I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Freedom Of Marriage [Pic]

Hits: 12704 | Rating: (3.6) | Category: Funny | Added by: Sweepofdeath
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25283 Posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:52:28 AM
"Five Way Street?"
Six? Seven? I've lost count of exactly how many genders there are recently...

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:15:44 AM
Wendypants-"It should be a 'two way street' so to speak."

Wouldn't that be a 'three way street'?

Wendypants
Female, 30-39, Canada
 2093 Posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:30:59 AM
@handimanner, that's what I always thought: if people want to make polygamy legal then it should be okay for a man to have wiveS AND for a woman to have husbandS (as long as all people included are of age and consenting!!!). It should be a 'two way street' so to speak.

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12218 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:19:52 PM
What have you bigots got against polygamy and concubines anyway? Live and let live. If the women can tolerate having to take turns to berate their husbands, why not?

Likewise bestiality: If it can be shown that the wee beastie's into humans, then they're probably happier than most human + human couples.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25283 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:43:24 PM
Slippery slope arguments are stupid and illogical

@patchy: Riiiight. Just like Canada's abortion laws didn't fall off the slippery slope, eh?

Hint: We went from abortion is totally illegal to NO LAW AT ALL! One slippery slope at a time...

Anyhow, IDK why anyone would be pro- gay marriage but anti- polygamy. It makes no sense to me...
... it's almost as if other people have different opinions!
NAW! Can't be that...

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:05:27 PM
LordJim-"Would you care to expand on that?"

I stated only that that argument had been used in the same-sex marriage argument. Not that it was a valid argument.

It is one of many arguments that was used.

My point is the 'arguments' patch is bringing up against polygamy were also used in the same-sex marriage arena by people who were against it.

LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
 4496 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:29:33 PM
'Strange, many arguments against same-sex marriage was the harm to minors.'

Would you care to expand on that?

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:49:33 PM
patchgrabber-"Decisions up to this point have focused on the coercion and harm to minors done with polygamy"

Strange, many arguments against same-sex marriage was the harm to minors.

patchgrabber-"But I still fail to see how a gay marriage ruling will endorse polygamy"

No one's said it will endorse it, just make it easier to come about. Once a rock has been broken, it's easier to move.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5713 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:41:48 PM
Freedom Of Religion > Draconian Laws

The Charter isn't Draconian. Decisions up to this point have focused on the coercion and harm to minors done with polygamy, and that trumps religious freedom, as has been shown by court cases.

But I still fail to see how a gay marriage ruling will endorse polygamy, they are two different things with very different consequences and outcomes. Slippery slope arguments are stupid and illogical; they don't hold up. My stance is that if all adults are consenting, then it's their own business as it does not affect my life in the slightest.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25283 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:22:52 PM
@patchy: I'm saying that the Government can do some IDIOTIC things, eh? Like ban alcohol "for our own good" or make anal sex illegal...

Just because ONE Court decided polygamy was a violation, doesn't mean a different Court won't toss that decision out. If the Supreme Court says polygamy is a legal right? That over-rides the Charter. Why? Because the CSC will use a different part of the Charter to justify it's ruling.

Freedom Of Religion > Draconian Laws

Ask any Muslim, they're 100% for it! They're also doing it anyways, just not "legally" eh?

@Gerry1: 'Co-Spouses' works for me.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5713 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:03:40 PM
"No movement"? There's several cases working through the courts in Canada right now! All it takes is ONE successful suit and !Presto! legalized polygamy!

Now who needs to do some reading? We have this thing in Canada called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Polygamy has consistently been found to violate it. It's like saying "All it takes is for one case where a judge allows the ten commandments to be posted in school and PRESTO!"
It just won't happen, their Bill of Rights stops that, and our Charter stops this. The precedents have already been set, no polygamy case will win a Charter challenge.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5713 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:59:38 PM
@patchy: Read a (history) book! They DID ban alcohol!

And how did that work out for them again? You're not making a good case here.

LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
 4496 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:51:35 AM
As long as there is meaningful consent then it's none of my business how people arrange their domestic lives. Polygamy? Polyandry? Fine as long as all parties are happy with the arrangement. There would need to be legal protections in place to ensure nobody was being coerced or exploited, but why not?

Meaningful consent cannot be given by minors, animals or inanimate objects. The 'slippery slope' fallacy is just that.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33910 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:06:28 AM

taylor_stone-"it wouldn't be in their best interest to allow polygamy."
Group marriage might be the key to a successful future. Most agree times aren't looking good for the next generation. 2 salaries might not be enough anymore. how about 3 people working and 1 stays home with the kiddies. Economically viable, good for the children to have a stay-at-home parent.

But we'll need new terms. Sister-Wife sounds like you married your sister. how about Husband-in-Law for your wives' other husbands. Co-Husband & Co-Wife ? hmmmm

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25283 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:50:56 AM
@patchy: Read a (history) book! They DID ban alcohol! The Gov't also made homosexuality illegal too, just like polygamy is.
Again: flogging the Old Testament to ridicule Christians is "weaksauce".

"No movement"? There's several cases working through the courts in Canada right now! All it takes is ONE successful suit and !Presto! legalized polygamy!

@taylor_stone: Well I don't think the US or Canadian Government makes THAT much money off it! It's really "small change" in the billions and trillions that get tossed around, eh?

I guess they'll have to legalize (tax) pot to pay for legalized polygamy! LMAO!

@Draculya: That's an EXCELLENT point: who gets to decide what age is "an adult" eh? In many places, the Age of Consent is 13... it was 14 for years here in Canada! 14!

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:41:09 AM
taylor_stone-"it wouldn't be in their best interest to allow polygamy."

What people believe is their rightst, or how they live their lives, does not depend upon what is in the best interest of the government or it's tax revenue.

patchgrabber-"there are far fewer people that would identify as polygamist than identify as gay. "

So, they're minorities....and we can't step on a minorities rights, now can we?

patchgrabber-"you cannot make or keep something illegal just because of what it *might* lead to."

I haven't argued about its legality, one way or the other. Just that the same arguements used for gay marriage are applicable to polygamy, too. Once you've changed the definition once, it will be easier to do so in the future.

One difference in the cartoon, though.
On the upper-right panel, the woman is saying 'Arrest this man.'.
On the lower-right panel, the man would be saying 'Behead these men.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5021 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:40:48 AM
Thus far I haven't seen anyone on here they have a problem with polygamist marriage. Does anyone have a problem with it?

If so I don't get why.

Again, the legal benefits like tax breaks and power of attorney can only extend to one of your spouses because otherwise it leaves way to much room for abuse, but past that why would anyone care how many people you bind yourself to?

taylor_stone
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 2688 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:36:29 AM
@MeGrendel

While, yes, you caught me on the definition of marriage, you, like the commenter before you, are giving attention to the part of my statement that WASN;T my key point... I'll admit my error, but the point still stands that the government would lose tax revenue in allowing multiple spouses, so it wouldn't be in their best interest to allow polygamy.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5713 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:11:30 AM
If it can be done for the LGBT community, it can also be done for the polygamy community.

You are correct in that it *can*, but firstly, there are far fewer people that would identify as polygamist than identify as gay. But more to the point, you cannot make or keep something illegal just because of what it *might* lead to. Alcohol leads to drunk driving, are you proposing we ban alcohol too?

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:00:18 AM
wibble4321-"Polygamy would make sense if it were in demand the other way around."

A situation making sense to you is not required.

Gay marriage does not make sense to a lot of people, yet is being pushed.

Some people do/will want polygamy relationships.

According to those pushing gay marriage, just the fact that consenting adults want to is enough, so they can use the same arguments for all types of marriage, including polygamy.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5713 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:45:37 AM
Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It's just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two.

Slippery slope fallacies never get old. Nevermind that we've had same-sex marriage since 2005 and there has literally been no movement towards legalizing polygamy.

But @5cats, if you're worried about the "traditional marriage" espoused by the christian right, you should probably take a look at their book, because this is what's "traditional" christian marriage:


wibble4321
Male, 30-39, Asia
 313 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:09:21 AM
Polygamy would make sense if it were in demand the other way around. I don't see huge queues of men signing up to marry one lady.

I realise there are procreational issues at play, one man can impregnate multiple women, however in terms of social levels, it would seem a very one sided arrangement mostly only beneficial to the man.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4527 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:34:22 AM
taylor_stone-"If you want to follow RELIGIOUS doctrine (which I couldn't give a s*** less about), yes.... It was between man and woman"

No, the legal, government definition of marriage: 'The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.'

To allow gay marriage, you have to change the law's definition of marriage.

If it can be done for the LGBT community, it can also be done for the polygamy community.

taylor_stone
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 2688 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:20:01 AM
If you want to follow RELIGIOUS doctrine (which I couldn't give a s*** less about), yes.... It was between man and woman... But that's not my point... Redefining it to allow for multiple spouses would actually hurt the government in the form of extended tax reliefs... Being that the US government (and others around the world) make their money from tax revenue, they'd want to put a halt on anything that might harm their ability to make a profit... The people the government gets the most from, statistically, are the young single childless waged employees... Married couples get tax breaks with or without children. More spouses means more people getting tax breaks. More tax breaks means less money the government can take from you... It's not about redefining the word. It's about who profits from it. Sadly, as much as we all would hate to admit it. THAT i what changes things... Money... Profit... Look at who is in control and ask yourself what benefits them the most...

Bahamian
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13 Posts
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:58:25 AM
To Taylor Stone: If you really want to define marriage, it was a contract between a man and a woman, it has been changed now to be correct in our society. If it can be redefined once it could also be redefined to say its between multiple parties.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.