If you're against polygamy, are you a bigot?

[Quantum Windbag]

That's cute.

But let's take a journey to the real world, where we know that legal, 'government sanctioned' marriage is here and not going anywhere soon.

In the real world, do you oppose same sex marriage, or do you support same sex marriage as long as opposite sex marriage is going to be legal?

in order for me to know that I would have to know that it is completely hopeless to reform the government. I don't know that.

Do you acknowledge that a person who supports 'government sanctioned' opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a bigot, since there is no rational argument against same sex marriage being treated differently than opposite sex marriage?

There is no rational basis for people to insist the government should have a say in their getting married, yet they do it.

 

[g5000]

Most of HIV and Aids is within the homosexual community. It is a sick and disgusting behavior that harms our society.

Number of people in US with genital herpes: over 50,000,000
New cases per year: 1,000,000
New cases per hour: 114
New cases per minute: 1.9
Percent of US population affected: 20%
1 in 5 persons age 12 and older
Number of people unaware they are infected: Millions: Most of the population

Genital Herpes Information and Case Counter


Sick, disgusting heteros!!!

.

 

[Seawytch]

I know "Big Love" was a TV show, but where are those polygamists? Why aren't they pushing for legal recognition?

They are too busy raping their child brides.

.

See, that's what I'm thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's the deal, folks...if there were to be a huge push from polygamists for legal recognition of plural marriage (I'm not aware of any at the moment), those opposed must provide a societal harm in allowing them. Same goes for gay marriage.

Start listing your "societal harms" now...

It is actually quite easy to prove societal harm from polygamy and polyandry, that does not prove that society should have a say in it.

 

[washamericom]

Here's the deal, folks...if there were to be a huge push from polygamists for legal recognition of plural marriage (I'm not aware of any at the moment), those opposed must provide a societal harm in allowing them. Same goes for gay marriage.

Start listing your "societal harms" now...

It is actually quite easy to prove societal harm from polygamy and polyandry, that does not prove that society should have a say in it.

you'd be a polygot.

 

[g5000]

i often see the argument or statement that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots etc...

so, if you oppose polygamy, does that make you a bigot?

No. That is a slippery slope fallacy often used by bigots who hate homosexuals, as are their pathological attempts to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

You cannot justify the legalization of a harmful activity by pointing to the legalization of one that is not. Homosexual marriage is not harmful, and therefore could not be used as justification for legalizing something that is.

[No, laws prohibiting polygamy have a rational basis, are applied to everyone equally, and are absent animus.

Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, however, lack a rational basis, seek to exclude a specific class of persons from marriage law, and are motivated by animus alone on the part of the state.

This.

Polygamous societies are exclusively one man married to multiple women. Such societies are predominantly exploitive of women as a result. And the math inevitably leads to the availability of adult women becoming more and more scarce, with predation of female children into forced marriages frequently the outcome.

.

It is not exclusively men having more than one wife.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4yjrDSvze0]Multiple Husbands - YouTube[/ame]

You found the proverbial white crow.

In the Himalayas.

Would you settle for predominantly?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. That is a slippery slope fallacy often used by bigots who hate homosexuals, as are their pathological attempts to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

You cannot justify the legalization of a harmful activity by pointing to the legalization of one that is not. Homosexual marriage is not harmful, and therefore could not be used as justification for legalizing something that is.




This.

Polygamous societies are exclusively one man married to multiple women. Such societies are predominantly exploitive of women as a result. And the math inevitably leads to the availability of adult women becoming more and more scarce, with predation of female children into forced marriages frequently the outcome.

.

It is not exclusively men having more than one wife.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4yjrDSvze0"]Multiple Husbands - YouTube[/ame]

You found the proverbial white crow.

In the Himalayas.

Would you settle for predominantly?

.

Predominately works, I actually said pretty much the same thing earlier.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I oppose the states telling people who they can, and cannot, have sex with. Why does that not make sense?

I don't like you.

But frankly there was nothing wrong with your first post that he said it didn't make sense. If I may, feel free to correct me.

State/Federal government should be able to sanction unions. That is two people entering some sort of social contract that receives legal benefits.

Marriage is a sanctioned union. But marriage is also a religious construct that is wrongly supported by a government that has freedom of religion. Therefor I oppose, and I assume you do as well, any government sanctioning marriage. Unions between people yes... Marriages no.

Not quite.

I don't think government should use taxes to influence social policy. I see some advantages to the government setting up laws to protect the interests of children, but most marriage laws are historically built on the idea that women cannot provide for themselves without a man. The laws are a little more balanced now, but there really should be no financial support for either partner unless their are children involved.

As far as religion, I am a but of a heretic, I don't think the church should have any say in who gets married either. If a couple wants to say they are married, they are, and the church has no more business endorsing that than the state does. The only thing people need permission from the church for is to have a church wedding, which is more about social protocol than religion.

It’s quite appropriate, and Constitutional, for governments to use tax incentives to influence social policy. As the majority in the Healthcare Cases observed:

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).

As with home ownership and professional educations, marriage – whether same or opposite sex – is perceived by government to be generally beneficial, and encourages marriage using certain taxing policies.

As for churches and other religious entities, they do indeed have the authority to say who is and is not married in accordance with their dogma. Private organization have the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly, and exclude whomever they wish who refuses to conform to that organization’s tenets, customs, and established practices. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't like you.

But frankly there was nothing wrong with your first post that he said it didn't make sense. If I may, feel free to correct me.

State/Federal government should be able to sanction unions. That is two people entering some sort of social contract that receives legal benefits.

Marriage is a sanctioned union. But marriage is also a religious construct that is wrongly supported by a government that has freedom of religion. Therefor I oppose, and I assume you do as well, any government sanctioning marriage. Unions between people yes... Marriages no.

Not quite.

I don't think government should use taxes to influence social policy. I see some advantages to the government setting up laws to protect the interests of children, but most marriage laws are historically built on the idea that women cannot provide for themselves without a man. The laws are a little more balanced now, but there really should be no financial support for either partner unless their are children involved.

As far as religion, I am a but of a heretic, I don't think the church should have any say in who gets married either. If a couple wants to say they are married, they are, and the church has no more business endorsing that than the state does. The only thing people need permission from the church for is to have a church wedding, which is more about social protocol than religion.

It’s quite appropriate, and Constitutional, for governments to use tax incentives to influence social policy. As the majority in the Healthcare Cases observed:

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).

As with home ownership and professional educations, marriage – whether same or opposite sex – is perceived by government to be generally beneficial, and encourages marriage using certain taxing policies.

As for churches and other religious entities, they do indeed have the authority to say who is and is not married in accordance with their dogma. Private organization have the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly, and exclude whomever they wish who refuses to conform to that organization’s tenets, customs, and established practices. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

Golly gee Wally.

Can you point out where I said anything about it being constitutional?

The only authority any church has over me is the authority I give it. Unlike the government, they do not have the power to use force, so they have no authority over me.

 

[auditor0007]

All I know is that as much as I love women, one gives me a headache; any more than that and they would have to put me in the rubber room. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

in order for me to know that I would have to know that it is completely hopeless to reform the government. I don't know that.

Do you acknowledge that a person who supports 'government sanctioned' opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a bigot, since there is no rational argument against same sex marriage being treated differently than opposite sex marriage?

There is no rational basis for people to insist the government should have a say in their getting married, yet they do it.

You can't answer the question, why, exactly?

A marriage is a contract, therefore it is perfectly rational for the government to be involved; there is nothing irrational about human beings wanting a system of government oversight, litigation, and enforcement of contractual agreement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

in order for me to know that I would have to know that it is completely hopeless to reform the government. I don't know that.

Do you acknowledge that a person who supports 'government sanctioned' opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a bigot, since there is no rational argument against same sex marriage being treated differently than opposite sex marriage?

There is no rational basis for people to insist the government should have a say in their getting married, yet they do it.

You're the guy who said we don't need any government, so I don't think you're exactly a reliable source of what's rational or irrational.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you acknowledge that a person who supports 'government sanctioned' opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a bigot, since there is no rational argument against same sex marriage being treated differently than opposite sex marriage?

There is no rational basis for people to insist the government should have a say in their getting married, yet they do it.

You can't answer the question, why, exactly?

A marriage is a contract, therefore it is perfectly rational for the government to be involved; there is nothing irrational about human beings wanting a system of government oversight, litigation, and enforcement of contractual agreement.

I already pointed out my views on state sanctioned marriage, why would you assume that they changed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you acknowledge that a person who supports 'government sanctioned' opposite sex marriage but not same sex marriage is a bigot, since there is no rational argument against same sex marriage being treated differently than opposite sex marriage?

There is no rational basis for people to insist the government should have a say in their getting married, yet they do it.

You're the guy who said we don't need any government, so I don't think you're exactly a reliable source of what's rational or irrational.

Feel free to point where I said that, exactly.

 

[Amelia]

If you're against bigotry, are you a polygamist?