Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PubliusInfinitum, May 18, 2009.

  1. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Below is an exchange wherein a member comes to submit that Homosexuals are perfectly suited for Marriage; that there is no means to argue against such; that the standard of Marriage wherein such requires one male and one female to join in a committed, monogamous relationship... should be revised to include two individuals of the same gender...

    The following challenges the member to defend that revised standard from those who would come, "IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS" to revise Marriage to include THREE OR MORE individuals...

    Such is submitted for the consideration and discussion by the full scope of the board...

    Here the opposition comes YET AGAIN to offer up the addle-minded "NUH UH" Defense...

    It seems that SUCH is ALL THEY HAVE…

    I challenge this member to cite the specific element of my position wherein she concludes that I am even IMPLYING that Homosexuals, if cowed sufficiently, will decide to reject, or otherwise determine to overcome, their disorder...

    The position merely states, in POINT OF FACT, that homosexuals are oriented towards a sexuality which is in direct biological opposition to; thus is antithetical, to the biological baseline norm; that such represents a deviation from that norm, thus homosexuality represents sexual deviancy... thus homosexuality is ABNORMAL and NOT SUBJECT TO BEING DEFINED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ANYTHING APPROACHING NORMALITY; and this DESPITE THE SUBJECTIVE "INTERPRETATION" OF THOSE WOULD-BE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ACTIVELY PROMOTING SUCH... In direct opposition to that indisputable reason.

    Furthermore that there is NOTHING in the US Standard of Marriage which excludes homosexuals who make application for Marriage or pre-determines that such should be excluded or otherwise denied that application, EXCEPT where they fail to meet that reasoned and long established standard, which is designed to promote a SUSTAINABLE CULTURE...

    I have stated many time and in many ways, that I hold no malice towards ANY sexual orientation, except where that orientation is used as a means to infringe upon my means to exercise my right, or the rights of others to pursue the fulfillment of my life/theirs lives; through the attempt by such individuals to exercise their rights to the detriment of my culture, to hold to viable and sustainable standards of public behavior; which include but are not limited to, defining Marriage as the joining of TWO PEOPLE; one male and one female... who are committed to a monogamous, caring relationship; within which they are able to share the responsibilities in raising and nurturing a family...

    As the VERY ARGUMENT of 'FAIRNESS' which the homosexual advocacy brings to rationalize the revision of that standard MUST, by the very rationalization which they BRING... require that upon the lending of credence to such, that the culture will quickly come to realize that NO STANDARD CAN EVER BE APPLIED WHICH WILL EXCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL ORIENTED TOWARDS ANY DEVIANCY and that such can and MUST RESULT IN THE CRIPPLING of the nucleus element of the culture; the family... wherein EVERY FORM OF DEBAUCHEROUS "LIFESTYLE" WILL ENJOY THE DE FACTO LEGITIMACY OF MARRIAGE, THUS IN EFFECT RENDERING EVERY ORIENTATION OF "SEXUALITY, EVERY FORM OF DEBAUCHERY" to that of LEGITIMATE...

    Now with that said, I'd again challenge this member to show where the standard applied in Marriage as such is DEFINED, EXCLUDES ANY INDIVIDUAL, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION TO MAKE APPLICATION AND BE ACCEPTED FOR MARRIAGE, beyond where THEY CHOOSE to apply outside the scope of acceptable parameters, set forth BY THAT STANDARD.

    Secondly... I further challenge this member, to defend the REDEFINED STANDARD, which she submits for consideration, wherein the CULTURE WOULD provide for the joining of TWO HOMOSEXUALS; from those who would ask that THIS REVISION BE REVISED TO INCLUDE MORE THAN TWO INDIVIDUALS.…

    Which is to say that I challenge this member to DEFEND THE STANDARD OF MARRIAGE WHEREIN THAT STANDARD PROVIDES FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS OF EITHER GENDER... FROM THOSE WHO WOULD DEMAND THAT HER STANDARD BE REVISED TO ACCEPT THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD APPLY FOR MARRIAGE...

    Explain to this board Ravi, the reasoning YOU would use to defend your homosexual marriage from the TRIADS who would demand that you accept three or more individuals to be recognized as being acceptable for marriage…

    Now friends, when {this member} and the rest of the 'ladies' are incapable of, refuse to, or otherwise FAIL to post a well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid defense of the MODIFIED Standard of Marriage; which they demand we must accept; and that such 'is only fair' on the basis that such 'would in NO WAY adversely affect the culture...' but would provide the simple legal necessities which would make homosexuals 'legally equal' with hetero-sexual couples... ; WHEN SHE can NOT provide a sustainable argument, which in ANY WAY differs from the argument which WE SUBMIT and have advanced for now well over a WEEK on this thread... and for 40 years throughout this culture in contest of the FULL SCOPE OF THE NORMAILZATION OF HOMSEXUALITY ITSELF; WHEN SHE FAILS TO ADVANCE AN ARGUMENT WHICH EXPLAINS THROUGH VALID< SUSTAINABLE REASON, WHY THOSE WHO DESIRE TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS A JOINING OF THREE OR MORE PEOPLE...

    At that point: this debate is OVER...

    As her failure, or the failure of ANY REPRESENTATION of her alliance, to submit such, will prove CONCLUSIVELY, INDISPUTABLY, INCONTESTABLY, that THEIR EMPHATIC ASSURANCES THAT THE REDEFINING OF MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE SAME GENDER UNIONS IN NO WAY REPRESENTS A THREAT TO THE STANDARD< OR TO THE CULTURE IN ANY POTENTIAL WAY... is MEANINGLESS; what's more, that these would-be assurances are based upon nothing less than abject IGNORANCE and unbridled stupidity... and that IN POINT OF INDISPUTABLE FACT, to ACCEPT their revision of marriage, is to DESTROY the very institution which they otherwise claim to hold in high esteem... rendering the concept, as it renders EVERY concept which they revise for their utilization, to MEANINGLESS...

    Take your time {Contesting members}... THINK about your response, as when you come to spam the thread with some half-witted quip... some addle-minded retort... you will concede this debate in FINALITY.

    Now do your worst... BRING IT ON... EXPLAIN TO THIS BOARD HOW YOU WILL DEFEND YOUR REVISED DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FROM THOSE WHO COME TO REVISE IT TO SUIT THEIR OWN DISTINCT, &#8216;SCIENTIFICALLY APPROVED&#8217; (subjectively rationalized) DEVIANCY...
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2009
  2. Korimyr the Rat
    Offline

    Korimyr the Rat Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    116
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +23
    Personally do not see what the objection to polygamy is in the first place. It's better for women, better higher quality men, and it's been the accepted social standard throughout most human cultures throughout most of human history.

    It's not even Biblically condemned.
     
  3. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Well... Color me SHOCKED! :eek:

    First, I'd like to thank the member for their thoughtful contribution... :clap2::clap2::clap2:

    Let the record reflect that the FIRST respondent to this piece advocates for the normalization of polygamy...

    Would one of our 'Homosexual Marriage' Advocates like to take this opportunity to defend their standard against the advocacy of the Polygamists?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Anyone?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Anyone at all... :eusa_whistle:


    LOL... It's time to SHINE gals...
     
  4. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Yes sir mister Laden! Also, would you like the heads of all the dissenters on your desk or gift wrapped?
     
  5. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    :spam::spam::spam::spam::spam::spam::spam::spam:

    Is it too much to ask that those without a cogent, constructive argument to refrain from spamming the thread...

    Particularly the site moderators...
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2009
  6. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    I'm not sure what the public policy choice against poly-amorous marriages, whether poly male (Male, Female, Male +) or poly female (female, male, female +) would be. Assuming all are adult, consenting and not closely related, I would not think that these would create less stable households than those based on a monogamous relationship. To the extent they are just as unstable, I would think that it likely that the resultant split would be more resilient than the current situation where many times the divorced people must declare bankruptcy.

    As to whether allowing civil unions or even marriage to same sex people opens the door to having 3 plus people unions, I really don't see how that would happen. I presume the law has not lost the ability to do simple math. I know lawyers, myself included, do not do math well, but 1 + 1 still equals 2. It does not equal 3 or more.

    But, I'm supposing here. So PI, if you would like me to engage in a dissection of a law, please post the law and I'll do what I can for you.
     
  7. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    Having lived in Utah for 10 years, I don't really see the point to keeping polygamy illegal, either. Color me libertarian on the matter.
     
  8. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    I think kitten's response was considerably more cogent and constructive than your original post. And contained a lot fewer capital letters.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Nik
    Offline

    Nik Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,581
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +85
    Nothing is wrong with polyamory. Polygamous societies have a history of being fairly coercive towards women. Remove that element, and its all good.
     
  10. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,328
    Thanks Received:
    12,694
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,770
    I don't really have a problem with it either, unless people are being indoctrinated into participating in it as in the case of the FLDS.

    But it has nothing to do with legalizing gay unions.

    I think Pubic can't stop thinking about sex, frankly. Next he'll be telling us that gay marriage means that it's okay for public school teachers to have orgies with dogs. :cuckoo:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

mono gendered marriage

,

monogender marriage