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.

(Right Wing Watch)   Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger   (rightwingwatch.org) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, Tea Party Nation, gay equality, court of public opinion, free market economy, same-sex marriages, dogs  
•       •       •

3794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Aug 2012 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-04 10:28:20 AM
Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips told members in an email today that their movement cannot avoid the issue of same-sex marriage, as it threatens to destroy the family, replace freedom with anarchy and "turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger."

He says all that like it's a bad thing.
 
2012-08-04 10:44:54 AM
Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.
 
2012-08-04 10:48:29 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: False slippery slope is false.


You've ruined a beautiful fantasy.
 
2012-08-04 10:49:21 AM
Notice he's keeping the chickens for himself
 
2012-08-04 10:59:52 AM
Bestiality is still legal in some red states. (Montana, North Carolina and Arkansas)

Coincidence?
 
2012-08-04 11:08:18 AM
Yes. We need people like Newt Gingrich to maintain the sanctity of marriage.
 
2012-08-04 11:14:09 AM
I only support gay marriage so that one day, hopefully, I can marry my television. And we will live happily ever after!
 
2012-08-04 11:17:55 AM

Roook: I only support gay marriage so that one day, hopefully, I can marry my television. And we will live happily ever after!


TV: teacher, mother, secret lover.
 
2012-08-04 11:22:05 AM
I have that Blu-ray.
 
2012-08-04 11:22:40 AM
I don't see how anyone can own a TV and say that marriage isn't already a freak show.
 
2012-08-04 11:45:14 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.



I don't even understand the objection to polygamy As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting

Those are words taken directly from the tea party nut's rant.

The arguments I usually hear about polygamy is how people are coerced into it and how it has been abused to force underaged girls into sexual relationships with older men.

Can't you say the same thing about monogamous heterosexual marriages?

But why is gay marriage even an issue? You can't legislate the gay away. A marriage certificate from the state is just a goddammed piece of paper - except for the legal consequences. If one believes in god they will probably get married in a church. If a church believes that homosexuality is a sin, then they should be free to not host gay marriages. Their "God" won't recognize gay marriages anyway so why is this even important?

This whole issue distracts from things that really matter.
 
2012-08-04 11:55:14 AM
Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips. . .

No thanks.

Still surprises me that people willingly listen to or care about what this bigot has to say.
 
2012-08-04 01:45:40 PM
Someone sounds...butthurt.
 
2012-08-04 01:49:13 PM
Traditional marriage is already a freak show. Haven't these wingnuts ever seen Bridezillas?
 
2012-08-04 02:14:57 PM

Happy Hours: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


I don't even understand the objection to polygamy As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting

Those are words taken directly from the tea party nut's rant.

The arguments I usually hear about polygamy is how people are coerced into it and how it has been abused to force underaged girls into sexual relationships with older men.

Can't you say the same thing about monogamous heterosexual marriages?

But why is gay marriage even an issue? You can't legislate the gay away. A marriage certificate from the state is just a goddammed piece of paper - except for the legal consequences. If one believes in god they will probably get married in a church. If a church believes that homosexuality is a sin, then they should be free to not host gay marriages. Their "God" won't recognize gay marriages anyway so why is this even important?

This whole issue distracts from things that really matter.


^^^^
THIS
 
2012-08-04 02:26:55 PM
So frikken what if three men or three women want to get married? (Or some mix of the two.) Those that want to are probably already living together.
 
2012-08-04 02:32:02 PM
Kinky Kinky :-)
 
2012-08-04 02:33:01 PM
Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
 
2012-08-04 02:37:04 PM
FTFA: The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America

"Free market" capitalism is probably the greatest threat American family units of all kinds have ever faced. If I can hire and fire at will all the components that marriage brings: sex, food, shelter, companionship---why should anyone get or stay married through all the inconvenient hard parts?
 
2012-08-04 02:52:45 PM
"Things are never as they really are."
-Actually, that is the definition of reality.

"Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger. "
-I know that the Right is filled with repressed perverts, but this is too far. The liberals need to rise up and prevent the tea party from marrying dogs and tigers.

"The truth is, we implemented the programs the left wanted and this is the result."
-UM. NO. Pretty certain that the RIGHT was behind the criminalization of drugs and putting all the black men into prison.

"Traditionally marriage has worked well in America for centuries. "
- So they plan on banning divorce right? Right?? DOMA included banning all divorces, right?? Because the BEST way to protect marriage, would be to ban divorce.


I really dont understand these teahadists. Other than repressed balls of hate.
When are they going to ban the catholics, jews, muslims and mormons??
 
2012-08-04 02:56:42 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


But it is legal for muslims to marry multiple women, right? Freedom of religion bans the US from prohibiting most, if not all religious rights. How would a US ban on multiple muslim wives NOT be unconstitutional???

LOL
Would be funny if muslims led the way to fix the retarded marriage crap in the US.

1) no deductions for children
2) no extra tax benefits for being married


/LOL
 
2012-08-04 03:01:26 PM

Bloody William: I have that Blu-ray.


3D??
 
2012-08-04 03:12:52 PM

namatad: Bloody William: I have that Blu-ray.

3D??


I think one was a B
 
2012-08-04 03:15:02 PM
"The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)
 
2012-08-04 04:03:14 PM

BunkyBrewman: Bestiality is still legal in some red states. (Montana, North Carolina and Arkansas)

Coincidence?


I know

I live in Arkansas

I used to live in the country

I've seen more things than any man should ever have to see

And one thing involving a female

But seriously, if you fuq a cow

You should marry it
 
2012-08-04 04:31:13 PM

SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)


Well by God, that settles that. Somebody get the lights, k?
 
2012-08-04 04:32:51 PM
"Now"? But I was informed by very trustworthy sources that this was their insidious plan all along.
 
2012-08-04 04:48:37 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: False slippery slope is false.


Yeah. It's like that time that Vietnam fell to the Commies, and then we all ended up Communist. Oh, wait, that was a load of conservative BS, too.
 
2012-08-04 05:19:16 PM
That is frighteningly specific.
 
2012-08-04 05:19:23 PM
who the hell is judson philips? Is that the chick who got bariatric surgery and became semi-hot?
 
2012-08-04 05:20:23 PM
I'm going to need pics of the tiger before I know how to feel about this.
 
2012-08-04 05:27:21 PM
photos.lasvegassun.com
 
2012-08-04 05:28:00 PM

SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)


I really know better, but...
Are you married? You know, traditionally?
 
2012-08-04 05:32:50 PM
What, are they going to tax gay marriage? Why does a party centered around lowering taxes and federal power give a crap about marriage?

Not TEA Party, Fundy Anti-Gay Party
or
Fundamentalist Evangelical Anti-Abortion Republicans Party
 
2012-08-04 05:33:11 PM

sno man: SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)

I really know better, but...
Are you married? You know, traditionally?


He's TheConvincingSavant's wife.
 
2012-08-04 05:40:15 PM
i48.photobucket.com
I demand a Satantic Burial!
 
2012-08-04 05:40:53 PM
Nothing changes but now it can be all legal.
www.votepolygamy.com
 
2012-08-04 05:41:09 PM
The Tea Party sounds like a very complicated Aristocrats joke.
 
2012-08-04 05:41:33 PM
Far Left in America = Just slightly right of center.
 
2012-08-04 05:42:13 PM
Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show

No, the left has no interest in turning marriage into the Tea Party.
 
2012-08-04 05:43:52 PM
Traditionally marriage Slavery has worked well in America for centuries. It has always been one man slave and one woman owner. Those who want to change this bear the burden of showing why this would be good for the nation. So far they have not.
 
2012-08-04 05:45:18 PM
I'mOKwiththis.jpg
 
2012-08-04 05:45:21 PM
I thought the Tea Party was all about taxes?
 
2012-08-04 05:47:45 PM
TFA: The left's definition of equality is to allow anyone and anything to marry.

Damn it, how did they uncover our plan?!
 
2012-08-04 05:48:04 PM
I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.
 
2012-08-04 05:48:54 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: I thought the Tea Party was all about taxes?


And bi-partisan. Remember that BS?
 
2012-08-04 05:49:18 PM
I see that our friend Judson forgot to highlight the real big issue with gay marriage and what it'll lead to:

www.fugly.com
 
2012-08-04 05:49:32 PM
As long as all the involved parties are of legal age and have the ability and desire to consent I do not care what they do. So if 3 men 5 women 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger want to marry and the dogs and tiger have in some way through science or magic gained the required abilities then they can have at if or all I care.
 
2012-08-04 05:50:40 PM
also TFA: Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

uhhh, know the definition of words before using them.
 
2012-08-04 05:51:31 PM
Throw in some coke and you've got a good weekend in Vegas.
 
2012-08-04 05:52:20 PM
www.religifake.com
 
2012-08-04 05:53:31 PM
I'm super-confused because I thought the Tea Party was totally a bi-partisan movement aimed only at cutting government spending, size, and taxes. Did the fark political pundits lie to me?
 
2012-08-04 05:53:40 PM
I object to the exploitation of Bengal tigers which, of course, are critically endangered and which employ violent biting during coitus to trigger a sort of orgasm in the female to facilitate fertilization. Otherwise, I have no problem with any of this.
 
2012-08-04 05:53:57 PM

namatad: Bloody William: I have that Blu-ray.

3D??


Just DD
 
2012-08-04 05:54:03 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Traditional marriage is already a freak show. Haven't these wingnuts ever seen Bridezillas?


What, you're telling me that these aren't real family values?

www.amnation.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

www.tensionnot.com

/Honestly, how can gays fark up the institution of marriage more than heterosexuals have?
 
2012-08-04 05:54:22 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America.

50% failure rate is the most stable unit in America? America is unstable as f*ck then.
 
2012-08-04 05:56:34 PM
So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?
 
2012-08-04 05:59:22 PM
Posted for relevance(NSFW language)
 
2012-08-04 05:59:55 PM

SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)


When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." [Plessy vs. Ferguson]

Looks, I can find crappy court decisions also!!
 
2012-08-04 06:01:06 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.
 
2012-08-04 06:01:47 PM
Well, when it comes to freak shows, teabaggers know what they're talking about.
 
2012-08-04 06:04:32 PM
I smell a sitcom!
 
2012-08-04 06:04:40 PM
They already corrupted marriage and changes it total meaning hundreds of times. Maybe it best we go back to viewing it as a business contract between two males over property and get back to treating females as property to exchange for land and protection.

After all this marrying for love that became popular a 150 years ago seems to have a 50% failure rating between those who cry out the loudest of the need to protect its sanctity.
 
2012-08-04 06:05:32 PM

BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-04 06:05:36 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America. The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

What is on of the most effective tools socialists have to do this? Attacking the family.


I know I shouldn't be, but I'm curious about the logic here. If you're trying to break up marriages and make more single parents who might have to be dependent on the government to get by, then I suppose in Twisted Logic World yes, that's promoting socialism.

But shouldn't allowing more folks to marry lead to a greater number of stable family units?
 
2012-08-04 06:06:20 PM

ultraholland: also TFA: Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

uhhh, know the definition of words before using them.


That's never stopped them before, why start now?
 
2012-08-04 06:06:36 PM

Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.


It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?
 
2012-08-04 06:07:54 PM
And the Republicans will be the first ones in line at the porn sites to watch the video.
 
2012-08-04 06:08:56 PM

Bloody William: I don't see how anyone can own a TV and say that marriage isn't already a freak show.


I wonder if the freak show TV hosts will get behind gay marriage just because it would increase the variations of their shows, and their audience must overlap pretty heavily with the sort of people that are stalling it.
 
2012-08-04 06:09:54 PM
Pretty soon these libby libs will be deciding what is, and is not, official constitutionally-mandated Senate business in airport toilets.

HAVE THEY NO SHAME?
 
2012-08-04 06:11:49 PM
I read that whole tirade and I gotta say, it's breathtaking. It starts out with the premise that "The Left™" is all about taking away freedom and putting most things into the hands of the state. It winds up with the exact opposite premise, to wit that "The Left™" is trying to create "anarchy" (which, mind you, somehow "cannot coexist" with freedom). And this is all part of the nasty statist plot, you see.

So in order to subvert the overweening power of the State, dig this, what we have to do is bolster the power of the State to determine which individuals can marry which other individuals, and by doing so we can save America from totalitarian anarchy.

Truly, these Tea Party people are philosopher kings every last man-jack of them. I can only hope that in my lifetime I'll be able to attain the extraordinary wisdom and powers of perception needed to follow an argument like that.
 
2012-08-04 06:11:57 PM

YouWinAgainGravity: So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?


Well, given that some of their brightest minds have concluded that Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all Left Wingers, it's only a matter of time.
 
2012-08-04 06:12:33 PM

YouWinAgainGravity: So "the Left" hates freedom. And as we all know, terrorists hate us for our freedom. Have they come out yet and explicitly made a Left = terrorists comparison yet?


Wasn't that the point of the birther movement? That Obama isn't "one of us"...if you catch my drift. That obviously meant he was an Al Qadea plant.
 
2012-08-04 06:12:57 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


Well, when it's not legally allowed and you aren't able to give legal rights in relation to your person to someone other than the single recognized spouse that would be pretty difficult. Almost as difficult as having a spouse and two parents that all want different things, but somehow we found a way around that particular issue. I would consider this to be a fair argument that before someone gets a second marriage certificate they be required to have a living will or other legal agreement established in writing, rather than an argument that it shouldn't be allowed at all.
 
2012-08-04 06:16:11 PM

Falcc: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

Well, when it's not legally allowed and you aren't able to give legal rights in relation to your person to someone other than the single recognized spouse that would be pretty difficult. Almost as difficult as having a spouse and two parents that all want different things, but somehow we found a way around that particular issue. I would consider this to be a fair argument that before someone gets a second marriage certificate they be required to have a living will or other legal agreement established in writing, rather than an argument that it shouldn't be allowed at all.


That's an interesting, but messy solution. How does the hospital know which spouse is the one with the rights in that situation? Normally, what the surviving spouse says goes, unless other family sues to stop it. Even then, unless the spouse is majorly int he wrong, they will win that fight.

The poly folks have never really provided a solid framework to how all that will work, and that's what keeps the state from okaying it. If they had such a framework, i'm fine with allowing it.
 
2012-08-04 06:17:34 PM
Tigers and dogs?


Yeah, no one's advocating that consent doesn't matter so not gonna happen.
 
2012-08-04 06:17:40 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


You're not familiar with living wills? or not talked about this type of thing with your significant other?
 
2012-08-04 06:17:47 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.
 
2012-08-04 06:19:06 PM
I suppose they'd rather those 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and the Bengal tiger all be living in sin? Family values indeed!

=Smidge=
 
2012-08-04 06:19:18 PM

Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.


That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.
 
2012-08-04 06:20:17 PM

sno man: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

You're not familiar with living wills? or not talked about this type of thing with your significant other?


Anenu: Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?

A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.


Not everyone has one, hell, I doubt most of us do. So when you have to go to the spouses, how do they decide? Do they vote? does it have to be unanimous?
 
2012-08-04 06:21:34 PM

Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.


So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?
 
2012-08-04 06:24:10 PM

Antimatter: [...]
Not everyone has one, hell, I doubt most of us do. So when you have to go to the spouses, how do they decide? Do they vote? does it have to be unanimous?


I think it's a great idea, and can't think of a good reason not to have one.
But to have not even had that discussion with your S.I. ...how ever many there are.
 
2012-08-04 06:24:23 PM
*tiger bites one of the magician queers in the throat*

"Consider it a divorce"
 
2012-08-04 06:24:33 PM
The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America. The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

This is an absolute nonsequitur. Several claims are made, and assuming all are true, this is still not a coherent argument in the least. How does stability of a family unit influence the basis of an economy?

As to the claims themselves... what a mass of assumptions which are ridiculous. Traditional families are not traditional. Any hatred of the expression is due to the usage being a de facto but baseless argument against homosexual marriage. Not sure how you define "stable" or "unit" or what other "unit"s you are comparing to. America is not a free market economy. Socialist economies are not necessarily absent freedom. Further, Free market economies are not necessarily based on liberty.
 
2012-08-04 06:26:16 PM

Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.


One of the standard responses of conservatives when asked about gay marriage is that gays can get all the same benefits and privledges as married straights - they just have to see a lawyer and plan ahead some. Why don't we allow polygamy and say that they just need to plan ahead for circumstances where the spouses don't all agree on something; and if they don't then they'll just have to drag the dispute in front of Judge Judy and pay the court costs?

Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger
Assuming that everyone involved is an of age and legally able to consent and say "I do", I say knock yourselfs out. And besides, doesn't every man hope that his bride is a tiger in the sack?
 
2012-08-04 06:27:45 PM
3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger...

Every time I tell my wife the therapy worked someone comes up with something new.
 
2012-08-04 06:28:20 PM

Cheesus: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?


Time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Same as what would happen if our polygamous friend died intestate and his/her spouses disagreed over the disposition of his assets.

I don't think you'll see polygamy become legal any time soon because of the myriad of issues like intestate succession and medical POAs. The state has a compelling interest in limiting the marriage contract to two persons that does not exist in keeping two people of the same sex from marrying.
 
2012-08-04 06:30:18 PM
Antimatter

Let me address the larger criticism of legal structure arguments against Polyamory/Polygamy. Most arguments against it use the idea that the legal system isn't equipped to deal with the issues involved in multiple person relationship structures, but this doesn't really hold up. We only need to look into business law to see that multi-person unions are feasible. Who makes decisions between the multiple owners of a corporation? This structure can be translatable to marriage law.

As for the specific difficulty of the end of life scenario: If there is no living will and multiple interested parties what is done now? What if the person isn't married, how do two children or two parents with different ideas get power allotted to them to make this decision? This is no harder, and even though I can't propose a one-size-fits-all solution off the top of my head it might be easier to hammer out for people with an understanding of the more complex aspects of the law than myself. People should just have a living will when they get married to multiple people, it's something I would say most of us would do to maintain our full legal rights.
 
2012-08-04 06:30:58 PM
Mugato: "Consider it a divorce"

You wouldn't hurt me. After all, we're gay-tiger-married.
 
2012-08-04 06:33:42 PM
They forgot the turtle!
 
2012-08-04 06:34:16 PM
FTFA: The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

multimedia.billybrew.com

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/Noun:

1.The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
2.An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

free·dom/ˈfrēdəm/Noun:

1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2.Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.



Who the fark is being subjected to oppressive restrictions here or being denied the power to act as they want, you farking clueless teatards?
 
2012-08-04 06:34:24 PM

Karac: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

One of the standard responses of conservatives when asked about gay marriage is that gays can get all the same benefits and privledges as married straights - they just have to see a lawyer and plan ahead some. Why don't we allow polygamy and say that they just need to plan ahead for circumstances where the spouses don't all agree on something; and if they don't then they'll just have to drag the dispute in front of Judge Judy and pay the court costs?

Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger
Assuming that everyone involved is an of age and legally able to consent and say "I do", I say knock yourselfs out. And besides, doesn't every man hope that his bride is a tiger in the sack?


I doubt it would go over well if the government proposed forcing you to estate plan as a requirement of marriage.

Maybe it wouldnt be a bad idea logically...but I don't think you'd ever get it into law with all the crying about government encroachment on our FREEDUMZ.
 
2012-08-04 06:35:56 PM
What, no box turtles??
 
2012-08-04 06:37:59 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-04 06:38:34 PM
Liberty and freedom depend on a stable nation, stable government and stable families. Those who claim they support "equality" do not support liberty. They support anarchy.

Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

In the end only one can prevail and history is riddle with the graves of those who learned what happened when freedom lost.


So they really are going down the road of "slavery is freedom." Whenever I have had that thought before, I thought it was a strawman, and have struggled mightily to tame my worries with the thought that reality could never approach art, but...

/freedom for me but not for thee
//this is what some people actually believe
 
2012-08-04 06:38:43 PM
FTA The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America....

Im sure this has already been said. But, this statement is laughable. Marriage in this country is far from stable. The divorce rate
is well over half.

Case in point, a lady who attends our area garage sales was recently going on and on about "the attack on traditional marriage." She has also been married 4 times and one of her ex husband lives in an add-on in the back of her house. I kid you not. She is a Christian and so am I, so I think she felt that I would be interested in her barrage of hypocrisy. When I told her that she should really start to look inward (yes I told her this, but nicely) she told me...divorce "just happens."
 
2012-08-04 06:39:21 PM

js34603: Cheesus: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?

Time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Same as what would happen if our polygamous friend died intestate and his/her spouses disagreed over the disposition of his assets.

I don't think you'll see polygamy become legal any time soon because of the myriad of issues like intestate succession and medical POAs. The state has a compelling interest in limiting the marriage contract to two persons that does not exist in keeping two people of the same sex from marrying.


Oh please. The state is run by lawyers, name a lawyer against time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Arguing that the law as it stands isn't conducive to bestowing rights upon people isn't a reasonable argument. In the middle ages in Europe the law was designed entirely around the idea of women as property. This didn't mean women didn't deserve rights at this point, that they weren't sophisticated enough evolutionarily until a more recent period of time, or that they hadn't earned enough respect yet. They still deserved all the rights they have now, but were denied it by the structure of the system. In a society in which marriage exists and bestows legal rights on the participants which benefit a romantic grouping with fiscal and health returns I have as much right to be married in my relationship structure as a monogamous couple does. If laws beyond anti-bigamy laws are in the way of that arrangement ALL of those laws need to be changed into order to respect those rights.

Arguing for rights isn't a practical argument, it's a moral argument. If same sex marriage were more difficult to institute from a bureaucratic perspective that wouldn't somehow invalidate the need for it to be implemented in order to have equality.
 
2012-08-04 06:41:43 PM

Orange-Pippin: FTA The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America....

Im sure this has already been said. But, this statement is laughable. Marriage in this country is far from stable. The divorce rate is well over half.


But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.
 
2012-08-04 06:42:00 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


I'm far more concerned with the far-Right making divorce illegal. Of course that will all but destroy marriage but that's not important to them now is it?
 
2012-08-04 06:42:49 PM

bibli0phile: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 373x373]


If I could just toss this out: Mitt Romney is several generations removed from a multi-partner relationship and is a HUGE douchebag. Barack Obama Sr had multiple wives, Barack Obama is awesome. Done and done.
 
2012-08-04 06:43:21 PM

Orange-Pippin: When I told her that she should really start to look inward (yes I told her this, but nicely) she told me...divorce "just happens."


What, you've never woken up one morning with a bad case of divorce?
 
2012-08-04 06:45:27 PM

moralpanic: But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.


And the spouse-icide. And the secret adultery. And the loveless marriages that stay together just for the kids. Actually there are probably about seven marriages that are actually together and happy. And 3 of them are gay!
 
2012-08-04 06:46:56 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


I'm pretty sure the tiger would loudly say no if someone tried to force themselves on it.
 
2012-08-04 06:47:00 PM
The Aristocrats!
 
2012-08-04 06:47:38 PM

wyltoknow: Orange-Pippin: When I told her that she should really start to look inward (yes I told her this, but nicely) she told me...divorce "just happens."

What, you've never woken up one morning with a bad case of divorce?


One time my uncle woke up with a small case of cheerleader. He didn't take care of it quickly enough, and it grew into a bad case of divorce.
 
2012-08-04 06:50:02 PM
Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.
 
2012-08-04 06:50:04 PM
img210.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-04 06:50:25 PM
Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger.

This is why I refuse to take any republican seriously anymore.
 
2012-08-04 06:52:24 PM

Mugato: moralpanic: But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.

And the spouse-icide. And the secret adultery. And the loveless marriages that stay together just for the kids. Actually there are probably about seven marriages that are actually together and happy. And 3 of them are gay!


None of my grandparents have divorced and they seem to be happy with each other. My grandpa spent years of his life taking care of my grandmother before she died of Parkinson disease, and my parents have been together for over 25 years and seem happy. Maybe if people would choose their spouse a little more carefully they wouldn't get divorced as much.

/It doesn't matter if you are gay or not you still shouldn't marry the first person who comes along.
 
2012-08-04 06:53:00 PM
I'm really drunk at the moment, so I might not be properly processing cognacious thunk, but wait... wat?
 
2012-08-04 06:54:23 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.


Ya! Supporting Chick Fil A will hold back the tide of gay marriages coming across America! BUY MORE CHICKEN! GOTTA STOP GAY MARRIAGES!
 
2012-08-04 06:57:49 PM
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-04 06:58:02 PM
Why does the government have the right to tell someone that they can't have multiple husbands or wives, or if it's a bisexual, both? It would complicate things for the government in determining custody, divorce settlements, etc., but why do our rights need to be limited to make things convenient for the government?
 
2012-08-04 06:58:40 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.


This means that all the states and countries which have legalized, in some or full, gay marriage have to reverse their decisions and make Christianity the official religion.
 
2012-08-04 06:58:49 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.


I see what you did there.. racist >.>
 
2012-08-04 07:00:01 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.


Do you really think this will end with the nation saying, "Yeah, you're right. Stop the gays from marrying."? Have you people learned nothing from well, everything in history? Social conservatives by definition lose. Every time. And then they go back and then they go back and say they were for whatever it was all along, So why don't you all just save everyone the trouble and give in now, fark.
 
2012-08-04 07:00:07 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Why does the government have the right to tell someone that they can't have multiple husbands or wives, or if it's a bisexual, both? It would complicate things for the government in determining custody, divorce settlements, etc., but why do our rights need to be limited to make things convenient for the government?


Who's trying to limit your rights again?

/you suck at this btw
 
2012-08-04 07:00:18 PM
what if i'm a near left?
 
2012-08-04 07:02:17 PM
Mugato: UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.

Do you really think this will end with the nation saying, "Yeah, you're right. Stop the gays from marrying."? Have you people learned nothing from well, everything in history?


damn it, must everything be so farking serious? UCFRW is making a joke and you respond with the "you people post?" Keee-riste.
 
2012-08-04 07:05:00 PM
Let's just all agree that marriage is restricted by penalty of law to one male and one female who bear at least one child.

No children, no marriage. No hospital visitation rights. No estate rights.
 
2012-08-04 07:05:43 PM

Falcc: js34603: Cheesus: Corvus: Anenu: A living will, you know what the person who was hit by the car asked to be done to them. And if they didn't specify then the spouses can choose.

That's the problem. What happens if one says yes and one says no.

Polygamy doesn't work like normal marriage.

So what happens when there is no living spouse and you have kids that disagree?

Time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Same as what would happen if our polygamous friend died intestate and his/her spouses disagreed over the disposition of his assets.

I don't think you'll see polygamy become legal any time soon because of the myriad of issues like intestate succession and medical POAs. The state has a compelling interest in limiting the marriage contract to two persons that does not exist in keeping two people of the same sex from marrying.

Oh please. The state is run by lawyers, name a lawyer against time consuming and expensive court proceedings.

Arguing that the law as it stands isn't conducive to bestowing rights upon people isn't a reasonable argument. In the middle ages in Europe the law was designed entirely around the idea of women as property. This didn't mean women didn't deserve rights at this point, that they weren't sophisticated enough evolutionarily until a more recent period of time, or that they hadn't earned enough respect yet. They still deserved all the rights they have now, but were denied it by the structure of the system. In a society in which marriage exists and bestows legal rights on the participants which benefit a romantic grouping with fiscal and health returns I have as much right to be married in my relationship structure as a monogamous couple does. If laws beyond anti-bigamy laws are in the way of that arrangement ALL of those laws need to be changed into order to respect those rights.

Arguing for rights isn't a practical argument, it's a moral argument. If same sex marriage were more difficult to institute from a bureaucratic perspective that wouldn't somehow invalidate the need for it to be implemented in order to have equality.


All rights we have are subject to government restriction. The legal test for that restriction varies depending on the nature of the right.

Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right which means for the government to restrict that right it must show a compelling state interest being protected by that restriction, that the restriction is tailored to achieve that interest and is the least restrictive means of protecting that interest.

That's the test, your screed about female rights and your loving polygamous relationship being entitled to the same rights are all irrelevant. If the state can show a compelling interest in restricting polygamous marriage and narrowly tailor those restrictions it will remain illegal.

I'm pretty sure there is case law setting precedent for disallowing polygamy with explainations of the state's interests if you want to look it up.

Personally, I don't care if you marry 100 people if they all consent. But I don't expect it to become legal anytime soon.
 
2012-08-04 07:12:10 PM

Remember that time everyone went nuts when Santorum vaguely implied that gay marriage was comparable to marrying a dog?

Why doesn't the world ever get *saner*??
 
2012-08-04 07:15:22 PM

Mugato: moralpanic: But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.

And the spouse-icide. And the secret adultery. And the loveless marriages that stay together just for the kids. Actually there are probably about seven marriages that are actually together and happy. And 3 of them are gay!


Only seven? Cool, I'm an elite!
 
2012-08-04 07:15:42 PM

Mugato: UCFRoadWarrior: Judging by the lines at the local Chick Fil A today....looks like Gay Marraige is losing worse than the Nigerian basketball team.

Do you really think this will end with the nation saying, "Yeah, you're right. Stop the gays from marrying."? Have you people learned nothing from well, everything in history? Social conservatives by definition lose. Every time. And then they go back and then they go back and say they were for whatever it was all along, So why don't you all just save everyone the trouble and give in now, fark.


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2012-08-04 07:19:44 PM

Notabunny: BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.

img.photobucket.com


I love you.
This is awesome.
 
2012-08-04 07:21:55 PM
Still waiting for an explanation on how marriage will be harmed, and demonstrations of that harm appearing in states and countries that allow same-sex marriage.

I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-08-04 07:22:58 PM
dookdookdook: Why doesn't the world ever get *saner*??

It does, but during an overall increase in sanity there are lower-order increases in insanity, so the short-term net affect appears to be decreasing sanity. This gay marriage tooth gnashing will be dead in a decade or so.
 
2012-08-04 07:24:14 PM

Falcc: bibli0phile: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 373x373]

If I could just toss this out: Mitt Romney is several generations removed from a multi-partner relationship and is a HUGE douchebag. Barack Obama Sr had multiple wives, Barack Obama is awesome. Done and done.


As far as I know, Obama is not a member of a religion which traditionally had a different "definition" of marriage other than the one man/one woman formula. Nor is Obama insisting it's the way things always have been (and thus always should be.) Mitt is a hypocrite for his stance, as well as painfully ignorant of world history. Obama is neither.
 
2012-08-04 07:26:41 PM
On the topic of poly marriages as compared to same sex marriages there are, in fact, two valid points. On the one hand, allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would require effectively no changes in marriage law as it stands outside of the sex requirements, and this is necessary in order that everyone should have equality before the law (i.e. everyone would then be able to marry 1 other person of their choice). On the other hand, the simple fact that polygamous marriages would require significant revising of the marriage statutes, probably with a lot of language lifted from corporate contract law, is not itself an argument for not allowing it. Since it has been determined that marriage is a civil right (Loving vs. Virginia), I fail to see why that right should be restricted to a single exercise at a time. I can exercise my right to freedom of speech and the press via multiple media or publications simultaneously, I will receive separate trials for accusations of separate criminal acts , I can own multiple guns, etc. Why, therefore, should I be limited to only one spouse, if it comes to pass that 2 or more people would like to marry me?
 
2012-08-04 07:27:06 PM

God-is-a-Taco: Notabunny: BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x670]


I love you.
This is awesome.


wat
 
2012-08-04 07:28:54 PM

Orange-Pippin: FTA The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America....

Im sure this has already been said. But, this statement is laughable. Marriage in this country is far from stable. The divorce rate
is well over half.

Case in point, a lady who attends our area garage sales was recently going on and on about "the attack on traditional marriage." She has also been married 4 times and one of her ex husband lives in an add-on in the back of her house. I kid you not. She is a Christian and so am I, so I think she felt that I would be interested in her barrage of hypocrisy. When I told her that she should really start to look inward (yes I told her this, but nicely) she told me...divorce "just happens."


That's because we let coloreds sit where they please on the bus. Also this here pinball and long hair.

RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY.
 
2012-08-04 07:29:34 PM

St_Francis_P: Roook: I only support gay marriage so that one day, hopefully, I can marry my television. And we will live happily ever after!

TV: teacher, mother, secret lover.


The modern version of this arrangement is smaller and less secret.

SFW.
Honest.
 
2012-08-04 07:30:41 PM
Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips told members in an email today that their movement cannot avoid the issue of same-sex marriage, as it threatens to destroy the family, replace freedom with anarchy and "turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger."

Because, really, why leave the two dogs and the Bengal tiger out? That would be wrong, it would be very wrong. Now, one of the three men breaks off a leg from one of the chairs . . .
 
2012-08-04 07:36:34 PM
 
2012-08-04 07:37:20 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.


The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.
 
2012-08-04 07:37:56 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: On the topic of poly marriages as compared to same sex marriages there are, in fact, two valid points. On the one hand, allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would require effectively no changes in marriage law as it stands outside of the sex requirements, and this is necessary in order that everyone should have equality before the law (i.e. everyone would then be able to marry 1 other person of their choice). On the other hand, the simple fact that polygamous marriages would require significant revising of the marriage statutes, probably with a lot of language lifted from corporate contract law, is not itself an argument for not allowing it. Since it has been determined that marriage is a civil right (Loving vs. Virginia), I fail to see why that right should be restricted to a single exercise at a time. I can exercise my right to freedom of speech and the press via multiple media or publications simultaneously, I will receive separate trials for accusations of separate criminal acts , I can own multiple guns, etc. Why, therefore, should I be limited to only one spouse, if it comes to pass that 2 or more people would like to marry me?


oh man, you stopped while i was at half stroke...PLEASE carry on......
 
2012-08-04 07:40:19 PM

cchris_39: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.


You are right. I think they should allow it to be legal to kill you.
 
2012-08-04 07:40:35 PM

cchris_39: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.


Slippery slope arguments make you look like a retard. Just FYI.
 
2012-08-04 07:40:47 PM
3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger?

Are we against gay marriage here or big-ticket Las Vegas shows?
 
2012-08-04 07:41:36 PM

cchris_39: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2012-08-04 07:46:32 PM

Antimatter: Falcc: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

As one of those "hippie commune crappers" (apparently), I see no reason why my wanting to marry two women, or a woman and a man, is somehow less deserving of rights than someone that just wants to marry person of their own sex. If something as fundamental as biological sex (which is certainly changeable but we can all agree it's an inherent factor) shouldn't be a bar to love, why should something entirely arbitrary like a number of participants? I'm not interested in marrying anyone that isn't able to consent, but if more than one person consents to marry me, or I consent to marry someone that already has a spouse, I can't see any realistic reason I should be forbidden from doing so.

It's more a problem in how all the rights and privileges are set up for a two party contract. When you add a third or more, you run into all kinds of issues, mainly for court matters and situations where one spouse is the decision maker for the incapacitated other.

For example, lets say you have 4 people in the marriage, and one gets hit by a car. How do you decide what to do when the doctors ask you if you want to pull the plug?


I can see where your point is coming from, but I would view them less as barriers than as speed bumps. Gay marriage should be legal right now because nothing more needs to be done than signing a law saying they can marry. Polygamy would require adjustments to a number of laws taking some time, but people should be working for it.

The only real argument against polygamy I have seen is its connection with abusive relationships in the West, namely through the Mormon Fundies. However the fact is, anyone involved with such a relationship is already a criminal and are on the fringe of society, which is a much better reasoning for why they are abusive than polygamy.


PC LOAD LETTER: False slippery slope is false.


Is there any other kind of slippery slope?
 
2012-08-04 07:54:39 PM
www.amoeba.com

Gay men and a tiger you say? And vhat is so unusual about zis?
 
2012-08-04 07:55:12 PM

LordJiro: cchris_39: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.

Slippery slope arguments make you look like a retard. Just FYI.


We eat animals without their consent, there is no need to get consent to marry animals, or cars, or blow up dolls.
The tax code problem is solved by removing the deduction for your spouse, or limiting the deduction to living breathing homo sapiens.
 
2012-08-04 07:57:35 PM

Anenu: As long as all the involved parties are of legal age and have the ability and desire to consent I do not care what they do. So if 3 men 5 women 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger want to marry and the dogs and tiger have in some way through science or magic gained the required abilities then they can have at if or all I care.


The dogs and the tiger already have the ability to lick their own balls. They have no need for marriage, or really, no need to leave the house.
 
2012-08-04 08:00:37 PM
Not even exclusive with the tiger.
www.roweanasden.com
 
2012-08-04 08:18:00 PM

cchris_39: The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.


Moo means no.
 
2012-08-04 08:24:01 PM
Sanctity, SCHMANCTITY!

The sanctity of any marriage is the sole responsibility of the individuals involved in said marriage.

This is nothing more than a matter of a system of governance which claims to treat its citizens equally... And then fails to do so.
 
2012-08-04 08:30:26 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Sanctity, SCHMANCTITY!

The sanctity of any marriage is the sole responsibility of the individuals involved in said marriage.

This is nothing more than a matter of a system of governance which claims to treat its citizens equally... And then fails to do so.


preview is your friend. unless you used a naughty word. but the up shoulda still come through..
 
2012-08-04 08:33:36 PM

Anenu: Mugato: moralpanic: But if you take away all the divorces, it is the most stable unit in America.

And the spouse-icide. And the secret adultery. And the loveless marriages that stay together just for the kids. Actually there are probably about seven marriages that are actually together and happy. And 3 of them are gay!

None of my grandparents have divorced and they seem to be happy with each other. My grandpa spent years of his life taking care of my grandmother before she died of Parkinson disease, and my parents have been together for over 25 years and seem happy. Maybe if people would choose their spouse a little more carefully they wouldn't get divorced as much.

/It doesn't matter if you are gay or not you still shouldn't marry the first person who comes along.


And yet, when considering the vast increase in mobility today as compared to your grandparents era, it's quite likely that that is very nearly what they did. My parents have been married for 58 years. But we were from a small town with only 30 or so in their high school graduating class. College wasn't an option for either of them, so they settled down just after high school and have been happy and content ever since. My grandparents, very much the same story, except the graduating class was around 13 students. My point being that the selection pool available to them was much smaller, and no societal pressure to "hold off until your older, wiser, and more settled", so they made their choices and got on with the business of making it work. Today, high school students are constantly reminded that they are too young and inexperienced to make any decisions of any importance. So they go off to college, where their selection of available options is not only larger but also from less similar backgrounds. Then they graduate and take a job seven states away, exposing themselves to an entirely new set of cultural backgrounds, influences, and temptations. It's almost too many choices and too many opportunities to second guess those choices after the fact. Of course, back then the very idea of permanence was held in much higher regard across many things. Five and ten year old buildings weren't routinely torn down to make room for another building with an expected five year lifespan. People worked for a single company for 20 or 30 years, and the company valued that stability. A lot has changed.
 
2012-08-04 08:38:46 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Today, high school students are constantly reminded that they are too young and inexperienced to make any decisions of any importance. So they go off to college, where their selection of available options is not only larger but also from less similar backgrounds. Then they graduate and take a job seven states away, exposing themselves to an entirely new set of cultural backgrounds, influences, and temptations. It's almost too many choices and too many opportunities to second guess those choices after the fact.


I keep waiting for the punchline there. So being exposed to multiple choices in a mate is a bad thing?
 
2012-08-04 08:41:02 PM

Wyalt Derp: cchris_39: The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

Moo means no.


Except when it means Moo oo oo re!
 
2012-08-04 08:53:01 PM

Mugato: More_Like_A_Stain: Today, high school students are constantly reminded that they are too young and inexperienced to make any decisions of any importance. So they go off to college, where their selection of available options is not only larger but also from less similar backgrounds. Then they graduate and take a job seven states away, exposing themselves to an entirely new set of cultural backgrounds, influences, and temptations. It's almost too many choices and too many opportunities to second guess those choices after the fact.

I keep waiting for the punchline there. So being exposed to multiple choices in a mate is a bad thing?


Not so much a bad thing. There's just less commitment given to those choices than a couple of generations back. Ever go to pick out a paint color? Which is easier? Choosing between yellow, blue, or white, or finding the right shade from 22 different yellows, blues, or whites? And once you've made your choice, do you continue going to paint stores? Or do you settle in to whatever choice you've made and get on with the happy? Multiple choices is not a bad thing. But we, as a society, are not very good at recognizing the weight of some of those choices any more. And so we make them lightly.If you make a good choice, great. If you make a bad choice, so what. Make another one. In the specific case of marriage, we make them too lightly on the way in as well as on the way out.
 
2012-08-04 08:56:50 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Not so much a bad thing. There's just less commitment given to those choices than a couple of generations back. Ever go to pick out a paint color? Which is easier? Choosing between yellow, blue, or white, or finding the right shade from 22 different yellows, blues, or whites? And once you've made your choice, do you continue going to paint stores? Or do you settle in to whatever choice you've made and get on with the happy? Multiple choices is not a bad thing. But we, as a society, are not very good at recognizing the weight of some of those choices any more. And so we make them lightly.If you make a good choice, great. If you make a bad choice, so what. Make another one. In the specific case of marriage, we make them too lightly on the way in as well as on the way out.


So....things aren't the same now as when you were a kid back in the 30's, therefore get off your lawn?
 
2012-08-04 08:59:09 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Not so much a bad thing. There's just less commitment given to those choices than a couple of generations back. Ever go to pick out a paint color? Which is easier? Choosing between yellow, blue, or white, or finding the right shade from 22 different yellows, blues, or whites? And once you've made your choice, do you continue going to paint stores? Or do you settle in to whatever choice you've made and get on with the happy? Multiple choices is not a bad thing. But we, as a society, are not very good at recognizing the weight of some of those choices any more. And so we make them lightly.If you make a good choice, great. If you make a bad choice, so what. Make another one. In the specific case of marriage, we make them too lightly on the way in as well as on the way out.



Okay. I just think it's better to go out and meet as many people as you can and choose who to spend your life with based on a more educated guess than just knocking up the girl who happens to have the locker next to yours and spending the rest of your life in quiet desperation but to each their own.
 
2012-08-04 09:03:06 PM
The left lost me at Bengal tigers.
 
2012-08-04 09:03:35 PM
yep, polygamy being legalized&institutionalized is down this road. you can do fark and all about it. make dealings with it.
 
2012-08-04 09:07:06 PM

St_Francis_P: Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips told members in an email today that their movement cannot avoid the issue of same-sex marriage, as it threatens to destroy the family, replace freedom with anarchy and "turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger."

He says all that like it's a bad thing.


Done in one.
 
2012-08-04 09:07:43 PM
"to allow anyone and anything to get married"

gay people = things?
 
2012-08-04 09:11:27 PM
violetvolume: "to allow anyone and anything to get married"

gay people = things?


to the social right they are subhuman; they are the others.
 
2012-08-04 09:14:05 PM

Ned Stark: yep, polygamy being legalized&institutionalized is down this road. you can do fark and all about it. make dealings with it.


I wonder if the Mormons will spend as much money in support of legalizing bigamy as they did on the California anti-gay marriage initiative. . .

/Actually, I'm not gonna speculate about that, because I don't think the slope is all that slippery.
 
2012-08-04 09:20:54 PM

violetvolume: "to allow anyone and anything to get married"

gay people = things?


Extreme Christian culture has a long and storied history of considering the "other" to be sub-human. From pagans to Muslims to the gays and everyone in between.
 
2012-08-04 09:21:12 PM
turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger

EWWWWWWWWW, gross!
 
2012-08-04 09:34:00 PM
Disgusting.

God intended marriage to be between 2 men, 6 women, 3 dogs and a Siberian tiger. Anything else is an abomination.
 
2012-08-04 09:38:02 PM
There's a black bear at our local museum that I've had my eye on
 
2012-08-04 09:38:05 PM

dookdookdook: More_Like_A_Stain: Not so much a bad thing. There's just less commitment given to those choices than a couple of generations back. Ever go to pick out a paint color? Which is easier? Choosing between yellow, blue, or white, or finding the right shade from 22 different yellows, blues, or whites? And once you've made your choice, do you continue going to paint stores? Or do you settle in to whatever choice you've made and get on with the happy? Multiple choices is not a bad thing. But we, as a society, are not very good at recognizing the weight of some of those choices any more. And so we make them lightly.If you make a good choice, great. If you make a bad choice, so what. Make another one. In the specific case of marriage, we make them too lightly on the way in as well as on the way out.

So....things aren't the same now as when you were a kid back in the 30's, therefore get off your lawn?


I wasn't a kid back in the 30's. My grandparents were.

Mugato: Okay. I just think it's better to go out and meet as many people as you can and choose who to spend your life with based on a more educated guess than just knocking up the girl who happens to have the locker next to yours and spending the rest of your life in quiet desperation but to each their own.


I guess it's not so much the number of choices, but rather the "educated guess" that I have issue with. My parents and my grandparents made what they felt were the best choices from the available options, and got about the work of making sure those choices worked. There was no reason to hold out for better options, nor was there any reason to continue looking for other options. They knew that there were no perfect options, so pick the most compatible, and then work to smooth out the rough edges. Of course, they grew up in an era when they weren't bombarded since childhood with images of what "the perfect life with the perfect mate" should look like. They knew that life had edges that were sharp and unpleasant. I can't say that there was ever any "quiet desperation". That's not to say that there was never any struggle, because there was. But that struggle was always met as a joint effort. In both my parents and grandparents cases, each couple met every challenge as a unified being. And yes, I know that my experience is not nearly as typical as it should be. And for that, I am both grateful and sad.
 
2012-08-04 10:03:20 PM

washington: There's a black bear at our local museum that I've had my eye on


static.flickr.com
 
2012-08-04 10:16:19 PM

hubiestubert: 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.


SSSHHHHHH! Don't give the wingnuts any ideas!
 
2012-08-04 10:45:06 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: hubiestubert: 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

SSSHHHHHH! Don't give the wingnuts any ideas!


www2.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2012-08-04 10:51:32 PM

Happy Hours: I don't even understand the objection to polygamy As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting


Ehh, the problem with polygamy is that it would be great if there was an equal number of women that had multiple husbands as men that have multiple wives, but in reality, that never, ever, ever happens. That leaves frustrated young men, which is never good for society.

Plus, historically, it does lead to coercion and incest (if you don't marry X and be his 8th wife, you are out of the commune and a disgrace!).
 
2012-08-04 10:53:31 PM

namatad: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

But it is legal for muslims to marry multiple women, right? Freedom of religion bans the US from prohibiting most, if not all religious rights. How would a US ban on multiple muslim wives NOT be unconstitutional???

LOL
Would be funny if muslims led the way to fix the retarded marriage crap in the US.

1) no deductions for children
2) no extra tax benefits for being married


/LOL


No, it is not. The Mormons already tried that, and the supreme court ruled that you are free to practice any religion you want, as long as practicing doesn't break any existing laws.
 
2012-08-04 10:55:21 PM
The polygamy people:

The only issue I see is that it makes things very complex for medical care without an advanced medical directive, it makes things very complex for taxes, it makes things very complex for end-of-life care and finances.

There really isn't anything in it that would damage those not involved in the relationship (which I think really should be the gold standard: They're doing what they want without hurting anyone else, therefore it should be allowed)... but we really would need a framework set up first that deals with all the medical, financial, and legal issues.
 
2012-08-04 11:11:38 PM
All this talk about alternative lifestyles reeks of jealousy. Think about it: you're told your entire life that life was a certain way, so you go about business thinking that this is the only way to live. Then you get far enough out and settled and find out that you could have had a different sort of life, full of rich variety. And that your parents/elders/neighbors really are sheltered individuals.

The anger from that sort of betrayal (even if it isn't really a betrayal, just listening to the close-mindedness of other people) is what really fuels this outrage. People are realizing that life isn't the American Dream and can be a very rich and varied experience if you open yourself to it. The damn shame is that people are so focused on seeing momentary directionlessness as a flaw instead of a temporary device that all human beings fall prey to. This is why the American Dream is such bullshiat: it assumes that human beings have a degree of control over ourselves that is incredibly unrealistic. It is a nice dream....but that dream does not translate to reality for shiat, and treasures quick 'decisive' action over contemplation and being honest with your needs and wants.

Bizarrely enough, you can see where people angry at being fooled (or rather, not being able to know what they want out of life) try to use this as a battering ram against people who do know what they want out of life. Look at all this 'family' bullshiat treasured by Republicans that, in reality, is just a front for not being honest with yourself. Look at the wide-stancing guy and his ilk: they need that illusion because they are ashamed of themselves and their dishonesty on how they want to live their lives. It explains a lot of their anger. If I lived in a nation that boasted ultimate freedom over every aspect of my life and felt forced to fall into conformity, I would express my repression through anger as well. And that's all the Republicans really are: screaming about being fooled but unable to break that status quo.
 
2012-08-04 11:19:28 PM

machoprogrammer: Happy Hours: I don't even understand the objection to polygamy As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting

Ehh, the problem with polygamy is that it would be great if there was an equal number of women that had multiple husbands as men that have multiple wives, but in reality, that never, ever, ever happens. That leaves frustrated young men, which is never good for society.

Plus, historically, it does lead to coercion and incest (if you don't marry X and be his 8th wife, you are out of the commune and a disgrace!).


Exactly.

www.collectiveeye.org

Link
 
2012-08-04 11:49:28 PM
Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.
 
2012-08-05 12:06:30 AM

BuckTurgidson: Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.


That's why they're for wasting taxpayer money on drug tests for welfare recipients and voter ID laws.
 
2012-08-05 12:24:13 AM

machoprogrammer: Happy Hours: I don't even understand the objection to polygamy As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting

Ehh, the problem with polygamy is that it would be great if there was an equal number of women that had multiple husbands as men that have multiple wives, but in reality, that never, ever, ever happens. That leaves frustrated young men, which is never good for society.

Plus, historically, it does lead to coercion and incest (if you don't marry X and be his 8th wife, you are out of the commune and a disgrace!).

While this is true as far as it goes, I feel that it's worth noting that 1)those societies don't actually allow the option of multiple husbands, or group marriages; the 3 men 5 women wouldn't fly., and 2) There's a whole lot of dysfunctional bullshiat relating to coercive marriages, incest, child abuse etc in pretty much all isolated fundamentalist religious communities, whether they practice polygyny or not.
 
2012-08-05 01:06:05 AM

namatad: bibli0phile: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 373x373]

great great grand Parley Pratt - 12 wives

Great grand Helaman Pratt - 8 wives

GrandMother anna amelia pratt romney

Father George W Romney

so this was fun and almost made my brain bleed


I'm sure it's been done already, but just in case:

i28.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-05 01:27:02 AM
But I was assured that the Tea Party wasn't about left/right/Democratic/Republican and wasn't about social issues. That it was purely about taxes.
 
2012-08-05 01:38:13 AM

GhostFish: Still waiting for an explanation on how marriage will be harmed, and demonstrations of that harm appearing in states and countries that allow same-sex marriage.

I won't hold my breath.


It makes the almighty God grumpy, and he will destroy the wooorrrld!

It's quite hilarious that teabaggers and anti-gays constantly ignore Canada and the many European countries where gay marriage is legal and nothing has happened to them. Of course, these are the same retards who proclaim that every natural and manmade disaster that happens around the world happens because God is punishing America for allowing the homogay. It's like these people think America is the only country on the planet.
 
2012-08-05 01:39:00 AM

BuckTurgidson: Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.


i112.photobucket.com

If the teabaggers are "about fiscal responsibility and limited government", then where were they when george w. bush was beating the war drums and the neocon artists were pushing the "Patriot" Act?
 
2012-08-05 01:40:26 AM

Notabunny: BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x670]


Damnit Japan,
I'd suggest nuking them again, but that only seemed to make 'em worse.
 
2012-08-05 01:44:01 AM

cchris_39: PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false.

The "consent" argument doesn't make sense. Just change the consent laws! Animals, kids, poly, whatever can now contract for marriage.

You're basically aruguing that the law should be changed only to the extent that happens to suit you.


Hey, if you want pedophilia and bestiality that badly, knock yourself out. Thos eof us who are not stupid will continue to support those who are of legal age and can give consent.

As for poly, as has been stated here and elsewhere, the main problem is the legal nightmare surrounding multiple spouses.

/as well as the fact many cult leaders have been polygamous
//also, no matter how hard it's tried to be avoided, preferences and biases will develop, which can lead to feelings of jealousy and inadequacy, which can spiral into messy things
 
2012-08-05 01:59:03 AM

Karma Chameleon: Far Left in America = Just slightly right of center.


I was going to put the matching image here, but for some reason, I can't find the bloody thing.
 
2012-08-05 02:07:13 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Karma Chameleon: Far Left in America = Just slightly right of center.

I was going to put the matching image here, but for some reason, I can't find the bloody thing.


America? It's just between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. You can't miss it, really.
 
2012-08-05 02:09:00 AM
I have difficulty wrapping my mind around the fact that people believe in things like the statements in that article.

But, a funny thing. To the Left, the gay marriage issue has always only been about homosexuals. Yet to the Right, it's about bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia and whatever else they want it to be. The Right is the only side that thinks about those things in relation to gay marriage. Hmmm.
 
2012-08-05 02:20:22 AM
Also, what is with the constant use of the word "freedom?" The only ones trying to restrict someone's freedom to act as they choose are them. The best they can come up with to accuse liberals of being against freedom is some rambling conspiracy theory about how letting gays marry is really step one in turning America into an anarcho-communist syndicate or some bullshiat.
 
2012-08-05 02:21:38 AM

Jormungandr: Notabunny: BitwiseShift: I've been expecting this. That's why I began stocking up on pet food, paper towels, show tunes, and name tags two years ago.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x670]

Damnit Japan,
I'd suggest nuking them again, but that only seemed to make 'em worse.


Yamada! Yamada! (nsfw, lunch, sleep)
 
2012-08-05 02:22:51 AM

cc_rider: I'm sure it's been done already, but just in case:


Oh.My Gawds. That is so awesome. thanks
 
2012-08-05 02:24:03 AM
Disgusting. Why would you need two dogs when one would be enough?
 
2012-08-05 02:42:41 AM

jeaux65: Disgusting. Why would you need two dogs when one would be enough?


One is the loneliest number. Two can be as bad as one, but the loneliest number is the number one. Now three dogs, that's a good time. Especially at night.
 
2012-08-05 02:56:46 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: Fluorescent Testicle: Karma Chameleon: Far Left in America = Just slightly right of center.

I was going to put the matching image here, but for some reason, I can't find the bloody thing.

America? It's just between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. You can't miss it, really.


Wait, where the hell did India go?
 
2012-08-05 03:08:19 AM

Need_MindBleach: Also, what is with the constant use of the word "freedom?" The only ones trying to restrict someone's freedom to act as they choose are them. The best they can come up with to accuse liberals of being against freedom is some rambling conspiracy theory about how letting gays marry is really step one in turning America into an anarcho-communist syndicate or some bullshiat.


Publicans to Democrats: "Freedom? That is a worship word. You will not speak it."
Democrats to Publicans: "Freedom? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 
2012-08-05 04:21:30 AM
if people wanna marry whatever, why stop em. government could use the revenue right about now.



also speaking on freak show, could you imagine either of these guys in a dress.

politics.x90x.net

/ image pops to host.
 
2012-08-05 05:23:39 AM

Lansydyr: SkinnyHead: "The State's interests in support of marriage would be undermined if marriage were so malleable in meaning as to include any consensual relationship claimed to be 'exclusive and permanent.' ... Marriage redefined to mean any 'permanent' intimate personal relationship between two consenting persons has no firmer basis than a similar relationship between three or more persons, which has been long rejected." ~ Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d 963 (2006)

When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." [Plessy vs. Ferguson]

Looks, I can find crappy court decisions also!!


Here's a real gem:

"...we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the State courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen." ~Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford
 
2012-08-05 06:04:44 AM
FTFA: "The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America."

From reality: "The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology..." (Link)

I'm not sure if its the author or if it's me who's confused about the meaning of the word stable, but one of us definitely has it wrong.
 
2012-08-05 06:17:35 AM
bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything. What ever happened to the idea that the son is not guilty of the crimes of his father? I can't see how Romney's responsible for something that happened before he was ever born.

My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a slave owner. I abhor the idea of slavery, but I don't feel in any way responsible for my greatx5 grandfather's participation in it and I'm certainly not to blame for it.
 
2012-08-05 06:52:43 AM

geek_mars: FTFA: "The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America."

From reality: "The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology..." (Link)

I'm not sure if its the author or if it's me who's confused about the meaning of the word stable, but one of us definitely has it wrong.


It's only stable if divorce is banned, as the wingnuts want. All in the name of freedom of course.
 
2012-08-05 07:14:40 AM
Lee Jackson Beauregard
It's only stable if divorce is banned, as the wingnuts want. All in the name of freedom of course.


If this is standard Republican policy then I really can't see how many of these politicians can keep a straight face. I know of no Right-Winger/Family-values-Proclaimer who wants divorced banned. Too many of them go through wives (and husbands) just for the heck of it.

Donald Trump: "One of the reasons I was divorced is because I worked very hard. And, you know, that's a good reason. But I worked very, very hard building up a great company."
 
2012-08-05 07:51:40 AM

BuckTurgidson: Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.


i18.photobucket.com

"Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho"
 
2012-08-05 07:51:57 AM
Like we haven't been hearing that smug, sneering argument for the past decade. "If you let the homos get married next it will be legal when Hillary Clinton comes to your house and cold ass-rapes your German Shepherd!"
 
2012-08-05 08:05:43 AM

jso2897: BuckTurgidson: Taxed Enough Already.

It's all about fiscal responsibility and limited government.

[i18.photobucket.com image 468x340]

"Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho, Mnom yho ranghe cho"


24.media.tumblr.com

"I forgot my mantra."
 
2012-08-05 08:56:31 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Polygamy is still separately illegal and has mainly Mormon right-wingers (and few hippie commune crappers) pushing to get it legalized. Meanwhile, the dogs and Bengal tiger can't consent. False slippery slope is false downright farking retarded.


There...
 
2012-08-05 09:44:48 AM

geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.


Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.


My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a slave owner. I abhor the idea of slavery, but I don't feel in any way responsible for my greatx5 grandfather's participation in it and I'm certainly not to blame for it.

You're not saying something moronic like, "Every person in America has always been a citizen with equal rights."
 
2012-08-05 12:24:02 PM

machoprogrammer: No, it is not. The Mormons already tried that, and the supreme court ruled that you are free to practice any religion you want, as long as practicing doesn't break any existing laws.


When was the last time this was "tried"?
Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

Forget the mormons for the time being and their lawsuits in the US. Plural marriage is part of Islam. Islam is a religion. The first amendment is sacrosanct "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefore the law banning plural marriage prohibits muslims from the free exercise of their religion and the law is unconstitutional. Period.

(Yes, I have no problem with laws preventing you from sacrificing children or adults in the name of your religion. The sacrifice would interfere with the victims rights. But what about willing adult sacrifices?? )

It cracks me up that we only protect SOME parts of the constitution.
 
2012-08-05 12:33:35 PM
Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,[5] although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.[6]

It really is strange. The laws are CLEARLY unconstitutional and any strict constructionist would agree and yet the court continues to ignore these unconstitutional laws.
 
2012-08-05 12:43:52 PM

namatad: When was the last time this was "tried"?


i suppose it depends on how specific you want to get. Would you like the Reynolds v. United States or Employment Division v. Smith?


namatad: Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?


I see you are struggling with the concept of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
2012-08-05 12:44:48 PM

namatad: It really is strange


Baffling, even.
 
2012-08-05 01:14:10 PM

thamike: namatad: Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

I see you are struggling with the concept of the U.S. Supreme Court.


LOL
no, nice try. My question is how do strict constructionists defend these laws? Clearly they fail any first amendment test. so what further test is being applied to keep the laws? Strict scrutiny alone could be used to throw out state bigamy laws.
 
2012-08-05 01:22:27 PM

thamike: Would you like the Reynolds v. United States (1878)


and I guess my question is: why hasnt there been addition challenges since reynolds ? My guess is that there have been tons of cases which scotus has refused to hear.

Employment Division v. Smith? that shiat just makes my head spin.
You are legally allowed to do peyote as part of your religion (during services? all the time?)
You are fired from your job for being on drugs? LOL. I can understand being arrested for DUI, public safety trumping religious freedom. I can understand being fired if your drug use affects you ability to do your job.

BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
the whole drug law situation in the US is such an abortion to start with.
 
2012-08-05 01:48:25 PM

namatad: LOL
no, nice try.


You can laugh out loud and tell everybody that it's what you are doing all you want. it won't change the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You know it's okay to personally disagree with Supreme Court decisions without stupidly calling them "unconstitutional," right?
 
2012-08-05 03:08:45 PM

themindiswatching: Someone sounds...butthurt.


Or wishes he was.
 
2012-08-05 03:29:17 PM

bibli0phile: geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.


I wasn't aware he'd made that statement quite that way. That clears a lot of things up.

namatad: machoprogrammer: No, it is not. The Mormons already tried that, and the supreme court ruled that you are free to practice any religion you want, as long as practicing doesn't break any existing laws.

When was the last time this was "tried"?
Why is the LAW itself not unconstitutional?

Forget the mormons for the time being and their lawsuits in the US. Plural marriage is part of Islam. Islam is a religion. The first amendment is sacrosanct "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefore the law banning plural marriage prohibits muslims from the free exercise of their religion and the law is unconstitutional. Period.

(Yes, I have no problem with laws preventing you from sacrificing children or adults in the name of your religion. The sacrifice would interfere with the victims rights. But what about willing adult sacrifices?? )

It cracks me up that we only protect SOME parts of the constitution.


My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

If you consider some of the more radical fringe groups (Warren Jeffs and the FLDS comes to mind), the law never goes after them for having multiple wives. They only go after them for sex with minors when one (or more) of their wives aren't of age.
 
2012-08-05 04:09:03 PM
Roook: I only support gay marriage so that one day, hopefully, I can marry my television. And we will live happily ever after!

25.media.tumblr.com

Approves
 
2012-08-05 04:16:29 PM
geek_mars: bibli0phile: geek_mars: bibli0phile:


I'm no fan of Romney's, but I couldn't care less if his great-great-great grandfather had 12 wives and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Very simply put: He says marriage has been defined as "one man + one woman" for three thousand years when his own family (and religious tradition) defined it differently. That makes his statement both false and hypocritical.

I wasn't aware he'd made that statement quite that way. That clears a lot of things up.


You can watch it here.

The statement is at the very end of the video
 
2012-08-05 04:21:30 PM
geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

One case that comes to mind is a man legally married and divorced a number of women but continued living with them was determined to be in multiple common law marriages and therefore convicted of bigamy. So, depending on state laws, that could be an issue even if only part of a single civil marriage.
 
2012-08-05 04:37:24 PM
geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

strangely enough, a number of states make this type of living together a crime
Link
 
2012-08-06 10:18:34 AM

dywed88: geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

One case that comes to mind is a man legally married and divorced a number of women but continued living with them was determined to be in multiple common law marriages and therefore convicted of bigamy. So, depending on state laws, that could be an issue even if only part of a single civil marriage.


Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

namatad: geek_mars: My understanding, and IANAL, is that the law doesn't apply to the religious aspect of marriage, only the legal aspect. So, theoretically, one can only have one legal spouse, but if one's church performs a wedding ceremony that involves multiple partners (or multiple ceremonies, separately) then that's alright. In such circumstances, no laws are broken and no religious rights are infringed.

strangely enough, a number of states make this type of living together a crime
Link


"Unlawful cohabitation"!? Seriously? I understand why most laws are necessary, but this just seems like blatantly telling people how to live.

I swear, more and more frequently I find myself understanding some of these "break-away" and "splinter" groups that setup their stupid compounds and tell the government to fark off so they can be left alone. I'm not ready to join them (any of them), but I'm definitely starting to understand it.
 
2012-08-06 10:34:04 AM

geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.


You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.
 
2012-08-06 10:42:31 AM

geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.


As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.
 
2012-08-06 10:56:21 PM

Babwa Wawa: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.


dywed88: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.


I stand corrected.

From wiki: Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed.

/confused common-law marriage with statutory marriage
//actually sitting here corrected
 
2012-08-07 07:37:01 AM

geek_mars: Babwa Wawa: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

You don't understand common law marriage. Try looking it up in wikipedia.

dywed88: geek_mars: Yet another reason why "common law" marriage is bullshiat.

As a person with three immediate family members living in common law relationships (well, two since a couple weeks ago) I am going to disagree.

I stand corrected.

From wiki: Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed.

/confused common-law marriage with statutory marriage
//actually sitting here corrected


Huh? Statutory marriage actually involves a marriage certificate from the government. Most people who are married have a statutory marriage, I'd imagine.

In neither case can you shack up with a person then wake up some days or months later to find yourself married to them without your consent.
 
Displayed 222 of 222 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report