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.

(AsiaOne)   Yet another politician just doesn't get it until it's way too late that you should never equate gay marriage to bestiality or polygamy   ( asiaone.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Australian Senator, Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Opposition, Labor Party, Thomas More, Australians, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

11795 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2012 at 4:47 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-19 10:43:01 AM  
Fools.
When you get old, you need to get unmarried in order to receive your entitlements otherwise you "share" the expenses that are designed to extract every last penny before they bankrupt you.

/it just keeps on getting better
 
2012-09-19 10:43:30 AM  

Z-clipped: stonicus: All of those issues can be handled using the currently existing legal system. I can already enter into a contract with a friend to purchase a home. We don't need to be married. You don't need to be married to have custody of your child.

Recreating all of the benefits and responsibilities that marriage confers through other legal means would actually be hellishly complex. The marriage contract serves a useful purpose. Where's the social benefit in getting rid of that civil institution?


And eventually, pending on what state you live in, common law kicks in and he/she gets half!!
 
2012-09-19 10:50:16 AM  
No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.
 
2012-09-19 10:53:02 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.


Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two.
 
2012-09-19 10:55:31 AM  
there is never any 'too late'. logic never goes out of style, fortunately, unless you are brainwashed and/or vote democrat
 
2012-09-19 10:55:48 AM  
I think we should just end women's suffrage. They have suffred for so long now that it's just ridiculous to keep on doing it.
 
2012-09-19 10:57:34 AM  
Hey, its not a choice they were born that way. Like someone with albinism or palsy. They, beastie people, need understanding the its not their fault because its not a choice or preference. Polygamy sound more like someone with a death wish or just a glutton for punnishment.
 
2012-09-19 11:01:11 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: HAMMERTOE: Bomb Head Mohammed: I can see not equating gay marriage with incest - there are real public health issues involved there.

I was right with you up to this point. As only a minority of sexual relations is for deliberate procreation, why should incest be frowned upon? I know it's going to sound trollish but if "same sex" has lost taboo status, why should "same family" retain it? What if it's gay incest? Should it really matter?

We have two competing priorities:
1. the right of people to reproduce with others of their own choosing
2. the right of newborns to have a chance to be reasonably healthy

a blanket ban on reproduction by, say, couples of mentally challenged individuals whose condition might be linked to genetic issues would violate priority #1. therefore, we do not ban it, even though it does open the door to #2. however, incestuous relationships greatly increase #2 while only marginally decreasing #1.

or to put it another way, i am not opposed in principle to incestuous non-reproductive (adoptive, gay, etc) relationships. however, i repeat my previous assertion that as there are significant public health issues associated with reproductive incestuous relationships (especially over multiple generations - make your british royal family joke here), it is not unreasonable for that to be restricted.

should the physical situation change such that the additional risk can be mitigated technologically (or proved to not exist - i understand a recent study showed that the marginal risk is quite marginal indeed), then i see no problem with incestuous reproductive marriage as well.


Someone who isn't born yet has no rights. #2 is a nice, emotionally tugging sentiment, but that's it. If we truly want to enforce it, then we have to bar reproduction by people with cerebral palsy, or MS, or AIDS, or Down's Syndome.

Z-clipped: stonicus: All of those issues can be handled using the currently existing legal system. I can already enter into a contract with a friend to purchase a home. We don't need to be married. You don't need to be married to have custody of your child.

Recreating all of the benefits and responsibilities that marriage confers through other legal means would actually be hellishly complex. The marriage contract serves a useful purpose. Where's the social benefit in getting rid of that civil institution?


The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use. "What we have isn't quite enough, but fixing it would be haaaaaaaaaard!!!" isn't a good excuse to me to not do something.
 
2012-09-19 11:05:19 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: should the physical situation change such that the additional risk can be mitigated technologically (or proved to not exist - i understand a recent study showed that the marginal risk is quite marginal indeed), then i see no problem with incestuous reproductive marriage as well.


Yes, while there is a clear risk in repeated instances of inbreeding in a single line, isolated cases are much much less genetically risky than most people think. All things being equal, the risk of birth defects for half- and full siblings mating is approximately equivalent to that of a woman over 40. Since most real cases of adult incest are the result of GSA (which is itself caused by a set of very unusual circumstances) it's highly unlikely that legalizing incestual marriage would have any negative impact on society, or lead to rampant consanguineous coupling. I see no reason to legally constrain marriage between relatives.

That being said, I can understand why most supporters of marriage equality would prefer this issue not be associated with gay marriage. The social taboo against incest is much more deeply ingrained in America, while the taboo against homosexuality is rapidly vanishing.
 
2012-09-19 11:13:03 AM  

stonicus: The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use.


So, instead of simply extending marriage to cover same-sex couples on the logical basis of equal rights, which would require almost no legal effort or money whatsoever (and has, in point of fact, been a financial windfall for communities that have done so) your solution is to scrap the entire thing, and spend enormous amounts of time and money to cobble together the exact same set of contractual circumstances through other means?

What exactly is your motivation for doing this? What you're proposing is an enormous waste of resources to solve a non-existent problem.
 
2012-09-19 11:13:36 AM  

stonicus: The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use.


Like, say, "marriage"?
 
2012-09-19 11:15:31 AM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.

Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two.


And groups of people who love each other are worth less (or more...?) than pairs of people who love each other because?
 
2012-09-19 11:16:51 AM  

Z-clipped: stonicus: The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use.

So, instead of simply extending marriage to cover same-sex couples on the logical basis of equal rights, which would require almost no legal effort or money whatsoever (and has, in point of fact, been a financial windfall for communities that have done so) your solution is to scrap the entire thing, and spend enormous amounts of time and money to cobble together the exact same set of contractual circumstances through other means?

What exactly is your motivation for doing this? What you're proposing is an enormous waste of resources to solve a non-existent problem.


My motivation is write an all encompassing law that includes everyone, now and in the future, not just keep slapping case-by-case band-aids on the law we currently have. It's like in programming, if your functions slowly evolves in time to a huge list of "if then" statements, it's time to redesign that part.


Theaetetus: stonicus: The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use.

Like, say, "marriage"?


Unless you're gay... then it's not an institution we can all use.
 
2012-09-19 11:19:20 AM  

miss diminutive: "If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.



I love you!
 
2012-09-19 11:29:19 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.

Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two.

And groups of people who love each other are worth less (or more...?) than pairs of people who love each other because?


Who said anything about worth? You appear to be the first person that mentioned it. Why do you think polygamists are worth any less or more, and why do you think that we should base laws on assumptions about people's worth? Frankly, I think that's disgusting.
 
2012-09-19 11:30:23 AM  

miss diminutive: Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.


Shadowtag: Mind if I borrow this?


Borrow it? My, aren't we polite? But no, you can't, because I already stole it and have it saved to a flat text file in preparation for the next Fark thread.
 
2012-09-19 11:30:27 AM  

stonicus: My motivation is write an all encompassing law that includes everyone, now and in the future, not just keep slapping case-by-case band-aids on the law we currently have. It's like in programming, if your functions slowly evolves in time to a huge list of "if then" statements, it's time to redesign that part.


Except that this isn't a massive clusterfark of nested if-else statements. This is simple encapsulation. There's nothing wrong with the method- literally no changes need to be made to it for it to apply to gay couples that haven't been introduced and tacked on by idiots in the last few years.

Theaetetus: Like, say, "marriage"?


Exactly.

stonicus: Unless you're gay... then it's not an institution we can all use.


Why not?
 
2012-09-19 11:37:10 AM  

YouBWrong: There is no logical escalation after abortion if you don't think that a fetus is a person or has any rights.


The difficulty here is that under other laws, fetuses clearly do have rights.

\Manslaughter and murder laws include the fetus in the count.
 
2012-09-19 11:37:17 AM  
Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?
 
2012-09-19 11:37:49 AM  

Z-clipped: stonicus: My motivation is write an all encompassing law that includes everyone, now and in the future, not just keep slapping case-by-case band-aids on the law we currently have. It's like in programming, if your functions slowly evolves in time to a huge list of "if then" statements, it's time to redesign that part.

Except that this isn't a massive clusterfark of nested if-else statements. This is simple encapsulation. There's nothing wrong with the method- literally no changes need to be made to it for it to apply to gay couples that haven't been introduced and tacked on by idiots in the last few years.

Theaetetus: Like, say, "marriage"?

Exactly.

stonicus: Unless you're gay... then it's not an institution we can all use.

Why not?


For the case of gay marriage, yes, it is a "add an addendum". But we're also discussing polygamy as well. So now we have "...and gay people too." and now "...and polygamists too". No, it isn't a nested if then statement... yet.

As for why it's not an insitution we can all use, because it isn't legal everywhere at the moment. It can be modified, which is what we're talking about. I'mjust saying, if you're gonna modify it, have some forward thinking while we're digging in there.
 
2012-09-19 11:39:26 AM  
i haz a fark edumucation

Homosexuality
Bestiality
Polygamy
Incest
Redneck
[fill in your lifestyle choice here]

are all valid ETHNIC groups and therefore shall be afforded the same rights, if you disagree, you are an intolerant racist bigot

1eth·nic adjective \ˈeth-nik\

Definition of ETHNIC

1
: heathen
2
a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
b : being a member of a specified ethnic group
c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics
See ethnic defined for English-lang
 
2012-09-19 11:40:32 AM  

OptimusHime: Silence = consent, so if they don't say "no", it's consensual.

If that was true, every baby would be legally rapable, so I'm sensing some problems with that already.


I've never met a silent baby. 

It has interesting applications towards the mute, however.
 
2012-09-19 11:41:30 AM  

I drunk what: i haz a fark edumucation

Homosexuality
Bestiality
Polygamy
Incest
Redneck
[fill in your lifestyle choice here]

are all valid ETHNIC groups and therefore shall be afforded the same rights, if you disagree, you are an intolerant racist bigot

1eth·nic adjective \ˈeth-nik\

Definition of ETHNIC

1
: heathen
2
a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
b : being a member of a specified ethnic group
c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics
See ethnic defined for English-lang


u sound racist
 
2012-09-19 11:41:52 AM  

Leeds: Subby's headline would be more poignant if he simply left out the word "gay. "


Why are you bigoted towards polygamists? Sounds like privilege talking.
 
2012-09-19 11:42:07 AM  
When exactly did all of the biblical definitions of marriage get tossed out and replaced with the one man, one woman type of marriage?

Bring back biblical marriage!!!!!

(Which has included gay marriage in the past, most notably saints who were married to each other).

// Present day Christians seem to have no concept of reality
 
2012-09-19 11:43:07 AM  

OptimusHime: I've always wondered where the bestiality correlation entered into the "logical" area. You'd think that in the institution of marriage, the ability to determine consent and an understanding of what each party was getting into would be pretty much required.

Until someone comes to explaining to me how it's cool to make the intensely screwy leap of thought from gay marriage to interspecies marriage, I'm going to consider anyone who thinks that's even a remote possibility to be off the reservation and unfit to determine policy.


Because the idea that bestiality is the "next logical step" after homosexuality isn't based on concepts such as consent. It's based on ickiness. Bestiality is more icky that homosexuality, which is more icky than heterosexuality, so it's a slippery slope of ick.

When you point out that a civilized society doesn't base its laws on what one group considered icky, they next go to the "it's unnatural" argument. Which is bunkum, of course, for any scientific meaning of "unnatural," but then you're into the dark "evolution is only a theory" and "God created the starlight en route" swamp of antiscience and have to brave the R.O.U.S.es and grues.

That does remind me, though. I need to get my hands on a copy of "Evolution's Rainbow."
 
2012-09-19 11:43:54 AM  

stonicus: Theaetetus: stonicus: The benefit is that it is replaced with a civil institution we all can access and use.

Like, say, "marriage"?

Unless you're gay... then it's not an institution we can all use.


Massachusetts, among others, begs to differ.
 
2012-09-19 11:46:13 AM  

Big Ramifications: Laughing long and loud that the main rationale faags are using to poo-poo his analogy is that THEY ARE OFFENDED! That's just beautiful.


Freeper servers down again?
 
2012-09-19 11:49:46 AM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.

Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two.

And groups of people who love each other are worth less (or more...?) than pairs of people who love each other because?

Who said anything about worth? You appear to be the first person that mentioned it. Why do you think polygamists are worth any less or more, and why do you think that we should base laws on assumptions about people's worth? Frankly, I think that's disgusting.


You flatly stated that polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships. Don't project your bigotry.
 
2012-09-19 11:50:20 AM  

stonicus: For the case of gay marriage, yes, it is a "add an addendum".


Not at all. It's actually just a replacement of the terms "husband" and "wife" with "spouse".

But we're also discussing polygamy as well.

But the problem there is that the same change doesn't apply, because you have more than two people. For example, if one spouse is unconscious, the other spouse is default medical proxy, with the sole and exclusive power to make medical decisions. How does that work with three spouses? How can two people simultaneously have sole and exclusive power? It's a contradiction.

Now, sure, you can suggest other rules to use - spouses must be explicitly ordered, or there's a tie breaking rule, etc. - but those other rules are not currently in the statutes. Hence, unlike gay marriage, polygamy actually requires substantive changes to the statutes and/or creation of a new institution.

Additionally, unlike gay marriage, polygamy is neither an equal protection nor a due process violation. "Groups of people larger than 2" are not even quasi-suspect the way gender is, nor is polygamy collectively held to be a fundamental right the way marriage is. Thus, the courts have no ability to order polygamy to be legalized, they way they can with gay marriage.

Thus, legalizing gay marriage is a court-mandated constitutional imperative. Legalizing polygamy is a purely legislative decision.
 
2012-09-19 11:51:58 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: No, its OK to equate it to polygamy.

Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two.

And groups of people who love each other are worth less (or more...?) than pairs of people who love each other because?

Who said anything about worth? You appear to be the first person that mentioned it. Why do you think polygamists are worth any less or more, and why do you think that we should base laws on assumptions about people's worth? Frankly, I think that's disgusting.

You flatly stated that polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships. Don't project your bigotry.


See, lying is difficult when you're simultaneously quoting me. As you note above, I said:
"Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two."

Do you see the words "polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships" that you claim I "flatly stated" there? I sure don't. I don't think anyone else does either. Hence, you're either insane and hallucinating, or a liar. Occam's Razor suggests the latter, liar.
 
2012-09-19 11:54:49 AM  
Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.
 
2012-09-19 11:57:54 AM  

Theaetetus: See, lying is difficult when you're simultaneously quoting me. As you note above, I said:
"Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two."

Do you see the words "polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships" that you claim I "flatly stated" there? I sure don't. I don't think anyone else does either. Hence, you're either insane and hallucinating, or a liar. Occam's Razor suggests the latter, liar.


but.. but.. they're adults who love each other! Who are you to oppose them, they're not hurting you. Why are you so bigoted?
 
2012-09-19 11:58:33 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.


Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.
 
2012-09-19 11:58:44 AM  

ciberido: When you point out that a civilized society doesn't base its laws on what one group considered icky, they next go to the "it's unnatural" argument. Which is bunkum, of course, for any scientific meaning of "unnatural," but then you're into the dark "evolution is only a theory" and "God created the starlight en route" swamp of antiscience and have to brave the R.O.U.S.es and grues.


Never liked the whole separation of man and nature. Humans are a part of nature. A battleship is just as natural as a beaver dam. Otherwise, *everything* is unnatural. Cars are unnatural, the internet is unnatural...


Theaetetus: stonicus: For the case of gay marriage, yes, it is a "add an addendum".

Not at all. It's actually just a replacement of the terms "husband" and "wife" with "spouse".

But we're also discussing polygamy as well.

But the problem there is that the same change doesn't apply, because you have more than two people. For example, if one spouse is unconscious, the other spouse is default medical proxy, with the sole and exclusive power to make medical decisions. How does that work with three spouses? How can two people simultaneously have sole and exclusive power? It's a contradiction.

Now, sure, you can suggest other rules to use - spouses must be explicitly ordered, or there's a tie breaking rule, etc. - but those other rules are not currently in the statutes. Hence, unlike gay marriage, polygamy actually requires substantive changes to the statutes and/or creation of a new institution.

Additionally, unlike gay marriage, polygamy is neither an equal protection nor a due process violation. "Groups of people larger than 2" are not even quasi-suspect the way gender is, nor is polygamy collectively held to be a fundamental right the way marriage is. Thus, the courts have no ability to order polygamy to be legalized, they way they can with gay marriage.

Thus, legalizing gay marriage is a court-mandated constitutional imperative. Legalizing polygamy is a purely legislative decision.


Everything you just said supports my reasoning for a total re-write. In just the case of gay marriage, no, not needed. But since we were discussing polygamy as well, you see as well as I do the current rules just won't even come close.
 
2012-09-19 11:59:35 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: See, lying is difficult when you're simultaneously quoting me. As you note above, I said:
"Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two."

Do you see the words "polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships" that you claim I "flatly stated" there? I sure don't. I don't think anyone else does either. Hence, you're either insane and hallucinating, or a liar. Occam's Razor suggests the latter, liar.

but.. but.. they're adults who love each other! Who are you to oppose them, they're not hurting you. Why are you so bigoted?


[cough]

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than bestiality

 
2012-09-19 12:01:17 PM  

stonicus: Everything you just said supports my reasoning for a total re-write. In just the case of gay marriage, no, not needed. But since we were discussing polygamy as well, you see as well as I do the current rules just won't even come close.


Sure, but there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage, so the proper battleground for that is the legislature and the ballot, not the courts. I'd be happy to help draft new statutes if you know of any senators that would be willing to sponsor them.
 
2012-09-19 12:05:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.

Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.


Isn't it your side of the argument arguing that by denying gays the right of marriage, they are second class citizens. By definition, isn't a second class citizen someone who is considered to be less?

Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: See, lying is difficult when you're simultaneously quoting me. As you note above, I said:
"Sure, if you don't know how to count any higher than two."

Do you see the words "polygamous relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships" that you claim I "flatly stated" there? I sure don't. I don't think anyone else does either. Hence, you're either insane and hallucinating, or a liar. Occam's Razor suggests the latter, liar.

but.. but.. they're adults who love each other! Who are you to oppose them, they're not hurting you. Why are you so bigoted?

[cough]
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than bestiality


The funny thing is that even people with down's understand that they're less intelligent, how is it that you're not even as self aware as they are? Yes, I realize exactly what I said. The POINT that should have been picked up, was that this is a sarcastic comment, and if I'm a bigot, like people as yourself like to label me, then you are as well.
 
2012-09-19 12:06:33 PM  

Theaetetus: there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage,


There is no such requirement for gay marriage. It's an entirely bullshiat claim.
 
2012-09-19 12:08:26 PM  

Joe Blowme: u sound racist


did you just disagree with me?? your racist
 
2012-09-19 12:13:43 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.

Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.

Isn't it your side of the argument arguing that by denying gays the right of marriage, they are second class citizens.


Not really - you're actually skipping over the entire argument and going straight to the conclusion... and then claiming that if two conclusions are similar, then the argument supporting each must be identical. So... never took a class in logic, eh?

The funny thing is that even people with down's understand that they're less intelligent, how is it that you're not even as self aware as they are? Yes, I realize exactly what I said. The POINT that should have been picked up, was that this is a sarcastic comment, and if I'm a bigot, like people as yourself like to label me, then you are as well.

Oh, I know that's your argument. I've said this all along: 99% of the people who bring up polygamy in these threads have no interest in legalizing polygamy. Rather, they assume that, like them, people who are pro-gay marriage are actually anti-polygamy, and that therefore they can call them hypocrites.
What they fail to understand is (i) that we're not anti-polygamy at all, and (ii) that the arguments for legalizing polygamy and the arguments for legalizing gay marriage are entirely different... Hence, there could not possibly be any hypocrisy, even if we were anti-polygamy (which we're not).
 
2012-09-19 12:15:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage,

There is no such requirement for gay marriage. It's an entirely bullshiat claim.


Multiple state courts and federal courts beg to differ. But if you've got some actual argument as to why banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 5th and 14th amendments, please feel free to state it. However, simply stating a conclusion - "it's bullshiat" - will fail to be persuasive over the reasoning in In re Marriage Cases, Goodridge, Perry, etc.
 
2012-09-19 12:16:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.

Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.


equate: to regard as equal.

equal like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; 

Theateteussure, if you can't count past two(re: whether gays and polygamists could be equated)

What exactly am I missing here?
 
2012-09-19 12:17:43 PM  
Whatever. Let me know when I can marry a bonobo.

/Four hands.
/Prehensile lips
 
2012-09-19 12:17:49 PM  

Theaetetus: the arguments for legalizing gay marriage are entirely different


No.. they're not. One differs by the sexes involved, the other differs by numbers involved. They are each different than actual marriage in a fundamental way. The fact that you see one as closer to real marriage only shows your bias.
 
2012-09-19 12:17:59 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.

Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.

equate: to regard as equal.

equal like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; 

Theateteussure, if you can't count past two(re: whether gays and polygamists could be equated)

What exactly am I missing here?


That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?
 
2012-09-19 12:20:33 PM  
*sigh
Fun argument until the usual boring as hell pedants came in and shiat all over it.
 
2012-09-19 12:20:47 PM  

TheBlank: Birth control is not a hot button issue in the US.

Requiring it to be free (i.e. having everybody else pay for your birth control) is a hot button issue.
Forcing religious institutions who, for their own reasons, decide its against their moral code, to pay for your birth control is a hot button issue.

If you notice, the two issues at hand are:
1) Can you force me to pay for your stuff?
2) Can you force me to pay for stuff I find morally repugnant?


Suppose I find the military to be morally repugnant? Can you force me to pay for that? Suppose Joe Smith finds NASA to be morally repugnant? Can you force him to pay for that?

What, exactly, is it you think you're proposing? That we rewrite tax law so that everybody only has to pay for what we like? Or do you think we should keep doing basically what we've been doing: paying our taxes into a general fund, and then deciding democratically what that money is spent on? 


TheBlank: Availability and legality of birth control is a well settled issue, and only brought up as a fear tactic by the left looking for support of the ignorant.


Please don't try putting words in other people's mouths or speculating on motives. It only makes you look dishonest and/or sadly ill-informed, neither of which does anything for your credibility.
 
2012-09-19 12:21:02 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: the arguments for legalizing gay marriage are entirely different

No.. they're not. One differs by the sexes involved, the other differs by numbers involved.


That makes them entirely different. Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, requiring heightened scrutiny under the 14th amendment. Numbers are not suspect, and thus require only rational basis scrutiny.

They are each different than actual marriage in a fundamental way.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are plenty of married people here in Massachusetts. Are you claiming they're not "actually" married? Do you have a legal citation for this incredible proposition?

The fact that you see one as closer to real marriage only shows your bias.

No, it means that I can count past two without hitting "potato," like you.
 
2012-09-19 12:22:17 PM  

Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage,

There is no such requirement for gay marriage. It's an entirely bullshiat claim.

Multiple state courts and federal courts beg to differ. But if you've got some actual argument as to why banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 5th and 14th amendments, please feel free to state it. However, simply stating a conclusion - "it's bullshiat" - will fail to be persuasive over the reasoning in In re Marriage Cases, Goodridge, Perry, etc.


Replace all your arguments for gay marriage with arguments for why heroine users should enjoy the same rights to partake of their drug as an alcohol consumer. Both come down to personal preference, and preferences aren't valid legal defenses.
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report