The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 25    Average: 3.1/5]
124 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6815
Rating: 3.1
Category:
Date: 01/06/12 11:29 AM

124 Responses to Santorum Compares Same-Sex Marriage To Pologamy

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8044 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:17 am
    Link: Santorum Compares Same-Sex Marriage To Pologamy - Really Rick? Does anyone see any logic to his argument?
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Of course this is correct. If marriage is going to be redefined, why not allow plural marriages?

    Bible says it`s okay so why are christians so against the idea?
  3. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
    I see the point he`s trying to make, but that`s not the issue, plus he`s comparing apples and oranges. For his reasoning to be valid, then polygamy would have to be legal for some people but not for others.
  4. Profile photo of Amurika
    Amurika Male 30-39
    282 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:37 am
    The establishment is getting desperate. They are throwing their best morons out there. Wonder who will be next after this one runs out of sounds bytes.
  5. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1793 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:47 am
    ration reason thoughtful dicussion would not inclued you Rick....
  6. Profile photo of buckshot
    buckshot Male 30-39
    38 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:48 am
    As much as I hate this guy, he does have a good point.
  7. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3290 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:51 am
    In this case, I agree with him. All he`s saying is that you`re arguing for a change in the current laws, so don`t just consider your own desires (same sex marriage), but the desires of all Americans (those who may want polygamy legalized). He`s not, in this clip at least, saying that same sex marriage is the same as polygamy, or that legalizing same sex marriage means you HAVE to legalize polygamy. All he`s saying is if you`re going to reconsider the definition of marriage, you must be willing to consider ALL definitions of marriage.

    (PS: I`m not making any comment about same sex marriage, or polygamy. Please don`t think I`m saying that one type of marriage is right and another is wrong.)
  8. Profile photo of kja1995
    kja1995 Male 18-29
    124 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:55 am
    Apples ≠ Oranges
  9. Profile photo of Muert
    Muert Male 30-39
    153 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 11:58 am
    Why should polygamy be illegal? 2+ people being married does not have a physical negative effect on anyone, there for it is none of the government`s business. Same goes for gay marriage.
  10. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    I`d just like to see you Americans make same-sex marriage legal, if only to watch the inevitable same-sex divorce court. I think it would be hilarious to watch two gay men have to divvy up their Mariah Carey cd collection.
  11. Profile photo of Ibanezmansam
    Ibanezmansam Male 18-29
    2 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    I`m not a fan of this guy at all, but he does have a point. I think basing the argument on your "right to be happy" causes problems however. He`s forgetting the issue in polygamy involves all members of the party APPEARING to be happy, when often external societal and familial influences force "happy consent" out of all parties. Similar to human+animal marriage, the animal doesn`t really have much say right? But to add to the confusion...
    This Old IAB repost
  12. Profile photo of bophus
    bophus Male 30-39
    474 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    This questions should have been posed like this. "Why is it ok for a man and a woman to marry, but not a man and a man?" When forced to answer the question, he would have said something about the bible. That is where they would have gotten him. He is a religious zealot and our contry can not be run that way. I live in PA and he was a complete disaster, both terms. That is why we voted him out of office.
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Whatever floats your boat. I bet he goes broke every Valentines day.

  14. Profile photo of evanbartlett
    evanbartlett Male 30-39
    559 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    I`m still struggling to understand why polygamy, per se, is wrong.
  15. Profile photo of ledzeppeloyd
    ledzeppeloyd Male 18-29
    2385 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    aren`t you mormon? case in point, checkmate
  16. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    His status in the race is proof the Iowa caucuses are a wasted effort. We`ll have forgotten who he was next week at this time.
  17. Profile photo of BritInvasion
    BritInvasion Male 18-29
    311 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    What do you do with insurance if you have many people married to each other? Theoretically, the whole U.S. could be married to one another. How do you calculate that insurance wise?

    Stemmed off the thought: How you you handle insurance for gays and lesbians: Anyone could marry each other just for insurance reasons. Then I figured well....straights could do that anyway so that went out the window.
  18. Profile photo of QualityJay
    QualityJay Male 18-29
    303 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    who cares. polygamy should be legal too.
  19. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    Yeah the polygamy / bestiality line is only crossed by people incapable of seeing things through. The non-thinkers, the empty heads. The Santorum`s and QualityJay`s among us.
  20. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    The only difference between Rick Santorum and Mullah Omar is that Santorum can`t grow a beard.
  21. Profile photo of bliznik
    bliznik Male 30-39
    867 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    The guy is a complete tool, but his argument is sound. If you base your argument on the happiness of the couple, then you open the door to letting people do whatever the heck they want because they would be happy. He`s saying that their argument is flawed.

    I think that gay marriage should be legalized, but I don`t believe that gay marriage should be legalized simply because it makes the couple happier to be married than to not be married.
  22. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    What about 3 men? Doesn`t hurt me anymore than 2 does. If that`s the slippery slope then guess I fell down it.
  23. Profile photo of skine
    skine Male 18-29
    719 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    I`ve been saying this for years:

    I will send a cookie to anyone who can think of an argument against gay marriage that doesn`t boil down to one of these:

    -"I disagree with heterosexual marriage law."
    -"I`ve been told that it`s bad."
    -"Eww, gross!"
  24. Profile photo of Blatto
    Blatto Male 18-29
    358 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    @QualityJay

    I completely agree. I multiple people want to be in a relationship with the same person or they all want to be in a big bisexual polyamorous relationship, they should be allowed. I`ll never understand why people are so intensely interested in other people`s sex lives.
  25. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    How about the government not define marriage or have anything to do with it. It`s a personal and religious issue only. Ron Paul: "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Ron Paul 2012!
  26. Profile photo of mikejbott
    mikejbott Male 18-29
    19 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    i like ron paul`s belief... who gives a drat what you do in the privacy of your home?

    @Skine:
    -raising a child of a different gender than the homosexual parents may lead do developmental psychological issues, there is no sure way to test this theory (i`m only arguing for a cookie)
  27. Profile photo of flyerZ
    flyerZ Male 18-29
    33 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    I think the argument is that western society has set up monogamous relationships to be the societal norm. The government gives these monogamous relationships certain benefits, and it would cause strife to our "system" if we decided to change the criteria that is needed to attain them. It`s simply become a cultural war now between cultural conservatives and cultural revolutionaries. People who say the government should butt out should understand that it wouldn`t be an easy process to deny all married couples benefits suddenly. Until the majority of our society believes in that, it won`t happen, and if it does it would change ever so slowly.
  28. Profile photo of verbosity
    verbosity Male 30-39
    83 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    Santorum has a perfectly valid point.

    The logic is this: if you say a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married because they have a right to pursue their happiness together in a loving relationship, then if you have three people who wish to do the same (a man and two women, two men and a woman, three men, or three women) they should be allowed to do so.

    If multiple partner marriages are different than a 2 person marriage, then 2 same sex partners is different than 2 different sex partners marrying.

    However, I see no reason why we should be opposed to this. If they are all legally consenting adults who wish to enter this relationship and accept the rights along with the responsibilities, then let them. In fact, there could be an argument for large married families (if one spouse dies, there are still others to rely on and comfort you).

    Myself, I do not want multiple partners nor does my wife. However, I see no reason al
  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    His point is %100 correct, those trolls in the audience either could not understand or were only there to beat their own drums.

    @skine: Send me & Rick Santorum cookies then!
  30. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm
    Yeah the polygamy / bestiality line is only crossed by people incapable of seeing things through. The non-thinkers, the empty heads. The Santorum`s and QualityJay`s among us.

    Here`s a challenge for you:

    State one argument in favour of state recognition of homosexual marriage that does not apply to state recognition of polygamous marriage and which is different to the arguments opponents of state recognition of homosexual marriage use.

    You lumping bestiality in with polyamory is as much irrational prejudice as lumping it in with homosexuality, so I`m just going to ignore it.
  31. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    same-sex divorce court
    @Patchy: It would be the most fabulous show on TV!

    Yeah the polygamy... line is only crossed by people incapable of seeing things through
    @madest: You mean polygamists DON`T KNOW what makes them happy? Or are all polygamists, like the former head of the NOW, idiots? What are you trying to say?
    Also: are ALL Muslims idiots too? Because polygamy is perfectly legal for them.
  32. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    so I`m just going to ignore it.
    Lolz! @Angilion, I went further and edited it out! (with proper format of course...)
  33. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    Not a legal issue.Religion and superstition problem.Seperate church and state-no problem.
  34. Profile photo of trepper687
    trepper687 Male 13-17
    33 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    I get what he is saying, but why do they think pologamy is wrong? This is america, home of the free, so who the drat cares what a group of people do, provided that it doesn`t hurt anybody?
  35. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    Here`s the deal, Liberals think it`s perfectly fine for Homosexuals to marry, but would object to two straight people getting a `civil union` just for insurance and benefits purposes. Most liberals also object to polygamy, but can`t logically square that with their belief that homosexuals have a right to the word marriage.

    That is why `Marriage` should remain 1 Man and 1 Woman. If others want `civil unions` then they should be open to polygamists and straights seeking benefits as well.

    Then you can argue over what constitutes a legal `civil union`, without dragging the term `Marriage` into the fray.
  36. Profile photo of IrishJesus
    IrishJesus Male 18-29
    483 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    CJ: It`s obvious that you consider marriage a religious element. Why else would you be opposed to something as trivial as the wording of a union (unless you`re just blatantly homophobic)?

    Assuming the former is the case, you should consider that people of any religion (or lack there of) can be married. It is a government institution at its base, but CAN be religious.
  37. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    He actually changed my mind.. just in the opposite direction he was going for.. Why shouldn`t poligamy be allowed, if it`s between consenting adults ??.. Is there a rational argument against it ?..
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    IrishJesus: It`s been religiously based a hell of a lot longer then any government.

    Being for 1 Man 1 Woman marriage doesn`t make anyone homophobic anymore than being against the designated hitter rule make one anti-American League.
  39. Profile photo of imnakdjumpme
    imnakdjumpme Male 18-29
    598 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Why is the govt truly in the marriage business? if its to help support children with healthy families then you only need to identify who the parents are and hold them accountable or lend them tax incentives, but they shouldnt have to be married for the govt to acknowledge their position. Everyone has a different definition of marriage anyways. In regards to polygamy, i dont see anything inherently wrong with multiple people being married to each other and can be just as rewarding, but until we see a more balanced number of women marrying multiple men vs men marrying multiple women, then it is hard to not to feel that is being abused and we need to protect against that.
  40. Profile photo of imnakdjumpme
    imnakdjumpme Male 18-29
    598 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    cracker jack, marriage started as 1 man OWNING 1 woman as property, so already i question the "sanctity" of marriage. Also, there are cases of same sex marriages all over the world since time began and has been fairly popular in many cultures, such as the greeks.
  41. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    No Crakr I wouldn`t object to a straight couple getting a civil union- If they don`t want a marriage, fine.

    Polygamy is not a biological feature of the Human condition. Or to put in the Great Jon Stewart`s words, "It`s not in my biological makeup to have to nail many different women that are married to me." Polygamy is a primitive throwback to the days when women were chattel, it`s sexist and antediluvian, and that`s why you don`t have to say anything to the polygamists. They have no standing whatsoever.

    Polygamy is a poor diversionary canard that Cons use when they`ve reached the bottom of the barrel, and nobody takes it seriously.
  42. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    Being for 1 man +woman marriage makes you absolutely homophobic when you understand that not everyone is wired that way. Point blank.
  43. Profile photo of imnakdjumpme
    imnakdjumpme Male 18-29
    598 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    QueenZira, i dont know if its true, but i sure as hell feel its natural for me to want to be in an intimate relationship with lots of women. i fall in love with almost every one i see and would love to have multiple wives, as long as they were fully into it as well.
    But seriously is it sexist for 3 bisexuals to want to be married and should the govt say you cant? i dont think so, but i do think we need to protect against the institutionalized marriages of child brides and women that are indoctrinated or forced into marriages, but that is more against women in general and not necessarily involving polygamy.
  44. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:16 pm
    First off, just some minor nitpickery but, this dude is not in fact the Mormon one, this guy is just from a rather viciously mean spirited anti intellectual strain of Catholicism.

    Secondly, I`ll stick with Stewart`s erudite analysis and keep on opposing people being treated like possessions, there`s a reason that civilized countries grew out of their ancient tribal origins after all.
  45. Profile photo of uberrogo
    uberrogo Male 30-39
    41 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm
    He trolled them real good and they fell into his hands.
  46. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    I don`t understand what`s so wrong with polygamy either. As long as everyone in the relationship consents to the marriage and no one is being forced into it, I don`t see an issue (though with legal benefits that come with marriage, it`s a little bit difficult to figure out how to handle polygamous marriages). It`s not always 1 guy with tons of women either. I knew a girl who considered herself married to 2 guys, both guys consented to the relationship, but she was only legally married to one. There`s also such a thing as polyamorous relationships where everyone in the relationship loves each other, it just so happens that instead of 2 people being in love it`s 3 or 4 (or more, really).

    The arguments in support of polygamous marriages are different from gay marriages though, and he`s dumb for not seeing the difference. But polygamous marriages aren`t bad by default imo.
  47. Profile photo of revelcal
    revelcal Female 70 & Over
    27 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    QueenZira: I have a lot of polyamorous friends that would probably disagree with that take on polygamy. One female friend of mine keeps several "husbands" (as she calls them, of course there is no legal marriage) If your problem is with sexism and human rights it is important, in this age of diversity, to make sure you aim true with your notions lest innocent freedoms get caught in the crossfire. Every polygamist is not sexist and every sexist is not a polygamist.
  48. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    "raising a child of a different gender than the homosexual parents may lead do developmental psychological issues, there is no sure way to test this theory (i`m only arguing for a cookie) "

    Invalid argument. Single parents raise kids all the time so whether or not it has an effect is irrelevant since it`s perfectly legal to raise a child as a single parent. But also my brother and I were raised almost completely by our mom (dad visiting 1-2 times a year from the time we were 2 and 4 but essentially uninvolved in our lives). My brother turned out just fine.
  49. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I have always known this was part of their fear based oposition to Same Gender Marriage. If we redefine marriage beyong 1 man 1 woman, then how far can it get redefined in the future? It opens a can of worms about "what is marriage" and they don`t want to go there. Their belief is faith based, which is fine for them, but is yet another example of Christians forcing their faith-values on other people.

    If adults want to be in a Man/Woman/Man relationship or any other combination, it`s none of my business and anyone else can stay out of my Man on Man marriage.

    P.S. Civil Unions are not equal to marriage. There are many marrital rights that are not included in them. Conservatives say it`s the same but it`s not. Seperate But Equal never is.
  50. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    Marriages between men and women are what leads to Polygamy not gay marriage.

    What is hilarious is the Republican Presidential front runner Mitt Romney`s father was conceived and born in Mexico by polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children because of the federal government`s opposition to polygamy. That`s right Mitt Romney is an Anchor Baby with a rich history in Polygamy.
  51. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    Liberals think it`s perfectly fine for Homosexuals to marry, but would object to two straight people getting a `civil union` just for insurance and benefits purposes.

    No we do not object to that. Who would ever object to heterosexual people getting a civil union for the financial benefits? One of my friends married a Serbian woman he met in college just so she could get a work permit and remain in the country legally after graduating. Nothing wrong with that. They`re still married.
  52. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    Correction, it was Mitt Romney`s great grandparents who were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children because of the federal government`s opposition to polygamy.

    I just love that Mitt`s father was conceived and born in Mexico. Take that Birther`s. Karma is a bitch.
  53. Profile photo of verbosity
    verbosity Male 30-39
    83 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    Santorum has a perfectly valid point.

    The logic is this: if you say a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married because they have a right to pursue their happiness together in a loving relationship, then if you have three people who wish to do the same (a man and two women, two men and a woman, three men, or three women) they should be allowed to do so.

    If multiple partner marriages are different than a 2 person marriage, then 2 same sex partners is different than 2 different sex partners marrying.

    However, I see no reason why we should be opposed to this. If they are all legally consenting adults who wish to enter this relationship and accept the rights along with the responsibilities, then let them. In fact, there could be an argument for large married families (if one spouse dies, there are still others to rely on and comfort you).

    Myself, I do not want multiple partners nor does my wife. However, I see no reason al
  54. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    What I find interesting is queen and madest have come pretty close to proving they`re two of the most batpoop left winger`s who post here, yet they seem to be the only two actually against this. Possibly for different reasons, sorta hard to tell, but either way, you have to be sorta thick to come to the argument "History shows this, so this will always be as it was shown in history."

    Polygamy isn`t a big deal. It`s the religions that embrace it.
  55. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    QueenZira: Polygamy is not a biological feature of the Human condition.

    It certainly has been in the past, many different cultures allowed polygamy, and others allowed homosexuality and the ancient Greeks allowed pedophilia.

    So you using that excuse won`t fly, if you say it`s ok for homosexuals to marry, then you can`t defend not allowing others their biological urges as well.

    Marriage is either 1 Man and 1 Woman, or the word becomes meaningless with an ever increasing inclusive definition.

    If you don`t like `civil unions`, as they are, then lobby to have them legally treated as equal.
    And please, don`t be so inane as to equate that to Jim Crow, that`s just insulting to black history.
  56. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    if you have three people who wish to do the same (a man and two women, two men and a woman, three men, or three women) they should be allowed to do so.
    Exactly. That`s how the questioner should have responded.
    or the word becomes meaningless with an ever increasing inclusive definition.
    I`m sure the universe would instantly implode if any of your "values" were compromised...
  57. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm
    Crakr read Jon`s statement again-"Not *part of my biological makeup* to have to nail many different women *that are married to me*" The emphasis is important here.

    When did you start going off on this civil union tangent? It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
  58. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    How about a compromise? You can form any sort of group you like for a living relationship with mutual powers of attorney, joint property ownership, inheritance, medical visitation and decision-making, etc., just don`t call it marriage. That name has already been taken, and it has a very specific definition.
  59. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 12:08 am
    I can`t believe people are arguing over this. The percentage of people in the country that support the inclusion of same sex couples in the definition of marriage exceeded 50% last year. It will be even higher in this years poll. The percentage of people in the country that would support polygamy is so low pollsters don`t even ask the question. Polygamy is a slight of hand to distract from the fact that love and tolerance has won.
  60. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 1:12 am
    OldOllie: They don`t want to compromise, they want to force everyone to believe their lifestyle is completely normal, that`s why they MUST hijack the word marriage, otherwise they won`t be able to force their normalization agenda onto the whole of society.
  61. Profile photo of akabane
    akabane Male 18-29
    1093 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 3:28 am
    i kinda agree with you crakrjack, they are warping everyone`s belief that the life style is a norm.
  62. Profile photo of PierreJeanFR
    PierreJeanFR Male 40-49
    1360 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 4:49 am
    Who gives a f..ck they want to get married let them have it.
    There are more important issues to debate about.
    The only ones that care about this are gays and maricones like Oldollie and Crakrjakass...
  63. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7047 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:00 am
    Purely from a religious viewpoint gay marriage is not an issue as the bible would have gays killed before things went that far. Polygamy on the other hand has Abraham, Jacob, David ... So God apparently is ok with polygamy.

    (Later on Paul got a bit negative about it but it was never a big deal.)
  64. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:22 am
    @CJ and akabane: So, if people accept them as "normal", so what? What are you afaraid of...that you`ll turn gay?


  65. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:24 am
    Oh...and NEC is where I went to college...if I had been there I woould`ve laughed this joker off the stage.
  66. Profile photo of trippyhippy9
    trippyhippy9 Male 18-29
    559 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 6:45 am
    What a frothy mixture of seman, lube, and feces this guy is...
  67. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 7:12 am
    jtrebowski: Your comment was rather farcical, I just find their public displays of affection execrable and not normal at all.
  68. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7047 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 7:21 am
    I suspect the sub-editor who came up with the headline `Santorum surges from behind in Iowa` knew exactly what he was doing.
  69. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 7:52 am
    @CJ: So...if I was at a table near your at a nice restaurant, and I started sucking face with my wife, you`d be o.k with that? Please...and besides when did this become about PDA? It`s about marriage. Frothy, Newt, Mitt, you, and other cons have no business trying to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" until you start banning the thing that cheapens it the most.....divorce.
  70. Profile photo of akabane
    akabane Male 18-29
    1093 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 8:10 am
    @jtrebowski im not afraid that i, nor anyone else, will turn gay. im just saying that it is out of the norm. where did marriage come from? religion. does these religions say it is okay? Originally, no. So why do people want to marry if it is going against the religion that claim to "hate" or "dislike" them?
  71. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 8:39 am
    Maybe because, just like atheists, or people who choose to be married by a Justice of the Peace, they want to declare their life-long commitment to each other.
  72. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 9:17 am
    Stop getting off track. There are, like, 5 gay marriage posts a week on this site, voice your opinion on gay marriage there.

    This is about polygamy. Doesn`t matter if you agree or disagree with gay marriage, you can still make a sound observation on whether or not group marriage is equivalent to gay marriage.

    Thus far, it sounds like every conservative agree`s if you allow one, you may as well allow the other(although, preferably, neither). Oddly enough, sounds like that`s the case for the liberal`s as well(although, preferably, both). Really, are madest, queen, and mark the only people who don`t see it that way?
  73. Profile photo of penguinazul
    penguinazul Female 18-29
    470 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 9:19 am
    Do you religious people believe that a heterosexual couple who is atheist shouldn`t be allowed to be married? Why does it have to be the "religious" way? If you want to be married in the religious way, go for it, but I really don`t see why people give a poo whether two people get married in the court house or not. What does it matter if they`re gay or not?
  74. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14652 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:02 am
    @penguinazul indeed. Also mixed denomination marriages are generally against the teachings of that denomination`s church.
  75. Profile photo of akabane
    akabane Male 18-29
    1093 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:08 am
    "Why does it have to be the `religious` way?"

    well, its kinda a double standard. Atheists denounce teaching religious beliefs in school; however, its okay to encourage religious practices such as marriage, or other holidays.
  76. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Religion incorporates human content far more often than it creates it. Marriage thus, was not created by religion. And even if you claim that it in fact was, note that not all religions censure same sex couples, my religious forebears, particularly in Greece for example, had absolutely no problem with same sex couplings period.

    And stop trying to fight against "Normalization" please. Gay people are a normal part of the Human condition. As it has always been, as it once was in antiquity, so it becomes once more in modern times.

    (Oh hey, now that`s a wee bit o` barding worthy of Brigit herself, Thankee Goddess if I do say so meself)!
  77. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Markust I didn`t know that about Romney`s lineage before now, nice work! Of course we`re still dealing with people who can`t appreciate that Mccain was born on a military base in Guatemala, you`d think Liberals would`ve raised a stink about that were it not for us, you know, knowing about the Jus Sanguinis clause of American citizenship.

    We have the mental chops that Reps. lack basically, in every way.
  78. Profile photo of thatjimguy
    thatjimguy Male 30-39
    458 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:41 am
    He`s bringing it up to go against Mitt Romney...even though the LDS does not do polygamy right now.
  79. Profile photo of Hedkwab
    Hedkwab Male 18-29
    340 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 10:46 am
    Total idiot douche bag. This ridiculous, irrelevant argument is the best opposition he can come up with? Pathetic.
  80. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    cracker jack, marriage started as 1 man OWNING 1 woman as property, so already i question the "sanctity" of marriage.

    Can you provide evidence to support that statement?

    A rhetorical question, since I know you can`t.

    Also, there are cases of same sex marriages all over the world since time began and has been fairly popular in many cultures, such as the greeks.

    Same question, but not rhetorical this time.

    I`m well aware of homosexual relationships being fairly common in some cultures, with ancient Greece being a good example, but *marriages*? Formal, officially acknowledged relationships with legal status. The only example I know of off the top of my head was an infamous marriage attributed to a deranged Roman emperor, which is not a good example of normality.
  81. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    Polygamy is a primitive throwback to the days when women were chattel, it`s sexist and antediluvian, and that`s why you don`t have to say anything to the polygamists. They have no standing whatsoever.

    I used to know a woman who had half a dozen lovers. All men, since she was straight. She might well have married them all if she was allowed to. That`s polygamy. Would you like to try to fit that into your irrational prejudice that you`ve labelled "polygamy"?
  82. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    @akabane

    "Atheists denounce teaching religious beliefs in school; however, its okay to encourage religious practices such as marriage, or other holidays."

    Marriage predates Christianity (the religion that`s being used as the weapon in this particular instance) by a considerable degree.
  83. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    P.S. Civil Unions are not equal to marriage. There are many marrital rights that are not included in them. Conservatives say it`s the same but it`s not. Seperate But Equal never is.

    It is here because it`s not actually seperate except as a heading on some paperwork.

    We have civil marriages (heterosexual) and civil partnerships (homosexual). They are explicitly defined in law as being exactly the same thing, to the extent that any changes in one automatically change the other in the same way. In absolutely every respect, they are the same thing. The wording was a pragmatic step to ensure equal rights as quickly as possible without lengthy fighting over a word, and it worked. The law passed without a murmur, let alone any real opposition.

    People who acknowledge homosexual relationships call both "marriage" anyway and people who don`t wouldn`t do so even if the forms did.

    What do you want more? Rights or a fight?
  84. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    I`ve seena few people in this thread confidently stating that marriage started as a religious thing and even some arguing that marriage started with their religion (probably Christianity). The latter is obviously silly, but I`ve a question for those who believe the former:

    How do you know?

    Given that religion goes back into prehistory and marriage almost certainly does as well, on what evidence are you basing your statement that marriage was originally religious? You can`t know that.
  85. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    @CrakrJak

    "They don`t want to compromise, they want to force everyone to believe their lifestyle is completely normal"

    Will you fall over and die if you`re forced to do that?

    We`re not asking you to join in for pity`s sake! You can carry on with your life as you see fit. We`re just asking you let us do the same with ours.

    And to bring back up the old question, CrakrJak: whom do you love? Are you married? Single? Divorced?

    When I`ve asked before, you`ve refused to answer as a matter of privacy. I don`t accept that defence from you; you`re involved in a debate about other people`s private lives, supporting the belief that our private lives should be meddled with and interrupted. So why should the privacy of your relationship be protected when you support the invasion of the relationships of others?

    TELL US CrakrJak: tell us if you`re married, or a bitter middle-aged singleton, or a hypocritical divorcee!
  86. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    @akabane

    "i kinda agree with you crakrjack, they are warping everyone`s belief that the life style is a norm."

    That can work both ways. See:

    "I kind of agree with you, CrakrJak; they (the religious) are warping everyone`s belief that the lifestyle is a sin."

    (I had to correct your spelling and grammar. Not as a comment on your writing, or as a method of debate, but because I don`t want to look like a moron when I`m posting...at least, not from anything other than the content of what I`m saying).
  87. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    Gah, I missed the obvious when replying to QueenZira`s silly prejudices about polygamy.

    Polygamy is a primitive throwback to the days when women were chattel, it`s sexist and antediluvian

    Some people have said the same about marriage. In fact, someone has said that right here in this thread:

    marriage started as 1 man OWNING 1 woman as property

    So, Queenzira, why are you not opposed to heterosexual marriage on exactly the same grounds that you`re opposed to polygamy?

    Also, what makes you different to someone who opposes homosexuality on the basis that it`s an older man corrupting a young man or outright paedophilia? They`re smearing consensual relationships with abuse for the purposes of promoting prejudice, just as you are.
  88. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm
    Since this is essentially an argument about the word "marriage", specifically the word itself, then there is a clear answer as to whether or not it was originally religious - it wasn`t.

    The word traces back to Latin. Roman marriage came in either 3 or 5 forms, depending on whether you count sine manus as a seperate form or not. Only the rarest form of Roman marriage, which was really rather rare and only ever existed within the nobility, was religious. The other 2 (or 4) forms were not religious. People could add religious ceremonies if they wanted to, but the wedding itself was areligious. They didn`t call it "wedding", as that`s an Old English word...which is also completely areligious (it means "to vow" and it was between the spouses).

    None of the words are religious, religion is not inherent in marriage and there is ample precedent for areligious marriages...so where is the basis for your argument?
  89. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    Maybe a solution would be to give the three distinctly different things different names.

    i) A public declaration of a private relationship. Maybe also include some form of intention to some form of commitment, but not legally enforceable as this has nothing to do with the law or the state. It`s entirely about the people involved, so nobody else gets to place restrictions on how adults arrange their relationships.

    ii) State recognition. This is where the enforced legal rights and responsibilities come in - that`s what the state is for. So the state gets to decide what relationships it will recognise and what ones it won`t.

    iii) Religious recognition. Nothing to do with anything to do with the law or rights. Each religion and each sect within it gets to decide what relationships it will recognise and what ones it won`t.
  90. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    CrakrJak "They don`t want to compromise, they want to force everyone to believe their lifestyle is completely normal"
    No. Speaking as one of "They" I don`t ever expect you to accept me as "normal". But I would ask that you stop forcing your belief on me and others. If you think marriage is only between a man and a woman, then by all means you should live by that belief. But don`t expect everyone around you to do the same.

    P.S. If you`re ever in San Diego we have gotta go out for pizza and a piture of beer.
  91. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    Le sigh Angilion:

    1. Marriage today is nothing like it was in the middle ages, or 3000 BCE. Today it is an I-Thou partnership of equals. Done.
    2. You`ve completely distorted my position and substituted your own. You *did* see Stewart`s relevant quote no?
    3. This can be easily applied to someone who voluntarily desires to become someone else`s slave. They would say, "We`re happy this way, let us live in servitude to somebody else." And again this is a request that no one is obliged to respect, we`re not to repeal the 13th Amendment just for them. Only the most doctrinaire Libertarian would disagree, Libertarianism defined as "The Freedom to Let the Wind Blow Through my Brains on the Pavement." (Helmet laws are such tyranny)!!
  92. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    "1 man owning woman as property."

    Angilion don`t be so obtuse. Pick up any holy book from the 3 great monotheisms and read about the worth of women, how they`re treated. Get Real.

    And I`m still waiting for you to defend *your* completely irrational prejudice against those who desire to be enslaved. *Foot Tapping.*
  93. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 12:35 am
    Sorry @QueenZira but you`re absolutely wrong. In history polygamy appears when a society ha more women than men. Usually because of wars killing off the males, eh?
    So how does a society keep all those breeders making babies? With polygamy!
    Now the arguement that "Polygamy is not a biological feature of the Human condition." is nonsense. It applies MORE to homosexuals than polygamists, you, do know that eh?

    @LilianDulci: My brother and I were raised by my father, we turned out pretty good too! :-) Gender has little to do with child raising skills.
  94. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 12:51 am
    Gay people are a normal part of the Human condition.
    POLYAMOROUS people are a normal part of the Human condition.
    PEDOPHILE people are a normal part of the Human condition.
    NECROPHILE people are a normal part of the Human condition.
    So sorry @QueenZira, your arguement just doesn`t hold water. I do respect your opinion and all. It`s just that this particular arguement is flawed.

    Also your glee over McCain being born on a military base, and Romney`s GRANDparents? Not even close to what Obama pulled off.

    @Angilion has been layin down the wisdom here!
  95. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 1:00 am
    you`ve refused to answer as a matter of privacy. I don`t accept that defence from you
    Well @Musuko42: Your profile is BLANK! How dare you demand others reveal intimate details about their lives when YOU don`t do the same?
    Fess up with hordes of personal details, THEN ask others to do the same, m-kay?

    If you`re ever in San Diego we have gotta go out for pizza and a piture of beer.
    @Gerry1: I hope that applies to me too! Although I`d prefer a "pint" or a "pitcher" as opposed to a "piture" eh?
    San Diego is one of my "I hope to visit" places! Can I sleep on your couch?
  96. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 3:28 am
    Gerry: My likely hood of ever seeing the west coast, let alone San Diego, is slim to none. Besides I don`t drink alcohol and from what I`ve seen of `California style` pizza, no thanks. We have several damn good pizzerias here, pizzas made by hand by real Italian decedents, and the Italian beef sandwiches are as good as in Chicago.
  97. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 4:49 am
    @QueenZira

    "1. Marriage today is nothing like it was in the middle ages, or 3000 BCE. Today it is an I-Thou partnership of equals. Done."

    Which means that at some point between then and now, the definition of marriage changed to more accurately reflect the society of the time. So the definition can change again to reflect our once again changed society.

    DONE.
  98. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 4:58 am
    @5Cats

    "Well @Musuko42: Your profile is BLANK! How dare you demand others reveal intimate details about their lives when YOU don`t do the same?
    Fess up with hordes of personal details, THEN ask others to do the same, m-kay?"

    I`m quite happy to answer the specific question that I`ve been asking CrakrJak (and any others you care to ask...other than credit card numbers and the like :P); I am a gay man living together with my male partner as a monogomous couple. We have been together for two years.

    CrakrJak`s turn please. Is he married? Divorced? Is he single? A virgin? Is he respecting the sanctity of marriage in action as well as vehemently defending it verbally?

    His continued silence leads me to believe he has had sex before marriage, he is divorced, or he is in his 40s and tragically single. He doesn`t want to say so because all of these would undermine his position.
  99. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 5:24 am
    1. Marriage today is nothing like it was in the middle ages, or 3000 BCE. Today it is an I-Thou partnership of equals. Done.

    Ah, so you can understand that a modern implementation of something is not necessarily the same as a cliched and at best only partially true interpretation of how it was in the past.

    So why can`t you understand that applies to polygamy as much as it does to monogamy?

    2. You`ve completely distorted my position and substituted your own.

    No, I haven`t. Your position is that a form of marriage you disapprove of because of your own irrational prejudices about it should be illegal. My position is that adults should be allowed to marry according to their own choice.
  100. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 5:26 am
    3. This can be easily applied to someone who voluntarily desires to become someone else`s slave. They would say, "We`re happy this way, let us live in servitude to somebody else." And again this is a request that no one is obliged to respect, we`re not to repeal the 13th Amendment just for them. Only the most doctrinaire Libertarian would disagree, Libertarianism defined as "The Freedom to Let the Wind Blow Through my Brains on the Pavement." (Helmet laws are such tyranny)!!

    I can`t answer that unless you explain how you think it`s in any way relevant to my position. As far as I can tell, you`re arguing against yourself and that has nothing to do with me.
  101. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 5:30 am
    Angilion don`t be so obtuse. Pick up any holy book from the 3 great monotheisms and read about the worth of women, how they`re treated. Get Real.

    Marriage predates all of them, so they aren`t the origin of marriage.

    Marriage today doesn`t have to be in accordance with a literalist interpretation of any of those religions.

    Your lack of understanding is not my obtuseness.

    And I`m still waiting for you to defend *your* completely irrational prejudice against those who desire to be enslaved. *Foot Tapping.*

    Why should I defend *your* position? You made that position up. It has nothing to do with me.

    You are opposed to adults being allowed to choose who they marry. I haven`t made that up - you`ve stated it explicitly and repeatedly and you continue to do so. You "defend" it in a circular manner, stating only your own prejudices as support for your own prejudices.
  102. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 10:23 am
    5cats & Angilion about your lack of belief in the science that backs up gay people being normal and healthy and the utter lack of any science whatsoever that proves the same about polygamists.
  103. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Angilion just because I`ve had enough of your incessant trolling & complete refusal to even reason over this entire false equivalence, important scientific stuff.
    Money quote: "So if polygamy (or the female equivalent polyandry) is disadvantageous to most of the sequestered sex and most of the mate sequestering sex, why should such systems survive?"
  104. Profile photo of yoda141
    yoda141 Male 18-29
    266 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 10:41 am
    Gay marriage is only like polygamy in the sense that religious nutjobs hate both.
  105. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 10:50 am
    I think it`s pretty damning that even olde timey Mormons gave up polygamy becuase they themselves were so miserable under it. A situation so bad that it doesn`t matter what the Prophet and (therefore God himself) said about the issue, Elder Brosef will no longer have 20 wives.

    Seriously, you people who buy into this horsepucky are jokes, about as mind numbingly stupid as 5cats when he continues the throwing of the kitchen sink at me w/ the rest of the usual PIB argument suspects. You have not a leg to stand on, suck it up.
  106. Profile photo of DeutschDude9
    DeutschDude9 Male 18-29
    473 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 10:53 am
    How about this : No Marriage. Problem solved.
  107. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    QueenZira: I could show you the much higher rates of the spread of STDs within the gay community, but it`s likely you`d reject that information, just like you`ve rejected what Angilion & 5Cats have said.
  108. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    @CrakrJak

    "I could show you the much higher rates of the spread of STDs within the gay community"

    So your solution to reducing the spread of STDs due to promiscuous sex within a community is to...deny them the right to marriage?

    Does that really make sense to you?
  109. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    Musuko: The high rate of promiscuity within the gay community pretty much makes any `union` between them temporary at best.

    why should the privacy of your relationship be protected when you support the invasion of the relationships of others?

    I`m not invading anyone else`s relationship, thus you shouldn`t be trying to pry into mine.
  110. Profile photo of ukulelemike
    ukulelemike Male 40-49
    129 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 3:27 pm
    @QueenZira: Really, the Mormons gave it up, not because they were miserable in it, (the men were sure happy with it), but because they were threatened by the government. So, their god conveniently ended the `eternal covenant` of polygamy. Just the same way he conveniently ended the ban on blacks being part of their priesthood when the US `officially` ended racism. But many still practice polygamy, the fundamentalist Mormons who still follow Smith`s original teachings.
  111. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    [quote">5cats & Angilion about your lack of belief in the science that backs up gay people being normal and healthy and the utter lack of any science whatsoever that proves the same about polygamists.[/quote">

    Do you even bother trying to read posts before belching out your irrational prejudices in reply? It appears that you don`t, or else you would have known that I think that there should be no distinction made between homosexuality and heterosexuality, neither in law nor in social customs. The difference is trivial and irrelevant except when choosing a partner, so it`s not a valid criterion for making a distinction. Any distinction, let alone differences in law.

    You`re a troll, a fool, or both. As well as a bigot, obviously.

    If you ever want to learn anything about polyamory, I suggest starting with the nice and simple alt.polyamory FAQ:

  • Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 6:54 pm
    Musuko: The high rate of promiscuity within the gay community pretty much makes any `union` between them temporary at best.

    You haven`t a clue. You`re as bad as QueenZira.

    The longest homosexual relationship that I happen to know of personally started over 30 years ago. That`s hardly temporary and that`s only amongst people I know personally (who, unsurprisingly, tend to be around my own age).
  • Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 6:58 pm
    Money quote: "So if polygamy (or the female equivalent polyandry) is disadvantageous to most of the sequestered sex and most of the mate sequestering sex, why should such systems survive?"

    Oh, that`s perfect. You`re so ignorant that you`re making it even easier for me to debunk and deride you than it is to debunk and deride most bigots.

    Your "money quote" about polygamy is from someone who doesn`t even know what `polygamy` means!

    Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

    Even CrakrJak at least manages to know what homosexuality is, even if his image of it is as wrong as your image of polygamy. You`re even more wrong than CrakrJak, which is remarkable.
  • Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    Just in case there`s anyone else who doesn`t know what `polygamy` means but, unlike QueenZira, is capable of learning:

    Polygamy is being married to more than one person at the same time (from poly, `many`, and gamos, `marriage`). It`s a sex-neutral term, obviously.

    The parallel to the word `polyandry` (from poly and andros, `adult male person`) would be polygyny (from poly and gyne, `adult female person`).
  • Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    One of the IAB bugmonsters ate my URL, so here it is again:

    alt.polyamory FAQ

    If anyone thinks that QueenZira has a point, please read that and decide for yourself if it matches up with the misogynist slavery she`s describing. Obviously it doesn`t, but please check for yourself if you don`t already know.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm
    Angilion: A few exceptions aside, the statistics remain true.
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 9, 2012 at 9:52 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Musuko: The high rate of promiscuity within the gay community pretty much makes any `union` between them temporary at best."

    Does it really?

    Two of my closest friends are a gay couple who have been together for 24 years now.

    Have you had a relationship that`s come anywhere close to that, CrakrJak?
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 9, 2012 at 9:56 am
    @CrakrJak.

    And in any case, since when did being promiscuous mean you`re not allowed to get married?

    Promoscious straight people can get married, but promiscuous gay people cannot?

    And let`s not speak of "temporary" unions! That`s hardly a preserve of homosexuality. Just look at the celebrity news recently (if you can bear it). Straight people have some pretty temporary unions too!

    And finally, how on earth does it make sense to you to "punish" people for their promiscuity by banning them from the monogamous alternative?

    Do you punish a fat man by banning him from eating salads?
  • Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 9, 2012 at 2:40 pm




  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 9, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    Musuko: Marriage is a privilege, not a right, that`s why they are licensed. The government recognizes that marriages create families and family units are special. Families get tax breaks, families are valued in American society because they produce good citizens and promote good values.

    Gays don`t procreate, they are a DNA dead-end that promotes more DNA dead-ends, promiscuity, and bad values. Gays have a much higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse and that is not conducive to a good society.

    Celebs are not `normal` either, Fame can warp people`s minds and egos in ways that are hard to understand. Using them as some prime example of `straightness` is facetious.
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
    @CrakrJak

    "The government recognizes that marriages create families and family units are special"

    So couples who don`t intend to have children, or who are infertile, should not get married? Is that your statement?
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 11, 2012 at 6:22 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Gays don`t procreate"

    The planet`s overpopulated. We`re doing the species a favour.

    "they are a DNA dead-end that promotes more DNA dead-ends"

    See above. Planet is overpopulated. Fewer new people means more people survive in the long run.

    "promiscuity"

    We`re asking to be able to get married. That`s the opposite intention to being promiscuous.

    "and bad values"

    Like love and marriage? Those are bad values?

    "Gays have a much higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse"

    So do most maligned and shunned minority groups. Heads up: treat a group of people like crap and they`ll turn to drink and drugs to cope with it.

    "and that is not conducive to a good society."

    See above. Same answer.
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    January 11, 2012 at 6:22 am
    @CrakrJak.

    In any case, I`ve decided that you won`t answer my questions about your relationship status because you are middle-aged, single, lonely and bitter.

    So why should we all take relationship advice from someone who has been 40+ years on this earth without finding love?
  • Profile photo of Ruffiana
    Ruffiana Male 30-39
    506 posts
    January 11, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    I can`t make a distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. I`m not sure how you could legally abridge gay marriage as a civil rights issue and not allow polygamy. It`s all consenting adults. More to the point, I think it`s a very bad idea fto try and craft legislation around the idea of `love` as a requirement for marriage...so I can`t see why we wouldn`t allow two platonic friends of any gender to marry and receive all of the same rights and privelages as traditional marriage. And again, that would have to extend to polygamists.

    And that`s where the whole gay marriage debate becomes sticky for me. Not because I have personal issues with two gay people being in love, wanting to share their lives, and wanting to have the same sort of legal protections of that type of partnership. It becomes an issue of where do you draw the line and why? It`s hard to argue that we should legalize gay marriage but not legalize platonic polygamist marriages as well.
  • Leave a Reply