Half
> > > > > of your arguments he won't understand,
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > half he will just ignore because they
> don't
> > > > > comport with his sense of "normal"
> behavior.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > At least be honest - you just hate gay
> > > people.
> > > >
> > > > Perfect example of a complete idiot just
> > doing
> > > > what hes told
> > >
> > > Really. What was I told?
> > >
> > > > who cant put together a rational
> > > > thought to save his life.
> > >
> > > Which of my irrational thoughts above do you
> > > disagree with?
> > >
> > > > Please go on with your sensationalized
> > > hysterics
> > >
> > > I wrote nothing sensationalized or
> hysterical.
> > > Unlike you.
> > >
> > > And you still hate gay people.
> >
> > Bla bla bla you hate gay people, typical.
>
> Uh...you DO hate gay people.
>
> > All your doing is typing bullshit and calling
> > people bigots because thats all you have to
> stand
> > on.
>
> Uh...you ARE a bigot.
>
> > Everything you wrote is idiotic because your
> > trying to defend that polygamy is legal, I cant
> > even type that without yelling.
>
> WHAT??? I didn't say anything about polygamy.
>
> > I also laid out the argument on how someone
> could
> > actually support gay marriage while being
> against
> > the other kinds without coming off as a
> hypocrite
> > since none of you idiots could do so and have
> just
> > been name calling and using traditional
> marriage
> > values as an argument which is laughable.
>
> Translating...translating...
>
> What other kinds of marriage are you talking
> about? The ones between a man and his poodle, a
> woman and her begonia, and all the other
> ridiculous bullshit you people put out? They're a
> real threat, all right.
>
> I'm against polygamy because it invariably goes
> only one way and is used as a means of subjugating
> women and enabling pedophilia. Same with incest.
>
> You'd have more credibility if you stopped trying
> to rationalize your viewpoint while denigrating
> everyone else's and just admitted what everyone
> knows - you hate gay people.


.
Attachments:

Cut Me a Break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > I love how the bigots insist on "rational
> > > > > arguments" to justify same sex marriage,
> > when
> > > > > they're shooting blanks. Abelard, you
> might
> > > as
> > > > > well be talking to the wall trying to
> > engage
> > > > > Liberal logic in an intelligent
> discussion.
> > > > Half
> > > > > of your arguments he won't understand,
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > half he will just ignore because they
> don't
> > > > > comport with his sense of "normal"
> behavior.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > At least be honest - you just hate gay
> > > people.
> > > >
> > > > Perfect example of a complete idiot just
> > doing
> > > > what hes told
> > >
> > > Really. What was I told?
> > >
> > > > who cant put together a rational
> > > > thought to save his life.
> > >
> > > Which of my irrational thoughts above do you
> > > disagree with?
> > >
> > > > Please go on with your sensationalized
> > > hysterics
> > >
> > > I wrote nothing sensationalized or
> hysterical.
> > > Unlike you.
> > >
> > > And you still hate gay people.
> >
> > Bla bla bla you hate gay people, typical.
>
> Uh...you DO hate gay people.
>
> > All your doing is typing bullshit and calling
> > people bigots because thats all you have to
> stand
> > on.
>
> Uh...you ARE a bigot.
>
> > Everything you wrote is idiotic because your
> > trying to defend that polygamy is legal, I cant
> > even type that without yelling.
>
> WHAT??? I didn't say anything about polygamy.
>
> > I also laid out the argument on how someone
> could
> > actually support gay marriage while being
> against
> > the other kinds without coming off as a
> hypocrite
> > since none of you idiots could do so and have
> just
> > been name calling and using traditional
> marriage
> > values as an argument which is laughable.
>
> Translating...translating...
>
> What other kinds of marriage are you talking
> about? The ones between a man and his poodle, a
> woman and her begonia, and all the other
> ridiculous bullshit you people put out? They're a
> real threat, all right.
>
> I'm against polygamy because it invariably goes
> only one way and is used as a means of subjugating
> women and enabling pedophilia. Same with incest.
>
> You'd have more credibility if you stopped trying
> to rationalize your viewpoint while denigrating
> everyone else's and just admitted what everyone
> knows - you hate gay people.