Next.. Group Marriage

[GHook93]

Gay Marriage Ruling Seen by Polygamists as Opening Door to Multiple Marriages

One of the argument, which I think is the pro-traditional marriages strongest argument is that opening the door to gay marriage opens the door to other non-traditional marriages.

The most obvious is polygamy. Polygamy sounds great on paper, but what our Muslim scumbag brothers have taught us is polygamy is ripe for abuse. I know it worked in Big Love, why can't it work in reality!

Then you have marriage to a child! Mary Kay Letourneau would have a very compelling argument of love between two consenting INDIVIDUALS shouldn't be prevented by law. Not sure I would want to go down that road either.

What about a farmer in love wit his sheep? A man in low with his dog? Now I am getting silly, but people will bring up these arguments.

 

[Pete7469]

People 30 years ago would have laughed in your face at the idea of gay marriage too...

Yet here we are.

I personnally don't care about the issue, but I am concerned society will continue to change it's standards. 2000 years ago the roman culture permitted every sort of thing we still consider deviant. I don't want "progressives" leadings us down that road.

They might scoff at the idea, but I do recall the ACLU defending NAMBLA. The fact that NAMBLA even exists should raise some flags.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Won't happen. The slippery slope's not real. A goat can't sign a document, can't be granted visiting rights, won't care if you leave it anything in a will, and on and on and on and on...

 

[aaronleland]

I can't take seriously anybody who uses the term "traditional marriage". Polygamy is older than Western civilization. So, what exactly is traditional marriage?

 

[Katzndogz]

People 30 years ago would have laughed in your face at the idea of gay marriage too...

Yet here we are.

I personnally don't care about the issue, but I am concerned society will continue to change it's standards. 2000 years ago the roman culture permitted every sort of thing we still consider deviant. I don't want "progressives" leadings us down that road.

They might scoff at the idea, but I do recall the ACLU defending NAMBLA. The fact that NAMBLA even exists should raise some flags.

Rome fell and was replaced by a few Christians who didn't permit such nonsense.

Not only did Rome permit and honor every kind of deviancy but substance abuse and drunkenness was widespread. Think about that the next time someone wants to legalize pot.

 

[TheOldSchool]

People 30 years ago would have laughed in your face at the idea of gay marriage too...

Yet here we are.

I personnally don't care about the issue, but I am concerned society will continue to change it's standards. 2000 years ago the roman culture permitted every sort of thing we still consider deviant. I don't want "progressives" leadings us down that road.

They might scoff at the idea, but I do recall the ACLU defending NAMBLA. The fact that NAMBLA even exists should raise some flags.

Rome fell and was replaced by a few Christians who didn't permit such nonsense.

Not only did Rome permit and honor every kind of deviancy but substance abuse and drunkenness was widespread. Think about that the next time someone wants to legalize pot.

Rome lasted 1,000 years before the Christians "took over." And it was ransacked by the Visigoths 100 years later.

Not hatin just sayin

 

[Mr. H.]

Had a hilarious talk with sis last night. Her attitude... "if they want into this institution from hell, then welcome to it".

You think the divorce rates will be any different? Single-parent households? Hardly

 

[RKMBrown]

Hypocrites like myself? I am not preventing you from marrying who you want, I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. I am not denying you any rights based on your lifestyle.
Allowing them to marry is not forcing you to validate anything. It is giving everyone the same equal rights.
Before this a same sex married couple in say Washington State could not collect federal benefits from their spouse. That isn't equal rights.
The only way I would be a hypocrite is if I was trying to deny you federal benefits based on your lifestyle. Am I doing that?

Sort of.. the a gay marriage contract is not the same as a hetero marriage contract. You would have to remove gender to make the contract the same. Gays can have a hetero marriage today. What you are asking for is a change to the government marriage laws. You are asking for inclusion by changing the right of having your marriage contract recognized by the state, as a new type of marriage contract, such as a civil union or some other kind of marriage not previously recognized by the state such as a combination of hetero and or gay marriages as recognized by the state. IOW you want the current citizen rights to be changed, to include gay sex partners as equal to hetero sex partners in the eyes of the law.

I'm hetero, and on your side but the terms you use have led many hetero's to thinking you mean to change the definition of their marriage.

How am I changing the definition of their marriage?
And why shouldn't they be equal?

And no where in the constitution does it define marriage between man and a women.

>>> How am I changing the definition of their marriage?

You're not. As I said, the terms used, specifically the request for equal rights, have led many hetero's to thinking you mean to change the definition of their marriage. This is not helped by the many folk who have asked for the redefinition of the term marriage.

>>> And why shouldn't they be equal?

They, hetero and gay marriages, should be equal. They are in my eyes, and they should be equal in the eyes of the law. I can't speak for all people and/or religions.

>>> And no where in the constitution does it define marriage between man and a women.

Correct.

The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

IMO marriage of any of the people should be protected by the first amendment on the basis of free exercise of religion. Further, the government restricting marriage was the rough equivalent of establishing particular religions that prohibit gay marriage as the law of the land, which is expressly prohibited by the first amendment. IMO this is the same reason that plural marriages between consenting adults should be allowed.

 

[AmyNation]

Merged.

 

[g5000]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

 

[RKMBrown]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

DOMA was thrown out...

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it highly amusing those with polygamous backgrounds or members of a church with an extensive polygamous background (particularly among the first generation leaders) are opposing polygamy here.

What a hoot!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Those rainbow colored partnership certificates will be fabulous !!!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

We're just trying to make you snivel..thanks

 

[Avatar4321]

Gay Marriage Ruling Seen by Polygamists as Opening Door to Multiple Marriages

One of the argument, which I think is the pro-traditional marriages strongest argument is that opening the door to gay marriage opens the door to other non-traditional marriages.

The most obvious is polygamy. Polygamy sounds great on paper, but what our Muslim scumbag brothers have taught us is polygamy is ripe for abuse. I know it worked in Big Love, why can't it work in reality!

Then you have marriage to a child! Mary Kay Letourneau would have a very compelling argument of love between two consenting INDIVIDUALS shouldn't be prevented by law. Not sure I would want to go down that road either.

What about a farmer in love wit his sheep? A man in low with his dog? Now I am getting silly, but people will bring up these arguments.

Marriage itself is ripe for abuse if it's done with wickedness. Polygamy just seems more ripe because it's multiple marriage and tends to attract people who want to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

It's a logical extension to the argument that has been used to force marriage to be redefined for same sex relationships. No one needs mass email lists. All one has to do is think about it to be curious.

 

[Avatar4321]

I find it highly amusing those with polygamous backgrounds or members of a church with an extensive polygamous background (particularly among the first generation leaders) are opposing polygamy here.

What a hoot!

What I find more amusing here is those that favor same sex marriages are trying to use the same arguments against polygamy as those who were against same sex marriages used against them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Three topics in two days about the IDENTICAL slippery slope argument about polygamy.

Are you guys on the same mass email list? Watching the same TV demagogue? What is it?

It's a logical extension to the argument that has been used to force marriage to be redefined for same sex relationships. No on needs mass email lists. All one has to do is think about it to be curious.

You mean argument to remove, the current restrictions on marriage that limit marriage to same sex relationships. Not a subtle difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know no proponent of universal marriage that is opposing polygamous marriage, Avatar, here in our state. No one.

If you do, that makes the first.

 

[Luissa]

I love how people keep saying this is being forced on them. How so?
Do you now have to enter in a same sex marriage?
What really is being forced, his your beliefs on someone else and the federal government. The government should not be allowed to tell you what sex your spouse has to be. And you shouldn't be allowed to use the federal government to define marriage in your opinion.