Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I didn't.

The thing with polygamy is that while it's equal treatment in name, all the evidence I've seen indicates that the relationship itself isn't very "equal." There are always favourites and even if it isn't a conscious decision, one or more partners is usually left feeling neglected.

Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.

 Vash108 wrote:
Still don't see the point in the argument. If it is between consenting adults it shouldn't be an issue.

The point is it was something thrown up to divert from the main point of the thread, just like all that pedo crap.

Just because you can't see the point doesn't make it non-existant. If it shouldn't be an issue, then there should be pushes from these same groups for that marriage equality.

But they're not.

If people want marriage equality, Polygamists should be included, and those groups should be petitioning and marching for them.

That they aren't speaks to their hypocrisy, which I believe is rooted in the fact that polygamy is traditionally associated with organized religion, an institution these groups are often opposed to.

You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.

And as consenting adults, that's their decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.

I'd posit that makes you a hypocrite.

Baxx wrote:
I don't get this left, right thing.

So from what I've heard there's two political parties in the US of A, is one left and the other right? Which is which?

Homosexual marriage gets large swathes of support from right, but also from left. Mainly because there are no reasons against it (or sound reasons).

All political parties on the planet are described in terms of Left and Right-wing. Liberal politics are Left-wing, Conservative politics are Right-wing.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Still don't see the point in the argument. If it is between consenting adults it shouldn't be an issue.

The point is it was something thrown up to divert from the main point of the thread, just like all that pedo crap.

Just because you can't see the point doesn't make it non-existant. If it shouldn't be an issue, then there should be pushes from these same groups for that marriage equality.

But they're not.

If people want marriage equality, Polygamists should be included, and those groups should be petitioning and marching for them.

That they aren't speaks to their hypocrisy, which I believe is rooted in the fact that polygamy is traditionally associated with organized religion, an institution these groups are often opposed to.

As I agree it should be, that isn't the topic. This is basically moving the goal posts.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.

And as consenting adults, that's their decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.

I'd posit that makes you a hypocrite.

Why?

 cincydooley wrote:
And as consenting adults, that's their decision.

Fair point, and one I never argued against. It strikes me that perhaps the reason you don't hear as much uproar about polygamy is that there are simply less polygamists than there are homosexuals. I mean, homosexuality is a global thing whereas I can't think of any cases of widespread polygamy outside of a couple of states in America. Not only that, but I reckon a lot of people try it out as an open relationship, find they don't like it, and decide to move on before marriage is in the cards.

Not sure why the polygamy thing keeps coming up as some sort of shaming mechanism though. I support gay marriage and will speak about such things when asked (though I'll never be the first person to bring it up) but I'm neutral with polygamy. I would never speak against it out of hand, I'm just sort of meh on the topic. I suppose that makes me a bad person, yes?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.

Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.

I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.

Or compared to Russia... Seriously, you guys who think Dakka is conservative must be reading a different forum It is definitely the most liberal forum I have ever been on.

Also, I would like to mention that left/right and liberal/conservative are not the same thing. In Russia for example, most political parties are very much leftist compared to European and especially American parties, but they are also very conservative. At the same time, rightist parties here in the Netherlands also tend to be very progressive and liberal in the same way as leftist parties.

It is also funny that in Russia, younger people tend to be much more conservative than older people (the Soviet Union was pretty liberal), while in the West this is reversed.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.

We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.

That sounds fine, but that is different from how it is in the Netherlands. If you want to get married here, you can't do that in church.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.

Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.

Aye, they deserve the same rights, but the people are not the same. Black and white people not only look different, they have different cultures as well. And different cultures sometimes need to be treated differently, lest you create conflict. You can't deny that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.

Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.

No, you are wrong. Very wrong. You are just denying reality now. If white and black people were the same, white and black people would not exist, there would just be people. If I look at a group of white people, and then look at a group of black people, I see can see even with my eyes that there is a difference between those groups (skin colour). Just like differences between people you can see (hair, skin or eye colour, shape of face and body etc.) there are even more differences you can't see (culture, religion, sexuality etc.). People that share a large number of characteristics often tend to group together, thus naturally forming different groups.
There once was a group of people that believed these differences did not matter and that all people are the same. These people were called communists, and we really don't need to go back down that path.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).

He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.

I must have missed that then.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.

"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.

I fail to see how this statement is a coherent and relevant response to my previous statement. Are you trying to say you are not reasonable? Or are you implying I am not reasonable? I don't think I get that one. It is a nice paradox though.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, you are wrong. Very wrong. You are just denying reality now. If white and black people were the same, white and black people would not exist, there would just be people. If I look at a group of white people, and then look at a group of black people, I see can see even with my eyes that there is a difference between those groups (skin colour). Just like differences between people you can see (hair, skin or eye colour, shape of face and body etc.) there are even more differences you can't see (culture, religion, sexuality etc.). People that share a large number of characteristics often tend to group together, thus naturally forming different groups.
There once was a group of people that believed these differences did not matter and that all people are the same. These people were called communists, and we really don't need to go back down that path.

I don't think he was meaning that there's literally no difference, but rather that there's no important difference. The more we focus on what our differences are, the farther apart we will drive ourselves and each other. We need to stop seeing those differences as being very important. Surely, no one has ever said to their daughter "you aren't marrying that filthy brown-hair! I won't have it!"

What's the difference, really?

Are we still on this? For feths sake, they are people to, they deserve all the rights of anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, favorite movies, and so on.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Are we still on this? For feths sake, they are people to, they deserve all the rights of anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, favorite movies, and so on.

/thread

 cincydooley wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.

And as consenting adults, that's their decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.

I'd posit that makes you a hypocrite.

I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.

Naw. It's not.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.

And as consenting adults, that's their decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.

I'd posit that makes you a hypocrite.

"If you like the colour red you also must like the colour orange"
Why do they have to be connected?

 n0t_u wrote:

Why do they have to be connected?

For the 5th or 6th time in this thread:

LBGT Marriage Rights were flown under the flag of "Equality for All."

So what?

 cincydooley wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

Why do they have to be connected?

For the 5th or 6th time in this thread:

LBGT Marriage Rights were flown under the flag of "Equality for All."

They may have been flown under that, but that does not mean supporting it means you support everything by default. So then for the 5th or 6th time in this thread you have been wrong.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.

Naw. It's not.

Where do you draw the line? Can 100 people be married together? Wherever you draw the line, according to your logic you're a hipocrite for not allowing people to go one further.

Equality is everyone having equal access to marrying their partner, as only some have that right. Polygamous marriage is everyone can marry as many as they like multiple times, no one has that right yet. Polygamy isn't an equality issue, it's asking for things that no one has in western countries.

 Orlanth wrote:
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty

Its like reasonable accommodation to all sides. No we can't have that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Without going into anything else you posted...

 Fishboy wrote:
With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.

THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"

Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.

How about polygamy?

If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?

I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.

Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty

I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.

And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.

That bakery also Doxxed that gay couple, just to add to it.

So state law can hammer religious people then. Got it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.

Naw. It's not.

So, let me get this straight; gay marriage and polygamy are both the same thing but not?

Gay marriage, by it's literal definition, is marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. That's it. No polygamy in there.

Making a blanket statement that everybody who supported the right for gays to marry paraded it under "equality for all" not only is deeply flawed, but even if it were true would not invalidate the idea that a gay marriage supporter might not support polygamy.

Heterosexuals may be married to one partner at a time. Now homosexuals may also be married to one partner at a time. Hopefully, at some point, everybody can get married to a partner regardless of gender identity, sexuality or anything else across the world. That is equality.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I think it's only a matter of time, and not a long one, that polygamy will be legalized.

If polygamy gets legalised, it'll probably be as a form of punishment.

(Glad my wife doesn't read this forum)

One serious problem for polygamy int he US is that, in the last 50 years, its generally been the reserve of cults/families as a cover for assaulting minors. Its all about the child brides here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As to the issue of polygamy. Anyone who thinks that polygamy doesn't hurt women, is deluding themselves. This is why there was such a backlash against the Mormons in the 19th century, because they were brainwashing young women so that old men could get there jollys off on young girls. the same thing happened in the FLDS in modern times.

Indeed a Texas cult relatively recently got hit for that.

Relapse wrote:

You do realize that not really that long ago, people were saying that about people who are gay, let alone the concept of gays getting married.

From what I recall non-heterosexual people (primarily men) were, at that time, more concerned about violence directed towards them than being laughed at by consumers of popular media. Despite this polygamy has consistently been accepted by fewer people than homosexual relationships.

Relapse wrote:

As far as people realizing arguments were bad, the same, I imagine will be said about polygamy after it gets legalized.

People realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad long before the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You do realize that not really that long ago, people were saying that about people who are gay, let alone the concept of gays getting married.

From what I recall non-heterosexual people (primarily men) were, at that time, more concerned about violence directed towards them than being laughed at by consumers of popular media. Despite this polygamy has consistently been accepted by fewer people than homosexual relationships.

Relapse wrote:

As far as people realizing arguments were bad, the same, I imagine will be said about polygamy after it gets legalized.

People realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad long before the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage.

Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
I'm already seeing the lobbying getting ready to happen here for it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.Vd-Wg0pOKrU

A page from Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/PolygamyUSA

 Ruberu wrote:
There was a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and ended up with them losing their business.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

Edit: This other part has been proved wrong, so no need for it.

Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.

If god gave humanity free will, surely he saw this coming?
If he didn't make it part of their conscience NOT TO then he doesn't care who you screw.
If god gave a damn, he'd have done something by now.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.

Oh joy, this argument's going to happen, isn't it?

Also, morality is a very wishy-washy term. Should a business like Hobby Lobby avoid trying to provide a living wage because they derive it from their faith? The waters are very muddy here. A business has the right to refuse service, but also people can't use hate speech, causing this dispute. It needs some actual clarification in legislation (hopefully federal level).

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
There was a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and ended up with them losing their business.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

Edit: This other part has been proved wrong, so no need for it.

Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.

The feth they are. What a load of nonsense.

According to Ben Affleck, "the customer is always an donkey-cave".