Same-sex marriage has boosted.

[Deleted member]

okay fine I'll play ball, what's so outrageously different between polygamy and same-sex marriage? because you're playing as much with words as the next person.

you purposefully add the qunatifier "2 people" and "more people" to it, where people opposing same-sex marriage would purposefully add "people of the same gender" and "people of opposing genders" to it.
why is one "different" from either "2 people of the same sex getting married"/"people getting married" and the other is not?

 

[Spelt]

People keep asking me to explain why they're different (which I already have countless times) yet nobody will tell me why they aren't different.

I'm not the only one in this debate, how about actually giving me something to disprove?

Saying that i'm "playing with words" doesn't change anything. If you want to get technical you're doing the same thing, except i'm not shoving that in your face as my only argument.

 

[Deleted member]

both cases it's a group of consenting people that love eachother etc.
any further qualities (size, gender heck in the sixties interracial marriage was probably an issue, ...) should be irrelevant, especially when you start saying "this is okay and this isn't" for arbitrary reasons.
there's no reason to draw the line at the point you're doing. if I'd ask you if it was okay if a brother and sister could get married, what would you say?

edit: also it's hilarious how you pretend you laid out your argument multiple times, while you only made 4 posts between someone bringing up polygamy and me entering the topic, one in which you're jsut saying they're "completely different" and one you're just sayin it's a slippery slope argument but don't actually refute it.
then you go pretending it's "obvious" the number of people is a thing and gender is not, but never actually explaining why.

 

[Spelt]

both cases it's a group of consenting people that love eachother etc.
any further qualities (size, gender heck in the sixties interracial marriage was probably an issue, ...) should be irrelevant, especially when you start saying "this is okay and this isn't" for arbitrary reasons.
there's no reason to draw the line at the point you're doing. if I'd ask you if it was okay if a brother and sister could get married, what would you say?

Oh, okay. I get it.
You missed where I said I had no problems with polygamy. I'm not drawing the line anywhere, and if you asked me that I would obviously not be thrilled with the idea.

My original argument was that same sex marriage and polygamy are different. Obviously me marrying another guy and me marrying two other guys would not be the same situation. Does that mean that one or both should be outlawed? No. But fighting for both situations under the same context of "You should be able to marry whoever you want" somehow taking into consideration any number of people is flawed. One could argue that that itself is just playing with words.

I still don't think I've made this clear enough so i'll just add that gay and straight marriage are different situations as well, but that still shouldn't affect the legality of either. I wasn't arguing what was morally/constitutionally/whatever right or wrong.

edit: also it's hilarious how you pretend you laid out your argument multiple times, while you only made 4 posts between someone bringing up polygamy and me entering the topic, one in which you're jsut saying they're "completely different" and one you're just sayin it's a slippery slope argument but don't actually refute it.
then you go pretending it's "obvious" the number of people is a thing and gender is not, but never actually explaining why.

Simple math could resolve this, but i'm not even gonna bother.

It's hilarious how you think the number of times i've explained something changes the effectiveness of the point.

 

[Dre89]

Spelt- So why is a gender deviation okay but not a quantity deviation? That's completely arbitrary.

I could just as easily say that both traditiona and polygamy marriage involve man and women, but homosexual marriage isn't in the same category because it is two people of the same gender.

Saying 'one is between two people, the other is between more than two' is pointless because both make a deviation from traditional marriage. So until you can justify why it's ok to allow same sex marriage, but it's ok to deprive polygamists of equality via not letting them marry more than one person, your distinction is completely arbitrary.

They are grouped together because they are minorities who wish to deviate from traditional marriage. Same as how gays, women and blacks are often grouped together as minorities who have been discriminated against.

 

[Deleted member]

it kind of matters if that number is 0. again with the "obvious" in your post.

Obviously me marrying another guy and me marrying two other guys would not be the same situation.

but WHY. me saying a cat is obviously not a dog still requires me explaining why that is

 

[Spelt]

Seriously? Are YOU trolling? There's absolutely no explanation necessary. Everyone knows why a cat is different than a dog, everyone knows that 2 =/= 3. You're being ridiculous.

You guys are still trying to disprove something I never even said in the first place.

I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

This is obviously never going to go anywhere since nobody can stay on topic.

 

[Dre89]

Spelt what you're doing is the equivalent of saying that crocodiles and frogs are grouped separate from salamanders due to the former two being green and the latter two not being green. I could just as easily group frogs and salamanders separate from crocdiles, due to the former two being amphibians and the latter being a reptile. Your groupings are completely arbitrary.

 

[Deleted member]

okay if a cat is so "obviously" different than a dog I'm sure you can give me a fine definition.
you do know classification of species is still one of the major debates in biology right?

 

[Spelt]

The sad part is dre is still doing it unknowingly while tpk is clearly just trolling.


It's all so clear now, cats and dogs are the same thing. Someone give tpk his nobel prize already.

 

[Deleted member]

not really, but I know you're too stubborn to actually stop and think.

 

[Spelt]

Yes, and you've finally opened my eyes. Cats and dogs are the same thing. Cats and wolves are the same thing. Polygamy and cats are the same thing!

Marriage for everything!

Where is Barbie, I gotta tell her the good news.

She'll probably want a fall wedding.
I think that's a couple months before the baby's due.


Good news for wikipedia, it can just consolidate every single page into one with a simple definition provided by the one and only The Paprika Killer.

 

[Gea]

Well, I'm glad I wasn't just being crazy. Spelt, you really haven't explained what makes two males or two females getting married so much different than three people. They can both be "one detail" removed from the original language (man and a woman).

If you just clearly say, "They are different because _____" and not just restate that three people are three people and two are two, everyone would be off your case. Even if your reasoning is one is more immoral, you can argue that to some degree better than "because it is."

You aren't being trolled. If you want people to be able to marry who they choose, would you not also be in favor of multiple partners? And if you HAVE said this before, just quote where you said it and post and we can talk about it. I don't see anyone here trying to twist your words, so maybe we just misunderstand your position.

Edit: and read my last post again. Specifically the end. The first sentence is being sarcastic to show you how silly your argument is.

 

[Spelt]

I'm not even specifically for polygamy or gay marriage. I do think that, within reason, the government shouldn't interfere with how people lead their private lives, so outlawing either is silly.

I agree.

Yeah, you definitely are still twisting my words around.

I never said I was against it, just that your original argument that same sex marriage and polygamy are the same. Now everyone's taking that and trying to prove to my why they should both be legal when I explicitly stated I didn't care either way.

I don't care why polygamy should be legal, that has nothing to do with it. Every single counterargument has been why my view is flawed because polygamy deserves to be legal just as much as gay marriage. But that's not what I was originally arguing. If you want to prove me wrong show my why same sex marriage and polygamy are the same thing, without bringing in political beliefs or moral views. Just Prove my original statement wrong, and only that statement.


Your argument was that if gay marriage gets legalized polygamy should be too because they both fall under the argument whoever you want to marry. My argument was that they're not the same thing. Legalizing one doesn't automatically mean the other one should be legalized. You can't just take one argument for one cause and transplant it on another and call it good, because they're two different cases. If people trying to legalize marrying more than one people went into that fight with that mentality it would not go well at all. "You've let same sex marriage happen, so we should be able to marry whoever we want as well!" Is a terrible argument.

It would also work the same the other way. If polygamy was legalized it wouldn't automatically mean gay marriage should be as well. Although they both maybe equally deserving of being legalized they're two different cases and you can't fight for both under the same pretext.



And tpk's just arguing because he dislikes me. Which was made pretty obvious when he started implying he thinks cats and dogs are the same thing.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't think cats and dogs are the same thing, you're just unable to give a definition why they're different

My argument was that they're not the same thing

your argument is merely a statement since you have not brought a single point to the table WHY they're different

 

[Spelt]

Yeah good job taking one sentence out from that entire post, just like all of your other arguments.
troll detected, move along people


If you are actually being serious this is a pretty pathetic attempt. You still haven't even explained why they're the same. and then you started talking about cats and dogs.
u so pro at twisting my words around to fit your needs.

 

[Deleted member]

the rest of you post does not contain an actual argument either though.
if I'd ask you to quote it you would just go "can't you read" or something like that so I'm not going to bother.

 

[Spelt]

There's literally zero reason for me to argue with you.
You're not bringing anything new to the table. Just like always you're only here for the sake of arguing and just piggybacking off what other people have already said.

You haven't made one post that's gone beyond semantics.
GGs.

 

[Deleted member]

(I could say the same for you)

I say that marriage between any consenting adults is fine, so if any deviation was made from the old christian "one man and one woman" by allowing gay marriage, there's not much reason to not also do it for polygamy.

you argue that 2 people is a (completely) different case of 3 [or more] people, but you are the one actually adding the "number of people" qualifier to it in the first place.

 

[Pluvia]

Say polygamous marriages were legal, and say there's 6 people in this situation, would 5 of them be married to one person or would everyone be married to each other?

If Jill and Kate who are married decide to divorce, and split each others property, then what property would they get to keep because technically they're still married to you, and half of their stuff is also yours. Or maybe it gets smaller and smaller until in that situation you only own 1/6th of your stuff.

 

[1048576]

My argument against plygamy would be that I don't think it's possible to love many other people in the same way you can love a single other person. There's a certain level of exclusivity in the concept of love such that nobody else can be an acceptable substitute.

I agree that if every gay person was a paragon of virtue that equality would come a lot faster. It is, of course, completely ridiculous to request this, since gay people aren't homogenous except for one characteristic, which is really the point that seems lost on so many. "Gay people" and "the gay commmunity" aren't anything, and they don't do anything as a collective. Gays are rich and poor, drama queens and stoic heroes, etc etc.

 

[Sunnysunny]

Wow, didn't think you'd still be here Spelty. You really do have the patients of a saint sticking around for so long. =w=

So um anywho~
Is there something about the same sex marrying thing i'm missing? The argument against same sex marriage comes down too "It conflicts with our religion." really.

Sorry if this sounds like, super naive of me, but to me marriage is a commitment to the one you love! Its a commitment that binds you and your partner to the end of time. A commitment saying you'll gladly die or take on the world side by side with them. If you truly love someone enough to make that commitment then let em. Gender doesn't really matter.

Whats funny is even if same sex marriage is considered a sin in certain religions such as Christianity, it's still just one sin. Meaning it can be forgiven just as any other sin. :V

It really shouldn't be a law, unless your part of that religion. Seriously. ._.

Morally i'm against Polygamous because it conflicts with my view of what marriage really means, but...marriage has changed. .-. Statistics show that atleast over 50% who have been married at one point get divorced so who am I to say they can't marry multiple people? If all parties are cool with it I can't object.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Polygamy seems like it would be more of a legal cluster**** than a same sex marriage which I'm pretty sure could easily follow all the laws of a "normal" marriage. Pluvia brings up a good example, I mean, are they all married to each other, bunch of women to one guy? What if it's multiple guys and multiple girls? I don't even.

 

[DoH]

The answer is biological determinism y'all.

No one is inherently driven to be partnered to multiple people. Polygamy is traditional marriage in its purest form. Traditional marriage is a property exchange, where one man trades the property called daughter to another man where she becomes the property called wife. Back in ye olden timey days, men of certain affluence collected multiple wives because they could afford to. It wasn't until straight people started saying **** this, and redefined marriage to be a partnership between two people to form a family unit. Marriage has already been redefined. Past tense. It is the decision of two consenting adults to enter into a partnership. The reasons behind it can very, and there aren't very many requirements; there can be children or not (no one says the elderly can't get married) it can be open or not, etc. Gays aren't asking to redefine marriage, just asking to join in the party. Polygamy being legalized would be a backwards step, and its modern incarnations have only proven the negative impacts that occur with polygamy, often which run contrary to the goals of marriage itself.

 

[1048576]

I'm just gonna put it out there: I feel more discriminated against for being male than for being gay. Higher insurance rates > lack of tax benefits.

 

[Sol9000]

The only reason I can think of to oppose same-sex-marriage is if you're a bible thumper, or if you're homophobic.
They might as well be interchangeable terms.

Bible Thumpers need to spend more time actually following the morals of the Bible and less time reading it, for the love of--

*Scene Has Laughed to the point of suffocation. We Apologize for our utter fail*

They're kind of the same thing, brother.

EDIT:

Wait...

Spoiler

Sorry, carry on...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Dre89]

The idea that you can't love multiple people equally, or that you should be committed to only one person is a complete social construct.

Legalising polygamy seems like it'd be a legal nightmare, but if people put their minds to it it could probably be sorted out. It's worth it to afford polygamists that freedom.

Now that people are pushing for gay marriage, legalising polygamy is probably the next step to undoing the damage done by social constructs and religion.

It's funny though that many pro-gays are anti religion, yet many of their views (such as anti-polygamy) are still a result of religious constructs.

As for the anti-gay position, I don't hold it anymore, but it does get misrepresented as being exclusive to homophobes and Bible bashers, which is an ignorant portrayal to be honest. Someone may be against due to thinking it.s wrong, unnatureal etc.

People say 'well even if it is unnatural, it doesn't harm anyone' not realising that the line of thinking that something is ok if it doesn't harm anyone isn;t a universal rule of human nature, but rather a particular moral philosophy that came out of the Enlightenment Period. So many anti gays wouldn't be of the philosophy that something is oke simply if it doesn't harm others. Many are probably virtue ethicists or proponents of natural law.

 

[Pikaville]

Polygamy seems like it would be more of a legal cluster**** than a same sex marriage which I'm pretty sure could easily follow all the laws of a "normal" marriage. Pluvia brings up a good example, I mean, are they all married to each other, bunch of women to one guy? What if it's multiple guys and multiple girls? I don't even.

This.

Polygamy is messy.

Gay marriage, why are some people so opposed to it?

If people want to express their love by legally binding themselves together then why not?

 

[Dre89]

Read my post above.

I'll say it again, people need to realise that the belief that something is ok if it doesn't harm anyone isn't a universal rule of human nature and is just specific moral philosophy from the Enlightenment Period.

Simply saying 'well it doesn't harm others' is pointless because it doesn't address the real issue. It's like a religious person saying that religion gives people purpose, when the real problem is whether there is a reason to believe it or not.

 

[Sol9000]

TIME TO LOCK DA THREAD. :D *Rings Dinnerbell*

 

[Morin0]

TIME TO LOCK DA THREAD. :D *Rings Dinnerbell*

I can already see Teran's message:

"THE ONLY LOCKING HERE BROTHER IS YOUR HEAD IN A HEADLOCK. STOP BEING SUCH A CRUISERWEIGHT."

 

[Atrain]

ITT: Nothing about gay marriage.

 

[Teran]

Read my post above.

I'll say it again, people need to realise that the belief that something is ok if it doesn't harm anyone isn't a universal rule of human nature and is just specific moral philosophy from the Enlightenment Period.

Simply saying 'well it doesn't harm others' is pointless because it doesn't address the real issue. It's like a religious person saying that religion gives people purpose, when the real problem is whether there is a reason to believe it or not.

Yeah but the issue is there is no issue.

The only issue is that God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, but what God and men in general seem to forget is that Eve was the skank who took that apple and ate it. Since this basically set the precedent for women consistently being easy to manipulate by marketers (the original being Satan), and just generally greedy, enlightened men realised that the only way to find happiness was to choose to be homosexual.

I mean let's look at it this way, lesbianism doesn't work if you know what I'm sayin', but being gay does! That's obviously God's way of saying "okay you people are the only ones that matter so I'll give you a way to stick together effectively".

Flawless logic that can't be refuted, get on my level you sick queers.

 

[Atrain]

Read my post above.

I'll say it again, people need to realise that the belief that something is ok if it doesn't harm anyone isn't a universal rule of human nature and is just specific moral philosophy from the Enlightenment Period.

Simply saying 'well it doesn't harm others' is pointless because it doesn't address the real issue. It's like a religious person saying that religion gives people purpose, when the real problem is whether there is a reason to believe it or not.

I see what you're saying, but when it comes down to actual debates - not forum squabbles or facebook arguemnts - about this subject, that line is rarely used. It more about the discrimination and lack of equal rights towards another human being solely due one of his traits.

 

[Lore]

I can already see Teran's message:

"THE ONLY LOCKING HERE BROTHER IS YOUR HEAD IN A HEADLOCK. STOP BEING SUCH A CRUISERWEIGHT."

TERAN ISN'T THE ONLY POOL ROOM MOD BROTHER, HE JUST FILLS IN WHEN I MISS SOMETHING OR WHEN I'M IN THE HEADLOCK OF LIFE.

I'll keep this open for now.

 

[Morin0]

TERAN ISN'T THE ONLY POOL ROOM MOD BROTHER, HE JUST FILLS IN WHEN I MISS SOMETHING OR WHEN I'M IN THE HEADLOCK OF LIFE.

I'll keep this open for now.

...what?