If the government has no right to ban same-sex couples, why should it still have the right to ban three-person marriages? What is the distinction? If marriage is about love, and love can exist between more than two people, why not allow it?

Those students should ask themselves that rather than shout the guy down.

"If the government has no right to ban same-sex couples, why should it still have the right to ban three-person marriages? What is the distinction?"

The first thing I always think of is that gay marriage does not place any new burdens on our legal system. The same laws that apply to heterosexual marriages can apply to gay marriages. Take divorce law for example. Child support. Spousal privilege. It would be a mess dealing with multiple partner marriages.

"If marriage is about love, and love can exist between more than two people, why not allow it?"

Why is Adamm pushing for Sharia Law? Are you a Muslim Adamm?

""If the government has no right to ban same-sex couples, why should it still have the right to ban three-person marriages? What is the distinction?"

The distinction is that there is not a huge number of three person relationships demanding equal rights. Personally, I wouldn't care if we did allow polygamy, there are actually some good arguments to be made in favor of it. I believe it's in the Bible.

So minority rights should only be allowed if the minority is big enough?

"So minority rights should only be allowed if the minority is big enough?"
Reality bites. I didn't invent reality but I do acknowledge it.

if it can be done consensually, why not?

I have no problem with polygamy. You have the right to marry aka be stupid, so you should have the right to be really stupid

It only makes sense. Polygamy should be supported by "equal rights" individual supporting marriage of homosexuals (if they are actually supporting "equal rights") and so should Incestuous marriage.

"if it can be done consensually, why not?"

Depends on what your definition of 'it' is.

"It only makes sense. Polygamy should be supported by "equal rights" individual supporting marriage of homosexuals (if they are actually supporting "equal rights") and so should Incestuous marriage."

Now isn't that clever...to sneak incestuous in there and pretend it is somehow no more dangerous for society than homosexual marriage or even polygomous. We all know the reason incestuous marriage is illegal so no you will not be allowed to have a polygomous marriage with your sisters and brothers.

"If the government has no right to ban same-sex couples, why should it still have the right to ban three-person marriages? What is the distinction? If marriage is about love, and love can exist between more than two people, why not allow it?

Those students should ask themselves that rather than shout the guy down."

The problem with this, of course, is that you are misrepresenting Santorum's position. He's not pro-gay marriage, pro-polygamy for the reasons you state.

He's arguing that gay marriage is wrong and bringing up polygamy under the erroneous assumption that unlike gay marriage, everyone knows that polygamy is 'wrong'. He's making the 'slippery slope' arguement that if you allow one, you'd have to allow the other and that would be just the worst thing in the world....

The students were shouting him down because he's a rambling idiot.

When politicians types can not effectively argue against a policy, they will argue positions which have nothing to do with the policy in question. Its called a straw man.

As soon as somebody suggests that polygamy be legalized, this can be discussed. Until then, please encourage conversation as it relates to the policy at hand.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-06 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh... so incestuous people don't have the right to choose what they do with their body... but pregnant women do, homosexuals do, and polygamists do?

Interesting take on "equal rights" and "equality" there Danni.

I support more equality than you do.

#13 and 14- I'm perfectly aware Santorum opposes both. My objection is to the student proponents of gay marriage in the audience that reacted so strongly against what Santorum was saying. The "policy in question" is if government has a right to say one this is okay and not the other. When Santorum says "well what about polygamy" they should say "sure, why not?"

It's not a straw man argument in this case because the issue is allowing government to limit what's acceptable as marriage. So, all types of marriage are fair game for discussion.

You're a moron. Next case.

Potent, letus.

If the government didn't tell people who to have sex with, the human race would cease to exist because people wouldn't know how to reproduce adequately.

Sounds like a evangelical socialist to me.

Truthy, retard.

Santorum has no idea why homosexual marriages should not be allowed outside of his over the top whackjob religion told him so. He has no intellectual curiosity on the subject, takes the bibles word as law, wants to subject the entire US to his religious sharia law and thus cannot rationally debate the issue on it's own.

Just like Expresretardation linking homosexuality with incest. He cannot argue for a legal justification for denying equal marriage rights to a homosexual, so he has to link it to something someone would have an argument against in incest.

Actually I am surprised that he did not jump directly to bestiality.

Oh... so incestuous people don't have the right to choose what they do with their body... but pregnant women do, homosexuals do, and polygamists do?

So you are advocating legalization of recreational drugs. Marijuana, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. under your right to chose doctrine.

Santorum has no idea.

KISS

Any man that can deal with one let alone several women in marriage bless his hart and that man not only has my respect but blessing to boot.

Same goes for a woman.

i support polygamy, pollyanna, polystyrene, pollywog stew and anything else starting with or sounding like polly- that gives someone a better grip on life...

...that said, i draw the limit at pauly shore. that guy is a talentless menace...

It's not a straw man argument in this case because the issue is allowing government to limit what's acceptable as marriage. So, all types of marriage are fair game for discussion.

#17 | Posted by adammm at 2012-01-06 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag

If it is consensual I agree. Animals dont fit that requirement.

Also lets remember you are aloud to believe any religion you like. You are not allowed to practice any religion you like. Otherwise there would be dog fucking child molesting virgin sacrificing and so on.

...that said, i draw the limit at pauly shore. that guy is a talentless menace...

#25 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2012-01-06 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here-here!

unfortunately so many women are men and men are women you need to get into their pants pretty deep in order to prove to yourself that they are what they really say they are AND to prove to yourself that you are not gay. **this underwear fells kinda sexy... that don't make me queer, right?** anyway, that's not always easy. fortunately god invented alcohol, splitcrotch shapewear and the jungle rhythms of negro music to make it all much much easier and quicker...

#22 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-06 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

News flash, Gomer, I don't have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry. If this is a free country they should. If this is a free country with "equal rights" and "equality" polygamy should be allowed, as should incestuous marriages.

Bestiality doesn't belong in that list because every other situation deals with one or more people. Animals are not people. Are you too stupid to figure that out?

If you want "equality" and homosexuals are fighting to be married on the basis of "we can't marry the person we love"... then consenting adults who are in love should be able to get married, no matter how many, or how close genetically.

The fact that the "equal rights" and "equality" crowd fights against this is so freaking hilarious.

Like I said. I stand for more equality than you do.

Also note, the drug reference does not make any sense in relation to what I said. A woman's right to choose what to do with her body deals with abortion and children. If a woman has a right to kill an unborn child... then an incestuous couple has a right to take the risk of having a genetically deficient child. It was used in the sense of children and marriage... not drugs.

Get with the program. So much for your fighting for "equal rights" and "equality".

"The fact that the "equal rights" and "equality" crowd fights against this is so freaking hilarious. "

I'm not aware of to many people in the equal rights crowd who rail against polygamy. I might just be out of the loop though. I just wasnt aware anyone cared if more than one person marries.

"as should incestuous marriages."

Also not that I care but there are genetic and health concerns that revolve around incestuous marriage.

Once upon a time (1/t) pretty little Polly Nomial was strolling across a field of vectors when she came to the boundary of a singularly large matrix. Now Polly was convergent, and her mother had made it an absolute condition that she must never, ever enter such an array without her brackets on. Polly, however, who had changed her variables that morning and was feeling particularly badly behaved, ignored this condition on the basis that it was insufficient, and made her way in amongst the complex elements.

"Also not that I care but there are genetic and health concerns that revolve around incestuous marriage"

plus filling in the birth certificate when the baby is born. geesh, what a nightmare. it's much safer and easier to find a woman that looks and acts like your mother than try scoring her...

Also not that I care but there are genetic and health concerns that revolve around incestuous marriage.

#31 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy at 2012-01-06 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right... there are genetic and health concerns for anyone having a child. There are health concerns when a mother decides to get an abortion. These are two consenting adults of which the mother has the right to choose what to do with her body. If she wants to have an abortion... that is alright. If she wants to have a potentially, genetically deficient child... that should be alright as well.

Unless of course you think all genetically deficient children should be aborted...

#29 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-06 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't pretend that what people of a certain ilk dislike about gay marriage has anything to do with other forms of marriage. Cause it doesnt and your old enough to know that.

Even If this country came together and said "Polygamy Ok! Instinctual Marriage Fine!"

People still would speak out against gay marriage. You know it and Santorum certainly knows it. Try not to pretend this is a matter of ensuring equality for everyone. Its a religious and political wedge the parties are using to divide Americans.

Like I said... Gay incestuous marriage is a go.

Your move.

He's right. And I don't see how they're "nonsensical theoretical tangents". In many parts of the world, polygamy isn't theoretical. That said, why doesn't the gay marriage crowd accept polygamy? What's the problem? We're all consenting adults here, right?

#37 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-01-06 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Im not sure there is a problem other than the gays are having enough trouble getting their lifestyle excepted that they dont have the energy to fight more battles for other minorities. That being said it would be awesome to see them team up.

Uh huh. Militant Islamists and gays. That would be funny to watch them team up.

#38, it's a good point. I just get mad at the video in the link of all the kids shouting in protest at Santorum when he says why not polygamy. I get the overwhelming impression that most of them oppose it, and that seems like the same double standard that the religinazis have.

"Im not sure there is a problem other than the gays are having enough trouble getting their lifestyle excepted that they dont have the energy to fight more battles for other minorities."

Yeah gays want to be excepted. Hilarious, get you mommy to explain why it's funny.

Well a enemy of your enemy is your friend right?

And I realize Santorum opposing gay marriage is an extension of his homophobia, but that doesn't mean his "slippery slope" argument isn't valid.

It's only when you leave the entire realm of humanity and go to bestiality that I think it's fair to differentiate and for marriage rights to not apply.

Well a enemy of your enemy is your friend right?

#42 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy

Sure. Muslims and gays are friends now, because gays want to be married, and Muslims want to use the same legal arguments and have multiple wives.

Then the Muslims want to take the gays and kill them. But for now, it'll be a nice party.

Yeah gays want to be excepted. Hilarious, get you mommy to explain why it's funny.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-06 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:
If this is a spelling issue then perhaps my mom could explain whats wrong with, "Hilarious, get you mommy to explain why its funny.".

Gays don't want marriage they want to destroy marriage and the traditional patriarchal family. Are gays that insecure about their relationships that they need a piece of paper from the state? They're just looking for mainstreaming.

It is a slippery slope. Once SSM is recognized there won't be any way to prohibit the recognition of every other arrangement that someone wants to call marriage. Marriage will be anything and everything, then marriage will be nothing. Read the 1972 gay rights platform.

There won't be much left of society once the patriarchal family is destroyed. Just look at the black community for an example.

-Read the 1972 gay rights platform.

can you post it?

Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

ummmm, they dropped those two demands, I hope.

"they want to destroy marriage and the traditional patriarchal family. "

Traditional families are doing a fine enough job of that without any help from the gays. Just look at every marriage.

"There won't be much left of society once the patriarchal family is destroyed."

Be afraid! I didn't Norman Rockwell posted on the drudge.
Welcome to the 21st century buddy. Enjoy your madness.

#38 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy at 2012-01-06 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that most homosexuals claim that they are for "equal rights" and "equality" not just the special interest of homosexuals. If they are really for "equal rights" and "equality" they would support polygamy and incestuous marriage rather then decrying it.

It is a major inconsistency with the "equal rights" people.

That is why I am more for "equal rights" and "equality" than Danni will ever be.

There won't be much left of society once the patriarchal family is destroyed. Just look at the black community for an example.
#46 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

Poor comparison.

And they been throwing this bullshit scare tactic for decades. It wasn't true then just as much as it's not true now.

"There won't be much left of society once the patriarchal family is destroyed"

endless "one day at a time" reruns. god help us all!

they would support polygamy and incestuous marriage rather then decrying it.
#51 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

That's difficult to do in a society that demands popularity to develop equality. In other words, because so many on the right have used polygamy and incest as steadfast reasons against gay marriage, the homosexual community has been forced to speak out against such behavior to maintain their level of perceived credibility. Because there is no logical reason why gays shouldn't marry (i.e. nonreligious and ideological reasons), the only reason touted at all involves the slippery slope into allowing bestiality, incest, and polygamy. The homosexual community's hand has been forced into this attitude because of fear mongering by the religious right.

So minority rights should only be allowed if the minority is big enough?
#6 | Posted by adammm at 2012-01-06 12:21 PM

Homosexuals in reality are massing in every State for marriage equality.

Heterosexual Fundamentalist Christians are only blocking them, without any evidence gay marriage is damaging, dysfunctional or even antithetical to Christy values one bit. The reality is that if two sane adult individuals want to marry there isn't anything Biblical in opposition to it. Sure, you can claim Leviticus condemns sexual acts, but it doesn't mention marriage or love. I wonder if the predominantly male clergy marry to God also interpret their duties as non-sexual? Christian interpretation is so confusing without a bigoted agenda to taint every word..

Where are these other alleged minorities massing? Lemmie guess, "in your pants"? Lame, dude.. That was just uncalled for.:]

I don't know how your whole Bible thing relates, but whatever.

If a polygamist came out publicly, they'd be humiliated and spat at. The feminists would tear them apart, churches would condemn them, and TPM and all those students would dismiss them just like they did in this article. That's why you don't hear about it.

But Santorum's logic in this case is sound, not "nonsensical." All gay rights advocates should support polygamy as well. I do, because I see the glaring flaw of saying that two people who love each other deserve the right to marry, but that the government is ok to keep banning three people from the same thing. If there can be laws forbidding polygamy, why not gay marriage too? If government can say what's ok and what isn't, why should gays be the only minority that gets equality?

Thinkprogress, not TPM.

@52
You say that it's a poor comparison but don't give any reasons. It's a perfect example and the destruction of the black family hasn't worked out for them too well. Black patriarchal families do pretty well socioeconomically. The rest do very poorly.

if it can be done consensually, why not?

Polygamy invariably ends up with one partner being given the short end of the stick.

"B.C. Supreme Court has upheld Canada's polygamy laws, but says minors who end up in polygamous marriages should be exempt from prosecution.

In a 335-page decision released on Wednesday, Chief Justice Robert Bauman ruled in favour of the section of the Criminal Code outlawing polygamous unions.

In his ruling, Bauman said while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society.

'I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm.'â€" B.C. Chief Justice Robert Bauman

“More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

But he suggested the law shouldn’t be used to criminalize minors who find themselves married into polygamous unions.

But Bauman concluded “women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse.”

He also pointed out higher mortality rates of children born into polygamous families, the dangers of early sexualization of girls, gender inequality, and the problem of so-called lost boys â€" young men turfed out of polygamous communities as a result of competition for young brides.

#58 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

I don't need to offer any reasoning to someone who questions:

"Are gays that insecure about their relationships that they need a piece of paper from the state? They're just looking for mainstreaming."

Allowing one group of people to marry under the law while simultaneously not allowing another group to do the same is discrimination and prejudice.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all bad comparisons.

And you don't bother to give any reasoning as to why gays would want to destroy anything. It's not traditional marriage that is keeping them from their goals, it is ideological runts like yourself that believe change and progress equates doom and gloom.

The 1950s are over. Suck it up.

Allowing one group of people to marry under the law while simultaneously not allowing another group to do the same is discrimination and prejudice.

* * * *

So it's okay to discriminate on the basis of the fact that they're first cousins, or that they're Muslim or Mormons. In those cases, the fact that they're all consenting adults is irrelevant. Gotta have a healthy society, you know.

But it's not okay to discriminate on the basis of the fact that they're both men. I think I got it!

"they want to destroy marriage and the traditional patriarchal family. "

That would be the lesbians. Gay guy marriages would be a twopatriarctical family.

And what if they don't want kids? Are you one of those morons who believe marriage is only for those who want to breed? and once the breeding days are over, they should divorce?

Santorum......talk about a religious control freak....

an yet people vote for this clown?

#51 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-06 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope you didnt get the impression that I was implying your not for equal rights.

What im saying is, for some people (certain religious groups) this has nothing to do with equal rights and never has. I was making the argument that even if all minorities seeking legal marriage got what they wanted and were excepted by mainstream America it still wouldn't change the way certain people feel about gay marriage.
I think this is a way of spinning the argument apposed to addressing it head on. The fact that Santorum uses polygamy as an example means nothing. His views on gay marriage wouldn't change. Because if thats how he/you feel, you would be working hard to get equal rights for gays as well as polygamists. And we both know thats not going to happen cause he and perhaps you too aren't for equality for gays and polygamists.

the fact that gays aren't advocating for polygamy (while their at it) means less still.

I think thats why the crowd responded the way it did. Not because they arent for equality but because this was a politician side stepping the question.

#59 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

What pisses me off about people like HugeNot is the notion that bestiality, polygamy, incest, and gay marriage are all equitable because they all involve sex. They don't consider the characters in these scenarios.

Bestiality: willing human participant and an animal with consent unknown.
Polygamy: scenario used by religion and power hungry patriarchs that is highly associated with numerous young males on the street, child sex abuse, and domestic abuse at a far higher degree than traditional marriage or other nontraditional relationships.
Incest: A scenario involving consenting adults with an attraction they can't control, yet have the ability to enter alternative scenarios that are less taboo (for the sake of argument, I am not against incest as long as the consenting adults are of a mature age - sex between adolescent siblings has shown to have detrimental psychological effects)

Homosexual relationship - a scenario where two consenting adults who have no control over their attractions for each other and don't have the ability to enter alternative relationships that are less taboo (i.e. heterosexual).

There is no moral relevance between homosexuality, bestiality, incest, or polygamy for these reasons:
1) There is nothing biological about wanting to enter into a polygamist relationship.
2)There is nothing biological about the wanting to enter into an incestuous relationship.
3)There may be something biological about the wanting to enter into a bestiality relationship, but the limitations of an animal providing consent relegates bestiality as immoral.
4) Homosexuality is biological - someone who is gay has no control over the wanting to enter into a homosexual relationship. A homosexual has no control over the attraction to the same sex just as a heterosexual has no control over the attraction to the opposite sex.
It is for these reasons that the moral objection to gay marriage should be considered false.

Gays should be allowed to marry.

Pure and simple

Just don't ask for any kind of reparations, let's just move on.

If homosexuality is biological, one would think that nature would have allowed for gays to reproduce. But they don't. Apparently natural selection has seen to it that homosexuality is a biological defect.

But whatever. Don't really know what your blathering about what may or may not be biological has anything to do with whether a country open-minded enough to allow fag marriage feels like it should draw the line at plural marriage. Still, you know best. You sure seem to talk a lot, albeit without saying much.

Man, the government really, really needs to get out of the marriage business.

Nothing biological about a polygamist relationship? Are you serious?

It's called being a guy who likes to have a lot of sex with lots of people, but having the decency to marry all of them rather than restrain yourself in just one marriage.

Marriage shouldn't be a legal term and any legal benefit of marriage that government currently provides should be eliminated. Consenting adults should be able to provide for each other as they wish by entering into civil contracts.

The term "marriage" should be left to those who believe that superstitious ties, ceremony and religious tradition are important. But, it should have no part in government regulation.

3)There may be something biological about the wanting to enter into a bestiality relationship, but the limitations of an animal providing consent relegates bestiality as immoral.

* * * *

Interesting. I don't know of many cows or chickens who give their consent to be slaughtered on your behalf when it comes to today's Blue Plate Special. Makes it kind of a stupid argument to make. How about, if you're engaging in beastiality, you're a sick POS?

Human civilization used to be able to make those kind of distinctions. Now it's all legalese. Who are you to decide what's immoral anyway? I think homosexuality is. So here we are. I'll never vote for gay marriage. Has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the fact that it's just wrong. I won't go along with polygamy either. But you're living in a fantasy world if you think we can pass fag marriage, and there won't be tens of millions of other people using the same arguments you do to have their so-called "lifestyle choices" be made a-okay also, with all the tax benefits that go with.

#69, stupid and lazy people reproduce all the time. Humanity doesn't have to worry about survival of the fittest anymore.

Also, if polygamy is legal, I'd imagine the divorce rate would drop a lot.

#61 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

From my #66 -

Polygamy: scenario used by religion and power hungry patriarchs that is highly associated with numerous young males on the street, child sex abuse, and domestic abuse at a far higher degree than traditional marriage or other nontraditional relationships.
Incest: A scenario involving consenting adults with an attraction they can't control, yet have the ability to enter alternative scenarios that are less taboo (for the sake of argument, I am not against incest as long as the consenting adults are of a mature age - sex between adolescent siblings has shown to have detrimental psychological effects)

"But it's not okay to discriminate on the basis of the fact that they're both men."

Nope, still not okay and I suffer zero conflict. If you don't understand the reasoning from my #66, there is no bother to have this conversation.

Children should not partake in incestuous relationships. Parents and children shouldn't either. Mature, of age cousins? Have at it hoss. Not my problem. You want to do anal too? Go for it. It's not my preference, but it's not my bedroom either. Except when crimes are being committed, the State shouldn't be involved in the bedroom. Polygamy evidences an association with disproportionate amounts of crime (listed above). The state has an interest in controlling such behavior. To equate homosexuality to any of these scenarios is incredibly disingenuous.

Nope, it isn't. Homosexuals have a far higher incidence of disease, depression, and number of sexual partners. The state has an interest in controlling such behavior. Glad we're agreed.

Still, you know best.
#69 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

I'm glad you can admit that in the least.

Concerning the basis of biology in the debate - we as a country have made a strong push to no discriminate against individuals who have biological characteristics beyond their control (i.e. physical characteristics, genetic disorders, brain damage, etc). Homosexuality is part of this group and the inclusion of it determines whether outlawing gay marriage is discriminatory or not.

Because they are born with a characteristic beyond their control (i.e. attraction to the same gender), they should not be discriminated against in terms of legal marriage, nor should they be compared to other scenarios in which the participants have full control. It's a bad practice and completely discriminatory.

It's called being a guy who likes to have a lot of sex with lots of people.
#71 | POSTED BY ADAMMM

No it's called not being disciplined or greedy. Wanting large amounts of sex may be biological, but making the conscious choice of spreading that sex around to multiple partners instead of one is completely a choice.

I can't believe you threw that out there as a legitimate argument.

No it's called not being disciplined or greedy. Wanting large amounts of sex may be biological, but making the conscious choice of spreading that sex around to multiple partners instead of one is completely a choice.

I can't believe you threw that out there as a legitimate argument.

#79 | Posted by rstybeach11

So . . . a man having sex with another man is biological, but his wanting to have sex with more than one man is "completely a choice"?

"Gay" "marriage". Whole world has gone insane.

If homosexuality is biological, one would think that nature would have allowed for gays to reproduce. But they don't. Apparently natural selection has seen to it that homosexuality is a biological defect.
But whatever. Don't really know what your blathering about what may or may not be biological has anything to do with whether a country open-minded enough to allow fag marriage feels like it should draw the line at plural marriage. Still, you know best. You sure seem to talk a lot, albeit without saying much.
#69 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-01-06 06:11 PM

Uh, then what makes homosexuality? Oh, that's right - gays are being born from sexual union. So, the sex is wrong, the birth or the biology? I'm confused which portion of procreation you claim to be defective.

Face facts - none of you can win an argument so long as you LIE. Homosexuality isn't a choice or abnormal behavior whatsoever. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals are born in every sexually diverse animal since time immemorial, unlike the very recent Christianity which would have us believe the planet is a mere 6000 years old. So, basically your Biblical interpretations are factually nuts - just like the manner of your bait and switch argument. Homosexuals en mass are asking for marriage, not some other theoretical minority.

How about, if you're engaging in beastiality, you're a sick POS?
#73 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

That's the point! You are psychologically 'sick' if you conduct in such behavior (I don't know this for sure but that's the point of it 'possibly' being a biological characteristic and it is something beyond your control, but even so, such behavior is still immoral because you don't know if the animal would consent and therefor a poor comparison to homosexual marriage).

"everything to do with the fact that it's just wrong."

This is complete and utter bullshit. You can't comprehend a sound argument as to why it's wrong, so you say that it's "just" wrong. Good luck using that in a court of law - which by the way is the determinant of morality in our country (you know the part of government that makes laws), which is exactly why voting against discrimination is completely consistant with all other facets of what we consider right. The problem you have is that you're not part of the group being discriminated against, you are in fact the one who is discriminating. Can't you admit that in the least?

I can admit the fact that I am discriminating against bestiality and polygamy, but for sound moral reasons (i.e. crime and lack of consent). You discriminate against homosexuals because it's "just" wrong. Complete and under nonsense lacking of all logic.

"Wanting to have sex with a man may be biological, but making the conscious choice of acting on that want is completely a choice."

Same logic, Rsty. Sounds a lot like the christian fundamentalist argument.

People love whoever they want to. Some people love more than one, earnestly. Let them marry. And don't berate someone and pretend there's a difference between straight marriage, or gay marriage and polygamy. It's all sex, it's all love, it's all vowing commitment.

Also, if polygamy is legal, I'd imagine the divorce rate would drop a lot.
#75 | Posted by adammm

Seriously? What makes you think that? I'd imagine the per capita divorce rate would go up, marriage with one partner being complicated enough, the logistics of multiple partner unions would likely be higher. And imagine the headaches the judges will have in those divorce proceedings, trying to untangle assets, apportion spousal and/or child support....

Also, if polygamy is legal, I'd imagine the divorce rate would drop a lot.

#75 | POSTED BY ADAMMM AT 2012-01-06 06:16 PM | REPLY

I don't know about that, but an interesting thought.

I'm not in a court of law. I'm on a blog. There are a lot of things that are legal that shouldn't be, and a lot of things that are illegal that shouldn't be. Right now, gay marriage is illegal. It has been to the courts, put before the American public, and we've said 'no' just about every time. We've also said the same for incest, polygamy, and beastiality. Sorry about that. The way it is. You keep insisting there's a big difference between them all. But in one key respect, they're the same: America has said no. Occasionally you have a queer judge throw out the law and pretend otherwise, but the answer is still no.

but his wanting to have sex with more than one man is "completely a choice"?
#80 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

His maintenance of discipline within a monogamous relationship is most definitely a choice. Which is why I agree the government should remove itself from the term "marriage" altogether. Because cheating on your spouse is not a crime, the state should have no say in who should be part of a marriage.

Again, the aspect of multiple individuals in a single relationship has evidenced higher rates of domestic crime - a sound moral reason against polygamy. Nothing of the sort is associated with homosexual relationships. Hence, the government should not discriminate against homosexuals who want something only allowed to heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is biologically beyond the control of an individual (just like the color of one's skin). Homosexual relationships are not associated with a heightened or irregular rate of crime. For these reasons, homosexuals should not be discriminated against in terms of marriage. Why do you choose to discriminate? Oh yea - because it's "just" wrong. I hope you don't make other judgments on the basis that they are "just" wrong. You attitudes are incredibly archaic.

it's all vowing commitment.
#83 | POSTED BY ADAMMM

Which is the choice. Maintaing a true monogamous relationship is entirely a choice. The gender of an individual to whom you are attracted is not a choice. Therein lies the difference. You have no control over the fact that you are attracted to the opposite sex. I for one, love women and can't even think about happily being with a man. I am told that in a homosexual man's perspective, he can't imagine happily being with a woman. Both scenarios cannot be controlled by their actors. Why one scenario is applauded and the other demonized does not make any sense - warranting the distinct a deplorable label of discriminatory.

I hope you don't make other judgments on the basis that they are "just" wrong. You attitudes are incredibly archaic.

#87 | Posted by rstybeach11

Actually I make all kinds of judgments on that very basis. Many things are just wrong. There's nothing illegal, for example, about charging clients 5% a year to manage their money; I know people in my business who do so. But it's wrong. So I refuse to do it. There's also nothing illegal about having an affair, refusing to surrender your seat to an elderly person on the bus, not going to help a girl being threatened by some cokehead. And all those things are wrong. Why? Well, some things are just wrong, without your having to go into a rambling legal dissertation as to why. Many people claim a similar biological predilection toward alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. Still a choice.

#86 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

And there was a time when interracial marriage (you know, marriage between two people with different color skin - a variable to which they have absolute no control) was illegal. In fact, Alabama was the last state to legalize interracial marriage (only 12 years ago in the year 2000). Morality takes time to work it's way through the courts and also public opinion (there are places that have legalized gay marriage you know). History has shown it took time for civil rights to take place, it took time for women to earn the right to vote, and now history is showing it is only a matter of time for homosexual marriage to be legal.

I am not trying to change your vote (there is no need for that). All I am trying to do is point out the fact that your reasoning for considering gay marriage immoral is completely and utterly baseless. You still haven't mustered any reasoning as to why gay marriage should remain illegal beyond because it's "just" wrong. Well, our society determines discriminatory practice on more specific terms than that (thank god), which is why the illegality of gay marriage may be current, but it won't last for long.

Well, some things are just wrong, without your having to go into a rambling legal dissertation as to why.
#89 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

Everything you listed out has to do with the victimization of people. In what world do you live in that homosexual relationships involves the victimization of anyone?

Polygamy - victimization
Bestiality - victimization
Incest - victimization (unless consenting adults)
Homosexual marriage - no victims here, buddy.

Who are you claiming is a victim within a homosexual marriage?

Who are you claiming is a victim in polygamy? You can't use the people breaking the law as representative of people who would do it legally.

Or incest, for that matter, so long as they're consenting adults?

You can't use the people breaking the law as representative of people who would do it legally.
Or incest, for that matter, so long as they're consenting adults?
#92 | POSTED BY ADAMMM

From my #66:
Polygamy: scenario used by religion and power hungry patriarchs that is highly associated with numerous young males on the street, child sex abuse, and domestic abuse at a far higher degree than traditional marriage or other nontraditional relationships.
Incest: A scenario involving consenting adults with an attraction they can't control, yet have the ability to enter alternative scenarios that are less taboo (for the sake of argument, I am not against incest as long as the consenting adults are of a mature age - sex between adolescent siblings has shown to have detrimental psychological effects as has incest between parents and offspring)

Victimization is associated with polygamy.

It's also associated with a shitload of normal, monogamous marriages. And religion has no grounds for objecting to polygamy, because it is a constitutional right to practice it. Other than that, it's safe to say that people illegally engaging in polygamy now obviously don't care for the law much, so of course they'll break other laws too. Crack dealers usually have guns and assault charges- doesn't mean crack itself is the cause of the criminal nature, but the illegality of the crack is. (Maybe not the best example, but it's early.)

Religion is a man made business for profit...

There is no invisible man....

People use religion to control others...They're just religious freaks..

The homosexual community's hand has been forced into this attitude because of fear mongering by the religious right.

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-06 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. They haven't been forced into anything. Either they believe in "equal rights" and "equality" or they don't. Their actions show that they seemingly don't believe in "equal rights" and "equality"... they only seem to believe in special rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals who are not polygamists or incestuous.

Pretty messed up. I say change the definition of marriage to include "consenting adults no matter how many or how closely related".

#65 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy at 2012-01-06 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You cannot claim to be for "equal rights" and "equality" and then deny other groups their "equal rights" and "equality" because you want to get yours first. That is what homosexuals are doing in your scenario. They are pretending to dislike polygamy and incest so that they can get their rights in order to get the rights of polygamists and incestuous individuals in the future? Sounds pretty inconsistent.

I am all for marriage being changed to be defined as "consenting adults no matter how many or how closely related".

You don't sound like you are.

I don't have a problem with it. If marriage is something objectively different, their doing the wrong thing will not effect me. We might all be wrong. So, let people do what they want, they are the ones living with the consequences (if there are any).

There is no moral relevance between homosexuality, bestiality, incest, or polygamy for these reasons:
1) There is nothing biological about wanting to enter into a polygamist relationship.
2)There is nothing biological about the wanting to enter into an incestuous relationship.
3)There may be something biological about the wanting to enter into a bestiality relationship, but the limitations of an animal providing consent relegates bestiality as immoral.
4) Homosexuality is biological - someone who is gay has no control over the wanting to enter into a homosexual relationship. A homosexual has no control over the attraction to the same sex just as a heterosexual has no control over the attraction to the opposite sex.
It is for these reasons that the moral objection to gay marriage should be considered false.

#67 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-06 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) Sure there is. Some people want to have multiple sexual partners and they desire to enter into a contract with them like the marriage contract. Biologically they have a drive to have multiple partners and they desire to marry all those partners. Biological.

2) Sure there is. If we are biological creatures, and two people "love" (biological chemical reaction) each other, they are biologically drawn to one another. They will fulfill each others biological need for sex and the desire for the marriage contract.

3) Only a tard would include bestiality with incest, polygamy and homosexuality... are you a tard?

4)Your description of homosexual could just as rightly be applied to polygamy or incest. What happens if a homosexual has an uncontrollable biological attraction to their brother who is also homosexual and uncontrollably biologically attracted to his brother? You are going to deny their uncontrollable biological desires? You are less for equal rights than you presume to be.

republicans sure have a problem with freedom...

"You keep insisting there's a big difference between them all. But in one key respect, they're the same: America has said no."

Oh, you mean just like miscegnation used to be considered wrong by most Americans too. Time moves on and reasonable people evolve, you wouldn't know that though. Any way you spin it, time is on our side, we will have equality and you and the rest of the haters will deal with it the best way you can.

#101 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-07 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Although it is beside the point (your specialty), just because something evolved to some other level does not necessitate that the next level is more right than the previous level. Evolution does not have the intention of bringing about truth, moral or otherwise.

Evolution does not have the intention of bringing about truth, moral or otherwise.

#102 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-07 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Correct, but we do learn from our mistakes and improve upon them. Progress and progressive thinking have the same end goal. Improvement.

"3) Only a tard would include bestiality with incest, polygamy and homosexuality... are you a tard?"

LOL good work Exps! From time to time you drop a pearl. This was one of those times. Hats off.

"3) Only a tard would include bestiality with incest, polygamy and homosexuality... are you a tard?"
POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

I brought it up to circumvent the "tard" who would inevitably bring it up. Santorum didn't, but most who advocated for Proposition 8 in California did propagate such nonsense.

And the victimization associated with polygamy does exist in regular monogamous relationships only at a far lower rate than compared to polygamist relationships.

The rate of victimization associated with polygamy solidifies the notion that it should be kept illegal. There is no such notion holding back gay marriage - to which you refuse to acknowledge.

Regarding incest, again, if the scenario involves two of age, mature, consenting adults - have at it! Incest between two consenting adults should be legal.

#97 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Your support for legal incest and legal polygamy should not undercut the push for legal homosexual marriage. There has never been an instance when the lack of rights for two groups held back the passage of rights for a third. Why should it start now?

There message may not be consistant with "equal rights" in regards to incest or polygamy, but that does not mitigate the moral obligation of affording 10% of the population the same rights that are afforded to 85% of the country (estimates of polygamy and incest removed from the 90% remaining of heterosexuals). 10% of the population's rights are being held back because of biological reasons beyond their control. This is the definition of discrimination. 1.4% of the population's rights are being held back because of their choice of entering plural relationships. So you're saying that because 1.4% of the population's rights are being held back, 10% of the population's rights should be held back as well? That's a complete anti-libertarian sentiment - as the slippery slope explanation is a complete anti-libertarian argument.

If the country agrees that such rights should be afforded to that 1.4% of the population, then polygamists time for legal marriage will come. The fact they don't have the same rights as heterosexual, monogamous relationships should not undercut the drive for those rights to be afforded to a much larger group - homosexuals.

And the victimization associated with polygamy does exist in regular monogamous relationships only at a far lower rate than compared to polygamist relationships.

You can't say that, because you don't know how many polygamist relationships there would be if it were legal. You're comparing the rates of illegal acts among legal marriages, and illegal acts with illegal partnerships. For all we know, the rate of abuse would bottom out among polygamist marriages, maybe even lower than monogamous, if it were legalized.

And there's nothing wrong with gay marriage proponents only fighting for gay marriage. The issue is how they, in the video of Santorum, obviously hate polygamy just as much as everyone else which is a horrible double standard. No, SSM people don't have to fight for polygamy or incest. But they shouldn't berate it and dismiss it as a separate issue either.

4)Your description of homosexual could just as rightly be applied to polygamy or incest. What happens if a homosexual has an uncontrollable biological attraction to their brother who is also homosexual and uncontrollably biologically attracted to his brother? You are going to deny their uncontrollable biological desires? You are less for equal rights than you presume to be.
#99 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Should you have some evidence showing this to be true, please provide. To my knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting that there is a biological urge for individuals to have sex with people in their own family. But there is plenty of evidence suggesting homosexuality is biologically based. It's sad that you present such an argument without any sort of evidence supporting it - just the notion that the same description "could" be applied to incest.

There's also zero evidence suggesting a biological correlation to an individual having the urge to enter a plural relationship. Spreading seed to multiple partners in order to extend the life span of a certain gene structure - yes - but biological need to "marry" each of those individuals? Nope.

"Although it is beside the point (your specialty), just because something evolved to some other level does not necessitate that the next level is more right than the previous level."

So you're saying miscegnation laws were moral or immoral?
Personally, I say they were immoral though at the time many of the religious community believed they were inspired by religious principles. I felt at the time that they were immoral. I've believed anti-gay marriage laws to be immoral as well and still do.

The rate of abuse would bottom out among polygamist marriages, maybe even lower than monogamous, if it were legalized.
#106 | POSTED BY ADAMMM

Where do you find such reasoning? Currently - polygamy is associated with heightened rates of victimization amongst children and women. How would legalizing polygamy - there for expanding polygamy - actually lower the rates of victimization? The victimization associated with polygamy is not existent because of the specific and certain individuals in the relationship. If it were, the rates of victimization amongst polygamous and monogamous relationships would be the same, but its not. Polygamous relationships are associated with higher rates of victimization - which means there is a variable in play within polygamous relationships that causes higher rates of victimization that is not present in monogamous relationships. Considering the significance of differing scenarios between polygamy and monogamy, numerous partners in a single relationship seems to be that variable - a sound and logical reasoning to maintain a ban on polygamy.

No such comparison can be made with homosexual marriage because the rates of victimization in homosexual relationships are not higher or more significant than that of heterosexual relationships.

Causation versus correlation. You're simply saying polygamy causes abuse. I'm saying people in polygamy now are already breaking the law, so they're probably the type that are prone to break others. The "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" analogy. When you legalize guns, the crime rate of gun users bottoms out because law-abiding citizens enter into the practice.

There's no reason to ban polygamy or incest marriages. It's simply tyranny of the majority.

#110

The illegality of inest and polygamy should not be a reason to keep gay marriage illegal as well. Each issue should be approached individually, just as inter racial marriage was. The slippery slope explanation is a completely anti-libertarian argument.

Whether you believe incest and polygamy should be illegal or not should not automatically determine your opinion on gay marriage. Whether you believe the homosexual community is hypocritical for not supporting incest and polygamy under their definition of equality in marriage should not determine whether or not a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The last argument anyone here has for why homosexual marriage should remain illegal is that polygamy and incest are illegal? So because they are ilegal gay marriage should be too? Trash argument.

Y'know, I'm beginning to think that what Rick Santorum needs is to get well and truly LAID.

Think about it - his public pronouncements have more sexual content than Playboy TV.

The last argument is that everything should be legal, because it all deals with consenting adults who shouldn't need government (ie, public majority) approval to do what they want.

And that gay rights supporters don't have to fight for polygamy, but they shouldn't trash it.

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think that polygamy or incest should hold back homosexuals from getting "equal rights". I am pointing out that the homosexual group, by not supporting "equal rights" for polygamists and incestuous individuals during their search, shows that they are really only interested in "homosexual rights" rather then "equal rights" and "equality".

It is important to point out the hypocrisy in the homosexual groups calling for equal rights and equality while at the same time denying that polygamists and incestuous individuals don't count because they are either too small a group of people to have their rights recognized, or they are too "icky" to be allowed to do what they want.

The last argument anyone here has for why homosexual marriage should remain illegal is that polygamy and incest are illegal? So because they are ilegal gay marriage should be too? Trash argument.

#112 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-08 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

For the homosexual group, when they are advocating for their rights based on "equality" and "equal rights" and then denying "equality" and "equal rights" for other groups... it greatly harms their supposed justification for their argument.

I hope you can see that.

#116

Granted. They still deserve the right to marry - hypocracy or not.

Mostly their argument surrounds the notion that you dont need to legalize two other issues in order to legalize a seperate third - ie. there is no slippery slope. Equality is in reference to homosexual v. heterosexual. They dont consider polygamy orincest in that argument because homosexuality is not specifically associated with such groups. Its about rights for heterosexuals (90% of population) v. rights for homosexuals (10% of population). These are the two groups considered in the comparison. There are no other groups to be considered in this context because the two groups make up 100% of the population.

For the homosexual group, when they are advocating for their rights based on "equality" and "equal rights" and then denying "equality" and "equal rights" for other groups... it greatly harms their supposed justification for their argument.

I hope you can see that.

#116 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-08 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are really pounding this point even though its completely of base.

I have never heard any SSM group talk about being more equal than polygamists or other examples of consensual adult marriage.

If you think the crowd in the video is upset about the comparison or thinking they are more equal then other groups your incorrect. They are mad that Santorum is side stepping an important question.

Also as I said before He wouldn't care if other forms of consenting adult marriage is legal he would still oppose ssm.

As a minority group they are concerned with ensuring their interests. Which is understandable. Polygamy isn't ssm priority. And even if they championed for it, it wouldn't change the way Santorum views their cause.

Gay marriage is just like Polygamy?

In the sense that only a bunch of retarded fundy religious whackjobs oppose the former and want the latter?

Meh, it *could* be argued.

Oh, he means they are comparable morally?

Sorry, Frothy-assjuice guy.

Inapt analogy is inapt.

Think the primary reason against allowing polygamy is the tizzy it would toss family courts into.

Well, that and the fact that fundies in those power-mad, patriarchal, polygamous structures are historically prone to abusing that power in the form of sexually abusing the younger girls with arranged marriages between grossly mismatched-in-age couples and just old fashioned abuse that the victim is then socially conditioned into "forgiving" rather than go running to any pesky authorities over.

But other than all that?

Yeah, swell idea.

"In favor of traditional marriage" = "Anti-marriage/Hates gays"

May the froth be with you.

Be Well.

Well, that and the fact that fundies in those power-mad, patriarchal, polygamous structures are historically prone to abusing that power in the form of sexually abusing the younger girls with arranged marriages between grossly mismatched-in-age couples and just old fashioned abuse that the victim is then socially conditioned into "forgiving" rather than go running to any pesky authorities over.
#120 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD

This is the exact point I was trying to make. Those who are fervently against gay marriage offer justifications for maintaining a ban on gay marriage by illustrating that polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal too. In order to call it "equal rights," the gay community must incorporate the rights for the aforementioned three groups into their mission as well. My argument is that because polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all directly associated with significantly higher rates of victimization, they should all remain illegal. But, because there is no such association of victimization within homosexual relationships, a ban on homosexual marriage is completely unjustified.

Those who are fervently against gay marriage offer justifications for maintaining a ban on gay marriage by illustrating that polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal too. In order to call it "equal rights," the gay community must incorporate the rights for the aforementioned three groups into their mission as well. My argument is that because polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all directly associated with significantly higher rates of victimization, they should all remain illegal. But, because there is no such association of victimization within homosexual relationships, a ban on homosexual marriage is completely unjustified.

Wow, you actually put that better than Spud did.

Woot! ^_^

Be Well.

Those who are fervently against gay marriage offer justifications for maintaining a ban on gay marriage by illustrating that polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal too. In order to call it "equal rights," the gay community must incorporate the rights for the aforementioned three groups into their mission as well. My argument is that because polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all directly associated with significantly higher rates of victimization, they should all remain illegal. But, because there is no such association of victimization within homosexual relationships, a ban on homosexual marriage is completely unjustified.
Wow, you actually put that better than Spud did.
Woot! ^_^
Be Well.
#122 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-08 05:12 PM

It's per-nounced WOOF!;]

If homosexuality was a drug it would be held with the same disdain as most of us have for heroin. I knew and befriended with several gay men in the 80s. Can't see them anymore, they all died well before their time. Some were harvested by the virus, some committed suicide, some were murdered by their lovers, some drank or drugged themselves to death. Kind of puts a tarnish on the word "gay". If I was attracted to the same sex, I think I would become celibate. Maybe a lot of gay behavior is based on the simple fact that guys are soooo easy. Besides, monogamous gay man, who are you kidding? Only the naive or ignorant would believe that load of manure. I don't know of any in my experience. On the female side, lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence, bar none. I don't care if homosexuals get married, it cost me nothing. But homosexuals are not heroes, nor perceptual victims. They are just their own worst enemy.

never met an active or inactive gay man who wasn't molested before puberty (or less common, involved in consentual prepubescent sexual activity)....a "lifestyle" based on some sad and problematic origins.

Oh, and defending sodomy and the like by accusing those who critique it of the same shows how you REALLY think it's disgraceful and wrong...

#119 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy at 2012-01-08 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reality TV polygamists sue for right to lifestyle choice - gay media repudiates

#124
a whole lot of baseless nonsense that u just made up. Everything u described happens in hetero marriages with a 50% divorce rate. Your point is moot. Plus, the idea that lesbian relationships are associated with higher rates of domestic violence is completely false. Noone is making anyone out as heros. Gay community is a victim of discrimination. Appreciate the support for gay marriage though.

#125
who are u referring to? Who is defending sodomy and the like?

#125
and why dou base your opinion on the matter only on anecdotal evidence? Dont u know homosexuality is not directly associated with child sex abuse?

#126
Again, whether the gay community is hypocritical or not regarding their stance on polygamy does not mitigate their right to marriage. The discrimination of one group should not hold in place the discrimination of another - which is what youre trying to do here. Because there are only two groups in the category of gender, there can only be two groups in regards to the context of attraction in this debate. Polygamy and incest are not at the root of this debate. Homosexual (same sex attraction making up 10% of the population) and heterosexual (opposite sex attraction making up remaining 90% of population) are the only two groups that can be considered in this context.

The homosexual community does not have a moral obligation to support polygamy and incest in order for them to be consistent in their mission for "equal rights".

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-09 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is not what I am trying to do. I support homosexual, polygamist and incestuous individuals to get married. State marriage definition to be "consenting adults, no matter how many or how closely related."

One of the stopping points for the homosexuals and their own justifications is their lack of support and even hostility toward polygamists and incestuous individuals.

They are saying that the state does not have a right to discriminate as to who can get married... and yet they are fighting to continue discriminating who can get married in no letting the polygamists and incestuous get married.

They are undermining the justification for their own argument by their hypocrisy. I think that is an important thing for them to keep in mind. it seems they don't have a problem with the government saying who can and cannot get married... they just have a problem with their specific group being included in the "cannot" group.

That doesn't matter in terms of granting their rights... however it does matter in their trying to call other people "intolerant" in a pejorative sense acting as if they are more tolerant.

1. The homosexual % in this country is not even close to 10%.
2. The homosexual and heterosexual % includes different groups of people who live with different lifestyle choices.
3. If we are talking about equal rights in regard to marriage... surely all consenting adults (no matter how many or how closely related) are to be considered in this context.

The key point is, the homosexual rights groups are not fighting for "equal rights" or "equality" they are fighting for "homosexual rights". That is fine. They would probably make more headway if they simply came out and were honest about it rather than continuing to try and pretend that they are for "equal rights" all the while denying polygamists and incestuous individuals the right to marry.

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-09 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Equal marital rights are at the heart of this debate, no matter what sexual connotation, no matter how many people, and no matter how closely they are related. Homosexuals keep saying "it is about being able to marry the people you love...

If that is the case... someone should be able to marry multiple people if they love multiple people. Someone should be able to marry their close relatives (no matter how close so long as they are of consenting age) if they love their close relatives in that way.

The homosexual community needs to be honest what their justification is. If it is love, polygamy and incestuous individuals are surely in view.

If it is equal marital rights, polygamy and incestuous individuals are surely in view.

If it is "homosexual marital rights" then they are only talking about homosexuals getting special rights along with heterosexuals.

The key point is, the homosexual rights groups are not fighting for "equal rights" or "equality" they are fighting for "homosexual rights". That is fine. They would probably make more headway if they simply came out and were honest about it rather than continuing to try and pretend that they are for "equal rights" all the while denying polygamists and incestuous individuals the right to marry.

Are you seriously an advocate for polygamy and incest?

Really? Really really?

Wow, just wow.

Spud thinks gay folks are having a tough enough time of it right now fighting for acceptance, tolerance and equal rights under the law that they don't necessarily need to attach their political wagon to that horse any time soon.

So, ...do you just wanna marry your sister or both sisters?

Actually, don't answer that.

There are actually some things Spud just does not wanna know.

Be Well.

#133 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-10 07:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny that you try to turn it into "those polygamists are strange... and those incestuous, 'icky' ".

Its not about supporting them by themselves. If you REALLY support "equal rights" and "equality" when it comes to marriage... you support "consenting adults, no matter how many, or how closely related" having equal opportunity to marry the one(s) they love.

Now the fact that homosexuals (humans and potatoes) continue to try to marginalize the rights of marriage in regard to polygamists and the incestuous undermines their whole meme of their fight being about "marrying the one(s) you love" and "equal rights/equality".

If they would just say that they are fighting for special "homosexual rights" alongside the currently (as they claim) existing heterosexual special rights... people might to look at them as such hypocrites.

" homosexuals ... continue to try to marginalize the rights of marriage in regard to polygamists"

Well, there's a blatant lie.

"If they would just say that they are fighting for special "homosexual rights""

Name one special right they want which my wife and I don't already get.

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-10 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can't read can you Dan?

They seem to think that heterosexuals have "special rights" if not everyone has those rights. Thus their fight for "equality" and "equal rights" especially in regard to marriage.

However if they are not fighting for "equality" and "equal right" in regard to marriage for all consenting adults who love one another and want to marry one another, no matter how many, or how closely related... they are not fighting for "equal rights" they are fighting to get special "homosexual rights" alongside what they already consider to be special "heterosexual rights".

Why is that so hard?

You have never heard of homosexuals that don't think polygamist should have the right to marry those they love? Interesting. I've see it on this very board.

-Name one special right they want which my wife and I don't already get.

to be able to marry someone of the same sex, obviously.

If they would just say that they are fighting for special "homosexual rights" alongside the currently (as they claim) existing heterosexual special rights... people might to look at them as such hypocrites.

Two things.

First "equal rights" =/= "special rights".

No matter how often you repeat a lie it is still a lie.

Second, you do really want to marry your own sister don't you?

Polygamy has child abuse and family court issues that marriage for gays does not have.

Tamping down incest has long and storied biological and sociological record.

Trying to assert that gays are hypocrites for not lobbying for incest and polygamy is fully pants-on-head retarded.

Spud, at this point, is actually hoping you are just trolling with that derp cos it's painful to think of another human being actually being that stupid.

Be Well.

#138 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-10 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

1. No one said "equal rights" = "special rights - clean the dirt out of your eyes you stinking potato

2. Homosexuals think that heterosexuals get "special rights" as they are a "special" group as they are the only ones getting the rights (rather than equal rights where heterosexuals, homosexuals, polygamists and incestuous individuals have equal access to the kind of marriage they want)

3. Homosexuals are not fighting for "equal rights" in terms of marriage as they are decrying the rights of the polygamous and the incestuous to have access to the kind of marriage they would like

4. Since homosexuals are not fighting for "equal rights" by not looking to give all groups equal access to their desire for marriage... they are fighting for the same rights the heterosexuals have in regard to marriage (which outside of equal access to all groups are "special rights") for their specific group. Thus since they would not achieve "equal rights" for all individuals in regard to marriage (homosexual, heterosexual, polygamous and incestuous) they would merely be joining the heterosexuals having "special rights" over the polygamous and the incestuous.

5. Thus by the homosexuals fighting only for "equal rights" for their specific group... if victorious, they will have "equal rights" with heterosexual as both heterosexuals and homosexuals hold "special rights" over the polygamous and incestuous.

Homosexuals are not fighting for real "equality" and "equal rights". They are fighting for "equal rights" (in regard to marriage) to be added to heterosexuals only, denying them to polygamous an incestuous individuals.

Find a sink... turn on water... rinse out eyes. Try it potato.

#138 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-10 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Also note... abortion causes biological and sociological problems as well... but the woman has the right to decide what to do with her body.

Why can't consenting adults decide who they marry, regardless of how many people, and how closely they are related?

Come on Potato... homosexuals keep saying it is about love... no love in denying the polygamous and incestuous from marrying the people they love.

"Trying to assert that gays are hypocrites for not lobbying for incest and polygamy is fully pants-on-head retarded."

Bears repeating.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-10 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: Pity FF

#142

Youre arguing over semantics. OK! WE GET IT. You think homosexuals are hypocritical for not supporting polygamy and incest in their quest for equality in marriage - all the while, you still support gay marriage. Awesome. Call them hypocrites all you like. Doesnt mitigate there right to gay marriage.

Go ahead and support Santorum in his debate over semantics. Its one the polyagmists have never come close to winning and youre just as off base. Considering there are two moromons runningfor POTUS, comparing gay marriage and polyhamy was a good move by Santorum politically, forcing the mormons of the group to not only address gay marriage, but readress there views of polygamy as well - considering the stereotypical relation between polygagmy and mormonism.

But its still a poor comparison because of the differences in victimization - where polygamy is directly associated with higher levels of victimization and homosexual relationships are NOT - no matter how badly DocNJO wants to believe its true.

#140

You still haven t addressed the significantly higher rate of victimization associated with polygamgy in comparison to gay relationships.

Polygamy is associated with significantly higher rates of victimization than any monogamous relationships. A good reason why it was outlawes in the first place and an evenbetter reason why it shouldnt be compared to gay marriage.