Please, my fellow Conservatives, let's just stop...

[PredFan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

 

[martybegan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

Where is may open up the door to is defintely plural marriage (polygamy is only between 1 man and multiple women, lets get the vocabulary right) and possibly consensual incest.

On all the other stuff, yes I agree it is hokum.

 

[martybegan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

On another note Pederasty may be something they push for, via lowering of the age of consent, but thats another fight. Remember, NAMBLA isn't really about pedophiles, its about Pederasts, there is a difference.

 

[PredFan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

Where is may open up the door to is defintely plural marriage (polygamy is only between 1 man and multiple women, lets get the vocabulary right) and possibly consensual incest.

On all the other stuff, yes I agree it is hokum.

Why anyone would want more than one wife is beyond my comprehension.

 

[PredFan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

On another note Pederasty may be something they push for, via lowering of the age of consent, but thats another fight. Remember, NAMBLA isn't really about pedophiles, its about Pederasts, there is a difference.

My point though is that it isn't the same as allowing tow consenting adults to get married regardless os sexual orientation. A child cannot make that kind of decision and is most often harmed.

 

[Pete7469]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

It was legal in the past. Hell it's still an accepted practice is some places.

All it takes is an incremental tearing down of standards. Like Marty mentioned, NAMBLA exists already. The fact these people aren't terrified, and actually openly promote their agenda with support from the ACLU should be a concern.

That said I don't think the gay agenda or these rulings have anything to do with such issues.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

 

[Missourian]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

Where is may open up the door to is defintely plural marriage (polygamy is only between 1 man and multiple women, lets get the vocabulary right) and possibly consensual incest.

On all the other stuff, yes I agree it is hokum.

Why anyone would want more than one wife is beyond my comprehension.

[youtube]0H_rr9m9jaE[/youtube]​

 

[PredFan]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

I'm mostly addressing those who DO argue that the rulings may lead to legal pedophilia.

As far as I'm concerned, why not poligamy? If you're dumb enough to have more than one wife or husband, then you deserve what happens to ya.

 

[martybegan]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

I'm mostly addressing those who DO argue that the rulings may lead to legal pedophilia.

As far as I'm concerned, why not poligamy? If you're dumb enough to have more than one wife or husband, then you deserve what happens to ya.

there are two catagories of plural marriages, the ones where the sex is one partner having sex with the others individually, and one the ones where it is a group orgy.

The funny thing is the politics of each type are polar opposites. your mormon style polygamy is as conservative as you can get, while the more group type marriage is far more bohemian and hedonistic, and those who follow it are usually ultra progressive.

 

[PredFan]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

I'm mostly addressing those who DO argue that the rulings may lead to legal pedophilia.

As far as I'm concerned, why not poligamy? If you're dumb enough to have more than one wife or husband, then you deserve what happens to ya.

there are two catagories of plural marriages, the ones where the sex is one partner having sex with the others individually, and one the ones where it is a group orgy.

The funny thing is the politics of each type are polar opposites. your mormon style polygamy is as conservative as you can get, while the more group type marriage is far more bohemian and hedonistic, and those who follow it are usually ultra progressive.

As long as they are all consenting adults, then I have no problem. I personally don't see the benefit of more than one spouse, but that's just me.

 

[Avatar4321]

As long as they are all consenting adults, then I have no problem. I personally don't see the benefit of more than one spouse, but that's just me.

Ive never thought through the entire process. But I could see a few benefits if everyone works together and there wasnt none stop drama through jealousy.

For example, instead of one spouse working to support the family and one taking care of the kids or both spouses working and paying to daycare, the family could have two people working and one taking care of the children from both unions, thus providing over all more income for people.

One might also be able to better take care of the widows by having them marry (by choice) into polygamous families.

having more children is also a likely benefit.

Im sure there are probably others if I thought about it. But im not sure getting past the jealousies and potential dramas would be worth it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

Other than the obvious that I, and most other people, exist because of it. Not too much.

Of course, Im not advocating against it. Im merely pointing out that there is no reasonable reason to exclude it after the arguments made for SS marriage.

Im finding it amusing that those who argued for SS marriage who are arguing against polygamy are using the same arguments they previously discard.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Traditional marriage will be one of many options in the near future. I expect lawyers are doing the happy dance as I write this.

Now that we've allowed marriage to be defined by the federal government (Don't whine. It's coming.), the future of the institution lies in the grasping, avaricious hands of trial lawyers.

O brave new world.

 

[martybegan]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

 

[bendog]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

What, and stop the hilarity? Look, my potus is a Hah-vahd law school professor telling me what I have to buy while expanding food stamps to people who don't work. I need all the chuckles I can get, cause obviously the conservative party is at best a Monty Python sketch.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

Other than the obvious that I, and most other people, exist because of it. Not too much.

Of course, Im not advocating against it. Im merely pointing out that there is no reasonable reason to exclude it after the arguments made for SS marriage.

Im finding it amusing that those who argued for SS marriage who are arguing against polygamy are using the same arguments they previously discard.

Who is arguing against it?

And who is honestly pushing it as an agenda item that needs to be addressed? No one that I know of.

So I'll ask you again as I did in another thread that you ignored, how do two consenting people marrying each other affect YOUR life?

 

[RDD_1210]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

 

[martybegan]

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

So because of the off chance that someone else may get my gun, I cant have one?

Nice try, but weak.

And polygamy doesnt affect me personally, until I, say as a business owner, do not want to have anything to do with a polygamous marriage. once its recognized as a right all those anti-discrimination laws can basically force me to deal with them.

So the marriage doesnt affect me, what affects me is the people who feel like suing because they are slighted.