[quote]H factor wrote:
Glad I could entertain.
What’s even more odd perhaps is to watch the “oh no, polygamy definitely going to be a happening talk, worst thing EVAH” from so many people who just got done voting for a Mormon. [/quote]
Sorry, but i’m french.
Now that i think about it… this is what i should have answered to your previous post too. It makes me queerer-than-thou, innately.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Glad I could entertain.
What’s even more odd perhaps is to watch the “oh no, polygamy definitely going to be a happening talk, worst thing EVAH” from so many people who just got done voting for a Mormon. [/quote]
Sorry, but i’m french.
Now that i think about it… this is what i should have answered to your previous post too. It makes me queerer-than-thou, innately. [/quote]
Well I wasn’t just talking about you, but either way it’s still funny.
The Bible is FILLED with polygamy, but as usual with that book people are only going to read and subscribe to the parts of the book they like. It’s the only way to get around the numerous hypocrisies. Love thy neighbor, but kill him in my name!
Now, more seriously
I have absolutely no hate for gay men. I just happen to prefer bisexual men.
If they insist to suck my balls while i fuck their girlfriend, i won’t always refuse. I simply won’t reciprocate.
[quote]
I don’t stay up at night wondering what other people are doing in the bedroom. We have straight people into S&M, married and fucking their neighbors, sticking it in their wife’s ass, using some sex toys I would never use. And you know what? I don’t give a shit.[/quote]
I could be one of those “straight people into S&M, married and fucking their neighbors, sticking it in their wife’s ass, using some sex toys I would never use.”
If i was married.
But i’m not.
For the very same reason that i’m against gay marriage.
I acknowledge and respect the fact that marriage is an institution. based on specific principles.
I don’t share these principles. So, I should not be part of this institution.
And I don’t scream “discrimination !!!” because of that.
It’s not about what people do in their bedroom.
it’s not about what we hate or not.
The only question here is “should we change a social institution to give a privilege to a minority ?”.
In a Republic, the answer is “we shouldn’t”.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, more seriously
I have absolutely no hate for gay men. I just happen to prefer bisexual men.
If they insist to suck my balls while i fuck their girlfriend, i won’t always refuse. I simply won’t reciprocate.
I’m getting ready to get married. To a woman. I’ll keep Push up to date, he is REALLY interested in me. Thankfully despite his love affair he doesn’t support us getting married. Thankfully.
The rules for marriage have changed many times throughout history in many different cultures. Now all the sudden we shouldn’t change those rules? Why not? Even if the MAJORITY (not the fucking minority) of citizens agree that we SHOULD change those rules? You know other cultures have lifted bans on interracial and interfaith marriages as well. Do you oppose those moves? That was changing a social institution to give a privilege to a minority.
Soon enough the minority will be handcuffing the majority on the issue. The majority of people WANT change. This is not going anywhere but more and more and more towards support. So in 10 years if 70% of people support change don’t do it? 80% in 20 years? Why not? The institution has been changed NUMEROUS times throughout history already.
http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Glad I could entertain.
What’s even more odd perhaps is to watch the “oh no, polygamy definitely going to be a happening talk, worst thing EVAH” from so many people who just got done voting for a Mormon. [/quote]
You mean the Mitt Romney who is the member of the Mormon church that has disavowed polygamy for over 120 years?
And who is this person who said, “Oh no, polygamy definitely going to be a happening” that voted for a Mormon? Me? Me, the guy who didn’t vote for Romney?[/quote]
Conservatives on the whole you dumbass. Why do you assume everyone is always talking about you? I could honestly care less who you vote for or don’t vote for.
And the Mitt Romney whos Dad was born on a polygamist colony. It was more of an ironic thing though.
Oh sorry, forgot my sheep noises! Damn sheep society all starting to agree on gay marriage.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The only question here is “should we change a social institution to give a privilege to a minority ?”.
In a Republic, the answer is “we shouldn’t”.
[/quote]
The implication here is that in a republic, no social institution should ever be changed in order to grant a privilege to a minority group. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or if you’re wording it poorly, but consider that slavery was a social institution, that slaves were a minority group, and that the United States is a republic.
And for anybody who’s feeling obtuse, I’m not equating or comparing marriage inequality to slavery.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Conservatives on the whole you dumbass…
[/quote]
Oh, I see. I thought you were debating those of us on this thread. Didn’t realize you it was you vs. the entire conservative world. You DO have a heavy load to bear, no doubt about it.
[/quote]
Yeah, you like to take comments and then use them to fit whatever negative comment about a poster you want to make.
See I make a lighthearted comment about lol all these people who are worried about polygamy just voted for a guy who’s religion and parent is tied to it. It was supposed to be an irony type thing.
But here comes push: MOTHERFUCKER I DIDN’T EVEN VOTE FOR HIM.
So I say well I wasn’t singling you out.
Here comes push:
OH SO YOU’RE TAKING ON EVERY CONSERVATIVE WHO EVER LIVED!
Just keep changing stuff to fit what you need buddy.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
The only question here is “should we change a social institution to give a privilege to a minority ?”.
In a Republic, the answer is “we shouldn’t”.
[/quote]
The implication here is that in a republic, no social institution should ever be changed in order to grant a privilege to a minority group. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or if you’re wording it poorly, but consider that slavery was a social institution, that slaves were a minority group, and that the United States is a republic.
And for anybody who’s feeling obtuse, I’m not equating or comparing marriage inequality to slavery.[/quote]
So what ?
Slavery was not changed, not redefined.
It was abolished.
If we find that marriage, as an institution, is unbearably discriminatory, that’s what we should do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
H, like I have said on other threads, you certainly are no libertarian. Libertarianism teaches that government, generally speaking, should step away from the fracas and let the market or society solve “problems.” You are crying like a lost child that government should step into it.
Tskk, tskk, like I said…a libertarian thou art not. Pull that shingle down, stick it back inside your shop behind the toilet, slap up the Leftist one and be honest with yourself.[/quote]
Ok so I say why is the government telling gays they can’t marry.
You say the government SHOULD be determining this.
And I’m the leftist.
Excuse me while i laugh my head off.
But like most people of your ilk you can’t really decide what the fuck you believe. You’re like so many “Republicans” in my area. They are keep the government out of my life. We gotta have less government. Except drugs. And porn. And gay marriage. And abortion. And defense. And strip clubs. And, and, and, and.
Keeping government OUT of this realm is the position of Libs that are consistent.
Of people like you who want small government only on the shit you don’t like?
Not so much.
Just for fun though Push, tell me which one of these sounds like your position and which one sounds like mine:
[quote]The Libertarian Party of the United States takes the following positions relevant to LGBT rights:[5]
Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships":
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Section 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination":
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.[/quote]
I think you might actually be a troll. Or you just have no idea how to separate the fact that you can be for gay marriage and not a liberal. Should be getting easier as you see more and more REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES backing gay marriage. Then again I don’t think we ever accused you of playing with a full deck.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My stance has nothing to do with hate, pal. Not a thing.
If I had a loved one who was gay I would still continue loving them. But they still would have no “right” to legally marry someone of their own sex nor would I support it.[/quote]
I second this. There is definitely a stereotype of hatred on the part of gay marriage advocates.
I have/had:
A openly lesbian co-worker at my job in HS
A openly gay college roommate
Several openly gay fellow members of the professional society
A gay cousin on my side of the family
A lesbian cousin on my wife’s side and her brother is gay
The only person I can definitively say that I hated being around in all that time was another roommate’s fundamentally religious girlfriend who didn’t believe in pre-marital displays of affection. The other roommates and I would do our homework with scrambled porn on the television as a repellent.
It’s could be easily stated that I have suffered more for homosexuality than my brother-in-law.
None of the above is any of the Federal gov’t business and it’s still pretty clear to me that there is no ‘right to marry’. This is doubly true while men like Mr. Bloomberg enjoy combating my right to own a firearm, smoke a cigarette, or drink a large Coke.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
The only question here is “should we change a social institution to give a privilege to a minority ?”.
In a Republic, the answer is “we shouldn’t”.
[/quote]
The implication here is that in a republic, no social institution should ever be changed in order to grant a privilege to a minority group. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or if you’re wording it poorly, but consider that slavery was a social institution, that slaves were a minority group, and that the United States is a republic.
And for anybody who’s feeling obtuse, I’m not equating or comparing marriage inequality to slavery.[/quote]
Sure you are, you just did it.
You can’t say something then say you didn’t and be taken seriously.[/quote]
Not in any kind of way. I criticized the logic that a social institution should not be changed by a republic for the benefit of a minority group in any case. I made the the point that such a belief would have protected a social institution of the past that was extremely unworthy of protection–and I consider abolition to be a change. Nowhere in there is any manner of moral equivalency presented or implied. Human chattel and exclusion from an atavistic, symbolic club of sorts are nothing like comparable.
But, of course, we have to be logically consistent–if somebody is going to take the position that social institutions that withhold certain privileges from minority groups are necessarily above reproach or reconsideration in a republic, then I’m going to talk about implications.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
The only question here is “should we change a social institution to give a privilege to a minority ?”.
In a Republic, the answer is “we shouldn’t”.
[/quote]
The implication here is that in a republic, no social institution should ever be changed in order to grant a privilege to a minority group. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or if you’re wording it poorly, but consider that slavery was a social institution, that slaves were a minority group, and that the United States is a republic.
And for anybody who’s feeling obtuse, I’m not equating or comparing marriage inequality to slavery.[/quote]
So what ?
Slavery was not changed, not redefined.
It was abolished.
If we find that marriage, as an institution, is unbearably discriminatory, that’s what we should do.
[/quote]
To destroy something is undoubtedly to make a change to it. Anyway, the list of institutions that were (rightly) changed and not abolished for the benefit of a minority group is miles long and works very much against you and your argument. To take just one–and to keep the focus on marriage–I will point to miscegenation bans. Social institution…check. Privilege withheld from a minority group…check. Republic…check.
Are you saying that marriage had either to be abolished or left exactly as it was? That the Supreme Court erred when it ruled them unconstitutional?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
It’s a legal and moral clusterfuck. Polygamy is the sexual equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Monogamy, gay or straight, should be celebrated as a virtue.[/quote]
It’s hardly a legal and moral clusterfuck. Also, considering between sodomy laws, DADT, and DOMA, homosexuality has hit every branch of the gov’t multiple times in the last decade; I’d say that defines us as being in the midst of a clusterfuck. As I said, we, effectively, bundle the same ‘rights’ up and make it available to arbitrary groups of thousands of people in the form of incorporation. It shouldn’t be any real problem to do the same in the name of family. I think you preconceive and/or misconstrue legitimate support for polygamy/polyamorous marriage as a ‘slippery slope’ argument (only time can determine it’s fallacious nature). Additionally, the “I’d love to redefine marriage to include homosexuals but it’d be too difficult.” was the political middle-of-the-road catchphrase 20-25 yrs. ago. And please be aware that you put yourself in Dick Cheney’s company when you start disapproving of a sex act on moral grounds, all you need to do is use the word ‘hedonistic’.
First, I don’t think marriage should be about love or sex. Love is too whimsical, vague, individual, and ideological to be bound by law and sex is the same with the addition of being strictly in violation of actual Rights (unreasonable search and seizure). We don’t/didn’t require or compel married couples now (of any composition) to love or have sex, why would we, when drawing up a new definition?
So, let’s suppose I consider strict reproduction a central role in marriage. I don’t necessarily think marriages should be granted to people who are obviously infertile or otherwise incapable of bearing and raising children. When someone says ‘felons can marry, why not homosexuals?’ I a.) don’t assume a right to marry and that it’s the gov’ts business and b.) think yeah, we really shouldn’t extend the privilege of marriage to felons (similarly for hospital visitation, immigration, etc.). A woman infertilized by rape (or other) certainly won’t function in a traditional marriage the same way as one who did not, I bear no hatred or bigotry towards infertile raped women, that’s just a fact. My ability to deduce some of this is limited by unreasonable search, but homosexuality doesn’t predominantly present or require the need for such unreasonable search. Especially since biological custody can only be transferred through a licensed physician or attorney.
Obliterating the issue of reproduction from marriage (as homosexual couples can’t inherently/biologically reproduce) marriage becomes about stable cohabitation, community involvement, and child rearing. None of these attributes is inherently limited to couples and, in fact, is handled better by larger groups of people. In this regard gender-irrelevant multi-member ‘marriages’ make more sense to me than just gay marriage. There are dozens of ‘traditional marriages’ that are defined in many ways other than ‘One man and one woman’ and that weren’t exclusive to homosexuals (common law happens to be one I like). Redefining traditional marriage to include something a definition of marriage that didn’t previously exist and still excludes other traditional definitions is only slightly less biased than where you were before.
Lastly, even when limits are placed, rather explicitly, on the use and implementation of ‘equal protection’ it continues to creep. In this case, if we’re gonna redefine it, lets cut to the chase and include, e.g. everybody that can legally consent or everyone doing anything that isn’t strictly harming those around them.
To me, much of the defense of gay marriage has been (metaphorically) to point out that the bodywork of marriage is rusting, the engine only fires on half it’s cylinders, there’s no catalytic converter and it only gets 8 mpg, so we should bolt a ‘Mr. Fusion’ to the trunk and add more passengers. Wrong, either everyone get out of the freaking car and walk or work to turn the junker we’ve got into a shiny new schoolbus.