Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer

Fair enough.

Then I don't want to hear one more word about gay marriage from it's proponents unless they acknowledge that polygamists should have legal marriage to, for all the same reasons.

:)
 
And as I always say when you lump that nonsense in there--I don't care. Give them rights too. Just fight the battle separately as that one will take longer due to requiring more work on the legal specifics of having multiple spouses battling over visitation rights, inheritances , divorces etc.

I still think lumping them together is insulting to gays though. It's not as bad as dumbasses who compare homosexuality to beastiality. But it's still insulting. A loving, two person committed same sex relationship fits within social norms much more than having multiple spouses/sex partners. At least the "love/committment" fits the normal conceptualization.

That said, I have no problem with polygamists (as long as it's not a cult and no one's being coerced, there's no incest etc.) and have no problem with them having rights to legal marriage. But I wish you could be more clever in arguments rather than just tossing out the same unrelated non-sense every time certain topics come up.
 
Well if you are ok with polygamy, Dmaul, then you aren't who I target these remarks at.

I will bring it up over and over and over again, because to me it is very relevant, since I have gay friends and I know people practicing polygamy. I care about them both. And I wold absolutely love for you to meet one of them face to face and tell him why gay rights trump theirs.

So not only is it relevant and important to keep bringing up, it's just as important as every pro-gay marriage argument I've heard; trying to liken it to civil rights, trying to say it's bigotry to be against, intolerant to be against, hate, etc etc.

It's funny that you mention that it's an insult to gays, because I'm sure many polygamists feel just as insulted being grouped in with gay marriage.

But you hit a very important nail in what you said - Somehow it's an insult because one is more "socially normal" than the other? Do you have any idea how bad that sounds? That's been the problem all along, for gay marriage, or any other group. It becomes an argument about what is socially normal enough to fight for instead of just what's right. And that aint right.

If either/any minority group was smart, they would compile their efforts and change marital law to be all-inclusive instead of trying to convince the nation/world that they alone should get exceptions.
 
I had a friend tell me the other day, i'm not making this up, that legalizing gay marriage would lead to other things like people trying to marry animals.

That's one of the many reasons he has for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I had a friend tell me the other day, i'm not making this up, that legalizing gay marriage would lead to other things like people trying to marry animals.

That's one of the many reasons he has for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.[/QUOTE]
And he's still your friend?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I will bring it up over and over and over again, because to me it is very relevant, since I have gay friends and I know people practicing polygamy. I care about them both. And I wold absolutely love for you to meet one of them face to face and tell him why gay rights trump theirs. [/quote]

Everyone should have marriage rights. But groups should fight their own battles. Especially when one's battle is more legally complicated. Gay marriage is just two people so all the legal rights of marriage are exactly the same. Polygamy is harder to iron out since it's multiple spouses.

And they have a harder battle to fight since society is built around the ideal of two parent hetrosexual families. It's hard enough getting that to change, much less getting people to accept that having multiple spouses isn't a bad thing for society.

Now that's not a reason to not allow polygamy. But gays shouldn't have to wait longer for their right to marry because polygamy would take MUCH longer to get legalized. So they should fight their own battles.

Personally, I couldn't give a shit less. I think marriage is completely pointless and the government should just 100% get out of it and give not legal rights to spouses. Couples could sign legal documents granting visitation rights, inheritance etc. No need for tax benefits etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pete5883']And he's still your friend?[/quote]
Eh, i'd say more of an acquaintance. I keep in touch with him more for networking sake. Good to know people when looking for work and everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Why can't the polygamists take up for themselves? Must they truly rely on homosexuals to do the arguing for them?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']Everyone should have marriage rights. But groups should fight their own battles. Especially when one's battle is more legally complicated. Gay marriage is just two people so all the legal rights of marriage are exactly the same. Polygamy is harder to iron out since it's multiple spouses.
[/QUOTE]



Call me an over-simplifier, but I dunno why each battle should be fought separately. Seems like a waste. That's why it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to just redefine marriage as open to interpretation. Think of all the millions of dollars saved, hundreds of headlines we wouldn't have to see, and heartache prevented.

It seems we've learned nothing since Womens rights and Civil rights. For some reason we, as a society, seem to need to analyze each and every separate issue, usually taking decades for each one, before each is accepted. I think that very nature of ourselves is the root of many problems.

Heaven forbid we actually just adhere to simple words such as "all men created equally" to solve these sort of problems at the root; no, we need to tackle each branch and leaf.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Call me an over-simplifier, but I dunno why each battle should be fought separately. Seems like a waste. That's why it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to just redefine marriage as open to interpretation. Think of all the millions of dollars saved, hundreds of headlines we wouldn't have to see, and heartache prevented.
[/QUOTE]

Again, because gays shouldn't have their rights delayed because polygamy would take much longer to be legalized.

And honestly, I think gay marriage can eventually be legalized, but I don't think polygamy ever will. Again, I have no problem, but I don't think society will ever accept multiple legal spouses to an extent to have polygamy legalized. It's just too far divergent from the ideal nuclear family.

Gays shouldn't have to worry about all the extra hurdles facing polygamy--which is pretty much a lost cause.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Call me an over-simplifier, but I dunno why each battle should be fought separately. Seems like a waste. That's why it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to just redefine marriage as open to interpretation. Think of all the millions of dollars saved, hundreds of headlines we wouldn't have to see, and heartache prevented.

It seems we've learned nothing since Womens rights and Civil rights. For some reason we, as a society, seem to need to analyze each and every separate issue, usually taking decades for each one, before each is accepted. I think that very nature of ourselves is the root of many problems.

Heaven forbid we actually just adhere to simple words such as "all men created equally" to solve these sort of problems at the root; no, we need to tackle each branch and leaf.[/QUOTE]

You're an oversimplifier.

I see what you're trying to say, but that really is an oversimplification of the issue. Of any rights issue, really. Why couldn't we tackle ex-felon suffrage rights during the women's suffrage movement?

(Answer: because felons weren't disenfranchised at the time; but that's beside the point.)
 
Everyone knows the Bible is not necessarily true (I'm a pretty devout Catholic, BTW). The New Testament was written 40-100 years after Jesus' death and is more or less a colection of previously orally-told stories.

The biggest bullshit, though, is the Book of Revelation. We don't even recognize that piece of crap. Basically, a guy named John started hallucinating and somehow this got on paper. Don't let anyone ever cite that as the "Bible" to you.

However, in general, the Bible's pretty enthralling. When you look at it objectively and in an scholarly view, it's one of the few long written works of the time period. When reading as a Catholic, it's pretty cool to have such an insight into Jesus' life and works.

Basically, there are always going to be some people who try to use a book that most revere to their own ends. They're not going to listen to reason, they're going to keep applying the parable of the Prodigal Son to why gays shouldn't marry, even though it makes no sense at all.

However, one thing has annoyed me lately - how people have protested against the vote on Proposition 8 in California, for one. If the majority says "no gay marriage," then there shouldn't be gay marriage. It's as simple as that. Of course, if Prop 8 had failed then of course it should have been legalized.

My personal opinion is that if we legalized gay marriage, then it would have a hell of a lot less impact on our society than we'd expect. People are still scared to come out of the closet, much less marry one of their own sex. And still, the vast majority of people are heterosexual. I'm pretty indifferent on the issue, haha.
 
Voting is not the same as marrying. That's pretty obvious, especially when the much more apt comparison is to interracial marriages, which were illegal in a lot of states up until a few years ago. In terms of voting, I believe that all adults should be able to vote, including felons.

Back to the issue, though. The United States has always had trouble with balancing majority rule and minority rights. But over the past four decades, the public has generally shifted in favor of minority rights and social liberalism.

You and I both know that we're never going to make female voting illegal, and that the bulk of the social advances (or regressions, in the eyes of others) that we've made are not going to be repealed. The notable exceptions, however, are those that are on the fringe, such as abortion and homosexual marriage. Time will tell if those are ever legalized or stay legal. But until then, we should continue to have state-by-state votes on these issues.

Unfortunately for some but fortunately for most, democracy is a two-way street.
 
But the point still stands that at points in times majorities would have voted to not let females vote, or to keep slavery legal, and so forth.

Sometimes the government has to intervene--and they can as we don't live in a democracy. We elect people to represent us, and have the courts to rule on these kind of disputes with the justices being nominated and not bound to majority opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love these articles because it really is fuckin true.
When you bring things up in the Bible that clearly do not make sense ("LOL DO NOT EAT SHELL FISH") they never seem to have an answer for it. It's just whatever they feel the need to hate on.

Haaaate them. I'm so glad I have a mind of my own.
 
Here's the newsweek cover story from last week thats' related to the religious arguments against gay marriage. There's also a lot of letters and stuff on the site you can read with people writing in support, or bashing them for the article (which is picking apart the religious case against gay marriage).

Anyway, it's a decent read for those who haven't seen it yet.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Call me an over-simplifier, but I dunno why each battle should be fought separately. Seems like a waste. That's why it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to just redefine marriage as open to interpretation. Think of all the millions of dollars saved, hundreds of headlines we wouldn't have to see, and heartache prevented.

It seems we've learned nothing since Womens rights and Civil rights. For some reason we, as a society, seem to need to analyze each and every separate issue, usually taking decades for each one, before each is accepted. I think that very nature of ourselves is the root of many problems.

Heaven forbid we actually just adhere to simple words such as "all men created equally" to solve these sort of problems at the root; no, we need to tackle each branch and leaf.[/quote]

What is your stance on Incestuous marriages? Should that be legalized too? Two loving adults (who just happen to be related to each other)? This was also allowed back in the day as well (similar to homosexual relationships in the Greece cultures- though they actually tended to between an older male and a boy). Many ancient cultures condoned incestuous couples. :cold:Should this taboo be overturned as well? Now that we are such a "progressive" society.
 
Progressive is such a bullshit term. It doesn't make Progressive Soup taste better over time, in fact, it tastes worse over time.

I have always seen a difference between civil unions and marriage, of course SOME people would make you believe they aren't. You don't see them performing civil union ceremonies in Churches, do you?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Progressive is such a bullshit term. It doesn't make Progressive Soup taste better over time, in fact, it tastes worse over time.

I have always seen a difference between civil unions and marriage, of course SOME people would make you believe they aren't. You don't see them performing civil union ceremonies in Churches, do you?[/quote]

It's Progresso soup, fyi.

Does CAG have an emoticon for a joke falling on its own face? :D
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Fair enough.

Then I don't want to hear one more word about gay marriage from it's proponents unless they acknowledge that polygamists should have legal marriage to, for all the same reasons.

:)[/quote]

Polygamy, legally, is a separate battle. It's not discrimination based on gender (which doesn't require restructuring of legal implications between two people), but would require a redefinition of the asset contracts as currently defined because it would introduce multiple parties. It may be a rights issue, I wouldn't argue that, but it's not the same legal battle.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Well if you are ok with polygamy, Dmaul, then you aren't who I target these remarks at.

I will bring it up over and over and over again, because to me it is very relevant, since I have gay friends and I know people practicing polygamy. I care about them both. And I wold absolutely love for you to meet one of them face to face and tell him why gay rights trump theirs.

So not only is it relevant and important to keep bringing up, it's just as important as every pro-gay marriage argument I've heard; trying to liken it to civil rights, trying to say it's bigotry to be against, intolerant to be against, hate, etc etc.

It's funny that you mention that it's an insult to gays, because I'm sure many polygamists feel just as insulted being grouped in with gay marriage.

But you hit a very important nail in what you said - Somehow it's an insult because one is more "socially normal" than the other? Do you have any idea how bad that sounds? That's been the problem all along, for gay marriage, or any other group. It becomes an argument about what is socially normal enough to fight for instead of just what's right. And that aint right.

If either/any minority group was smart, they would compile their efforts and change marital law to be all-inclusive instead of trying to convince the nation/world that they alone should get exceptions.[/quote]

Again, it's a different battle.

[quote name='mykevermin']Why can't the polygamists take up for themselves? Must they truly rely on homosexuals to do the arguing for them?[/quote]

I agree 100%. The piggybacking argument is annoying, especially given the attitude of most polygamists toward gays. I wish I had the survey in front of me, but I read this study about the issue and polygamists were overwhelmingly in the camp of "we're not pervs like them."

Simply, they can go fuck themselves. Not to mention, gaining recognition for each cause is a lot easier when it's not all smashed together in a big hodge podge, inviting all those "next is marrying animals!" comments. I think visibility for gay issues should focus on gays alone at this stage. Polygamists have their own work to do.

[quote name='JolietJake']I had a friend tell me the other day, i'm not making this up, that legalizing gay marriage would lead to other things like people trying to marry animals.

That's one of the many reasons he has for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.[/quote]

It's always amusing to me how straight people sanctify straight marriage. Which ends overwhelmingly in divorce.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Call me an over-simplifier, but I dunno why each battle should be fought separately. Seems like a waste. That's why it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to just redefine marriage as open to interpretation. Think of all the millions of dollars saved, hundreds of headlines we wouldn't have to see, and heartache prevented.

It seems we've learned nothing since Womens rights and Civil rights. For some reason we, as a society, seem to need to analyze each and every separate issue, usually taking decades for each one, before each is accepted. I think that very nature of ourselves is the root of many problems.

Heaven forbid we actually just adhere to simple words such as "all men created equally" to solve these sort of problems at the root; no, we need to tackle each branch and leaf.[/quote]

I don't agree it's the same tree. Sorry. Women's rights and civil rights were legally the same beast. As is gay marriage and straight marriage. Polygamy is not. And this is what the whole fiasco is over - legal rights. Moral acceptance is not something you can pass a law about.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, because gays shouldn't have their rights delayed because polygamy would take much longer to be legalized.

And honestly, I think gay marriage can eventually be legalized, but I don't think polygamy ever will. Again, I have no problem, but I don't think society will ever accept multiple legal spouses to an extent to have polygamy legalized. It's just too far divergent from the ideal nuclear family.

Gays shouldn't have to worry about all the extra hurdles facing polygamy--which is pretty much a lost cause.[/quote]

Agreed. I'm not necessarily saying polygamy will never be recognized, but I have a hard time believing it will. Especially because polygamists have been largely silent as activists in educating people. Even I don't know that much about it, beyond the abuses I've seen with it (Warren Jeffs, et al). That's the fault of polygamists in not educating the public. They have a lot of work to do.

I don't think pairing up causes makes any kind of sense. They're very different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top