Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gay Marriage]: It Hurts Jesus Real Bad

15859606163

Posts

  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.

    disclaimer; sarcasm

    You should put the disclaimer at the start of the post - fewer people will bite through their own tongues in fury before they finish reading it.


    As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

    You're going to Hell for questioning the word of God.

    Crimson King on
  • AibynAibyn Registered User regular
    edited January 2010

    But Paul of Tarsus was a douchebag and ruins the Bible, so it's best to ignore him, the possibly-a-Eunuch bastard.

    Wait what? This is something I had not heard about. Please elaborate if you would, as it does kind of make sense of what he wrote if he was.

    Aibyn on
    "Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon..."

    -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
    11737_c4020a74dc025a53.png
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    It's irrelevant, anyway. The Bible says right there that gay marriage is against the will of God. So, who cares how good parents they may or may not be? It's still sin and perversion. Homosexuality doesn't actually have to hurt anyone to be wrong, and no amount of logic is going trump religion here.

    disclaimer; sarcasm

    You should put the disclaimer at the start of the post - fewer people will bite through their own tongues in fury before they finish reading it.


    As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

    You're going to Hell for questioning the word of God.

    Man, I question the claims of the "goodness," by any human perception of the term, of the Judeo-Christian God.

    Dude's going to curse me to reincarnate for all existence or something, even if the world like, reboots itself.*




    On topic: How did today's session of the trial go?


    *could not resist the MegaTen reference

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It went fine for our side. Blankenhorn was as belligerent as ever, but was forced to say some stuff damning for the defense's side.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Only thing left to do is wait until Feb. 26th. And yes, belligerent doesn't even begin to describe how much of an ass he was to Boies.

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The judge was not amused by that guy.

    On another note, Obama mentioned repealing DADT in the state of the union just now.

    KalTorak on
  • DrswordsDrswords Registered User
    edited January 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    On another note, Obama mentioned repealing DADT in the state of the union just now.

    You for real?

    Drswords on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yep. I imagine it's going in the next defense spending bill for this fiscal year. Which is pretty much what he's said for nearly a year now.

    Quid on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    The people fucking ten-year-olds and treating women like cattle are already doing it, because they don't care what the law is.
    Yeah, and they're hard enough to catch and prosecute as it is; I'd rather not make it easier for them to be above-board.

    I wonder if the fact that current anti-bigamy laws drive the practice underground doesn't actually make abuse easier than if multiple spouses were on the up-and-up?

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    He did, did he. Did he say when? Or is it just lip service again?

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    He did, did he. Did he say when? Or is it just lip service again?

    I think we're still at the lip service stage.

    Melkster on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Khavall wrote: »
    I mean, the opponents of gay marriage's only two arguments are "SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE" and "IF WE ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY WHAT'S STOPPING PEOPLE FROM MARRYING THEIR FENCE?!"

    Actually, they have another one, which is that men are from Mars and women are from Venus and if you let two people of the same sex marry, you get Western Civilization, End Of, since in a two-woman marriage you can't automatically tell "who wears the pants" and whose job it is to change diapers and bake cookies.

    That's Blankenhorn's schtick and why he was brought in to testify (also, why he was so awful).

    ETA:
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

    The laws of Leviticus, which certain Christians like to quote when they're gay-bashing and conveniently ignore when they feel like eating shrimp, explicitly forbids two men having sex with one another 'as with a woman'. You can interpret this to mean anything from no anal sex to no homosexual contact at all. It doesn't appear to apply to lesbians at all. Many modern Jewish interpretations point out that at the time, same-sex relationships were often abusive (see: ancient Greeks) and/or were part of pagan religious rites, and there really was not a modern conception of two people of the same sex having a mutual, equal relationship.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.

    As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
    Why? Polygamous marriages don't have to be 1 man with X women.

    Kaputa on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.

    As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
    Why? Polygamous marriages don't have to be 1 man with X women.
    they don't have to be, but practically speaking they almost always are

    ronzo on
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.

    As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
    Why? Polygamous marriages don't have to be 1 man with X women.

    It's still despotism if it's 1 woman and X men.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.

    As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
    Why? Polygamous marriages don't have to be 1 man with X women.

    It's still despotism if it's 1 woman and X men.
    What if its 2 women and 2 men? I agree with the sentiment that polygamy as practiced in Western culture is and has been an unethical and generally fucked up thing, but monogamy is not the only morally sound option!

    Kaputa on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    We shouldn't allow perversions of marriage! Marriage is between two people, not three!

    Seriously the only logical moral arguments about polygamy are technical or indirect; it's hard to put together legally, and it might possibly maybe lead to more cult bullshit. (And personally I don't buy either of those.)

    But there is nothing particularly immoral about three people getting married. Poly people are, in fact, capable of having loving, balanced relationships that aren't even a little evil.

    And even if they weren't equal partnerships, that shouldn't matter! People have different ideas of what relationships should be. As long as noone is being hurt or having something done to them against their will, it shouldn't matter. Or should we deny marriage to Dom/Sub couples, too?

    Anyways, if we're going to continue this, I recommend we resurrect the Polygamy and Incest thread. We're getting off-topic, I think.

    Kamar on
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.

    As one of the plaintiff's expert witness testified, polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage because it involves despotism for one party.
    Why? Polygamous marriages don't have to be 1 man with X women.

    It's still despotism if it's 1 woman and X men.
    What if its 2 women and 2 men? I agree with the sentiment that polygamy as practiced in Western culture is and has been an unethical and generally fucked up thing, but monogamy is not the only morally sound option!

    Polyandry doesn't really happen. And even when it does, it looks like it's 1 woman x men.

    According to the defense witness, every marriage in polygamy happens between one man and one woman. So there will be a gap where one person has more partners than the other.
    Kamar wrote: »
    We shouldn't allow perversions of marriage! Marriage is between two people, not three!

    Seriously the only logical moral arguments about polygamy are technical or indirect; it's hard to put together legally, and it might possibly maybe lead to more cult bullshit. (And personally I don't buy either of those.)

    But there is nothing particularly immoral about three people getting married. Poly people are, in fact, capable of having loving, balanced relationships that aren't even a little evil.

    And even if they weren't equal partnerships, that shouldn't matter! People have different ideas of what relationships should be. As long as noone is being hurt or having something done to them against their will, it shouldn't matter. Or should we deny marriage to Dom/Sub couples, too?

    Anyways, if we're going to continue this, I recommend we resurrect the Polygamy and Incest thread. We're getting off-topic, I think.

    There's also a small problem where allowing polygamy will really fuck up our current laws unlike same sex marriage (hello there taxes and inheritance and divorce and immigration and anything dealing with marriage)

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    What if its 2 women and 2 men? I agree with the sentiment that polygamy as practiced in Western culture is and has been an unethical and generally fucked up thing, but monogamy is not the only morally sound option!

    Besides the fact that this is not the argument at hand, polygamy creates a massive loophole for a lot of regulations. What's the cap on how many partners can join in on this? When somebody dies is everything split evenly among everyone or is the income of each taken in to account? What about children? Do they go to the parent that gave birth to them, the one that actually raised them every day, or are they split equally between all persons equally? Given that the estate tax doesn't apply to spouses, what's the cut off for this establishment given that it could easily perpetuate non stop? Who gets to decide to pull the plug if no one is specified?

    And that's just off the top of my head. So ignoring the out and out giant history of abuse that has always been associated with the establishment, how does it even work in a legal framework? I'm not a fan of saying something's to hard to implement. But I'm also not a fan of allowing things that no one can offer reasonable regulation for.

    Quid on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    My stance on polyamorous-marriage (sorry, I dislike the term polygamy) is "If you can show exactly how to modify all the laws related to marriage to make sure that it's fair for all parties involved in all situations, I'm for it."

    So basically, I think polyamrous-marriage isn't wrong, but impossible to code into law.

    Edit: Quid brought up a great point I didn't even think of right there.

    Raiden333 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Seriously. But then you say to them you want crazy 3x+ people in a committed relationship, just get a lawyer to draw up a contract...but if you say that then people will try that nonsense with gay marriage too.

    It's better to just ignore it.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Edit: Quid brought up a great point I didn't even think of right there.

    Just imagine what a half decent lawyer could do with a prenuptial and will.

    Quid on
  • smeejsmeej Registered User
    edited January 2010
    So when can I marry a corporation?

    Also, I'm going to start calling myself monoamorous.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    My stance on polyamorous-marriage (sorry, I dislike the term polygamy) is "If you can show exactly how to modify all the laws related to marriage to make sure that it's fair for all parties involved in all situations, I'm for it."

    So basically, I think polyamrous-marriage isn't wrong, but impossible to code into law.

    Edit: Quid brought up a great point I didn't even think of right there.

    Banning a non-wrong activity = correct?
    I know it would be hell on the drive through wedding business, but a marriage license could be made a more involved process. Really if you just required wills(marital property states would be a problem) and power of attorney forms for marriage licenses, and some extra information on birth certificates(specify guardianship stuff), that would take care of most of it. All the who-gets-what problems are basic contract stuff, no reason the people involved can't write the contract when they incorporate themselves.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Tax dodging and fraudulent immigration says hi.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    My stance on polyamorous-marriage (sorry, I dislike the term polygamy) is "If you can show exactly how to modify all the laws related to marriage to make sure that it's fair for all parties involved in all situations, I'm for it."

    So basically, I think polyamrous-marriage isn't wrong, but impossible to code into law.

    Edit: Quid brought up a great point I didn't even think of right there.
    Banning a non-wrong activity = correct?
    I know it would be hell on the drive through wedding business, but a marriage license could be made a more involved process. Really if you just required wills(marital property states would be a problem) and power of attorney forms for marriage licenses, and some extra information on birth certificates(specify guardianship stuff), that would take care of most of it. All the who-gets-what problems are basic contract stuff, no reason the people involved can't write the contract when they incorporate themselves.
    This too frequently turns into a hellish legal nightmare down the road even when it only involves two people.

    Thanatos on
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
    If I'm not mistaken, Paul doesn't forbid marriage, but he certainly frowns on it (in Corinthians). It's better for people to remain unwedded (possibly so that they can save all their love for God or something, but that's just my interpretation), but if they must indulge in their carnal desires, then doing so through marriage is... acceptable.

    Doesn't exactly sound like a sacred institution, does it? Ah well.

    WotanAnubis on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    I think a lot of the argument against polygamy is that it can lead to exploiting women (not sure how much validity this argument has). It also mucks up the law quite a bit when you start adding in more than two people. Does it operate like one person married to two separate people or is it more like three people all married to each other? It can make things like divorce rather tricky too.

    That being said, I cant come up with any real reasons that multiple consenting adults cant enter into a relationship, and 'legally tricky' isnt a valid enough reason to deny it.

    A marriage such as 2 straight women to one straight man is automatically setting up the women to compete for the mans affection....not really fair for the women.

    Show my the healthy happy polygamous relationships where everyone is equal and in love with each other. If you can't then I can't be bothered to change the law for them.
    ... 2 person relationships can't be abusive?

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Abuse in its various flavors is already illegal.

    You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
    Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.

    Jesus this is a completely retarded argument. Do you, for example, think that there will NEVER be a same sex couple with kids where the child is sexually abused?

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • SelnerSelner Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    If I'm not mistaken, Paul doesn't forbid marriage, but he certainly frowns on it (in Corinthians).

    Someone quoted Corinthians in a article comment thing yesterday, so I decided to look it up to see what is says.
    Specifically 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, that's the passage.

    Apparently that passage can be translated and interpreted a million different ways. With some of the ways having nothing to do with same-sex acts.
    Paul even apparently invented a word in Greek, and no one knows what he actually meant.

    This was an interesting read though: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
    And the bit about the invented word: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

    So it seems kind of wacky to me to "condemn" people based on those passages, when linguists cannot even agree on the author's intent.

    Selner on
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    So not exactly having to do with gay marriage, but question. Do any of you ever think that the term gay, or worse yet, fag, will stop being used as an insult?

    Guess I just been thinking about it because one of my friends called me a fag over FB, good naturarely really since it's something we used to call each other a lot, and I felt ashamed about having it up. I think I luckily gotten past having to use those terms as insults, though sometimes I'll even catch myself about to say it.

    Then at the drive to work, I was listening to the usual wacky morning radio djs, and one called the other gay for wanting the Ipad. Just surprised how easily that insult flowed, and in radio. It's not exactly like dropping the N bomb, but it's a bit close in my eyes.

    Anyways, maybe this is a topic for another thread?

    Kyougu on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Not that I support them in their smear campaign per se, but I do find the polygamy argument interesting. Once you disregard the 'traditional' argument (although theres probably a stronger tradition for polygamy than for homosexual marriage anyways), whats the argument for keeping marriage limited to 2 partners.

    *sigh* Please feel free to lay out the legal argument as two why "two only" violates the Equal Protection Clause. Absent that, 'what about polygamy' is a red herring. It also ignores the fact that (as Blankenhorn admitted in cross) that polygamy has been common and perhaps even the norm throughout human history, so people whining about Traditional Marriage really ought to think twice about waving that flag.

    And what Quid said. It'd be a legal nightmare, and I've yet to hear even die-hard poly advocates propose a workable solution.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The PIT, level 26Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    As far as I know, the bible only frowns specifically on homosexual sex (and even then it's debatable), but there's nothing specifically forbidding marriage. Haven't read most of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
    If I'm not mistaken, Paul doesn't forbid marriage, but he certainly frowns on it (in Corinthians). It's better for people to remain unwedded (possibly so that they can save all their love for God or something, but that's just my interpretation), but if they must indulge in their carnal desires, then doing so through marriage is... acceptable.

    Doesn't exactly sound like a sacred institution, does it? Ah well.

    It does seem weird that Christians are all fired up to protect the 'sanctity' of something that one of their most important figures eschewed for himself and thought of as a necessary evil for others.

    And it still doesn't look like there's anything that expressly forbids marriage between people of the same gender, just sex between two men.

    Golden Yak on
    pod_banner.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Abuse in its various flavors is already illegal.

    You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
    Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
    Jesus this is a completely retarded argument. Do you, for example, think that there will NEVER be a same sex couple with kids where the child is sexually abused?
    Child abuse can and does occur within monogamous relationships of all types. Is it the norm? No, not even close. Not for heterosexuals nor for homosexuals.

    Child abuse is what polygamous communities are founded upon. They sexually abuse the girls, and emotionally abuse the boys. It's the only way their nutjob religious institution of "one man marries many women" can function.

    Is it technically possible for there to be other types of polygamous relationships in this country? Sure. Does it happen? Not really. And we can either write the law based on how things are, or based on how it would be nice if things were; I'd rather face up to reality, realize that these chi-mo nutjobs are hard enough to prosecute as it is, and not give them legal sanction for their fucked-up, misogynistic, abusive outlets.

    Thanatos on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Abuse in its various flavors is already illegal.

    You don't think there are any of these polyamorous people who would like to be polygamous but aren't because its, ya know, illegal?
    Any? Yeah, sure, probably a very few. Many? Like, a significant number? Like, anywhere near enough to be worth making life easier for the kiddie-diddlers and welfare kings? No. Not even close.
    Jesus this is a completely retarded argument. Do you, for example, think that there will NEVER be a same sex couple with kids where the child is sexually abused?
    Child abuse can and does occur within monogamous relationships of all types. Is it the norm? No, not even close. Not for heterosexuals nor for homosexuals.

    Child abuse is what polygamous communities are founded upon. They sexually abuse the girls, and emotionally abuse the boys. It's the only way their nutjob religious institution of "one man marries many women" can function.

    Is it technically possible for there to be other types of polygamous relationships in this country? Sure. Does it happen? Not really. And we can either write the law based on how things are, or based on how it would be nice if things were; I'd rather face up to reality, realize that these chi-mo nutjobs are hard enough to prosecute as it is, and not give them legal sanction for their fucked-up, misogynistic, abusive outlets.
    That is a fucking stupid position if I've ever seen one.

    Religious polygamous communities with the sole purpose of being breeding grounds for crazy abusive nuts lead to said crazy abusive nuts being, well, abusive.

    This has nothing to do with polyamory, at all.

    There's far more people living like that, without anyone ever knowing, because they are afraid of exactly such stupid conclusions (apart from the obvious ones like "Slut, why don't you fuck me if you fuck other guys other than your boyfriend, come here and let me rape you", which, amusingly, is what happened to a friend of mine).

    Also you are really a very silly goose if you think "one man, multiple women" is somehow the norm for this kind of relationship.

    What needs to be done is better anti-abuse law and law enforcement.

    It's funny how you do not see how this is about exactly the same argument as "If we let the gays adopt the children, they WILL rape them!"

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It's funny how you do not see how this is about exactly the same argument as "If we let the gays adopt the children, they WILL rape them!"
    I don't really agree with Than's argument, but I think it's funny how you do not see how this is different.

    Bama on
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos is correct with regard to polygamy as it tends to be practiced. You can make a pretty sound argument that such arrangements, especially in small communities, lead to abuse.

    However, that doesn't necessarily apply directly to group marriage; the Netherlands allows "cohabitation contracts" to be signed by more than two parties, which is marriage-esque, and it doesn't seem to lead to abuse. Ultimately, though, it's a separate argument. Whether we allow two people of the same gender to marry is just a different issue than if we allow more than two people to marry.

    EDIT: Though I should point out that if you allow group marriage, you'd basically legally sanction polygamy-as-it-is-practiced.

    Professor Phobos on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Bama wrote: »
    It's funny how you do not see how this is about exactly the same argument as "If we let the gays adopt the children, they WILL rape them!"
    I don't really agree with Than's argument, but I think it's funny how you do not see how this is different.
    Ok, I went a bit over board there, but it's still very similar.
    The core problem is not polyamory, I'd wager, on the contrary. There's no love at all involved then you have a patriarch control, manipulate and abuse children until they are young adults completely under his control.
    Those religious communities are a problem, but they are surely not the norm for polyamorous relationships, they are the norm for abusive religious cults.

    Edit: Yes, this is extremely off-topic

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    This thread is a bit past its expiration date anyway, and the trial isn't going to reconvene until the end of February.

    KalTorak on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »

    Child abuse is what polygamous communities are founded upon. They sexually abuse the girls, and emotionally abuse the boys. It's the only way their nutjob religious institution of "one man marries many women" can function.

    Er, you seem to be confusing "religious communities in America that practice one man/many women marriage" with "legalizing civil marriage between more than two people at a time".

    The US cannot have a law that allows one man to have many wives, but does not allow one woman to have many husbands. It's that Equal Protection thing. If polyamorous/group marriage were legalized, there would be no way to place limits on what women could do vs. what men could do. (This, incidentally, is the reason that fundamentalist groups will never really support legal polygamy; what they really want is legal polygyny, and they can't have it.)

    The real problem with polygamy/group marriage is that there's no legal framework that can cope with it. I've never heard even a workable draft of one proposed, even in polyamory communities.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
This discussion has been closed.