Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:18 pm

Symmetry wrote:As the benefits and recognition of straight marriage being removed is unrealistic, tying it to arguments for gay marriage seems misleading. As if you want to introduce the idea of harm to current married couples.

What's next? Equating gay marriage with polygamy?


Polygamy, if religiously oriented, has the added benefit of being protected by the first amendment. So yeah, polygamy is equal to gay marriage in that both are largely illegal and carry some societal bugaboos. I understand that disagreeing with polygamy is more acceptable to you, while disagreeing with gay marriage is not; but that's okay, you'll come around much like I think premio will come around on gay marriage.

crispybits wrote:It's a list of rights you have in dealing with the world as a couple. Not a list of things you can do or that the government lets you do, but a list of things you have the right to do. I can make a medical decision about anyone right now, walk into a hospital and say "cut the leg off to save his life", but that doesn't mean I have any right to make that decision. And the hospital staff will ignore me/ask me to leave if I try unless I am either a close family member or married to whoever I'm talking about.


Why? What if it was your long-time girlfriend?

crispybits wrote:There are very many things on that list that are impossible not because the government "has it's talons in marriage", but because they are simply impractical. If you've gone on a couple of dates with someone are you then within your rights to demand immigration to their country? If you live in the same apartment as someone for a few weeks do you have the right to make important medical decisions for them if they are in a coma? Basically any form of acquaintance with anyone could be used as a basis for any of the things on that list unless a line is drawn somewhere, and a lot of the things on that list are very good things to grant to people in stable and long term relationships who conciously want the relationship legally recognised by the state for those reasons. Therefore there needs to be some sort of state recognised contract to allow that level of commitment.


Why should you have those rights when you're married? Why does marriage hold the same contractual rights and obligations as, say, a mother-daughter relationship? A married couple do not spring from the same familial tree. Our society (ours) has constructed this contractual relationships of marriage and attached to it certain benefits and responsibilities. There does not NEED to be a state contract. There does not NEED to be anything. Right now, society finds it preferable that there is a state contract. It makes things easier.

crispybits wrote:Or you need to overcome the objections in another way, or abandon an irrational position for a more rational one, because continuing to hold an irrational position (and you yourself admit it's irrational) doesn't contribute to the debate any more than premio's insane theocratic rambling does.


I have abandoned my position for one that is supportive of equality. I think gay marriage should be legalized. My position is not irrational, it is perfectly rational. I have never called my position irrational. My position is not realstic because it would cause societal upheaval or at least it would make a lot of people very uncomfortable and would be less likely to succeed in achieving the intended result (namely, that gay marriage is legalized).

And premio's position is not insane. There are billions of people who think the same thing he does. I would call his position wrong and I would call him intolerant. But, the problem is not insantiy (or even irrationality - Frigidus pointed out that premio's position is rational in premio's world), the problem with premio's position is that it's a theocratic position and one that cannot supported by U.S. constitutional principles. If premio lived in Iran, for example, his position would be celebrated. His position is a problem in the United States.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:As the benefits and recognition of straight marriage being removed is unrealistic, tying it to arguments for gay marriage seems misleading. As if you want to introduce the idea of harm to current married couples.

What's next? Equating gay marriage with polygamy?


Polygamy, if religiously oriented, has the added benefit of being protected by the first amendment. So yeah, polygamy is equal to gay marriage in that both are largely illegal and carry some societal bugaboos. I understand that disagreeing with polygamy is more acceptable to you, while disagreeing with gay marriage is not; but that's okay, you'll come around much like I think premio will come around on gay marriage.


I find these arguments very thinly veiled attempts to bring in some poor arguments from the anti-gay marriage side.

1) Suggesting recognizing gay marriage is gov't overreach
2) Unreasonable fear-mongering about straight marriage being seen as less, or having rights taken away
3) Equating it with other issues like polygamy or bestiality
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:39 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:As the benefits and recognition of straight marriage being removed is unrealistic, tying it to arguments for gay marriage seems misleading. As if you want to introduce the idea of harm to current married couples.

What's next? Equating gay marriage with polygamy?


Polygamy, if religiously oriented, has the added benefit of being protected by the first amendment. So yeah, polygamy is equal to gay marriage in that both are largely illegal and carry some societal bugaboos. I understand that disagreeing with polygamy is more acceptable to you, while disagreeing with gay marriage is not; but that's okay, you'll come around much like I think premio will come around on gay marriage.


I find these arguments very thinly veiled attempts to bring in some poor arguments from the anti-gay marriage side.

1) Suggesting recognizing gay marriage is gov't overreach
2) Unreasonable fear-mongering about straight marriage being seen as less, or having rights taken away
3) Equating it with other issues like polygamy or bestiality


Why would I bring in (or want to bring in) arguments from the anti-gay marriage side?

In any event:

(1) I'm suggesting all marriage regulation is government overreach.
(2) I'm not fear-mongering because I'm married and don't care if my "rights" (because, really, they aren't rights) are taken away.
(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:54 pm

(1) Is, by your own admission, unrealistic and therefore an irrational position unless you can overcome the objections. By your example about the person in that hospital being my long term girlfriend, if the decision is to have a 30% survival rate and be able to have kids in future, or a 95% survival rate and no chance of kids in future, then how long do I need to have been with her to make that kind of decision? 1 year? 5 years? 2 weeks? Where is the line arbitrarily drawn in law as a blanket point of true commitment for every relationship? Or should there be a contract people can willingly enter into that forms the line?

(2) Because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. To take away existing rights you have to provide a good argument for taking them away. The argument has already been had about whether they should be granted and they were granted. That's not set in stone, but to withdraw them again you need a decent argument why it should happen.

(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Frigidus on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.


I'm with you there. Polygamy is another bogeyman that we need to stop handwringing over.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm

1) Recognition, not regulation.
2) You know that many do. It's a key argument for the anti-gay marriage side that it would lessen existing marriages.
3) bull, you can already marry as many people as you want without the government recognizing it as marriage.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:36 pm

Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.


I'm with you there. Polygamy is another bogeyman that we need to stop handwringing over.

Polyandry too. The women deserve theirs too!


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25042
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:40 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
premio53 wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

#1. It's spelled bestiality, but please continue to post.
--Andy


I reject your stance. "Bestiality" is offensive against those who possess the quality of being the best.

"Beastiality" from now on.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:40 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
daddy1gringo wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!
Because nobody is talking about making laws permitting or not permitting it, just about giving it certain legal recognition. You can disagree with their beliefs about what the consequences of that would be, but to keep switching it for the other is a deceptive attempt to maneuver the opposition into defending something they don't support.

For the record, I am not accusing you of being deceptive, but rather I am saying that your statement is a result of being a victim of the deception. By constantly changing the definitions in this way, they confuse and bully you into fearing that to follow up on your belief, it would be the injustice you described.


Ah HA! I'm well aware of the deception (although I wouldn't call it that). I want there to be no legal recognition of any marriages.

But if there is to be legal recognition of marriage, the refusal to recognize gay marriage is theocratical in nature. Is theocractical a word? If it's not, then patent pending.


You could settle for "theocratic," but you may earn more points using "theocratical" in the courts.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:43 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
premio53 wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

#1. It's spelled bestiality, but please continue to post.
--Andy


I reject your stance. "Bestiality" is offensive against those who possess the quality of being the best.

"Beastiality" from now on.


IS this a game of one-ups-manship? Are you trying to bestiality me? (P.S. the last sentence makes a good out of context quote, for the out of context quote topic)


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25042
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:44 pm

crispybits wrote:I think you just gave me a little bit of crap for the Kate Beckinsale thing :-P

And yes we can all have "ideal world" views, but if those views are flawed then others have every right to ask what you would do about X or Y in your ideal world without being accused of giving you shit. If it truly is an "ideal" type solution then there will be workarounds that could be come up with. I might well be open to the government getting out of marriage, but there are a lot of big problems with it that make it unworkable. If someone can propose an alternative that solves those problems then I might well take up arguing for it myself if I am convinced.


Sure, here's one:

    Two people sign a contract, stating that they are together, thus are open to the disclosing of private personal information (e.g. the hospital situation).

If you want, have a judge stamp his approval on it, or eventually through common law, this form of contract would become an acceptable substitute for certain rights of which marriage contracts enjoy the privilege.


Furthermore, ideas influence institutions*, some of which are controlled by the government. Therefore, if enough people accept TGD's ideas on marriage (i.e. no more government benefits), then that'll have more influence on those institutions.

The concept of liberal democracy was born through ideas. In the human realm, if you don't have the idea to do X, then (in nearly all cases**) X most likely won't happen.



*"institutions" are generally described as "rules of the game."

**There's debatable examples I'm thinking of, but they aren't relevant to this topic.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:11 pm

But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:49 pm

crispybits wrote:(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.

The problem with polygamy is similar to why bastardy was a problem in the past... too many kids without firm support. Today, we have both men and women having many kids that they cannot support, though the numbers of children women can have are inherently limited by nature and those a man can have not.

If polygamy is allowed, society would need it to be tied to support of children. That would open a dangerous pandoras box for all who have children (including, by-the-way homosexual unions). Easier to disallow polygamy than to regulate it appropriately.

Homosexuality bears no such threat. The only "threat" of homosexuality is allowing a very private behavior which some people dislike.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:25 pm

Symmetry wrote:1) Recognition, not regulation.
2) You know that many do. It's a key argument for the anti-gay marriage side that it would lessen existing marriages.
3) bull, you can already marry as many people as you want without the government recognizing it as marriage.


(1) No, regulation.
(2) Okay. So?
(3) Sure.

I'm trying to understand... are you suggesting that I'm not in favor of gay marriage? I'm confused as to how you come to that conclusion. I agree that gay marriage should be legal, but disagree (with you) on the way we get there. With respect to this issue, in particular, how we get there is less important than getting there.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:33 pm

crispybits wrote:But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.


Again, what's the convincing case that the government should not GTFO? At some point in history, the government was not involved in marriage; at some point in history, that changed (based primarily, I think, on the influence of Christianity on the government of the United States).

The only reason my opinion is unreasonable is because it's easier to have the government involvement that we currently have. It would be difficult to undo what's already been done. I happen to think that's a shitty reason.

crispybits wrote:(1) Is, by your own admission, unrealistic and therefore an irrational position unless you can overcome the objections. By your example about the person in that hospital being my long term girlfriend, if the decision is to have a 30% survival rate and be able to have kids in future, or a 95% survival rate and no chance of kids in future, then how long do I need to have been with her to make that kind of decision? 1 year? 5 years? 2 weeks? Where is the line arbitrarily drawn in law as a blanket point of true commitment for every relationship? Or should there be a contract people can willingly enter into that forms the line?


Unrealstic because it wouldn't happen; not unrealistic because it couldn't happen. As to your example, why is the line arbitrarily drawn at marriage? What makes you think marrige is a truly committed relationship?

crispybits wrote:(2) Because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. To take away existing rights you have to provide a good argument for taking them away. The argument has already been had about whether they should be granted and they were granted. That's not set in stone, but to withdraw them again you need a decent argument why it should happen.


They aren't rights dude. There are no "marriage rights." Stop referring to them as rights. When you refer to them as rights you give them a status that those items do not have. I've made a decent argument why it shouldn't happen. The way that those contractual relaitonships and benefits are currently defined, two people who are of the same gender who are in a relationship, more than two people who are in a relationship, and within the last century, two people who are of different races, could not enjoy those benefits. Would it be harder to take them away? Yes. I think it would be better to take them away. I like BBS's idea.

crispybits wrote:(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.


I agree. Symm's argument is that because so many people think polygamy is "ew gross" then likening it to gay marriage denigrates gay marriage. Rick Santorum (a conservative Republican politician) once linked gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality. He was (and is, I'm pretty sure) an idiot. I think that's where Symm gets his uproar over polygamy. That and he can point to statistics about abusive relationships and polygamy (much like premio points to AIDS as why gays shouldn't get married).
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoomYoshi and 2 guests

Login