Incestious Marraige

[Snorri1234]

Meh, you're not getting what I'm saying. I've made this argument before with no legitimate responses and no changing of minds. I don't know why I try, it's not like polygamy is going to be determined to be constitutionally protected (not for any legal reason, but, rather because "there is a legitimate cultural reason").

We just offered legitimate reasons as to not allow it. The nature of polygamy marriage is often abusive and unequal.

And the legal reason is easy. Marriage is a contract between two people. You could rewrite it and make it for multiple people but that's entirely different from making no distinction between which two people you allow marriage.

[thegreekdog]

Meh, you're not getting what I'm saying. I've made this argument before with no legitimate responses and no changing of minds. I don't know why I try, it's not like polygamy is going to be determined to be constitutionally protected (not for any legal reason, but, rather because "there is a legitimate cultural reason").

We just offered legitimate reasons as to not allow it. The nature of polygamy marriage is often abusive and unequal.

And the legal reason is easy. Marriage is a contract between two people. You could rewrite it and make it for multiple people but that's entirely different from making no distinction between which two people you allow marriage.

Okay, here's the parallel:

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.
Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the Constitution offers protection only for contracts between two individuals, per the plain language of the Constitution
Gay marriage - Some (including myself) believe that the Constitution does not offer protection based on sexual orientation, per the plain language of the Constitution.

Now, do you see how supporting gay marriage and not supporting polygamy is hypocritical? And it's not even that "support" is hypocritical. It's the ridicule bandied about by some against people who do not agree with gay marriage. It's inconsistent for Sultan to ridicule GabonX for Gabon's gay marriage views but not himself be ridiculed for his own conservative and regressive views on polygamy.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Okay, here's the parallel:

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.
Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the Constitution offers protection only for contracts between two individuals, per the plain language of the Constitution
Gay marriage - Some (including myself) believe that the Constitution does not offer protection based on sexual orientation, per the plain language of the Constitution.

damn son keep this up and you might take dumbest comment of the year

[thegreekdog]

damn son keep this up and you might take dumbest comment of the year

Good. I would like an award of some kind.

[Simon Viavant]

Users browsing this forum: Lucarilover240

Prepare for this to be hijacked into a gay/polygamist/incestious pokeporn thread.

[Snorri1234]

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal,

I do not believe, I know for fact. It is the case for nearly all instances of polygamy in the world. I don't mean nature as in inherent, but as in always seems to happen.

and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.

Uh...no. I don't care about morality here. It's a matter of practicality.

Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

Uhm yes but they aren't. That's the key.

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the Constitution offers protection only for contracts between two individuals, per the plain language of the Constitution
Gay marriage - Some (including myself) believe that the Constitution does not offer protection based on sexual orientation, per the plain language of the Constitution.

The idea is that sexual orientation does not matter when going into a contract.

Now, do you see how supporting gay marriage and not supporting polygamy is hypocritical? And it's not even that "support" is hypocritical. It's the ridicule bandied about by some against people who do not agree with gay marriage. It's inconsistent for Sultan to ridicule GabonX for Gabon's gay marriage views but not himself be ridiculed for his own conservative and regressive views on polygamy.

It's not hypocritical because they're different things.

[thegreekdog]

Snorri, they are only different things because in our current cultural climate it is okay to be gay, and it's not okay to be a polygamist. And it's not okay to be a polygamist because it's been illegal for 150 years and because anytime anything gets reported on polygamy it's negative. It was the same was with homosexuality. It was the same way with interracial marriage.

Read what you wrote again and then read what homophobes say about homosexuality and what white southerners said about interracial marriage, and you'll find similar quotes. Everything you're saying has to viewed in light of the fact that YOU think polygamy is bad. Similarly, everything Gabon and others say about homosexuality has to be viewed in light of the fact that THEY think homosexuality is bad. Similarly, everything southerners said about interracial marriage has to be viewed in light of the fact that THEY thought interracial marriage was bad. When homosexual sex was illegal, people had to hide it; and when people were caught, they were ridiculed mercilessly and protrayed by the media in a negative light. The same goes for polygamy, notwithstanding the recent polygamy scandal.

[jonesthecurl]

Okay, here's the parallel:

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.
Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

I've heard a lot of bleating about how God doesn't want gay people to be gay.
Who said that it's "abusive and unequal"?

[thegreekdog]

Okay, here's the parallel:

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.
Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

I've heard a lot of bleating about how God doesn't want gay people to be gay.
Who said that it's "abusive and unequal"?

Oh, I don't know about now. I tend not to follow the anti-gay websites. They make me angry. I know those types of people are out there, and the stereotype about homosexuals being sexually promiscuous and/or sexually deviant has been around for a long time (though I think it is less now).

[Haggis_McMutton]

Ok, personally i'm all for polygamy, i do not think it should be banned based on what it represented in the past.

Incest? As has been said father - daughter, probably not ok, but between say cousins or even brothers, knock yourselves out. Children from incestuous marriages though, that's a different discussion.

As for bestiality, i'm really surprised you put it in with all the others, big difference, you might as well have included pedophilia if you think bestiality is in any way similar to gay marriage.

Now even though i think polygamy and incestuous marriages should be legalized, these are far more debatable than the issue of gay marriage. Reasons for this have already been presented.

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the nature of polygamy is often abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities and culture of the US.
Gay marriage - Some believe that the nature of gay marriage is abusive, unequal, and against the moral sensibilities of the nation and culture of the US.

Polygamy may be and certainly has been in the past abusive and unequal. As for moral sensibilities? If your morals dictate that consenting adults can't sign a glorified contract with other consenting adults, well your morals might need changing.

How exactly is gay marriage abusive and unequal?

Polygamy - You (and others) believe that the Constitution offers protection only for contracts between two individuals, per the plain language of the Constitution
Gay marriage - Some (including myself) believe that the Constitution does not offer protection based on sexual orientation, per the plain language of the Constitution.

I don't know about the constitution, but i'd be interested in hearing what YOU think, not what you think the constitution says. Isn't marriage a fundamental right? Shouldn't all consenting adults posses this right?
Surely you don't want such a right to be decided by a simple vote? Fundamental rights don't work that way, unstructured democracies fail.

[GabonX]

I think GreekDog really hit the nail on the head. Believe it or not I don't care about gay marraige one way or the other, but the arguments for it are way off many times.

No, it is not discriminatory in the same sense as segregation not to allow gay marraige. Faliure to recognize the legitimacy of people's actions or lifestyle will never be on par with limiting a person's rights based on race. The two are not even close to being the same thing.

No, it does not violate the Constitution not to allow gay marraige. Homosexuality existed at the time when the Constitution was mentioned and there is no mention of "gay rights" in our Bill of Rights.

No, gays are not being treated unfairly under the law as everyone has the same right regarding marraige, to marry someone of the opposite sex. The concept of a traditional family which will result in the upbringing of children has always been intimately connected with marraige.

I empathize with a parent who does not want their child to be drawn in by the growing gay culture in our country. At the same time I empathize with a homosexual who wants to feel that their lifestyle is legitimate. In the end, I personally don't have any stake in the issue and I recognize that there are legitimate arguments (many not listed here) both for and against the recognization of gay culture, but this idea that anyone who was a problem with what's going on is a biggot is wrong.

Homosexuality is a behavior which nobody argues people are free to engage in. Whether or not it should be recognized by the Government is up for debate. The indoctrination of children with gay propaganda through the public school system (like what occurs in California) is just plane wrong.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, they are only different things because in our current cultural climate it is okay to be gay, and it's not okay to be a polygamist. And it's not okay to be a polygamist because it's been illegal for 150 years and because anytime anything gets reported on polygamy it's negative. It was the same was with homosexuality. It was the same way with interracial marriage.

They are different, and the reports about polygamy being bad aren't bullshit. It's a fundamental trait of nearly all instances of polygamy that women are less than men. Point out to me where it's common for women to have multiple men. Where women aren't less than the men they marry.

Read what you wrote again and then read what homophobes say about homosexuality and what white southerners said about interracial marriage, and you'll find similar quotes. Everything you're saying has to viewed in light of the fact that YOU think polygamy is bad. Similarly, everything Gabon and others say about homosexuality has to be viewed in light of the fact that THEY think homosexuality is bad. Similarly, everything southerners said about interracial marriage has to be viewed in light of the fact that THEY thought interracial marriage was bad. When homosexual sex was illegal, people had to hide it; and when people were caught, they were ridiculed mercilessly and protrayed by the media in a negative light. The same goes for polygamy, notwithstanding the recent polygamy scandal.

The biggest thing that should throw you off about these things being not the same is that polygamy actually used to be ok first.

I do not think polygamy is bad, all the evidence just points towards that being the case. Like the evidence points towards homosexuality not being bad. This is not a moral objection based on a priori reasoning, it's a moral objection based on evidence.

[thegreekdog]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer. For political purposes, I think gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states and the District. For religious purposes, I think homosexuality is morally wrong (but the government shouldn't regulate things based on religion), and if my son was gay, I'd support him because, well, that's what Catholics are supposed to do - be supportive. For legal reasons, the Constitution affords equal protection for certain limited things, which does not include gay marriage.

I'm not likening homosexuality to any of those things (including polygamy). I'm simply pointing out that when people get all up in arms about the anti-gay marriage crowd, they should think about the hypocrisy they are engaging in. As I said, 250 years ago, interracial marriage was verbotten. Now, it's completely legal and we wouldn't have it any other way. A hundred years ago, homosexuality (not just gay marriage) was a horrible, horrible act. Now, homosexuality is completely legal and we're discussing gay marriage on these threads as being something that most of us want to see happen. What I have a problem with is that Snorri, Sultan, et. al. go all apeshit conservative and recessive regarding polygamy, but see themselves as progressive and liberal on gay marriage... because of purely cultural reasons. Gay marriage is okay right now in our culture, polygamy is not.

[Snorri1234]

The indoctrination of children with gay propaganda through the public school system (like what occurs in California) is just plane wrong.

Gay propaganda?

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, except polygamy has a stigma attached to it now. Further, there is a Supreme Court case saying that polygamy FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS is not protected under the Constitution... an absolutely ridiculous decision that has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the conservative Supreme Court. So, anyone that engages in polygamy now-a-days is seen as an amoral person, regardless of whether it is a man with 10 wives or a woman with 10 husbands.

Historically speaking, homosexuality was seen as amoral. Not sure how that's not revelant, except you keep saying that the evidence points to homosexuality not being bad. Well, back in the day, evidence pointed to homosexuality being bad.

[Frigidus]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer. For political purposes, I think gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states and the District. For religious purposes, I think homosexuality is morally wrong (but the government shouldn't regulate things based on religion), and if my son was gay, I'd support him because, well, that's what Catholics are supposed to do - be supportive. For legal reasons, the Constitution affords equal protection for certain limited things, which does not include gay marriage.

I'm not likening homosexuality to any of those things (including polygamy). I'm simply pointing out that when people get all up in arms about the anti-gay marriage crowd, they should think about the hypocrisy they are engaging in. As I said, 250 years ago, interracial marriage was verbotten. Now, it's completely legal and we wouldn't have it any other way. A hundred years ago, homosexuality (not just gay marriage) was a horrible, horrible act. Now, homosexuality is completely legal and we're discussing gay marriage on these threads as being something that most of us want to see happen. What I have a problem with is that Snorri, Sultan, et. al. go all apeshit conservative and recessive regarding polygamy, but see themselves as progressive and liberal on gay marriage... because of purely cultural reasons. Gay marriage is okay right now in our culture, polygamy is not.

I, for one, have no beef with polygamy (assuming the relationship isn't an abusive one, naturally). The only form of marriage (in which both parties are capable of giving consent ) I don't support is incestual, and there is very little question about whether that is all right or not.

[Neoteny]

The indoctrination of children with gay propaganda through the public school system (like what occurs in California) is just plane wrong.

Gay propaganda?

[thegreekdog]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer. For political purposes, I think gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states and the District. For religious purposes, I think homosexuality is morally wrong (but the government shouldn't regulate things based on religion), and if my son was gay, I'd support him because, well, that's what Catholics are supposed to do - be supportive. For legal reasons, the Constitution affords equal protection for certain limited things, which does not include gay marriage.

I'm not likening homosexuality to any of those things (including polygamy). I'm simply pointing out that when people get all up in arms about the anti-gay marriage crowd, they should think about the hypocrisy they are engaging in. As I said, 250 years ago, interracial marriage was verbotten. Now, it's completely legal and we wouldn't have it any other way. A hundred years ago, homosexuality (not just gay marriage) was a horrible, horrible act. Now, homosexuality is completely legal and we're discussing gay marriage on these threads as being something that most of us want to see happen. What I have a problem with is that Snorri, Sultan, et. al. go all apeshit conservative and recessive regarding polygamy, but see themselves as progressive and liberal on gay marriage... because of purely cultural reasons. Gay marriage is okay right now in our culture, polygamy is not.

I, for one, have no beef with polygamy (assuming the relationship isn't an abusive one, naturally). The only form of marriage (in which both parties are capable of giving consent ) I don't support is incestual, and there is very little question about whether that is all right or not.

That's where I stand on those issues as well.

[SultanOfSurreal]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer.

you must be the worst lawyer ever

No, it does not violate the Constitution not to allow gay marraige. Homosexuality existed at the time when the Constitution was mentioned and there is no mention of "gay rights" in our Bill of Rights.

lmao

[pimpdave]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer.

you must be the worst lawyer ever

[thegreekdog]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer.

you must be the worst lawyer ever

You know Sultan, I don't rise to the bait, so you can probably save yourself the trouble and stop.

[SultanOfSurreal]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer.

you must be the worst lawyer ever

You know Sultan, I don't rise to the bait, so you can probably save yourself the trouble and stop.

i'm sorry then i should be more direct

you are not a lawyer. that is possibly the least believable lie i've heard here since klobber's assertion that he was a mathematician

[GabonX]

The indoctrination of children with gay propaganda through the public school system (like what occurs in California) is just plane wrong.

Gay propaganda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rNmeXEtT9M

This type of shit does not belong in the public school system, and there have been numerous lawsuits in California.

Arguably, things like this violate the First Ammendment in several ways when shown in the public school system.

[thegreekdog]

My personal opinion on gay marriage is somewhat complicated for three reasons - (1) I'm a Libertarian, (2) I'm Catholic, and (3) I'm a lawyer.

you must be the worst lawyer ever

You know Sultan, I don't rise to the bait, so you can probably save yourself the trouble and stop.

i'm sorry then i should be more direct

you are not a lawyer. that is possibly the least believable lie i've heard here since klobber's assertion that he was a mathematician

The second funniest thing I've ready today (the first is where got tonkaed "summed up" Jimbob's poll because Neoteny was being too verbose).

[Neoteny]

The indoctrination of children with gay propaganda through the public school system (like what occurs in California) is just plane wrong.

Gay propaganda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rNmeXEtT9M

This type of shit does not belong in the public school system, and there have been numerous lawsuits in California.

Arguably, things like this violate the First Ammendment in several ways when shown in the public school system.

Have you read the First Amendment?