If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   "In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a 'right' to [marry] one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?" Oh good lord, they've gone plaid   (cnsnews.com) divider line 381
    More: Dumbass, obama, monopoly on violence, moral choices, same-sex marriages, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Defense of Marriage Act, Merriam-Webster, bisexuals  
•       •       •

2862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2012 at 11:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 09:14:38 AM
Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.
 
2012-07-04 09:50:45 AM

rynthetyn: Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.


Explain something to CNS News - heh, good one.
 
2012-07-04 10:03:16 AM
This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?
 
2012-07-04 10:09:44 AM
But what about man on dog? I was told there would be man on dog.

/they've got chickens covered, obviously
 
2012-07-04 10:11:52 AM
4and20blackbirds.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-04 10:12:00 AM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


I believe the government can define marriage, and they can define it as two consenting adults.

Say it out loud: "Two consenting adults". It's not even a complete sentence and it defines it very nicely.

You can add "human" in there somewhere, but that stretches it out to 4 words.
 
2012-07-04 10:12:04 AM

Thoguh: Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Because the property law involved becomes nightmarish at that point, and there are no traditionally accepted ways to configure it.

You'll need some attorneys to draw up the paperwork and figure out the details. On your own dime.

Once you do that, I'm perfectly happy with the state deeming 3+ people married.
 
2012-07-04 10:12:55 AM
Whoops! That should have the title:

Diagram of what will happen when gay marriage is legal
 
2012-07-04 10:13:56 AM

Ed Finnerty: Whoops! That should have the title:

Diagram Pie chart of what will happen when gay marriage is legal


Screw this. Off for more coffee.
 
2012-07-04 10:28:31 AM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Therefore, you are arguing slippery slope.

Limiting marriages to two people is a societal imposition that would be equally applied to straight and gay people so it is not discriminatory. Unless you contend that people are born polygamist by nature (both men and women).

There are practical reasons for not recognizing 3 party contracts because it is complicated (who makes medical decisions, who gets benefits, divorces). It is really messy.

The reason why Proposition 8 was shot down in California was not because it wasn't discriminatory. Discrimination is permissible to an extent in American society. It was that it was discriminatory without any reasonable societal benefit. The complication of 3, 4, 5 and 6 party contracts in polygamist marriages, potential for unfairness and even abuse represents is generally not good for a society. It is acceptable discrimination.
 
2012-07-04 11:37:05 AM
Wasn't the two people = one marriage settled with the anti-polygamy laws in the 1800's?
 
2012-07-04 11:45:46 AM

rynthetyn: Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.


They still haven't figured out the difference between "homosexual" and "pederast", so good luck.
 
2012-07-04 11:45:57 AM
Is there any reason to call it "Obama's world?" News flash: Obama isn't forcing anyone to be gay, you know?
 
2012-07-04 11:47:30 AM
Does this mean I'll be allowed to marry two bisexual women (and their many cats)?
 
2012-07-04 11:47:32 AM
In TFA's world, do good analogies exist?

/not going to click
 
2012-07-04 11:48:51 AM

Thoguh: Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


No one is saying that the government can't define marriage. We're saying that your religion doesn't get to over-ride the Constitutional protections based on a person's sex. So if there's a legal construct where two people can combine their assets then you can't stop them from doing it based on their race, religion, sex, etc.
 
2012-07-04 11:49:55 AM

Biological Ali: In TFA's world, do good analogies exist?

/not going to click


Don't bother. It's basically the old "we'll be forced to gay marry turtles" argument. The wingnuts aren't even trying any more.
 
2012-07-04 11:50:11 AM
As many people as you and the people involved that are willing to enter into a legal contract that covers issues like disposition of wealth and property, after death, and child custody etc.
 
2012-07-04 11:50:50 AM
scrozie.files.wordpress.com

I'm a mog: half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend!
And the result of lifting the ban on gay marriage because slippery slope and BAM!
 
2012-07-04 11:50:57 AM
Okay if we are bringing the prospect of polygamy into politics, shouldn't we be asking the candidate whose father was born in a compound in which poylgamy was normal his opinion?
 
2012-07-04 11:52:29 AM

Wyalt Derp: Does this mean I'll be allowed to marry two bisexual women (and their many cats)?


Two wives what are you a masochist?
 
2012-07-04 11:53:35 AM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Except this "slope", while it may have something to do with marriage in general, has nothing to do with gay marriage in particular. If that's not making sense to you, replace "someone of the opposite gender" in your question with just about anything else.

"If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry people who are exactly as tall as you, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults?"

The "slippery slope" exists, to whatever extent you think it does, if there's any form of marriage allowed. There's nothing about gay marriage that makes that slope any more ore less logically relevant.
 
2012-07-04 11:54:06 AM
There aren't enough Tommy Lee Jones-newspaper-stares in the world for this one.
 
2012-07-04 11:56:45 AM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


A court in Canada recently heard a case about their plural marriage ban. The opinion went through the history of plural marriage in every culture that had ever allowed it and found tons of evidence that it was bad for essentially everyone in those societies, even people who weren't actually in a plural marriage. That doesn't mean the government SHOULD ban plural marriages, but it does show that there is a compelling state interest in preventing them which would allow such a ban to pass strict scrutiny. In contrast, no American court of late has found that banning same-sex couples from marrying passes even heightened scrutiny.
 
2012-07-04 11:58:36 AM

simplicimus: Wasn't the two people = one marriage settled with the anti-polygamy laws in the 1800's?


Republican's don't believe in history.
 
2012-07-04 11:58:45 AM

Ed Finnerty: Ed Finnerty: Whoops! That should have the title:

Diagram Pie chart of what will happen when gay marriage is legal

Screw this. Off for more coffee.


You know you have this coming, Ed!!
 
2012-07-04 11:59:13 AM

spongeboob: Wyalt Derp: Does this mean I'll be allowed to marry two bisexual women (and their many cats)?

Two wives what are you a masochist?


He must have a lot of stuff to give away.
 
2012-07-04 12:01:16 PM
I love the end of TFA where he equates racial discrimination and homosexuality. How they are both wrong because something something God something don't think too hard about slavery in the bible something something butt sex.
 
2012-07-04 12:05:23 PM

rynthetyn: Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.


I distictly remember an Ann Landers column (not savage love) where a spouse was whining and playing the 'but I'm bisexual!' card as an excuse to cheat. The surprisingly reasoned response was BISEXUALITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY GOODNIGHT.

If you 'need' both then be upfront and find a partner ok with it. Not effing rocket science.
 
2012-07-04 12:08:33 PM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Because divorce and custody and wills and benefits uppn death get even messier? Our system is set up for two consenting adults. The gender of those two only makes a difference in reprinting the husband and wife designations on some documents.
 
2012-07-04 12:10:35 PM
I don't understand why this wouldn't be championed by those who champion same-sex marriage.

If marriage can be expanded to allow two people of the same sex to marry, surely we can be open minded enough to expand it so that the marriage to one sex doesn't affect the marriage to the other (ie - 1 marriage of each type per person).

Also, if you support same-sex marriage but not incest marriage, your logic is flawed (especially if your argument is stay out of the bedroom and two consenting adults, etc)
 
2012-07-04 12:10:40 PM
Sure. Any consensual relationship between adults, which does not violate any other laws (no eating each other), should be legal and allowed.
 
2012-07-04 12:11:31 PM
And the answer is, "fark off, you mouth-breathing idiot."
 
2012-07-04 12:11:58 PM

Raharu: As many people as you and the people involved that are willing to enter into a legal contract that covers issues like disposition of wealth and property, after death, and child custody etc.


Think about child custody for a bit. In a polygamist marriage you typically have one father and several wives. Any single wife has no input into how many children are had or even if she gets to have children. To a degree, the man can control anything. He can have 4 children with one wife, 1 with another and none with the third.

Kids are raised by multiple mothers (with the primary one not necessarily being the biological mother, perhaps even older siblings acting in parental roles. Some of the mothers might have jobs whereas others stay at home and watch the kids thereby forming stronger parental bonds.

This gets messier and messier.

Assume the wife with no kids wants a divorce:

a) 1 wife and 1 father contest the divorce, the other wife is in favour of it. Is the divorce consensual?

b) is the divorcing wife with no biological children entitled to custody to the children she raised? Should the children be able to pick who they want to live with?

c) if not or assuming she doesn't want custody, is she liable for child support to the other 3 parties even though she is not the biological parent.

It is a huge farking mess and I can think of dozens of examples of nearly insurmountable legal problems this type of civil union would cause.
 
2012-07-04 12:12:42 PM
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?

[notthisshiatagain]

Oh look, another CNS article talking about another burning question that nobody is asking.

The CNS Hypothetical Situation Room is just doing a re-mix of their long time faved derp regarding "if they let the gays marry then they have to let bigamists and other polyamorous peoples and (presumably) turtles do so too".

Kind of a disco re-mix this time.

Meh, the bass line is crap and I can't dance to it.

/Protip for CNS hack: "Equality" =/= "Peculiar".
 
2012-07-04 12:13:28 PM
"Well whadaya say girls? Are we all gonna get married?
"All of us? But that's bigamy!"
"Yes, and it's big-a-me too."
 
2012-07-04 12:16:30 PM

Ed Finnerty: Ed Finnerty: Whoops! That should have the title:

Diagram Pie chart of what will happen when gay marriage is legal

Screw this. Off for more coffee.


Mmmm, coffee and pie. Great idear! ^_^

/Also off.
 
2012-07-04 12:17:10 PM

kukukupo: I don't understand why this wouldn't be championed by those who champion same-sex marriage.

If marriage can be expanded to allow two people of the same sex to marry, surely we can be open minded enough to expand it so that the marriage to one sex doesn't affect the marriage to the other (ie - 1 marriage of each type per person).

Also, if you support same-sex marriage but not incest marriage, your logic is flawed (especially if your argument is stay out of the bedroom and two consenting adults, etc)


The point is, these arguments are complete red herrings, given the context. Polygamy is as logically similar to gay marriage as it is to straight marriage, so there's no reason that people who support the latter (but want to see the former) would bring it up in response to the former being legalized, except as a way to confound the issue. Same goes for incest.

It's a fairly good bet that anybody who brings up polygamy or incest in an argument about gay marriage (or, in a general argument about polygamy or incest, makes some comparison to gay marriage) was never much interested in honest and/or rational discourse to begin with.
 
2012-07-04 12:17:11 PM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery.


Although many people have criticized your argument I feel it necessary to point out that a non-slippery slope would be the opposite of what you mean.
 
2012-07-04 12:18:34 PM
...that people who support the latter (but want to see the former banned)...

FTFM
 
2012-07-04 12:20:39 PM

mrshowrules: Raharu: As many people as you and the people involved that are willing to enter into a legal contract that covers issues like disposition of wealth and property, after death, and child custody etc.

Think about child custody for a bit. In a polygamist marriage you typically have one father and several wives. Any single wife has no input into how many children are had or even if she gets to have children. To a degree, the man can control anything. He can have 4 children with one wife, 1 with another and none with the third.

Kids are raised by multiple mothers (with the primary one not necessarily being the biological mother, perhaps even older siblings acting in parental roles. Some of the mothers might have jobs whereas others stay at home and watch the kids thereby forming stronger parental bonds.

This gets messier and messier.

Assume the wife with no kids wants a divorce:

a) 1 wife and 1 father contest the divorce, the other wife is in favour of it. Is the divorce consensual?

b) is the divorcing wife with no biological children entitled to custody to the children she raised? Should the children be able to pick who they want to live with?

c) if not or assuming she doesn't want custody, is she liable for child support to the other 3 parties even though she is not the biological parent.

It is a huge farking mess and I can think of dozens of examples of nearly insurmountable legal problems this type of civil union would cause.


You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.
 
2012-07-04 12:20:45 PM
It would solve the healthcare problem.

PFC Bob can just marry everyone and voila! Everyone is now a dependent on his military healthcare plan. Tricare for everyone!
 
2012-07-04 12:21:09 PM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery.


If it "isn't so slippery", that means that we won't slide down that slope. Meaning that we won't descend into a society of plural marriages and man-on-turtle sex.

/Metaphor Man Away!
 
2012-07-04 12:23:46 PM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


Support of gay marriage is essentially based on anti-discrimination ethos. The government can't make rules based on distinctions that we deem to be unacceptable - race, gender, religion, what have you. Now, its much debated what makes these specific categories things worth protecting. There's no one answer - my personal answer is that we protect those traits that (1) are fundamental to the individual and (2) are not required to discriminate against in order to fulfill the role of the action. Religion? Fundamental to who you are? Race? Same. Gender? Same.

We as a society have now come to accept that sexual orientation is one of these categories. It's taken decades of convincing by social liberals to do this.

So, you want to get polygamy in the same boat? Convince a critical mass of people that an innate desire/need to be with multiple partners is a fundamental aspect of individuality worth protecting. Until then, its a ridiculous argument.
 
2012-07-04 12:25:01 PM
Not that I want it for myself, but I've got no problems with polygamy. If all the adults involved in the marriage consent to a polygamist marriage, then why not?
 
2012-07-04 12:25:16 PM

mrshowrules: Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?

Therefore, you are arguing slippery slope.

Limiting marriages to two people is a societal imposition that would be equally applied to straight and gay people so it is not discriminatory. Unless you contend that people are born polygamist by nature (both men and women).

There are practical reasons for not recognizing 3 party contracts because it is complicated (who makes medical decisions, who gets benefits, divorces). It is really messy.

The reason why Proposition 8 was shot down in California was not because it wasn't discriminatory. Discrimination is permissible to an extent in American society. It was that it was discriminatory without any reasonable societal benefit. The complication of 3, 4, 5 and 6 party contracts in polygamist marriages, potential for unfairness and even abuse represents is generally not good for a society. It is acceptable discrimination.


That was very well stated

/ tips cap
 
2012-07-04 12:25:54 PM

Raharu: You missed the part of my post where they have entered into a legal contract that hammered out these issues before hand. You know, taking responsibility and having forethought on the matter.


That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.
 
2012-07-04 12:31:06 PM

Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?


If I believe people have the right to marry any adult person of the opposite sex they like (as the author of this article likely believes), does it mean I think you have to right to marry as many such people as you like?
 
2012-07-04 12:31:52 PM

Biological Ali: That doesn't help much. What if one or more of the partners are incapacitated at the time when some important decision needs to be made? With two-party marriage there are a number of default considerations that can be given in situations like that - which obviously couldn't apply under the current law (at least in the US, as far as I know) to a plural marriage.


So craft a basic system? Inheritance law can get messy and complicated but it does get done because it got hammered out over the years. The fact that there are procedural hurdles due to a lack of precedence does not mean consenting adults should not be able to enter into a legal contract with each other.
 
2012-07-04 12:33:44 PM

mrshowrules: Thoguh: This is basically the one case where I think the "slipperly slope" isn't so slippery. If the government doesn't have the right to tell you you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, why do they have the right to tell you that a marriage can only be between two consenting adults? If three consenting adults are all in love with each other and want to spend their lives together then why does the government have a right to define "marriage" in a way that excludes their love? Once you've decided the government can't define marriage why do only certain types of marriage between consenting adults remain allowed?

Therefore, you are arguing slippery slope.

Limiting marriages to two people is a societal imposition that would be equally applied to straight and gay people so it is not discriminatory. Unless you contend that people are born polygamist by nature (both men and women).

There are practical reasons for not recognizing 3 party contracts because it is complicated (who makes medical decisions, who gets benefits, divorces). It is really messy.

The reason why Proposition 8 was shot down in California was not because it wasn't discriminatory. Discrimination is permissible to an extent in American society. It was that it was discriminatory without any reasonable societal benefit. The complication of 3, 4, 5 and 6 party contracts in polygamist marriages, potential for unfairness and even abuse represents is generally not good for a society. It is acceptable discrimination.


Perhaps a corporation? Each genatilia can be an investment, each orgasm a dividen!
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report