Same-sex marriage allowed in Sweden as of May 1, 2009. Maine on the verge as well.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

Let's try a hypothetical: Let's say my wife goes lesbo next week. Then, she divorces me to go have sex with other women. My wife gets custody of the kids. After a few months, she meets her soulmate and they get married. Some time later, my wife dies. What visitation rights does her lesbian soulmate have with my kids?[/quote]

This is your best hypothetical? It would be no different than if your wife were to divorce you and marry another man.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You need to read valid studies.[/quote]

And yes, you are correct, perhaps reading Mad Magazine for my scientific study results isn't the best use of time, but again you are missing the point. I was asking Tivo this question because if you took away the potential for birth defects in offspring, what would be his opposition or lack thereof of sibling marriage. It wasn't uncommon in the past in "Christian" countries, and I'm pretty sure it is still practiced in other countries.

And afterall, this question is about as relevant to heterosexual marriage as it is to gay marriage.
 
No. It isn't my best hypothetical. It is a variation of what you posed as a problem.

[quote name='GibbGA']This is your best hypothetical? It would be no different than if your wife were to divorce you and marry another man.[/quote]

Originally Posted by GibbGA
That's one of the many issues that I was attempting to imply w/o posting a gargantuan response. Heck, to go one further, what if the disolution of their relationship was caused by the death of the "parent". What happens to the child after that, does the "non-parent" get custody? Is it good for them to be taken away from the "non-parent" that has raised them their entire life?


 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is it too late to bring up false comparisons like tivo and rick santorum?[/quote]

160px-Rick_Santorum_official_photo.jpg


image.php


Um, OK. Here is a starting point.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']wow, thats not much of a turn out. DC must have thousands of registered voters.[/quote]

:lol:

I'll try to one up this.

13 votes in DC? That's greater than 70% turnout of nonfelons.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']wow, thats not much of a turn out. DC must have thousands of registered voters.[/QUOTE]

Everyone else accidently voted for Buchanan.
 
Make it 13-0 by the DC City Council. The interesting thing will be to see if Congress approves it as they've got ultimate jurisdiction over the district.
 
:applause: @ Maine. Good job!!
PA, NJ, DE.. they have to be soon! Especially NJ since they surprisingly do a decent job with their gays :)
 
[quote name='lilboo']The NE needs Jesus !!![/quote]

I'd take Tom Brady over J.C any day. How many rings does jesus have??? Ya thats what I thought.
 
[quote name='homeland']I'd take Tom Brady over J.C any day. How many rings does jesus have??? Ya thats what I thought.[/quote]

How do you expect Jesus to have more rings than Brady when he never existed?
 
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html

And New Hampshire makes 6 \\:D/

This is such great news. I really am excited for this. It's not much longer until the entire NE allows it. I'm so glad I live in an area where JAYSUS doesn't rule and common sense is starting to kick in.

It also makes me even happier just because of those crackpots who really have every single reason why gay & gay marriage is wrong who want to preach nonsense.

Rhose Island should be next. Than NJ, DE, DC, MD, than PA. ::calling it::
 
[quote name='lilboo']http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html

And New Hampshire makes 6 \\:D/

This is such great news. I really am excited for this. It's not much longer until the entire NE allows it. I'm so glad I live in an area where JAYSUS doesn't rule and common sense is starting to kick in.

It also makes me even happier just because of those crackpots who really have every single reason why gay & gay marriage is wrong who want to preach nonsense.

Rhose Island should be next. Than NJ, DE, DC, MD, than PA. ::calling it::[/quote]

If you and your b/f ever decided to settle down and NJ hasn't legalized gay marriage, would you two consider relocating to a state that doesn't discriminate against gay marriage?
 
VA probably won't recognize gay marriage until like 2035, but I'll be moving to PA soon anyway, so then maybe I'll have a chance of living in a less backwards state.
 
[quote name='tivo']You guys sound pro gay marriage. Now I want to hear that you guys are either also for the marriage between brothers or a reason why you aren't. I will warn you that, unless you don't honestly believe nothing is wrong with brother marriage or provide substantial reason why it is wrong, you undermine your motive for supporting gay marriage.

Here are some answers I am looking at fyi:
"I honestly believe that two brothers should be allowed to marry" -fine
"I don't believe brothers should marry but I'm pro-gay marriage" - hypocritical unless you provide reason why.
"I don't really believe in brother marriage so I must not really believe in gay marriage." - also fine

If you can answer this, I'll stop posting in this thread.[/quote]

I feel left out. You should pick apart my post too, it's as apeshit retarded as yours are. C'mon. :( I feel all alone.

Oh, and does this mean you want brothers and sisters to marry? Clearly your so in favor of opposite-sex marriage only... did you have a crush on your sister as a child and you want to legally sanctify the bond now? I mean, your logic seems to point towards that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='homeland']If you and your b/f ever decided to settle down and NJ hasn't legalized gay marriage, would you two consider relocating to a state that doesn't discriminate against gay marriage?[/QUOTE]

It depends. I mean I am very very optimistic that by the time we are financially ready for that kind of shit.. that NJ, or even PA would have allowed same-sex marriage by then. We live in NJ, and both work in PA...so living in either state would work out best.

I don't know if I'd ever go that far just to be married. It would have to be a state I was really interested in living in, and to be honest, none of them really appeal to me :lol:
 
[quote name='SpazX']I wasn't laughing at polygamy, but tivo's false "all or nothing" dichotomy and very poorly thought out arguments.

Polygamy and gay marriage are like apples and starships. The legal complications alone are astronomical with polygamy compared to gay marriage (which would essentially be the same as it is now). It's a completely different issue that's irrelevant to any discussion about gay marriage.[/QUOTE]


I'm in favor of allowing gay marriage and I disagree completely. Polygamy and gay marriage are different but not that different. Both are relationships between consenting adults that are banned today in many places.

Oh, and you can have gay polygamous marriages, so it's not exactly apples and starships, is it?



[quote name='camoor']I have no problem with polygamy as a theory. It sure works out nicely in sci-fi books and contemporary tv shows.

However there are some issues that plague its real-world application, notably in the area of womens rights. It probably should be legalized, but I have to admit I would be concerned about the amount of money spent regulating polygamy (as in police costs, legislation costs, costs of monitoring cult activity, etc)

And it's damn funny. Have you seen the people who actually practice it?[/QUOTE]


Rights should be restricted because it would cost more money not to restrict them? I understand you're not saying that, but I wouldn't agree with that line of reasoning at all.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I'm in favor of allowing gay marriage and I disagree completely. Polygamy and gay marriage are different but not that different. Both are relationships between consenting adults that are banned today in many places.

Oh, and you can have gay polygamous marriages, so it's not exactly apples and starships, is it?[/quote]

That doesn't make them very similar. Incestuous marriages are more similar than polygamous ones, but they're still not relevant to the discussion. Polygamous marriages would require far more legal changes, not to mention the difference in social/familial structures.

The fact is that gay marriages and current straight marriages are very similar, the only difference being the sexes of those involved (well really only the sex of one of the people involved), whereas polygamy creates a much more complex social structure and pretty much every law related to marriages would have to be rethought.

They're completely different issues, and one doesn't mean anything to the other.
 
[quote name='SpazX']That doesn't make them very similar. Incestuous marriages are more similar than polygamous ones, but they're still not relevant to the discussion. Polygamous marriages would require far more legal changes, not to mention the difference in social/familial structures.

The fact is that gay marriages and current straight marriages are very similar, the only difference being the sexes of those involved (well really only the sex of one of the people involved), whereas polygamy creates a much more complex social structure and pretty much every law related to marriages would have to be rethought.

They're completely different issues, and one doesn't mean anything to the other.[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter how many legal changes something requires when we're talking about rights? Same with "complex social structures". Are you saying we should only fight for the rights that don't require a lot of legal changes?

This isn't directed only at you, but I've noticed that a lot of progressives start sounding like conservatives when an issue like this comes up. In another thread myke started talking about "200 years of tradition". You brought up social/familial structures.

Again, we're talking about rights, and in opposing them (or even opposing their relevance) you brought up "legal changes", different "social structures", and having to rethink laws. How would you react if someone opposed the Civil Rights Movement on those grounds? Or, how would you react if someone fighting for African-American rights didn't think women's rights were relevant, because they're "different" and fighting for them would require more legal changes? My guess is that you'd tell them to STFU because rights are more important than the inconveniences you mentioned.
 
I had a feeling that this would devolve into "why is same sex marriage ok, but why is polygamous marrige is bad"? As its been stated in previous threads, why do polygamists feel the need to ride the coat tails of gay marriage? Why don't they fight THEIR OWN right to poligamy????
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']I had a feeling that this would devolve into "why is same sex marriage ok, but why is polygamous marrige is bad"? As its been stated in previous threads, why do polygamists feel the need to ride the coat tails of gay marriage? Why don't they fight THEIR OWN right to poligamy????[/QUOTE]

This was my point from awhile back: assuming you're not gay and recognizing how many liberals who support gay marriage aren't actually gay themselves (meaning you personally have very little, if anything, to gain from the acknowledgment of any new marriage recognition), why do you all fight so strongly for gay marriage and not at all for these other unions (incestrious, polygamous marriage)?



edit:
ok, fine, gay marriage is different from every other type of marriage. It shouldn't be compared to polygamy, incest, or traditional marriage. Its about providing gay couples next of kin status and removing the social stigma about gay people through state-wide recognition. say something intelligent, don't give me that babble. But, as I was asking, should other groups be granted these same "rights", namely incestrious and polygamous groups. Many people have already said in this very thread that they are generally fine with polygamy. As for incestrious relations, people point toward genetic abnormalities among offspring, and I agree, we should discourage this, but that doesn't mean we can "deny these people." In all, a lot of legal work would be needed to permit polygamy (especially with large numbers of immigrants aspiring to acquire legal status through it), but that shouldn't stop one's motivation to allow anyone to marry anyone. So there is obviously some relatedness and it concerns me to hear how gay marriage supporters want complete separation from polygamous/incestrious marriage as you all have the same objective. You're either ashamed/embarrassed to be compared to them or want a "separate but equal" type of thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='tivo']This was my point from awhile back: assuming you're not gay and recognizing how many liberals who support gay marriage aren't actually gay themselves (meaning you personally have very little, if anything, to gain from the acknowledgment of any new marriage recognition), why do you all fight so strongly for gay marriage and not at all for these other unions (incestrious, polygamous marriage)?[/quote]

Say, while we're going to change healthcare, why don't we provide universal veterinary coverage. It's just healthcare for animals, right?

Say, while we're opening the door to stem cells, why don't we reinvestigate the whole human cloning thing?

Say, while we're discussing X, why don't we discuss Y, which shares some superficial elements, but is actually completely different?

Related is not the same.

Furthermore, the idea that gay marriage is related to incest or polygamy is a strawman. There are enough obvious differences that make talking about either of them a complete distraction and side-discussion. Can you talk about them? Sure. Should you talk about them here, in this thread? No. Go make your own thread about incest or polygamy. Knock yourself out.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with incest or polygamy, any more than heterosexual marriage does. Remarkably, gay marriage deals with...gay marriage. Gay marriages will not be incestuous. Gay marriages will not be polygamous. End of story.

Obama's stance on stem cells doesn't say ANYTHING about what he believes about human cloning, organ harvesting, or turning our society into Brave New World. The issues are related scientifically. They are not related politically. They are also not related in the society in which we live.

This is why these threads devolve into ridiculous arguments -- they bear no relation to what the thread is about or life or reality in general.

I actually consider this a good thing. It means that opponents of gay marriage have nothing better to say.
 
[quote name='tivo']incestrious

incestrious

incestrious

incestrious[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you're not the product of an incestuous relationship? That'd explain a few things...
 
[quote name='rickonker']Why does it matter how many legal changes something requires when we're talking about rights? Same with "complex social structures". Are you saying we should only fight for the rights that don't require a lot of legal changes?

This isn't directed only at you, but I've noticed that a lot of progressives start sounding like conservatives when an issue like this comes up. In another thread myke started talking about "200 years of tradition". You brought up social/familial structures.

Again, we're talking about rights, and in opposing them (or even opposing their relevance) you brought up "legal changes", different "social structures", and having to rethink laws. How would you react if someone opposed the Civil Rights Movement on those grounds? Or, how would you react if someone fighting for African-American rights didn't think women's rights were relevant, because they're "different" and fighting for them would require more legal changes? My guess is that you'd tell them to STFU because rights are more important than the inconveniences you mentioned.[/quote]

When did I ever say anything about opposing polygamous marriages? I said they're not relevant to this discussion, as incestuous marriages also aren't relevant, and that what separates polygamous marriages from current legal marriages and gay marriages are the hugely more complicated laws and social structures required for them to work.

I haven't taken a position on polygamous or incestuous marriages in this thread, regardless of who has brought them up, because they're not relevant.

If you want to legalize polygamous marriages, start your own movement. And if you want to talk about them, then at least start your own thread.
 
[quote name='tivo']edit: ok, fine, gay marriage is different from every other type of marriage. It shouldn't be compared to polygamy, incest, or traditional marriage. Its about providing gay couples next of kin status and removing the social stigma about gay people through state-wide recognition. say something intelligent, don't give me that babble.[/QUOTE]

I'd say it's more about equal protection and due process than little bits of policy, though they're relevant. And how is that "babble"?

[quote name='tivo']But, as I was asking, should other groups be granted these same "rights", namely incestrious and polygamous groups. Many people have already said in this very thread that they are generally fine with polygamy. As for incestrious relations, people point toward genetic abnormalities among offspring, and I agree, we should discourage this, but that doesn't mean we can "deny these people."[/QUOTE]

Why not? The state restricts rights all the time when it has a compelling reason. The only issue at hand is whether or not one exists in the gay marriage context, and to decide that these other issues need not be broached.

[quote name='tivo']In all, a lot of legal work would be needed to permit polygamy (especially with large numbers of immigrants aspiring to acquire legal status through it), but that shouldn't stop one's motivation to allow anyone to marry anyone.[/QUOTE]

But as you see, that's a different situation which implicates different issues. The state's interests in that context are much different.

[quote name='tivo']So there is obviously some relatedness and it concerns me to hear how gay marriage supporters want complete separation from polygamous/incestrious marriage as you all have the same objective. You're either ashamed/embarrassed to be compared to them or want a "separate but equal" type of thing.[/QUOTE]

Well given the way you're using it, traditional marriage is the ultimate "separate but equal" in that it advocates only a limited degree of inclusion.

After all, you're only pro-marriage to a point yourself. How can you be in favor of extending marriage to unrelated adult heterosexual humans and not want to extend that right to gays, polygamists, martians, brothers, dogs and cantaloupe melons? Because you called dibs?
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Are you sure you're not the product of an incestuous relationship? That'd explain a few things...[/QUOTE]

and maybe you were/have/wish to be a catamite engaging in various paraphilas. Your zetetic posts clearly label you an omadhaun. If you ever have a sapid idea in which you can present it perspicuously, please opine, but for now keep your phillipics to yourself.
 
[quote name='tivo']
edit:
You're either ashamed/embarrassed to be compared to them or want a "separate but equal" type of thing.[/quote]

What you're in favor of IS "separate but equal." You have no problem with a black man wanting to marry a white woman, do you? Or a black man marrying a black woman? Why should two men or two women marrying bother you?

You can keep throwing out unrelated questions to hide the fact you don't have a real argument against gay marriage, but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. Instead of deflecting, give us an incisive reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Bonus points: Do it without invoking religion. After all, since Congress can't pass any law respecting an establishment of religion, and a law based on an argument from religion is, by default, indicating the preference (establishment) of a religion, it can't be used in a federal argument against gay marriage.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I'd say it's more about equal protection and due process than little bits of policy, though they're relevant. And how is that "babble"?
[/Quote]

KL's and blandstalker's diatribes were babble. Your recent posts have been quite pithy although I don't appreciate being called pharisaical. As for BigSpoonyBard, a recent collocutor, i'll be ruminating about the question put forth. I have to be honest though, marriage is a bit numinous to me and I'm sure you wont approbate nous as sufficient grounds so allow me some time to respond.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']I think you meant "philippics". OH SNAP, I WIN AGAIN!! :D

Also, your argument still sucks. Retard.[/QUOTE]

your perspicacity to detail amazes me, as well as your noesis.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']I think you meant "philippics". OH SNAP, I WIN AGAIN!! :D

Also, your argument still sucks. Retard.[/QUOTE]

your perspicacity to detail amazes me, as well as your noesis and lexicon. Please chunter somewhere else Malapert.
 
[quote name='tivo']KL's and blandstalker's diatribes were babble. [/quote]

What I said was neither a diatribe, nor babble. I don't know what to call your "response", which consisted of editing your post above mine, referencing mine, and then ignoring everything I said. This is beyond dishonest, but qualifies better as "babble" than anything I said.

You can throw out as many pretty words as you want, but if you don't use them correctly, they mean nothing.

Which is all you have, and all you take pains to disguise with non-sequiturs and nonsense: nothing.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']I had a feeling that this would devolve into "why is same sex marriage ok, but why is polygamous marrige is bad"? As its been stated in previous threads, why do polygamists feel the need to ride the coat tails of gay marriage? Why don't they fight THEIR OWN right to poligamy????[/QUOTE]

I am sure you don't think that the academy award winning gay writer, gay producer and other pro-gay activist creators of Big Love find any correlation at all in the issue. Their sexuality and involvement with he show must be purely coincidental.
:roll:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am sure you don't think that the academy award winning gay writer, gay producer and other pro-gay activist creators of Big Love find any correlation at all in the issue. Their sexuality and involvement with he show must be purely coincidental.
:roll:[/QUOTE]

Wait, what? So if they were straight, it would be obvious that straight marriage is correlated with polygamy? Their sexuality wouldn't be unrelated? Since there are straight writers for that show that must mean that being straight and/or supporting straight marriage makes straight marriage and polygamy correlated?

Is it that gay people can't like polygamy if it isn't closely related to gay marriage, or that gay people who like polygamy cause it to be related to gay marriage? (Hell, I don't even know if they do support polygamy, they simply made a show about it...)

Are you drunk? Or are you for some reason sarcastically agreeing with your quote?
 
Yeah, I... I really have no idea what the fuck Thrust was talking about.

It's like the Apple Crate of Socialism all over again. Only not as funny. And a bit more smarmy.

Sorry, man. I really ain't seeing what you're getting at. Just comes across as... you being a little dickish, really.
 
[quote name='JJSP']Marry me, Crotch. Let's ruin humanity together.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. I dunno. "Wine, women, and song!" just doesn't sound quite right without the "women" part.

But I do like ruining things. And hey, it'll contribute to global warming, which will speed up the rise-to-power of the One World Government (funded by carbon taxes, of course).
 
No one said we wouldn't have women. Remember, gay marriage and polygamy are pretty much the same thing. Find us some of those Northwest Territory lumberjack ladies to handle the dirty work and some of the dainty Quebecois (?) girlies to handle the dirty work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top