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 (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report