Poop gate has been overpooped

[Festering Anus]

so you're trolling.

at least you finally admitted it.

 

[xMurphyx]

Maybe we all just see shadows on the walls of a cave! Maybe we're hooked up to a seemingly realistic computer simulation! Maybe it was all a dream! Maybe Larkin is actually FOR gay marriage!

We just don't know!

 

[Darkdrium]

I could be against it, I could be for it, I could be standing for another principle, as I said you don't know for sure.

Now I see why some here hate you.
I bet you get off on being as annoying as possible.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

What's wrong with polygamy?

This is the only question that matters

Actually, if you allow me I would.
I think that children from different mothers but with the same father would be troubled by that fact, and also the father would not be able to realistically take care of two or more families even if he tried his hardest to (Which is most certainly not the reality of things in Africa where polygamy is omnipresent.)
Also, it protects the women as who knows with whom your husband has slept? You are supposed to trust your spouse, now you're not sure if he's got something like HIV or other terrible sexually transmitted diseases. The possibility is that he could infect you as well as all the other women he has sex with (And that also definitely happens in Africa.)

Really, this is invalid. A man could support a family with two wives just as well as with one. It's all a numbers game (can we afford more children and so on). Also, most people sleep with whoever they feel like regardless of sexual diseases anyway. I don't see how multiple women marrying one man is any different in the context of the constitution and in practice as one woman marrying one man or, more simply, one man sleeping with multiple women without being married. Slide down the slippery slope, unless it just feels wrong to you, in which case your argument is apparently worthless.

Oh goody, completely worthless and illogical arguments. No matter the delusions of a mental patient, cats are not people. No matter the level of feelings, inbreeding is dangerous on the genetic level and supporting it causes an actual danger to the continuing health of the human race.

*shrug* I was only leading off of what you said. None of your complaints there are filed in the constitution as reasons why those marriages should be excluded, right? There is nothing specific to a man, a woman, a race, a gender, a sexual preference, etc. If context doesn't matter, then the only thing left is because you don't like the idea for some reason.

Are you a bigot? (That's right I played the lame not actually relevant and rhetorical bigot card!)

 

[Larkin]

The only thing he's stated in this thread of any note is that he "doesn't like it when people use the 'it's natural' argument".

I just don't understand why that fact bothers him so much. It's as natural as anything else humans do so meh!?

The "its natural" argument is meh.

Now I see why some here hate you.
I bet you get off on being as annoying as possible.

Annoying? Why because I won't say my opinion? Why are you so interested in it?

 

[Darkdrium]

Really, this is invalid.

I could say the same about your argument. You want to play the case by case card? Fine.

How about a man who abandons a single woman after she announces she is pregnant. That already happens quite enough, and is potentially traumatizing for the child (And some cases I know it has forged their personality in a way that they dislike themselves.)
Imagine with two women. A man might want a child with one, not the other. What happens when the second one gets pregnant? Same scenario is a possibility.

People will sleep with whoever they want outside of marriage. But, and while it is not the case always 100%, married men will stay with their wife.
Polygamy is a method of allowing the multiplication of sexual partners legally after marriage. It probably doesn't change the entire picture a whole lot, but it's a possibility that some men might want to marry two wives and have sex with both, or even more. And I'm sorry but if you brush aside the increased risk of STDs you have strictly no idea of what you are talking about. In the first world, STDs are more frequently found in homosexual populations, however in Africa HIV specifically is centered around heterosexual relations, particularly around men who have sexual intercourse with multiple women.

And these women are often abandoned with a child, bringing both first and second points together in a third: the possibility of an infected HIV positive child growing up fatherless.

So you see, I too can play the "possibility" or "case" card. It doesn't mean anything at all and it totally gets us nowhere to argue case by case.

However, make polygamy illegal, and you eliminate some of the possibilities I mention. However infinitesimal these might be, that's still this much people not traumatized during their youth or infected with a terrible and incurable disease. And I think that's worth it alone.

Just to be clear I'm not arguing constitutionally. More like morally if you will.

 

[Darkdrium]

Annoying? Why because I won't say my opinion? Why are you so interested in it?

Oh I have no idea. Maybe in a debate people are actually interested in others' opinions, however different they may be?
You not presenting points you actually support is kind of giving the rest of us discussing with you the middle finger. "My opinion is not worthy of you and you wouldn't understand it anyways." Nice.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Annoying? Why because I won't say my opinion? Why are you so interested in it?

because you already act like a paranoid ignoramus who hand picks his arguments from some sick combination of Bill O', Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey. we don't need you acting all ambiguous on top of it. it's taxing enough on the brain just trying to make sense of some of the ridiculous things you say, let alone to try and decide if you're being serious or just playing the part of devil's asshole.

do you have any idea how human communication works?
don't answer that.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Case by case cards? WEEE!!!!!!

How about a man who abandons a single woman after she announces she is pregnant. That already happens quite enough, and is potentially traumatizing for the child (And some cases I know it has forged their personality in a way that they dislike themselves.)
Imagine with two women. A man might want a child with one, not the other. What happens when the second one gets pregnant? Same scenario is a possibility.

So two things that are exactly the same happening is... what?

People will sleep with whoever they want outside of marriage. But, and while it is not the case always 100%, married men will stay with their wife.

So? How does having multiple frequent sexual partners that you're married to differ from having multiple frequent sexual partners that you are not married to? This obviously happens.

Polygamy is a method of allowing the multiplication of sexual partners legally after marriage. It probably doesn't change the entire picture a whole lot, but it's a possibility that some men might want to marry two wives and have sex with both, or even more. And I'm sorry but if you brush aside the increased risk of STDs you have strictly no idea of what you are talking about. In the first world, STDs are more frequently found in homosexual populations, however in Africa HIV specifically is centered around heterosexual relations, particularly around men who have sexual intercourse with multiple women.

I'm not trying to brush aside the risk of STDs, I'm just trying to figure out how it makes the spread of STDs worse than it currently is in a system where people sleep with whoever they feel like sleeping with regardless of the status of their genitals. In a lot of states, you have to be tested for STDs before you can even GET married. And even if you aren't legally required to do that, you probably should if the person's sexual history is in question. It's not like a man having sex with two women suddenly creates HIV and he spreads that among them. So where is this supposed "increased risk"? Doesn't this almost inherently make it SAFER to have sex in a polygamous marriage as opposed to freeballlin'?

And these women are often abandoned with a child, bringing both first and second points together in a third: the possibility of an infected HIV positive child growing up fatherless.

So how is this different with monogamous marriages either hetero or homo?

However, make polygamy illegal, and you eliminate some of the possibilities I mention. However infinitesimal these might be, that's still this much people not traumatized during their youth or infected with a terrible and incurable disease. And I think that's worth it alone.

None of your post explains how the risk of STDs being spread is mitigated at all by making polygamy illegal. My other posts were lead in to by previous arguments. In yours, you're bringing up issues that already exist and making it seem like they are worse when you add something that makes you uncomfortable, a trait which is often the most horrible thing about gay marriage complainers.

Just to be clear I'm not arguing constitutionally. More like morally if you will.

Then I hope you have the same reservations with any non-monogamous, non-heterosexual marriages.

 

[Larkin]

Oh I have no idea. Maybe in a debate people are actually interested in others' opinions, however different they may be?

Why? Because it does something productive?

You not presenting points you actually support is kind of giving the rest of us discussing with you the middle finger. "My opinion is not worthy of you and you wouldn't understand it anyways." Nice.

Who says I don't support what I say? And who says you could understand it? I know what happens when I say my opinion out right, so why should I? I might aswell hit on the issues at hand in the topic instead and maybe if you guys are smart enough you can figure it out on your own. That way, I have fun.

 

[dragonfliet]

*shrug* I was only leading off of what you said. None of your complaints there are filed in the constitution as reasons why those marriages should be excluded, right? There is nothing specific to a man, a woman, a race, a gender, a sexual preference, etc. If context doesn't matter, then the only thing left is because you don't like the idea for some reason.

Are you a bigot? (That's right I played the lame not actually relevant and rhetorical bigot card!)

Don't be so deliberately foolish. The constitution is set up for the welfare of the people (It's the freaking preamble!_ and outlines the methods in which the government may enact laws/govern. By promoting incest, it literally works against the welfare of the people through the massive increase in genetic problems. A law against incest is no more a case of bigotry than a law against letting people own radioactive materials without proper license and protections or a law against yelling fire in a theater. Your ridiculous cat argument has no bearing on anything--a cat is not a person and is not a citizen and no matter how hard a mental patient wants it to be so, it won't change.

Stop it with your ridiculous straw men. The government is perfectly able and allowed to have laws for many purposes and the fourteenth amendment does not magically stop that. You know this, I know this and the argument that by allowing gay men to marry under the equal protection clause will somehow open the floodgates of hell is ridiculous.

~Jason

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Since nobody took my bait, I'll tell you what's wrong with polygamy. It's a legal issue. In a polygamous marriage who gets 'power of attorney' in cases of sickness or death? This alone is reason enough to make it illegal. This is why polygamy is a false "slippery slope" argument.

Marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults. Not a man and a goat, not a man and a child, not man and a trampoline. Another false slippery slope bites the dust.

Sibling marriage is illegal because of the huge health concerns (despite what genetic expert Larkin claims). Another false slippery slope meets its maker.

On the issue of "equal protection" and whether marriage is a right or a privilege: It doesn't matter. Is shopping at Kroger a right or privilege? And if it's a privilege, does that mean Kroger can ban black people from its stores? Is driving a car a right or a privilege? Is a college education a right or a privilege? Etc...

 

[Larkin]

Don't be so deliberately foolish. The constitution is set up for the welfare of the people (It's the freaking preamble!_ and outlines the methods in which the government may enact laws/govern. By promoting incest, it literally works against the welfare of the people through the massive increase in genetic problems. A law against incest is no more a case of bigotry than a law against letting people own radioactive materials without proper license and protections or a law against yelling fire in a theater. Your ridiculous cat argument has no bearing on anything--a cat is not a person and is not a citizen and no matter how hard a mental patient wants it to be so, it won't change.

Stop it with your ridiculous straw men. The government is perfectly able and allowed to have laws for many purposes and the fourteenth amendment does not magically stop that. You know this, I know this and the argument that by allowing gay men to marry under the equal protection clause will somehow open the floodgates of hell is ridiculous.

Your opinion of the constitution somehow doesn't mean much. If you are just going to ignore everything about its real purpose so you can make up your own, just stop talking about it.

Since nobody took my bait, I'll tell you what's wrong with polygamy. It's a legal issue. In a polygamous marriage who gets 'power of attorney' in cases of sickness or death? This alone is reason enough to make it illegal. This is why polygamy is a false "slippery slope" argument.


Marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults. Not a man and a goat, not a man and a child, not man and a trampoline. Another false slippery slope bites the dust.

Sibling marriage is illegal because of the huge health concerns (despite what genetic expert Larkin claims). Another false slippery slope meets its maker.

Can anyone tell me why the government has a say to begin with? Why there is legal benefits to marriage? Why there is power of attorney issues? No? ....What am I thinking, ofcourse you guys have a reason.

On the issue of "equal protection" and whether marriage is a right or a privilege: It doesn't matter. Is shopping at Kroger a right or privilege? And if it's a privilege, does that mean Kroger can ban black people from its stores? Is driving a car a right or a privilege? Is a college education a right or a privilege? Etc...

Actually stores are a privilege so they should be able to allow who they want or not. I know I'm all racist now. Whatever.

and the other two are privileges aswell.

 

[theabyss]

The solution:
Just change the freaking name and everybody is happy.

"Marriage" = Hetero
"Commitment" = Gay

Only heteros can get "married".
Only gays can get "committed".

"Committed" people have same rights and responsibilities as "Married" people.

Discussion over.

 

[Darkdrium]

So two things that are exactly the same happening is... what?

Because two things can't happen concurrently according to you. I admit to not being that clear, that comes with the language. However, let's take a sample. Two men, three women.
First man is married to the woman, but wants no child. She gets pregnant, and he abandons her because he's a heartless son of a...
Anyways, in today's USA: second man is married to second woman, and wants a child. He gets it, he's happy and all.
In modified USA where polygamy is legal, say this second man is also married to the third woman, but doesn't want a child with her (Say she doesn't have a great salary or whatever other reason you want.) She gets a child too. Let's say that second man is also heartless in this case. Now you've got two abandoned children instead of one.
You apparently like the case by case, so that's one possibility, and it's not that surreal I'm quite sure about that.

So? How does having multiple frequent sexual partners that you're married to differ from having multiple frequent sexual partners that you are not married to? This obviously happens.

Again, two things can't happen concurrently. You think that men who are married would never in their life dream of sleeping with someone else? Yeah, that happens already, in and out of marriage. But make it legal. And you think there's absolutely no chance of this kind of behavior increasing? I'd say you'd be quite wrong.

In a lot of states, you have to be tested for STDs before you can even GET married.

Well then that's me not knowing how the USA works that much (cue the Location bar under my avatar) If you have to get tested, this does change things, but also only ever so slightly. If this man is in a polygamous relationship, but also dating someone else outside (who say is infected and doesn't know it for the sake of argument because we like case by case) and has unprotected sex with her (All too common on dates right gents?) Then he goes back home and ****s his harem. Everyone has it! Awesome.
Again, possibilities.

So how is this different with monogamous marriages either hetero or homo?

It's not different. It's equally as tragic. But, if you encourage through laws behaviors that can increase the likelihood of such situations happening, you're gonna have more tragedies to deal with. Again, just because it already happens doesn't mean that it can't happen more.

None of your post explains how the risk of STDs being spread is mitigated at all by making polygamy illegal. [...] In yours, you're bringing up issues that already exist and making it seem like they are worse when you add something that makes you uncomfortable, a trait which is often the most horrible thing about gay marriage complainers.

There I tried to explain it now. The only problem I have with polygamy is that it can easily be abused by men to control multiple wives. Sure there are some good hearted men out there, but they never make the news. All we hear about are wife beaters and such. Multiple wives? Wives beater? I don't like it that much. Yes, that does make me uncomfortable, among the other things I said.
But hey, if you're a nice man and are a millionaire and want many wives and children, go for it. But you better be up to the task otherwise you'll have some internet flak from me to deal with.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

The solution:
Just change the freaking name and everybody is happy.

"Marriage" = Hetero
"Commitment" = Gay

Only heteros can get "married".
Only gays can get "committed".

"Committed" people have same rights and responsibilities as "Married" people.

Discussion over.

Unfortunately "marriage" isn't really the issue. The real issue is that the Gay and Lesbian crowd want to treated as equals. Your solution wouldn't do that, it would just just make the distinction official.

 

[Zxanphorian]

The solution:
Just change the freaking name and everybody is happy.

"Marriage" = Hetero
"Commitment" = Gay

Only heteros can get "married".
Only gays can get "committed".

"Committed" people have same rights and responsibilities as "Married" people.

Discussion over.

On the same token, since basically what you said was that something that has the same end can have different names, then why not just have one name for the thing? The same name being marriage.

 

[Phopojijo]

so... then nuclear weapons are natural?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Yes.

The established view in the field of psychology is that Zoophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with animals) is a mental disorder.

The established view in the field of psychology is that Necrophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with the dead)is a mental disorder.

These bear a common thread with homophilia (aka homosexuality) in that they are all unnatural attractions. They are all 3 a mental disorder. However only homosexuality has people trying to validate it and make it normal. In psychology this is known as denial.

I don't think we should validate the behavior with laws that create a sort of exclusion zone, I also don't think they should be discriminated against.

Unlike Zoophilia and Necrophilia, homophilia is a fairly victim-less disorder and those with it are very functional. That though further complicates things because the more a person is able to deal with a problem the harder it is for them to see one. That feeling is only compounded by time.

My opinion is prop 8 is ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the table. You don't tell a drug addict "naw your fine. Here, have some more drugs." If there is a law put into place that makes same sex marriages legal that is basically what it's saying. It's not a religious question to me. It's a question of how we address human beings with problems. We made our buildings handicap accessible and yes it took laws to do it. I simply say we should be making the right laws and this isn't 1 of em. My view on it anyway.

Lets go back to this for a second... firstly, if you wish to carry the compulsion of homosexual attraction and the compulsion of chemical addiction in the same umbrella -- then you must also include heterosexual attraction in that same compulsion as every definition of addiction (a compulsion, impact on family/financial/work/etc. segments of your life, etc.) that one follows, the other applies in the same way.

Secondly -- Would you give a person who compulsively drinks water... water? Of course, it's called dehydration.

So therefore what makes a compulsion accepted is the definition of normal.

The question then is where do you define normal?

My girlfriend and I determined that we will NOT have children ((we may adopt later, but that is irrelevant)). Are we normal? How can we be normal if we follow the usual compulsions BUT we have a "problem" with the normal compulsion of wanting children.

An easy definition of normal is defined based on consent and acceptance between the affected parties.

In that case... the micro-society between the couple is normal as both consent and accept the relationship... and the micro-society between homophobics and homosexuals is not normal. (Zoophiliacs and Necrophiliacs are also "not normal" in this definition of normal... as animals and the dead are unable to consent and accept behaviour -- polygamy however would be normal provided all parties are consenting and accepting of the total relationship... which is why it's banned because usually polygamous relationships are very abusive. The question is should polyamourous relationships be legal in the situations where all couples are consenting... or should we threaten legal action against every threesome?)

So what I'm saying is compulsive homophobics are hate addicts Why feed them hateahol?

--------------------------

And *does* people realize the difference between recognizing the marriage of two consenting adults of whatever gender combination... and forcing the marriage of two consenting adults of whatever gender combination? It seems like a lot of the anti-homosexual marriage comments I see is because people assume that it will force private institutions to accept it as well...

... that or Christians (I am Roman Catholic {Christian}, FYI) who don't seem to realize that the word "Marriage" isn't copywritten or trademarked for religious use only

 

[theabyss]

Probably because of what is attached to its name.
If heteros want marriage all for themselves - let them.
If gays want all the rights and privileges a marriage offers,
give it to them under a new name. Then they can say:
"HA, this is juuuust for us - an no hetero can ever get "committed".

The traditionalists/religious ones can still say: Marriage originated by god and for man and woman only.
Gays can say: Commitment, originated by men for gays only.

 

[Phopojijo]

Marriage is a registered trademark of the United Religion Organization, 2010 -- All rights are reserved. Marriage is used under license from the United Religion Organization for those who place pelvic appendages in naturally lubricated holes. Any unauthorized use will be enforced to the furthest extent of the law.