• 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?

ReturnofMf said:
"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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Why is polygamy or incest a crime against humanity? Marriage is the expression of ones personal sexual or relational fulfillment according to our definition. Why should some people get to choose and not others?

I am not making any judgments on lifestyles. You are the one that is judging. I still have yet to see a valid argument on why 3 people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to be married. Instead of attacking me make your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RJKarl said:
Brevity works.

What doesn't work is trying to equate gay marriage to polygamy or incest. You have done this for years.
Click to expand...

You have to show any logical argument why it is different. If two or three people love each other who are you to stand in the way of their happiness? Explain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So you support polygamy? If not, you are using it as a means of attacking gay marriage.

Which one is it?

I don't support polygamy or incest. Both have frequent statistically confirmed ties to abuse of minors at a p-value of under .01, whereas there is not statistically significant evidence, even at a p level of .10, which is well outside social science accepted findings, of similar abuse based on sexual orientation.

I'm nuts (massive anxiety, agoraphobia, dystismia) but I'm quite bright read a lot and have a hell of an education in stats, math, and the social sciences. And, I support my faith, the Catholic Church, in not performing any of said marriages.
 
Marriage is between two people.

At least address 923's latest post.
 
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...

Do you really think that they meant the government should never discriminate against consenting adults? As in they believe people should be able to buy and sell heroin freely?

Because if not, then you have to accept the premise that the argument was limited to the situation of gay marriage and can't be extrapolated out to all other sorts of situations like you're trying to do.
 
Wrangor said:
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
Click to expand...


Everyone has already done this. Polygamous marriage creates negative externalities beyond what gay marriage does and often takes place in the context of subordinating women, which gay marriage does not. End of story.
 
Junebug said:
You can't get away with just defining marriage in a way that excludes others, otherwise it would have been okay to say "marriage is between a man and a woman."
Click to expand...

Agree that PH's argument was bad. But the better argument is that gay marriage doesn't cause the same societal harms that plural marriage does.
 
Such typical Wrangor on this thread: congratulates himself on predicting something that hasn't happened yet (and won't in this country), as if he is the only one who predicted it, when he is just one of millions of Neanderthals who have been making this stupid slippery slope argument for decades. Surprised he hasnt mentioned bestiality. The desire for polygamous relationships and recognition of those relationships only predates the legalization of gay marriage by centuries - there is no causation. It was legal in a ton of Muslim countries long before legal gay marriage started happening. The fact that some people are saying they want polygamous relationships recognized because gay marriage was recognized does not make their argument stronger and certainly doesn't mean it will be accepted.
 
Last edited:
Besides the obvious psychology and state of mind I really don't care who marries who as long as it's not coerced and freely agreed upon as well as can be ended freely. You have a consenting goat, marry it and fuck it to your hearts delight. There was a guy on strange addiction that liked to fuck his car, more power to him. If it doesn't hurt others live your weirdo life.
 
MysteryMen said:
Agree that PH's argument was bad. But the better argument is that gay marriage doesn't cause the same societal harms that plural marriage does.
Click to expand...

What would the societal harm be of a law permitting 3 (and no more) people to be married? How is that harm any worse than laws permitting 3 people to be in a non-marital polyamorous relationship?
 
By the way, here's Posner's opinion. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

The argument that "people should have a right to marry whoever they want to" was neither advanced by the plaintiffs nor affirmed by Judge Posner. Posner's opinion focuses on homosexuality's status as an immutable characteristic and the lack of any rational governmental interest in discriminating against couples exhibiting that immutable characteristic, given the lack of negative externalities arising from government recognition. Posner considers and rejects as wholly irrational several alleged negative externalities that Indiana and Wisconsin tried to advance. A desire to marry two women is not an immutable characteristic. A desire to commit incest might be (yuck) but has many negative externalities that government has a rational - indeed, substantive and compelling - interest in preventing.

The discussion of polygamy is not in this opinion, maybe he wrote about it in an opinion piece somewhere. If I find it again I'll post it.
 
Junebug said:
What would the societal harm be of a law permitting 3 (and no more) people to be married? How is that harm any worse than laws permitting 3 people to be in a non-marital polyamorous relationship?
Click to expand...

First of all there would be WAY more nagging for that one dude. If he wants to put up with that though, go for it!
 
Junebug said:
What would the societal harm be of a law permitting 3 (and no more) people to be married? How is that harm any worse than laws permitting 3 people to be in a non-marital polyamorous relationship?
Click to expand...

There's a long history of oppression and exploitation of women who are in plural marriages for one. Homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, polyamory is not. And regardless of whether people do it on their own in non-marital relationships, there are rational reasons for the state to not sanction it.

Why don't you read the Posner opinion and tell us why the distinctions he draws are wrong?
 
Wrangor said:
What are you talking about? Why is polygamy or incest a crime against humanity? Marriage is the expression of ones personal sexual or relational fulfillment according to our definition. Why should some people get to choose and not others?

I am not making any judgments on lifestyles. You are the one that is judging. I still have yet to see a valid argument on why 3 people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to be married. Instead of attacking me make your argument.


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

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mining-the-headlines/200910/incest-power-not-sex

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of other such articles by experts that show incest is about power, not love or sex.

The fact that you want to equate incest to love shared by gay people shows definitively that you don't accept gay marriage and want to demean it and marginalize it.
 
Deacon923 said:
By the way, here's Posner's opinion. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

The argument that "people should have a right to marry whoever they want to" was neither advanced by the plaintiffs nor affirmed by Judge Posner. Posner's opinion focuses on homosexuality's status as an immutable characteristic and the lack of any rational governmental interest in discriminating against couples exhibiting that immutable characteristic, given the lack of negative externalities arising from government recognition. Posner considers and rejects as wholly irrational several alleged negative externalities that Indiana and Wisconsin tried to advance. A desire to marry two women is not an immutable characteristic. A desire to commit incest might be (yuck) but has many negative externalities that government has a rational - indeed, substantive and compelling - interest in preventing.

The discussion of polygamy is not in this opinion, maybe he wrote about it in an opinion piece somewhere. If I find it again I'll post it.
Click to expand...

The argument that "the desire to marry more than one person isn't immutable" is disingenuous. The issue isn't whether that desire is immutable. The issue is whether being attracted to more than one person is immutable.

Speaking strictly anecdotally, I would say that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top