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.

Let's nip the "how do you know it's god talking to you" right in the bud now. Kill it dead. That is not the topic

Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
[ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.

The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.

Well, the NRA's primary selling point isn't "Love who you love" or "equal marriage rights for all."

 cincydooley wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
[ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.

The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.

Well, the NRA's primary selling point isn't "Love who you love" or "equal marriage rights for all."

And polygamy is not a plank in any LGBT advocacy group, either. It's a pretty bad analogy.

 Vash108 wrote:

Ok, then what is your problem? Are you upset that the Pro Gay marriage community isn't fighting for polygomy? Your argument is full of straw and makes no fething sense.

I think it's a bit hypocritical that the "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" community (because that's what they espoused themselves to be) isn't fighting for polygamy.

Again, argument isn't full of straw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
[

And polygamy is not a plank in any LGBT advocacy group, either. It's a pretty bad analogy.

But the groups advocating for LGBT marriage rights were doing so under the message, "MARRIAGE EQUALITY."

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

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

Do you think?

I'm not so sure. I think it should be, but because it is so often associated with religion, I don't think it will get the support from large swathes of the left that homosexual marriage did.

Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.

But we'll see.

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)

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).

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

Gallup reports US moral acceptance for polygamy is still only at 16%.

feth who you want, don't force your beliefs onto others, don't turn your equality movement into a superiority movement

 dogma wrote:

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

Gallup reports US moral acceptance for polygamy is still only at 16%.

Look how fast gay marriage came on when it finally did in the past decade. I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.
Gay marriage started out with far less. All it takes is a federal judge or two to rule in it's favor regardless of popular support.

Relapse wrote:

Look how fast gay marriage came on when it finally did in the past decade.

That just makes it seem like people realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad.

Relapse wrote:

I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.

But polygamy is not accepted by most people. The polygamists featured on TV get laughed at.

I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.

Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.

Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)

 Matthew wrote:
Why do people discriminate LGBT people? Because a), they're donkey-caves, b), they interpret a thousand year old book to their hearts conten, or c), they're donkey-caves.

Do you think not being in favour of gay marriage is discriminating? Or do you mean some other form of discrimination you don't make it very clear. Obviously you wouldn't be trying to insult large switches of people in faith communities by calling them donkey-caves, Dakkas mods would be all over you if you spouted blatant ignorance and hate towards people. Can you tell us what you mean??

The question of why people are anti -gay, -black, -immigrant, -women or whatever, is a difficult one and not so simple an answer as "they are donkey caves".

IMO it is partly the natural fear of the new and different, the fear of change which is particularly prevalent in people who are at the top of the heap, to whom change often means losing their position. Hence the amount of angry white male angst on such issues in western culture.

It is also due to learned attitudes which come from your parents and society as a whole. These attitudes can be unlearned, if enough people start to try and turn things around.

This is what has happened in various 'anti' fields over the past century, most recently the gay marriage which changed from being a perversion and a crime to a social good and a human right accepted by the majority, in the course of less than two generations.

 cincydooley wrote:

Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.

You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.

Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...

I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...

And that is a problem, why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.

Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.

Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)

Like I said they are using a straw man argument. It is textbook definition of it and for some reason they think it makes them right. Which it really had nothing to do with gay marriage.

It is so full of straw I wouldn't be surprised to see it dancing and singing down the street about if it only had a brain.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.

You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.

Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...

I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...

I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.

Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.

Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.

Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)

Maybe if we remove the bond of marriage, that might allow for better results? You're going to stick at it a lot longer, even if you don't want to, if you're expected to stay together.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Look how fast gay marriage came on when it finally did in the past decade.

That just makes it seem like people realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad.

Relapse wrote:

I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.

But polygamy is not accepted by most people. The polygamists featured on TV get laughed at.

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

 dogma wrote:
That just makes it seem like people realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad.

But... but that's kind of what happened...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.

Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.

Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)

Polygamist marriages are already happening, and are in the open. Like I said earlier, it isn't a question of the idea being popular. Gay marriage got voted down in almost every state it was put to a vote on and the was legalized by federal judges. The same is in the cards for polygamy.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.

You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.

Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...

I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...

I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.

Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Jesus

Many people use Leviticus as a justification for saying being gay is wrong and yet when the rest of Leviticus is pointed out to the same people they will claim the old testament doesn't apply anymore.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.

Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...

I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...

I'm getting real sick and tired of this idiotic old testament "westwing" out of context argumentation.

We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era. The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted. The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.

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.

All you have to do is look at the wives of Joseph Smith to see that this form of polygamy was a total manipulation of people.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ read the pdf file.

GG

 carlos13th wrote:

Many people use Leviticus as a justification for saying being gay is wrong and yet when the rest of Leviticus is pointed out to the same people they will claim the old testament doesn't apply anymore.

And similarly, those people are hypocrites.

I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 Vash108 wrote:
I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.

Maybe you should make a marriage equality thread instead of harping on it in a Gay marriage thread that was specifically made about gay marriage.

 Vash108 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.

Maybe you should make a marriage equality thread instead of harping on it in a Gay marriage thread that was specifically made about gay marriage.

Or maybe you should read the whole thread and see how it evolved to it.

Someone making the tired "pedophiles and bestiality" claim, which is nonsense because it's not between consenting adults.

Polygamy is.

Those that are for gay marriage did so under the guise of MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL.

Polygamists fall under "ALL."

Pretty simple. Keep up.

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.