Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality

[80zephyr]

Horseshit! A slippery slope logical fallacy. Who the **** is advocating the legalization of peodophilia Is that really all you have. ?

They are working on trannies being accepted first. Give it time.

 

[80zephyr]

Catholic priest tried that crap on me when I was 19. "Tried"....failed.
Worst part was no one would believe it when I tried to tell them.

Marriage should be between a biological Male and a biological Female.
Anything else should be called a union of some sort.

I would call it "friendship", since biologically they can't reproduce,

 

[80zephyr]

I am not at all impressed with the moronic responses that I''m getting so far . So much for any hope of an adult level discussion on an important topic that can have a real impact on real peoples lives.

Translation: If you don't agree with me, you must be of low intelligence.

 

[80zephyr]

Ninth Amendment. Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection CLause. The awesome of power of Queso.

Then polygamy should be legal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you in favor of polygamy?

Not real sure why you would ask that but I have my suspicions . You expect me to so no-that I do “in favor” polygamy . Then you will call me a hypocrite because I support same sex marriage -just two variations on the traditional marriage model. That my friend is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to hypocrisy is also known as the look who's talking fallacy, or the to quoque fallacy in Latin. The appeal to hypocrisy fallacy is the logical fallacy of attempting to discredit an opponent’s position by pointing out their contradictory behavior or hypocritical stance.

Having said that, let’s consider what polygamy is , Historically it consists of any number of young women and girls being married to one man, usually older who has some power over them , It may be, and often is by arranged marriage and involve a degree in corrosion. So the answer to your question is ‘no’ I am not in favor of that. It is very different that a situation that involves two consenting adults in an equal relationship regardless of respective genders.

In addition, even if I was-by some measure- inconsistent and hypocritical - it does not weaken my argument in favor of same sex marriage , which you have not actually addressed

I am, however, in favor of Polyamory which consists of a group of any number of consenting adults. The arrangement may or may not involve same sex intimacy but there is no imbalance of power or coercion involved. I have absolutely no moral objection to that although there may be some social and legal issue to deal with. Consider the fact that the dynamics of a relationship of two people is complicated enough- it becomes exponentially more so with multiple people .

Legally- if it were to come to that- we have to consider the fact that or system of laws has developed around relationships involving two people . There would have to be some major consideration given to how things would work- but none of this is insurmountable

I hope that answers your question

PS: Your question is also a red herring logical fallacy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Translation: If you don't agree with me, you must be of low intelligence.

Bullshit. It is not about agreeing or not It is about the quality of discourse . It's abysmal

 

[Zincwarrior]

Then polygamy should be legal.

If all parties are majority age and capable of informed consent, yes actually.
But I am one of those who think the Government has no place in marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Then polygamy should be legal.

Clearly you do not understand how things work. Gay people won the right to marry because the states were unable to demonstrate that there was a compelling government in excluding same sex couples from marriage . If the issue of polygamy were to be brought before the court, the outcome is likely to be far different fot the reasons that I stated above

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I would call it "friendship", since biologically they can't reproduce,

That is stupid and offensive . Besides the fact that gay people do have children-reproducing is not and never has been a condition of marriage. My wife of 35 years and I never had kids because she can't. ( Yes we are hetero) Do not dare to suggest that our relationship is only a friendship

 

[Frankenstein]

That is stupid and offensive . Besides the fact that gay people do have children-reproducing is not and never has been a condition of marriage. My wife of 35 years and I never had kids because she can't. ( Yes we are hetero) Do not dare to suggest that our relationship is only a friendship

Ah yes but that is medical you twit! Homosexuality is a form of mental illness, and slight mental retardation, and complete sexual deviancy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ah yes but that is medical you twit! Homosexuality is a form of mental illness, and slight mental retardation, and complete sexual deviancy

Thank you for once again setting the bar high for the level of civil discourse on the USMB . You have no business talking about mental illness. or retardation.

 

[HeyNorm]

They are working on trannies being accepted first. Give it time.

And using the legal standing known as “similarly situated” to do so. They bastardized that standard with same sex marriage and now they will with trannies

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not real sure why you would ask that but I have my suspicions . You expect me to so no-that I do “in favor” polygamy . Then you will call me a hypocrite because I support same sex marriage -just two variations on the traditional marriage model. That my friend is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to hypocrisy is also known as the look who's talking fallacy, or the to quoque fallacy in Latin. The appeal to hypocrisy fallacy is the logical fallacy of attempting to discredit an opponent’s position by pointing out their contradictory behavior or hypocritical stance.

Having said that, let’s consider what polygamy is , Historically it consists of any number of young women and girls being married to one man, usually older who has some power over them , It may be, and often is by arranged marriage and involve a degree in corrosion. So the answer to your question is ‘no’ I am not in favor of that. It is very different that a situation that involves two consenting adults in an equal relationship regardless of respective genders.

In addition, even if I was-by some measure- inconsistent and hypocritical - it does not weaken my argument in favor of same sex marriage , which you have not actually addressed

I am, however, in favor of Polyamory which consists of a group of any number of consenting adults. The arrangement may or may not involve same sex intimacy but there is no imbalance of power or coercion involved. I have absolutely no moral objection to that although there may be some social and legal issue to deal with. Consider the fact that the dynamics of a relationship of two people is complicated enough- it becomes exponentially more so with multiple people .

Legally- if it were to come to that- we have to consider the fact that or system of laws has developed around relationships involving two people . There would have to be some major consideration given to how things would work- but none of this is insurmountable

I hope that answers your question

PS: Your question is also a red herring logical fallacy

Funny Unkotare ?

Just what is so funny???

Unkotare​

Urban Dictionary
https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=Unk...

Dec 10, 2013 — unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun; Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre ...

 

[80zephyr]

Then you will call me a hypocrite because I support same sex marriage -just two variations on the traditional marriage model.

The traditional marriage model was one woman and one man. The same sex variation never existed. If the model can be broken for one variation, then the variations can be endless.

 

[80zephyr]

Clearly you do not understand how things work. Gay people won the right to marry because the states were unable to demonstrate that there was a compelling government in excluding same sex couples from marriage . If the issue of polygamy were to be brought before the court, the outcome is likely to be far different fot the reasons that I stated above

We disagree. Since gay marriage cannot produce children, that is compelling evidence that gay marriage isn't good for society in the same way that polygamy wouldn't be good for society.

 

[80zephyr]

If all parties are majority age and capable of informed consent, yes actually.
But I am one of those who think the Government has no place in marriages.

If the public is going to pay for the breakup of these marriages, it needs some control.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The traditional marriage model was one woman and one man. The same sex variation never existed. If the model can be broken for one variation, then the variations can be endless.

For one thing it most certainly did exist. It was just not out in the open. Secondly, you are being disingenuous by claiming that you support polygamy when you only throw that into the mix in order to distract from the real issue. Lastly, it’s apparent that you do not actually understand logical fallacies or know know to debate an issue honestly

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We disagree. Since gay marriage cannot produce children, that is compelling evidence that gay marriage isn't good for society in the same way that polygamy wouldn't be good for society.

Oh just stop!! Marriage is much more than producing children. If you don;t think so, are you prepared to tell heterosexual couples who cant have or just don't have children that their marriage is no good for society? Yes or no??

Furthermore, as I said , gay people do have children in a variety of ways JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES DO, More importantly, they are nurturing parents and that most certainly is good for society. I'm starting to think that there is something seriously wrong with your ability to think clearly about this

 

[80zephyr]

For one thing it most certainly did exist. It was just not out in the open. Secondly, you are being disingenuous by claiming that you support polygamy when you only throw that into the mix in order to distract from the real issue. Lastly, it’s apparent that you do not actually understand logical fallacies or know know to debate an issue honestly

I'm honest. And if sanctioned gay marriage in society did exist, I'll need to see a link.

 

[80zephyr]

Oh just stop!! Marriage is much more than producing children. If you don;t think so, are you prepared to tell heterosexual couples who cant have or just don't have children that their marriage is no good for society? Yes or no??

Furthermore, as I said , gay people do have children in a variety of ways JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES DO, More importantly, they are nurturing parents and that most certainly is good for society. I'm starting to think that there is something seriously wrong with your ability to think clearly about this

The function of a family has always been to produce children. That some cannot, does not change that reality. There are exceptions to every rule.

With gay marriage, its 100%