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

[quote name='JJSP']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...[/quote]Way ahead of you, actually.
[quote name='JJSP']...and some of the dainty Quebecois (?) girlies to handle the dirty work.[/QUOTE]Dainty? Not the Quebecois I've known.
 
[quote name='SpazX']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?[/QUOTE]

I read an article over a year ago in some magazine where one of the producers of Big Love outright said that part of his hope with Big Love was normalizing alternative marital lifestyles in the viewers eyes, and he specifically cited his hopes that it would ultimately help the gay mariage agenda.

Of course, I'm unable to find it to source it, so I didn't mention it in my last post, so you can go ahead and do what your going to do and disregard it.
 
Gay people ought to have all the same rights as straight people do. It's as simple as that.

If straight people have the right to get married, well...you can figure out the rest.

Seperate will never be equal.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I read an article over a year ago in some magazine where one of the producers of Big Love outright said that part of his hope with Big Love was normalizing alternative marital lifestyles in the viewers eyes, and he specifically cited his hopes that it would ultimately help the gay mariage agenda.

Of course, I'm unable to find it to source it, so I didn't mention it in my last post, so you can go ahead and do what your going to do and disregard it.[/QUOTE]

I will disregard it, nice prediction. You went from saying something that was vague and nonsensical to something so specific that it doesn't even matter. A thought by a person that one would be easier to accept if the other was is not a correlation, it doesn't relate the two concepts any more than saying that the two are related because they're both illegal or both a form of marriage.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']+1
The most accurate post so far in this thread.[/QUOTE]
And yet you're always here, arguing about these things.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']And yet you're always here, arguing about these things.[/QUOTE]

It's better than work. But I can admit feelings on the subject (and many threads here) are what FOC said.

As you know, anyone that really feels passionately about any of these threads must have posts charged with expliciteves, and mine rarely do.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's better than work. But I can admit feelings on the subject (and many threads here) are what FOC said.

As you know, anyone that really feels passionately about any of these threads must have posts charged with expliciteves, and mine rarely do.[/QUOTE]

Explicit Eves?

Dammit. If there's one thread that's about Adam and Steve, it's this one.

Take your explicit Eves somewhere else.
 
Man, I throw fucks and assorted blasphemies into posts about anything. Sales numbers, torture, House of the Dead, trade lists... No need to start over-interpreting things so that you can affect an air of aloofness in the thread.

...

Tabernacle.
 
[quote name='SpazX']When did I ever say anything about opposing polygamous marriages? [/quote]


That's why I said, "or even opposing their relevance".

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.
Click to expand...


I think I already responded to this. And like I said, gay marriages can be polygamous.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Nut un.[/QUOTE]

Ya huh!

Sorry I couldn't help myself.

Don't you love the sophistication of the arguments in the vs. forum?
 
[quote name='rickonker']That's why I said, "or even opposing their relevance".

I think I already responded to this. And like I said, gay marriages can be polygamous.[/QUOTE]

They're irrelevant to this discussion about gay marriage, not irrelevant to anything ever. Yes, when I say that polygamy is irrelevant to a discussion about gay marriage I'm saying that nobody should fight for polygamy because it doesn't matter. Christ, I know you're not that dense.

You can have a gay incestuous marriage or a gay marriage to an animal too, that doesn't make them relevant as nobody is talking about legalizing those, they're talking about legalizing marriages for gay people that are the same as marriages for straight people. I honestly don't know how this isn't clear to you. The legality of gay marriage has no bearing on or relation to the legality of polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, murder, theft, rape, neon lights under a car, etc. Polygamy is an irrelevant topic brought up either for a slippery slope argument or simply to distract. It's a completely separate issue with completely different effects requiring a completely different discussion.

Are you just being argumentative? From your past posts I'm assuming you're capable of understanding what I've said.
 
[quote name='SpazX']They're irrelevant to this discussion about gay marriage, not irrelevant to anything ever. Yes, when I say that polygamy is irrelevant to a discussion about gay marriage I'm saying that nobody should fight for polygamy because it doesn't matter. Christ, I know you're not that dense.

You can have a gay incestuous marriage or a gay marriage to an animal too, that doesn't make them relevant as nobody is talking about legalizing those, they're talking about legalizing marriages for gay people that are the same as marriages for straight people. I honestly don't know how this isn't clear to you. The legality of gay marriage has no bearing on or relation to the legality of polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, murder, theft, rape, neon lights under a car, etc. Polygamy is an irrelevant topic brought up either for a slippery slope argument or simply to distract. It's a completely separate issue with completely different effects requiring a completely different discussion.

Are you just being argumentative? From your past posts I'm assuming you're capable of understanding what I've said.[/QUOTE]
Spaz, I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I honestly think we're just coming at this issue from different perspectives. Put another way, I think we'd each answer this question differently: Why do you support gay marriage rights?

Based on my answer to that question, polygamy is definitely relevant. I guess based on yours, it wouldn't be. But I'm interested in hearing your answer to that question.
 
The best thing I love about the gay marriage "DEBATE" is that there's never an ACTUAL reason. Just opinions. Sure people can BELIEVE the TERM means "BETWEEN 1 MANZ AND 1 WOMANZ" and that's cool...but why should opinions allow people to not have certain privileges? I don't think marriage is considered a RIGHT, however, it is a privilege. There is no reason at all that ANYONE can provide that can give a GOOD, SOLID, ACCURATE reason why 2 men or 2 women can not legally be bound together.

And no, the Bible isn't an accurate answer : )
 
Well said lilboo, nor is there anyone that can give good, solid, accurate reason as to why those 2 men and 2 women couldn't all be married together should they choose. ;)
 
Absolutely!
I personally have no qualms with anyone doing anything..since my life will not be altered in anyway. The only thing about polygamy is that they would have to figure out something JUST for tax purposes and some kind of shit in regards to children/divorce and whatever..but besides that, hey why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top