[quote]H factor wrote:
You’re not following along well…you’re having a debate with yourself. I NEVER was discussing if the Court should or should not weigh in. In fact you’re the only person doing that, having a debate with yourself. [/quote]
In response to my post, you said:
I disagreed, and said the court shouldn’t step in. And that is what I’ve been talking about since you responded to me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You’re not following along well…you’re having a debate with yourself. I NEVER was discussing if the Court should or should not weigh in. In fact you’re the only person doing that, having a debate with yourself. [/quote]
In response to my post, you said:
I disagreed, and said the court shouldn’t step in. And that is what I’ve been talking about since you responded to me.[/quote]
No, you responded to my post first. Go back to page 23 man. I didn’t respond to anyone’s. You kept trying to make it about whether or not the court should rule on it. All I was ever saying was for Republicans it WOULD be good for the court to rule in favor. Then they could be done with a losing fight.
Not whether the Court will, or won’t, or can, or should, or anything else. Merely that I think it would be best for the Republican party if they did.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You’re not following along well…you’re having a debate with yourself. I NEVER was discussing if the Court should or should not weigh in. In fact you’re the only person doing that, having a debate with yourself. [/quote]
In response to my post, you said:
I disagreed, and said the court shouldn’t step in. And that is what I’ve been talking about since you responded to me.[/quote]
What about for DOMA? It seems in this case the court should step in as they are not taking favor to either side, but only saying the federal government should not take favor to either side.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What about for DOMA? It seems in this case the court should step in as they are not taking favor to either side, but only saying the federal government should not take favor to either side.[/quote]
That is a separate issue - at the heart of DOMA is federal-state relations and recognition of state decisions, and not really gay rights.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
The difference is that one out of every 10 people (give or take) is not a polygamist…
[/quote]
Neither is one out of every 10 homosexual either.[/quote]
Few people are currently polygamist because there is a strong social stigma attached to it.
How many would become polygamist if this stigma vanished tomorrow ?
if polygamy was considered perfectly normal ?
if polygamists had the right to scream “DISCRIMINATION !!!” and “BIGOTRY” when someone say a word against it ?
When we say “polygamy” people think about Somethingistan, Arabia or Utah.
They simply forget that there is a B in LGBT.
Bisexual people need at least two people to fulfill their sexual identity and orientation. So they have a self-evident interest in polygamous marriage.
Coincidentally their lobbies are exactly the same who are curently pushing for gay marriage.
Saying that it is their next step is not a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s strategically obvious.
As the “boyfriend” of a bisexual girl, i’m 98% positive that my occasionnal “menage a trois” will be recognized by the State before the end of my lifetime. Sooner rather than later.
I do not want that. But that’s another story.
Some excellent points for most anti-gay marriage folks to consider. In no particular order, and not quoted, because I didn’t feel like going back and quoting the people who wrote them.
Denying two same-sex adults the rights of marriage afforded by the State does not serve to protect the rights of marriage afforded by the state to two different-sex adults.
State-defined marriage should not, by virtue of the separation of church and state, be defined by “the church”. It should be defined by the values and mores of the populace in whatever incarnation that exists: SCOTUS, popular vote, etc (I won’t get into the idea of democracy vs republic here).
What do we say about a transgender person? A person born with ambiguous genitalia? Turner’s syndrome (45, XO)? Klinefelter’s (47, XXY or XYY)? Are they allowed to marry at all? Or do you wish to classify them based on primary sexual characteristics? Maybe based on secondary sexual characteristics. Should we have a say in deciding what their sex is?
And for anyone who’s interested in my opinion, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business what anybody else does, unless it infringes on someone else’s legal rights. I’d be genuinely interested in anyone who can convince me that allowing same-sex marriage infringes on someone else’s rights.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
The difference is that one out of every 10 people (give or take) is not a polygamist…
[/quote]
Neither is one out of every 10 homosexual either.[/quote]
Few people are currently polygamist because there is a strong social stigma attached to it.
How many would become polygamist if this stigma vanished tomorrow ?
if polygamy was considered perfectly normal ?
if polygamists had the right to scream “DISCRIMINATION !!!” and “BIGOTRY” when someone say a word against it ?
When we say “polygamy” people think about Somethingistan, Arabia or Utah.
They simply forget that there is a B in LGBT.
Bisexual people need at least two people to fulfill their sexual identity and orientation. So they have a self-evident interest in polygamous marriage.
Coincidentally their lobbies are exactly the same who are curently pushing for gay marriage.
Saying that it is their next step is not a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s strategically obvious.
As the “boyfriend” of a bisexual girl, i’m 98% positive that my occasionnal “menage a trois” will be recognized by the State before the end of my lifetime. Sooner rather than later.
I do not want that. But that’s another story.
[/quote]
Polygamy has been more socially acceptable than historically yet its not the first one to seriously challenge traditional marriage. The slippery slope for polygamy begins with traditional marriage, not gay marriage. If you allow someone to have 1 partner of the opposite sex, why not 2? Polygomy even supports the same child raising stability that traditional marriage offers (which is the only half valid point I’ve heard anyone make) yet its not the first one we are considering making legal, there must be a reason for that…
[quote]Son_of_Man wrote:
Some excellent points for most anti-gay marriage folks to consider. In no particular order, and not quoted, because I didn’t feel like going back and quoting the people who wrote them.
Denying two same-sex adults the rights of marriage afforded by the State does not serve to protect the rights of marriage afforded by the state to two different-sex adults.
State-defined marriage should not, by virtue of the separation of church and state, be defined by “the church”. It should be defined by the values and mores of the populace in whatever incarnation that exists: SCOTUS, popular vote, etc (I won’t get into the idea of democracy vs republic here).
What do we say about a transgender person? A person born with ambiguous genitalia? Turner’s syndrome (45, XO)? Klinefelter’s (47, XXY or XYY)? Are they allowed to marry at all? Or do you wish to classify them based on primary sexual characteristics? Maybe based on secondary sexual characteristics. Should we have a say in deciding what their sex is?
And for anyone who’s interested in my opinion, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business what anybody else does, unless it infringes on someone else’s legal rights. I’d be genuinely interested in anyone who can convince me that allowing same-sex marriage infringes on someone else’s rights.[/quote]
People have various reasons for being anti-gay marriage. Is there a particular post you disagreed with? It’s possible an anti-gay marriage person could agree with you on all those points but have some other reason, in that case your post was pointless.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Son_of_Man wrote:
Some excellent points for most anti-gay marriage folks to consider. In no particular order, and not quoted, because I didn’t feel like going back and quoting the people who wrote them.
Denying two same-sex adults the rights of marriage afforded by the State does not serve to protect the rights of marriage afforded by the state to two different-sex adults.
State-defined marriage should not, by virtue of the separation of church and state, be defined by “the church”. It should be defined by the values and mores of the populace in whatever incarnation that exists: SCOTUS, popular vote, etc (I won’t get into the idea of democracy vs republic here).
What do we say about a transgender person? A person born with ambiguous genitalia? Turner’s syndrome (45, XO)? Klinefelter’s (47, XXY or XYY)? Are they allowed to marry at all? Or do you wish to classify them based on primary sexual characteristics? Maybe based on secondary sexual characteristics. Should we have a say in deciding what their sex is?
And for anyone who’s interested in my opinion, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business what anybody else does, unless it infringes on someone else’s legal rights. I’d be genuinely interested in anyone who can convince me that allowing same-sex marriage infringes on someone else’s rights.[/quote]
People have various reasons for being anti-gay marriage. Is there a particular post you disagreed with? It’s possible an anti-gay marriage person could agree with you on all those points but have some other reason, in that case your post was pointless.[/quote]
I’m not responding to anyone in particular with that post. There have been many posts I’ve had problems with. I realize I’m jumping in the middle of a conversation here, but that’s the Internet for you. I’m just trying to find someone who is both against gay marriage, and willing to discuss this rationally and from a legal perspective.
But even if that doesn’t work out, my post is not pointless.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…yet its not the first one we are considering making legal, there must be a reason for that…[/quote]
It used to be legal - we outlawed it and made it illegal.
Because traditional marriage was meant to be a privilege and a cultural custom, assumed as such.
That what “traditional” means.
It wasn’t meant to be an universal right.
This is where the slippery slope actually begins.
Now that marriage is, or will soon be, an universal right, you will have nothing to argue against polygamy.
As soon as the law recognized the argument “you can’t prevent people from marrying because it’s a right”, you will have to apply it equally, to every one, non monogamous people included.
To do otherwise would be effectively discriminatory.
Gay marriage makes monogamy vulnerable to judicial activism. De facto.
And believe me if i say that many people i know are perfectily conscious of this fact, and quite happy about it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance…
[/quote]
Every single “principle” used to support gay marriage can, and will, be used to support polygamous marriage.
[/quote]
The difference is that one out of every 10 people (give or take) is not a polygamist. As far as I know, there is not a major movement to legalize polygamy (I have been living in Sweden for a few years, so there very well could be). It’s not like it’s prosecuted anyway. That being said banning it and "unlawful cohabitation) because Mormons were fucking with your government/land/feelings seems like less than a legitimate reason.[/quote]
I love this whole then people will marry cats and trees and horses and and and!
Which is exactly why states that have allowed gay marriage so far have massive problems with that stuff right? Oh wait, they don’t. Legion is right on on this one. Let’s take it to the extreme so we can feel impassioned about our viewpoint! [/quote]
Reminder to you: polygamy is not about marriage between people and cats/trees/horses.
Reminder to me: stupidity knows no bounds on this subject.[/quote]
I wasn’t talking to you Push, but the evangelical slippery slope concerns of the extreme you represent with your “but what about X, X, X. It WILL happen if gays can marry, of that be certain!” Significant polygamy issues in states where gay marriage is allowed? Really now?
Optheta was right, why argue with you? I don’t need to do it. No one can change the opinion of someone so bigoted. Nor should anyone try. Society just moves on without you guys. It bothers people like you, it always has. The racist or sexist people will always exist just like people who can’t stand gays. The rest of us (yet again) are moving on. It’s too bad you weren’t born in 1800 when more people thought like you.
It’s strange how none of the die hard righties in here want to touch just how much the rest of them are starting to be against them on this stance. It’s gotta be scary realizing you’re about to be left alone even with people who think like you on so much.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…yet its not the first one we are considering making legal, there must be a reason for that…[/quote]
It used to be legal - we outlawed it and made it illegal.[/quote]
Legal and widely practiced? Or just little known of and made illegal as soon as people became aware it was happening?