Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

Why in the hell would homosexuals bother with sex if it was only about procreation. Now they can have sex for pleasure within the sanction of marriage.If their spouse cheats on them they also have grounds to sue the hell out of them for divorce. It's very romantic.

It is, isn't it? Now homosexuals can experience all of the same soul-devouring wretchedness of marital bliss that the rest of us have had to suffer through for centuries.

Bully for them.

 

[dilloduck]

Now maybe polygamists will be allowed the same rights. I can't see why anyone should be denied.

 

[Czernobog]

Now maybe polygamists will be allowed the same rights. I can't see why anyone should be denied.

In theory, I would agree. In practice, polygamy may be a little harder to legalize, only because there are a number of laws that would need to be re-written to accommodate multiple marital partners. The same is not true of same-sex marriage.

 

[TooTall]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

TooTall?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I predict that this issue will be settled on the Right within 50 years of the legalization of same sex marriage in every state. The Right will then go back to debating the wisdom of giving women the vote, which, I think, was only marginally accepted before being distracted over the gay marriage issue....

 

[TooTall]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

 

[dilloduck]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That's it ? It would be too difficult ? Homosexuals would have never accepted that. They are abusive and discriminatory laws. fix them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, because there is no significant call for them.

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

 

[dilloduck]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

absolutely--you only actually cared about homosexuals. Everyone else can get screwed.

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That's it ? It would be too difficult ? Homosexuals would have never accepted that. They are abusive and discriminatory laws. fix them.

Why? Is there an army of polygamists hiding out there in the US that we don't know about? You make this argument as if this is how same-sex marriage came about. Like we started demanding that gays get to marry, and then suddenly all these gays just appeared out of thin air. You get that's not how it went, right?

So, why should we fight the religious zealots all over again, and spend all that time, and energy fighting to change laws that there is no one begging to be changed?

As I said, if and when people start coming forward demanding their right to practice polygamy, then I will gladly support them, and assist them in their fight to change whatever laws need changing. However,. I have no intention of fighting to change laws, just because I can. That is a stupid waste of time and energy.

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

absolutely--you only actually cared about homosexuals. Everyone else can get screwed.

You missed the point. I don't give a shit about the homosexuals, either. That's why I fought for them. Because they stood up demanding their rights, and giving them to them cost me nothing. When polygamists start standing up making those demands, i'll fight for them, too. When brother's and sisters stand up demanding the right to marry each other, I'll fight for them, too. I just see no point in fighting for something there is no interest in having.

 

[dilloduck]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

 

[Czernobog]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

How about 1. Can you cite a source that presents a single case of someone wanting polygamy legalized? How about incest? Can you provide a source that presents even one person who is calling for this?

No? Well, come on back when you can.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

This doesn't make any sense.

There is no 'equality' for something that doesn't exist, such as 'marriage' for three or more persons.

Your failed and ridiculous attempts to obfuscate the issue with red herring fallacies is tedious and inane.

 

[dilloduck]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

How about 1. Can you cite a source that presents a single case of someone wanting polygamy legalized? How about incest? Can you provide a source that presents even one person who is calling for this?

No? Well, come on back when you can.

I'm overwhelmed by your compassion

 

[JakeStarkey]

duck can't come up with one calling for legalization of polygamy, yet has no compassion for more than 20mm LGBT.

 

[dilloduck]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

This doesn't make any sense.

There is no 'equality' for something that doesn't exist, such as 'marriage' for three or more persons.

Your failed and ridiculous attempts to obfuscate the issue with red herring fallacies is tedious and inane.

Three and moresomes who love each other ought to be granted the same protection and rights as all the other homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why on earth would we forbid love like that to flourish ? damn pluraphobes . How will it hurt them ?