October 8, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, Paul852 said: What does a polygamous marriage have to do with gay marriage? That actually is a good question. Obergefell was the Supreme Court case that held same sex couples have the fundamental right to marry. There are certain cultures and religions like Mormonism, Islam, and in earlier years, Judiasm where polygamy was practiced and accepted. Why should members of a polygamous union be denied the right to marry as a fundamental right?
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, WentzFan11 said: It’s a slippery slope! So in other words, only certain people should be accorded the right to marry - not those types of marriages that you disagree with. Is that what you're saying?
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, Procus said: That actually is a good question. Obergefell was the Supreme Court case that held same sex couples have the fundamental right to marry. There are certain cultures and religions like Mormonism, Islam, and in earlier years, Judiasm where polygamy was practiced and accepted. Why should members of a polygamous union be denied the right to marry as a fundamental right? Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, WentzFan11 said: Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge. Good - you recognized your problem. Now answer the question re polygamy you hypocrite!
October 8, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Procus said: That actually is a good question. Obergefell was the Supreme Court case that held same sex couples have the fundamental right to marry. There are certain cultures and religions like Mormonism, Islam, and in earlier years, Judiasm where polygamy was practiced and accepted. Why should members of a polygamous union be denied the right to marry as a fundamental right? Being gay has nothing to do with religion so anyone's religion shouldn't matter. It's irrelevant to two United States citizens wanting to marry.
October 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Procus said: So in other words, only certain people should be accorded the right to marry - not those types of marriages that you disagree with. Is that what you're saying? I’m not saying I disagreeing with anything. It just has no connection to the conversation we’re having regarding gay marriage. If you want to talk about gay marriage then we can talk, if you want to say but what about these other people then you should advocate for them with your government. The problem is you don’t care about those people.
October 8, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Being gay has nothing to do with religion so anyone's religion shouldn't matter. It's irrelevant to two United States citizens wanting to marry. It is relevant to somebody who wants multiple spouses. If everybody in that relationship is on board, why should they be denied the right to marry? Why is marriage limited to two partners - there is plenty of historical precedent to the contrary.
October 8, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said: It’s a slippery slope! Cats f'ing dogs! A bear in a threesome with shark and a PLATYPUS!!! Clearly all connected with similar issues. Everything FALLS APART.
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, WentzFan11 said: I’m not saying I disagreeing with anything. It just has no connection to the conversation we’re having regarding gay marriage. If you want to talk about gay marriage then we can talk, if you want to say but what about these other people then you should advocate for them with your government. It is entirely relevant to the reasoning by the Supreme Court.
October 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Procus said: It is relevant to somebody who wants multiple spouses. If everybody in that relationship is on board, why should they be denied the right to marry? Then let’s prevent all marriages until it gets resolved. Why should two people have the right to marry if 3 or more can’t? The more the merrier.
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, WentzFan11 said: Then let’s prevent all marriages until it gets resolved. Why should two people have the right to marry if 3 or more can’t? The more the merrier. You are answering this in a much more reasonable manner than most liberals.
October 8, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Procus said: It is entirely relevant to the reasoning by the Supreme Court. I'll throw you a bone , knowing full well you'll choke on it. Yes, it is getting harder to make a case against polygamy (as long as its consensual, not like marriage on the side.)
October 8, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said: The problem is you don’t care about those people. You are right that I don't particularly care about people in polygamous relationships in general. But that's not the correct response. It shows the hypocrisy of people who advocate for gay marriage on the one hand, but deny the right of polygamists to enter into a legal union.
October 8, 20241 yr Just now, Procus said: You are right that I don't particularly care about people in polygamous relationships in general. But that's not the correct response. It shows the hypocrisy of people who advocate for gay marriage on the one hand, but deny the right of polygamists to enter into a legal union. But no one is denying their rights? I can’t fight for others before I fight for myself. A marriage between two people is much easier to solve. You can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
October 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: I'll throw you a bone , knowing full well you'll choke on it. Yes, it is getting harder to make a case against polygamy (as long as its consensual, not like marriage on the side.) Ask yourself this - why is polygamy illegal in the United States? The rationale is that it discriminates against women and is a stain on society - the latter being an argument against gay marriage that was made for years. As for the former reason that it discriminates against women - doesn't answer the question of why bigamy should be illegal. Suppose a woman is married to a man, is sick of him, wants to marry somebody else, and the first husband doesn't object and doesn't want a divorce. Why shouldn't she be able to be married to the second guy while still legally married to the first.
October 8, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Ya'll don't already have a harem of wives? WTF, bro Thank G-d~!
October 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Procus said: You are right that I don't particularly care about people in polygamous relationships in general. But that's not the correct response. It shows the hypocrisy of people who advocate for gay marriage on the one hand, but deny the right of polygamists to enter into a legal union. See, just a couple inches of rope and you start hanging yourself. Polygamy was outlawed because of women's rights, back in the day it was exclusively a man "has enough money to own X amount of women". Gay marriage was outlawed purely out of homophobia. Polygamy might get another chance because the nature of it is changing.
October 8, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: See, just a couple inches of rope and you start hanging yourself. Polygamy was outlawed because of women's rights, back in the day it was exclusively a man "has enough money to own X amount of women". Gay marriage was outlawed purely out of homophobia. Polygamy might get another chance because the nature of it is changing. Prove it!
October 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: Joe Biden is too nice. We didn't deserve him. The presidency is not an office for nice guys. And Joe wasn't so nice before he contracted dementia.
October 8, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Ya'll don't already have a harem of wives? WTF, bro I have one why the eff would i want more of them??
Create an account or sign in to comment