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.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2012%2F05%2F16%2Ffiorepray.DTL

I'd really respect them if they just went for it and advocated for polyigamy, slavery and other traditional marriage elements. And stoning for adultery.

And banning sex outside of marriage and unmarried couples living together.

Yeah right...

Or failing that if also wanted to make it harder to get married (say requiring 3 months counseling before getting married) and harder to get divorced (say requiring 3 months counseling before you can divorce) then at least there'd be some consistency.

I mean seeing how important marriage is... shouldn't these stalwart guardians of morality be doing something about the real problems that hurting the institution?

That's next on the agenda, one step at a time

Uh which?

... what.



Mark Fiore's political cartoon was cute, but your rant was... what?

sirlynchmob wrote:That's next on the agenda, one step at a time

Yes, being a hate mongering douche is time consuming...

Right, so I read that URL as "forepray". Which is either horribly racist, or a damn good means of atoning for premarital sex.

I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

On poligamy :

I'd argue quite easily that polygamy encourage an unequal participation in social interactions, and might also provoke self devaluation.

I'd also mention that the examples of societies where polygamy is implanted are also good examples of societies where men have literally no practical responsibilities, yet all the authority.

On OP : no clue what you meant there.

I'm for Gay Marraige, but not for Lesbian Marraige.


Two Thongs don't make a Right.


Oh, wait....... Are we being serious?

I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.

40kFSU wrote:I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.

No irony here, none at all.

I think KK makes perfect sense. If those so hell bent on stopping Gay marriage spent just as much effort into fixing what's really wrong with marriage then, they'd have a leg to stand on when they say "we're saving marriage, hurr!!!1!". Allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry will have no ill effect the concept on the institute of marriage. Not like getting married/divorced 8 times for example.

Hahahaha you are alright dogma.

alarmingrick wrote:I think KK makes perfect sense. If those so hell bent on stopping Gay marriage spent just as much effort into fixing what's really wrong with marriage then, they'd have a leg to stand on when they say "we're saving marriage, hurr!!!1!". Allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry will have no ill effect the concept on the institute of marriage. Not like getting married/divorced 8 times for example.

That's pretty much what I was going for.

There's lots of things wrong wtih families in America, but all this self righteous energy is going into keeping an unpopular minority group from being allowed to marry rather than, say, addressing real problems.

Cause that would be y'know, hard and stuff.

Sort of like bitching about wearing fur but not saying a word about leather or eating meat.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.

AustonT wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.

Seems like alot of "what if" in there to me.

Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

Yeah, religious and personal views could never be related to hate or Nazism.

dogma wrote:Right, so I read that URL as "forepray". Which is either horribly racist, or a damn good means of atoning for premarital sex.

Best served with chopsticks!

So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.

40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.

Lets try this; you give me your religious or personal reasons not based in hate and I will deconstruct them.

40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

That's all fine and dandy, except when you try and impose those perfectly legitimate religious and personal views on those who do not share them.

rubiksnoob wrote:

40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

That's all fine and dandy, except when you try and impose those perfectly legitimate religious and personal views on those who do not share them.

Exactly!

40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.

Not what was said, though that you defaulted to it is telling.

Interesting point rubiksnoob, but I ask you this: who is imposing their views? The people who are suddenly trying to change a thousand year old institution or the people trying to protect it?

AustonT I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Ordained by God. Simple as that. I don't think either of us can deconstruct the others views, so let's agree to disagree.

You know, going back and forth with you folks is almost as much fun as painting GW's overpriced little men.

Dogma, weak.

It's not like Gay/Lesbian couples are trying to make Christians marry them.

40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

Yes. But it somehow escape some people that labeling a view as 'religious' or 'personal' doesn't exempt them from having to justify it rationally or factually.

AustonT wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.

Polygamy itself means multiple wifes. You are thinking of polyandry. Which itself would be rare because it would put men in a subordinate positions.
One of the few places it exists is in small indian villages where brothers share a wife.

40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?

There are a great many things that go on everyday which violate mainstream religious teachings from usary, to extramarital sex, to gambling, to drinking etc...

Yet all of them are to some extent or another legal in the US since they're generally regarded as things that do not harm others and might be discouraged but should not be outlawed. (to say nothing of the extreme examples of stoning adulterers or wearing mixed fibers)

I rarely hear religious leaders talk much about these popular but sinful activities. But for some odd reason once an unpopular stigmatized minority start violating religious teachings a whole lot of energy is mobilized to stop them.

I hear very few folks saying we should go back to the days of Sodomy Laws (fun fact! sodomy is still illegal in Trinidad and many parts of the Caribbean!) so obviously there's no serious effort to prevent people from having gay sex.

But somehow legitimizing same sex relationships, offering a legal and social framework to committed couples, that's a threat to civilization.

It's an inconsistent position that's getting harder to maintain.

Ok, if you don't hear religious leaders talking about the moral decay of society, you aren't listening.

Why would anyone want to pass laws forbidding gay sex? That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults. The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed. What's wrong with same sex civil unions? All the rights of marriage. Just a different name. If its really about rights there it is. If its about something else.......

The position may be more comPlicated than a bumper sticker Phrase but that doesn't make it inconsistent.