Our era's American civil rights issue: A milestone on gay discrimination

[BoberFett]

You can argue all you want that "consenting adults" should be allowed to marry any way they want, but it's all those non-consenting, underage girls forced into marriage - that's the face of polygamy in America. And since it's essentially impossible to disentangle child abuse from polygamy, the harm caused by polygamy far outweighs its benefits.

Do you even realize you sound just like the bigot who claims that homosexuals have sex with children and farm animals?

You can't disentangle homosexuality from all those guys having sex with young boys.

 

[Craig234]

Today's leading headline on Comcast 'news':

Judge's Personal Life Debated

Same-sex marriage foes stir speculation that Judge Vaughn Walker is a stealth 'gay activist.'"

As I said, anti-gay bigotry is a or the leading bigotry of our time.

 

[jackace]

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is a 14th Amendment issue.


Still as wrong as ever.

In the case of same-sex marriage, certain persons are denied the exact same rights that other persons enjoy.

In the case of polygamy, everybody is denied the right equally -- just like everybody is denied the right to kill other people at will, just like everybody is denied the right to vote twice, just like everybody is denied the right to imprison other people against their will, and on, and on, and on.

The principle is equality which justifies the right to same-sex marriage. That principle is not compromised by a polygamy ban.

Now, I'm putting the odds that you'll actually demonstrate comprehension of that distinction at about 1 in 4. If anybody wants to take those odds on a friendly wager, send me a PM.

Did you even read what you quoted? Based on your name calling and the overall tone of your posts I think your temper might have got the best of you.

I agreed that my example of polygamy is not exactly the same as your example for gay marriage, and that the polygamy argument probably doesn't belong under the civil rights topic. I then said polygamist could argue they are being discriminated against because of their religion. Which would mean the legal restriction limiting the number of people someone can marry would be violating their 1st Amendment rights.

Both groups however are wanting the same thing. They want a present restriction on marriage removed because they believe it violates one of their rights. Which then gets back to my original topic which is, if large groups of people have no problem standing up for 1 group, then why do some of those very same people refuse to stand up for another group who is wanting to accomplish the same thing? In fact some of those very same people argue against the second group.

 

[MJinZ]

Do you even realize you sound just like the bigot who claims that homosexuals have sex with children and farm animals?

You can't disentangle homosexuality from all those guys having sex with young boys.

Hay Guyz, look it's BobberRetard!

You can't disentangle heterosexuality from all those guys having sex with little girls right?

What's that, 9x as many?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, that pedophilia is unrelated to sexual orientation and that BobberFett is in fact an incompetent!

 

[dmcowen674]

Our era's American civil rights issue:

A milestone on gay discrimination

Sad that a country that wants to pride itself as being free prides itself with discrimination.

What group is next after Gays?

 

[dmcowen674]

Do you even realize you sound just like the bigot who claims that homosexuals have sex with children and farm animals?

You can't disentangle homosexuality from all those guys having sex with young boys.

Did you drop your soap?

 

[MJinZ]

Did you even read what you quoted? Based on your name calling and the overall tone of your posts I think your temper might have got the best of you.

I agreed that my example of polygamy is not exactly the same as your example for gay marriage, and that the polygamy argument probably doesn't belong under the civil rights topic. I then said polygamist could argue they are being discriminated against because of their religion. Which would mean the legal restriction limiting the number of people someone can marry would be violating their 1st Amendment rights.

Both groups however are wanting the same thing. They want a present restriction on marriage removed because they believe it violates one of their rights. Which then gets back to my original topic which is, if large groups of people have no problem standing up for 1 group, then why do some of those very same people refuse to stand up for another group who is wanting to accomplish the same thing? In fact some of those very same people argue against the second group.

You absolutely are, demonstrably and categorically, a retard.

The fact that you are using a Non sequitur argument should be grounds for prima facie dismissal, but since you obviously can't even grasp *why* you are such a fucking idiot, I'll do it for you in a few sentences, even in your own retarded framework (legal restrictions), which this has nothing to do with the issue at hand (Equal protection):

Group A wants to have marriage include members of other race/sex/color.
Easy enough?

Group B wants to have marriage include members of Rapists, child molestors, and thieves. Basically, if you rape them, molest them, or steal them (literally), you get to marry them.

Group A has a legitimate claim.

Group B does not. It can believe whatever the fuck it wants, but no "rights" are being taken away. This applies completely to polygamists.

Group A has legitimate aversive attitude toward Group B

Group B is just a bunch of fucking idiots that should be shot testicles/ovaries and forbidden from breeding more retards

.
.
.

You sound like you're part of Group B.

 

[Moonbeam]

Geez, I guess I will have to explain Polygamy again in this thread too like I have had to do every other time it comes up in the forum even though I hate to do it because my explanation leads to almost as much resentment as the reality of my explanation would.

I am an animal in bed, with a magnificent and beautiful body and a woman killing face. On top of all that my feminine side is highly developed and my ability to relate to and enjoy the company of women astounding. There are probably only one in a thousand or so other men similar to me, if that, but it would be a small feat for me to acquire a thousand wives and far far more than that if I were to shoot for any but the finest. The result, of course, if polygamy were legal is that there would only be crones and witches available to the average guy and the sexual frustration of all those bachelors would lead to the destruction of society. Trust me, the state has an interest in keeping animals like me on a leach.

 

[Moonbeam]

jackace: Did you even read what you quoted? Based on your name calling and the overall tone of your posts I think your temper might have got the best of you.

M: I did point out to him the likely reasons, that he has, like a bigot, unexamined and irrational assumptions, in his case, namely, that more intelligence is better than less, that he is more intelligent, and that in combination, this equals a natural right to look down on you. He has not taken into account the possibility that if he were even more intelligent still, he would realize there is nothing about intelligence that permits looking down on others. He does not see that that conclusion is not drawn from intelligence but from a feeling of inferiority that is looking for a place to feel superior.

j: I agreed that my example of polygamy is not exactly the same as your example for gay marriage, and that the polygamy argument probably doesn't belong under the civil rights topic.

M: Probably is maybe a bit weak. I think the logic is clear there. It does not belong there at all. Further, I would say that they are not the same argument for other reasons.

j: I then said polygamist could argue they are being discriminated against because of their religion. Which would mean the legal restriction limiting the number of people someone can marry would be violating their 1st Amendment rights.

M: This, however, would not matter as one cannot, for example, practice human sacrifice as a part of ones religion. So claiming it to be religious in nature would not be sufficient to win anything.

J: Both groups however are wanting the same thing. They want a present restriction on marriage removed because they believe it violates one of their rights.

M: Both want the same thing in regards to wanting restrictions removed, but because the restrictions are not the same and not fixed in the same legal concepts, they do not want the same thing. Gays want a gender discriminating restriction removed and who knows the rest. It would be like saying I want salt in my food and you don't want salt in your food is the same thing, desires.

j: Which then gets back to my original topic which is, if large groups of people have no problem standing up for 1 group, then why do some of those very same people refuse to stand up for another group who is wanting to accomplish the same thing? In fact some of those very same people argue against the second group.

M: In the first place there is no large group arguing for polygamy so there is also not much in the way of active opposition and secondly, it isn't the same thing because salt and not desire is the essence of the matter.

The state has determined there is a state interest in how many people you can marry. This goes from income tax law to cult behavior to the stability of social relations, etc. This forum should tell you the disaster that would result given a lot of males running around with nobody to fuck.

 

[BoberFett]

Or perhaps, just perhaps, that pedophilia is unrelated to sexual orientation and that BobberFett is in fact an incompetent!

/facepalm

Thanks for proving my point.

And work on your name calling. You're about as adroit as a donkey with a lobotomy.

 

[BoberFett]

Did you drop your soap?

Why, are you trying to bang me you perv?

 

[ElFenix]

Hay Guyz, look it's BobberRetard!

You can't disentangle heterosexuality from all those guys having sex with little girls right?

What's that, 9x as many?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, that pedophilia is unrelated to sexual orientation and that BobberFett is in fact an incompetent!

i'm fairly certain you need to read the flow of the conversation again.

 

[xj0hnx]

The difference is that marriage is between 2 people. Polygamy is not.

Are we done?

The difference is marriage is between a man and a woman.

So you like the definitions, or interpretations of definitions, as long as they fit your beliefs. How very noble.

 

[Moonbeam]

i'm fairly certain you need to read the flow of the conversation again.

Thank you for that and for bringing the donkey with the lobotomy.

 

[Moonbeam]

The difference is marriage is between a man and a woman.

So you like the definitions, or interpretations of definitions, as long as they fit your beliefs. How very noble.

MJZ has the right definition. The legal definition of marriage can't be between a man and a woman because that discriminates on the basis of gender which is unconstitutional. The legal definition of marriage is between one person and another. Unlike a dictionary, legal definitions do not depend on usage and how many folk use words wrong. They are court defined.

 

[MotF Bane]

Hay Guyz, look it's BobberRetard!

You can't disentangle heterosexuality from all those guys having sex with little girls right?

What's that, 9x as many?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, that pedophilia is unrelated to sexual orientation and that BobberFett is in fact an incompetent!

Um... try re-reading the preceding posts.

 

[xj0hnx]

MJZ has the right definition.

No, he has the definition YOU like.

 

[jackace]

The state has determined there is a state interest in how many people you can marry. This goes from income tax law to cult behavior to the stability of social relations, etc. This forum should tell you the disaster that would result given a lot of males running around with nobody to fuck.

Couldn't the same argument be used against gay marriage though?

edit - We do after all put limits on siblings and in many states cousins marrying for many of those same reason.

 

[peonyu]

Couldn't the same argument be used against gay marriage though?

edit - We do after all put limits on siblings and in many states cousins marrying for many of those same reason.

Im not pro gay marriage or pro polygamy, but it is hypocritical to be pro gay marriage and against polygamy. Both are not traditional forms of marriage, and if gay marriage is legalized then so should polygamy [provided that everyone involved are consenting adults]. I dont see any reason why that should not be the case, if Gay marriage is ok then what says Polygamy is wrong ? Where do you draw the line at.

And for those quoting the law on Polygamy...It wasnt to long ago that gay marriage was completely banned aswell. The traditional marriage law states that it is a union between a male and a female. So laws can obviously be changed.

And the "social" issues concern over Polygamy falls into the same bracket as gay marriage does, and gay couples raising children. A "dad and dad" raising children is as "socially" different as a "dad and moms" or "mom and dads" raising children. So the social argument against polygamy holds no water if we have no standard to judge it against. And currently it looks like we are going to get rid of the traditional standard [that being 1 male and 1 female = marriage] by making gay marriage equal to traditional marriage. So with Gay marriage being allowed, the standards change...Polygamy according to this new standard should be fine.

 

[MJinZ]

Couldn't the same argument be used against gay marriage though?

edit - We do after all put limits on siblings and in many states cousins marrying for many of those same reason.

Let's see you argue it better than the 6 figure lawyers already tried to.

"UH, it's bad for kids" - no evidence

"Uh, kids will become gay" - no evidence

"Uh, society will fall apart" - Mass > All bitches, we're ahead of everyone else (gay marriage here for 6 years)

I'd love to stay and hear more retarded spittle being driveled, but actually, I'd rather be doing something else.

 

[zinfamous]

No, he has the definition YOU like.

If you took more than 2 seconds to think about this, you'd realize that the entire issue here is that moral conservatives want to CREATE this definition that you endorse. The absolute truth of the matter, which no rational person can deny (because the fact is there in stone), is that the legal definition of marriage is between 2 people. NOT a man and a woman.

The entire thrust of you and your brethren is to re-define this legal understanding of marriage, in an initial attempt to further de-secularize our constitutional government.

See, you don't even know what your movement is all about.

You BELIEVE that marriage is between a man and a woman. The US JUDICIARY DEFINES marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults. Bush and your other pals tried to endorse a constitutional amendment to DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

think about it: Why would anyone propose an AMENDMENT to RE-DEFINE marriage, if their definition were already in place?

think.

maybe think...a little bit more. I'll wait

I know that such activity can be taxing for the "morally superior."

 

[MJinZ]

Im not pro gay marriage or pro polygamy, but it is hypocritical to be pro gay marriage and against polygamy. Both are not traditional forms of marriage, and if gay marriage is legalized then so should polygamy [provided that everyone involved are consenting adults]. I dont see any reason why that should not be the case, if Gay marriage is ok then what says Polygamy is wrong ? Where do you draw the line at.

And for those quoting the law on Polygamy...It wasnt to long ago that gay marriage was completely banned aswell. The traditional marriage law states that it is a union between a male and a female. So laws can obviously be changed.

And the "social" issues concern over Polygamy falls into the same bracket as gay marriage does, and gay couples raising children. A "dad and dad" raising children is as "socially" different as a "dad and moms" or "mom and dads" raising children. So the social argument against polygamy holds no water if we have no standard to judge it against. And currently it looks like we are going to get rid of the traditional standard [that being 1 male and 1 female = marriage] by making gay marriage equal to traditional marriage. So with Gay marriage being allowed, the standards change...Polygamy according to this new standard should be fine.

Same retarded drivel that I would have to repeat myself again in response in this thread, but since this head-case never bothered to read anything here, what's the point?

By the way, I vote for letting us marry 5 year old kids. And and dead people. Oh, and marriages with parents and grandparents. Let's see, what else, oooh let's marry companies, since they are run by consenting adults. Better yet, we should just marry towns with legal aged people. Towns being married together sounds great, like one big happy family.

After all, fallaceous arguments are fun! Slippery slopes are great not only for sledding but also for retards to play with!

This thread has been great gauge of AT poster IQs that's for sure.

 

[BoberFett]

Same retarded drivel that I would have to repeat myself again in response in this thread, but since this head-case never bothered to read anything here, what's the point?

By the way, I vote for letting us marry 5 year old kids. And and dead people. Oh, and marriages with parents and grandparents. Let's see, what else, oooh let's marry companies, since they are run by consenting adults. Better yet, we should just marry towns with legal aged people. Towns being married together sounds great, like one big happy family.

After all, fallaceous arguments are fun! Slippery slopes are great not only for sledding but also for retards to play with!

This thread has been great gauge of AT poster IQs that's for sure.

Yes it has. You've shown us that your IQ is roughly on par with a houseplant.

 

[MJinZ]

Yes it has. You've shown us that your IQ is roughly on par with a houseplant.

God's houseplant maybe, which would have an excess of 175 IQ and could speak 5 languages.

 

[peonyu]

Same retarded drivel that I would have to repeat myself again in response in this thread, but since this head-case never bothered to read anything here, what's the point?

By the way, I vote for letting us marry 5 year old kids. And and dead people. Oh, and marriages with parents and grandparents. Let's see, what else, oooh let's marry companies, since they are run by consenting adults. Better yet, we should just marry towns with legal aged people. Towns being married together sounds great, like one big happy family.

After all, fallaceous arguments are fun! Slippery slopes are great not only for sledding but also for retards to play with!

This thread has been great gauge of AT poster IQs that's for sure.

Are you retarded ? What are you going on about, you dont even make sense you moron.