• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

RJKarl said:
An incestuous relationship is not vaguely like a loving gay relationship. Nor is polygamy like gay marriage other than being considered evil by fundamentalist Christians. Gay marriage is about love. Polygamy is about power just like incest.
Click to expand...

Who are you to judge two peoples intentions? People marry for all sorts of reasons. Power is most definitely one of them. Love is one. Money is one. Lust is one. Faith is one. Are we going to judge intentions now? If so then the entire gay marriage movement as we know it is put to a stop because the entire argument made to move forward with gay marriage is that it is a right to choose your marriage partner. People have the right to marry whom they choose. Either they do or they don't. It's bigotry to recognize one and not the other by the very cultural definition of marriage we have accepted in this nation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
In terms of gay marriage, just about everyone who was in favor of it used that argument at one time or another. It was the most common argument I heard in favor of it. If you can't acknowledge that you're being dishonest. And bringing up prostitution and selling cocaine, when we're talking about marriage, is just density.
Click to expand...

No, the argument was that there was no rational basis for discriminating against gay couples. Not that the government can never discriminate against anyone for any reason. Sorry you can't see the nuance.
 
Its always interesting to me when otherwise reasonable posters lose their shit over certain issues.
 
Deacon923 said:
I think you're wrong, Wrangor. There are very significant differences as I have outlined before. I believe Posner outlined some of them in his very good opinion on gay marriage (a much better opinion than the one Kennedy authored for the SCOTUS). One that has not been mentioned here, but that Posner brought up, is that polygamy - unlike gay marriage - creates harm to nonparticipants in polygamous marriage by reducing the supply of marriageable partners in the marketplace. In extreme situations - which have existed historically - the supply of women is so low that the excess of unmarried men and competition for mates causes significant societal stress. And the stuff about brother/sister and father/son marriage is just silly talk.
Click to expand...

Re: Posner and the marketplace of nubile women:

Doesn't the marketplace argument require the government to forbid all polyamorous relationships short of marriage? If the Government doesn't forbid all such relationships, isn't a prohibition on polyamorous marriage under-inclusive? If you are prohibiting polygamist marriage but not polyamorous relationships, isn't that evidence that the true purpose of the law is pure religio-moral animus?
 
MysteryMen said:
No, the argument was that there was no rational basis for discriminating against gay couples. Not that the government can never discriminate against anyone for any reason. Sorry you can't see the nuance.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. You're just being dishonest.
 
Wrangor said:
Who are you to judge two peoples intentions? People marry for all sorts of reasons. Power is most definitely one of them. Love is one. Money is one. Lust is one. Faith is one. Are we going to judge intentions now? If so then the entire gay marriage movement as we know it is put to a stop because the entire argument made to move forward with gay marriage is that it is a right to choose your marriage partner. People have the right to marry whom they choose. Either they do or they don't. It's bigotry to recognize one and not the other by the very cultural definition of marriage we have accepted in this nation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous and the same thing people said if we let inter-faith or interracial marriages occur.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up beastialty. It's the only option you didn't.
 
RJKarl said:
That's ridiculous and the same thing people said if we let inter-faith or interracial marriages occur.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up beastialty. It's the only option you didn't.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of polygamy- that many of the arguments used against it are the same ones that were used against miscegenation and gay marriage? That also goes to some of the stuff 923 mentioned, like the protection of children, where a similar argument was used against gay couples.
 
I'm not getting in on the main stupidity of this thread, but if any western nation allows Islamic (or any grown men) to actively rape 13-14 year old girls in the name of tolerance, then we need to immediately break diplomatic relations with them.

Fuck any pederass who does that shit, regardless of religion. I hope their dicks fall off and they are raped in whatever the consider Hades for eternity.
 
MysteryMen said:
Forgive me, you said people were arguing that the government can never discriminate against consenting adults for any reason. Doesn't change the point
Click to expand...

In the context of the gay marriage debate people often would make a defense that would go something like this: "The government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against consenting adults, and that's what this is, discrimination." If you wanna be disingenuous and claim stuff I never meant that's fine.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
In the context of the gay marriage debate people often would make a defense that would go something like this: "The government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against consenting adults, and that's what this is, discrimination." If you wanna be disingenuous and claim stuff I never meant that's fine.
Click to expand...

No.

Go back and read 923's post #100 on this thread.

You are imitating the Donald Trump approach to talking. "Lots of people say..." When you start out your sentence with that, you need to stop. You are constructing a straw man.
 
RJKarl said:
That's ridiculous and the same thing people said if we let inter-faith or interracial marriages occur.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up beastialty. It's the only option you didn't.
Click to expand...

It is really amazing how poorly you construct the same arguments over and over. Keep being you RJ.
 
You can always tell someone lacks confidence in their argument when choose to go one on one with RJKarl instead of addressing everyone else who disagrees with them.
 
Deacon923 said:
I think you're wrong, Wrangor. There are very significant differences as I have outlined before. I believe Posner outlined some of them in his very good opinion on gay marriage (a much better opinion than the one Kennedy authored for the SCOTUS). One that has not been mentioned here, but that Posner brought up, is that polygamy - unlike gay marriage - creates harm to nonparticipants in polygamous marriage by reducing the supply of marriageable partners in the marketplace. In extreme situations - which have existed historically - the supply of women is so low that the excess of unmarried men and competition for mates causes significant societal stress. And the stuff about brother/sister and father/son marriage is just silly talk.
Click to expand...

Something like this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/09/civil-union-muslims-demand-polygamy/
 
Wrangor said:
It is really amazing how poorly you construct the same arguments over and over. Keep being you RJ.
Click to expand...

Brevity works.

What doesn't work is trying to equate gay marriage to polygamy or incest. You have done this for years.
 
"There is no difference in a 25 year old son wanting to marry his 50 year old father as there is a 25 year old gay man marrying a 50 year old sugar daddy. "

Change son to daughter, his to her and gay man to straight woman. You get:

"There is no different in a 25 year old daughter wanted to marry her 50 year old father as there is a 25 year old women marrying a 50 year old sugar daddy."

Did this situation ever pass your lips when young women married older straight men? Did you ever in you entire life equate that with incest? And don't even start on reproduction as a differentiation, since surrogates are easily available in modern times.

Dude lay off the gays. Or on them. Don't care.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
You can always tell someone lacks confidence in their argument when choose to go one on one with RJKarl instead of addressing everyone else who disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Ive made my point clear to anyone. No one has refuted me yet. Why don't you try. Explain how polygamous marriage is any different a choice than gay marriage based on our current cultural definition of marital rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top