PDA

View Full Version : Doma



Bailey
02-23-2011, 05:48 PM
Just reading on DU that the magic negro (piss be on him) is instructing the AG not to fight for DOMA anymore, just another nail in the coffin that is this country.

How long before the fags/lizbos start suing churches forcing them to marry them? (yes you think it wont happen but how many here thought as much as 10 years ago homo's would be allowed to openly serve or gay marriage in any state would be legal?


I hope they impeach the bastard.

Phillygirl
02-23-2011, 06:28 PM
He had to make the turn...campaign time is coming upon us and he hasn't really done anything for the gays that he promised.

djones520
02-23-2011, 06:30 PM
He had to make the turn...campaign time is coming upon us and he hasn't really done anything for the gays that he promised.

DADT was a big thing.

Phillygirl
02-23-2011, 06:34 PM
DADT was a big thing.

Yes, but look at when that was done.

Novaheart
02-23-2011, 11:31 PM
Just reading on DU that the magic negro (piss be on him) is instructing the AG not to fight for DOMA anymore, just another nail in the coffin that is this country.

How long before the fags/lizbos start suing churches forcing them to marry them? (yes you think it wont happen but how many here thought as much as 10 years ago homo's would be allowed to openly serve or gay marriage in any state would be legal?


I hope they impeach the bastard.

Anyone who was paying attention and has a minimum grasp of constitutional principles.

AmPat
02-24-2011, 01:00 AM
Anyone who was paying attention and has a minimum grasp of constitutional principles.

Yeah, I recall those heady days of yesteryear when we used to stroll down the street and you couldn't strut but a couple of minutes without running into a couple of Founding Homosexuals on their way to and from the Convention. (They wore wigs you know?) I miss those days when the founding life partners sashayed about looking fabulous in their knickers and stockings.

Alas, we have to settle for dirty, free-love hippies and AIDS infected alternate lifestyle types. Pretty boring by comparison.:eek:

megimoo
02-24-2011, 01:02 AM
He had to make the turn...campaign time is coming upon us and he hasn't really done anything for the gays that he promised......DADT ??

CueSi
02-24-2011, 01:29 AM
He had to make the turn...campaign time is coming upon us and he hasn't really done anything for the gays that he promised.

This. All it is. He needs to shore up the gays who are deserting to the Libertarians and the Tea Party. He was badgered into DADT. He has blacks in his pocket and always will. He's pandered to the unions with his statements backing the unions in WI. He sided against Israel in front of the UN. This is just one more group he needs to play nice with to save himself...He's purely a political invention, so I see this as a raw political move to save himself because 2012 is coming and they need to take as many weapons out of the hands of the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians as possible.

~QC

fettpett
02-24-2011, 09:38 AM
He's also trying to distract people's attention away from his fuckups in Wisconsin, Egypt and Libya

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 10:01 AM
Anyone who was paying attention and has a minimum grasp of constitutional principles.

And, just where in the Constitution did it say that gays could openly serve in the armed forces?

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 10:09 AM
And, just where in the Constitution did it say that gays could openly serve in the armed forces?


We've done this how many times? And you still don't get it? I accept that you are apparently of some vocational use to this country, but understanding constitutional principles doesn't appear to be in your skillset.

Rebel Yell
02-24-2011, 10:17 AM
Question: Who was Obama standing in front of when he made this about face?

Bailey
02-24-2011, 10:34 AM
We've done this how many times? And you still don't get it? I accept that you are apparently of some vocational use to this country, but understanding constitutional principles doesn't appear to be in your skillset.

So in other words you dont have an answer.

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 10:36 AM
So in other words you dont have an answer.

That must be it.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 10:52 AM
That must be it.

It is thank you for finally seeing reason.

wilbur
02-24-2011, 10:58 AM
Its pandering, plain and simple - but as far as pandering goes, it's pretty good.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 11:04 AM
Its pandering, plain and simple - but as far as pandering goes, it's pretty good.

Pandering or destroying the country take your pick.

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 11:06 AM
We've done this how many times? And you still don't get it? I accept that you are apparently of some vocational use to this country, but understanding constitutional principles doesn't appear to be in your skillset.
I keep asking, and you keep failing to answer.

That must be it.

That's been my take.

txradioguy
02-24-2011, 11:11 AM
We've done this how many times? And you still don't get it? I accept that you are apparently of some vocational use to this country, but understanding constitutional principles doesn't appear to be in your skillset.

You were looking in the mirror when you had that moment of clarity right?

txradioguy
02-24-2011, 11:13 AM
Its pandering, plain and simple - but as far as pandering goes, it's pretty good.

Alienating 70% of the country to give 2% what they want is "pretty good"?

noonwitch
02-24-2011, 11:15 AM
He never said he supported DOMA. He made it pretty clear during his campaign that he was supportive of gay rights, including the right to marry legally. It's not like this should be unexpected or a surprise to anyone.

fettpett
02-24-2011, 11:22 AM
He never said he supported DOMA. He made it pretty clear during his campaign that he was supportive of gay rights, including the right to marry legally. It's not like this should be unexpected or a surprise to anyone.

nope, it's the timing...he's using it as a distraction from more important things that he's failing at. the budget, forgein affairs with Egypt and Libya, Wisconsin etc. he's trying for a "Wage the Dog" moment and failing hard

Apache
02-24-2011, 11:37 AM
Anyone who was paying attention and has a minimum grasp of constitutional principles.

...and that sure as hell ain't you!

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 11:38 AM
nope, it's the timing...he's using it as a distraction from more important things that he's failing at. the budget, forgein affairs with Egypt and Libya, Wisconsin etc. he's trying for a "Wage the Dog" moment and failing hard

Why the man in a can for an avatar?:confused:

Apache
02-24-2011, 11:38 AM
Alienating 70% of the country to give 2% what they want is "pretty good"?

But notice how much noise that 2% makes, even when they're biting the pillow...

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 11:40 AM
I find it fascinating (and disturbing) that we have people whose sole case for group classification is who they like to have sex with. Each one thinks they have some sort of right to have their behavior recognized as normal when normal is defined as the average and they represent small segments of the population. Homosexuals, pedophiles, in-breeders and what have you all feel that they are being denied rights (Where do these rights come from? Who grants them?) because society has/had prohibitions on the public display of their bedroom behavior.

Apache
02-24-2011, 11:53 AM
I find it fascinating (and disturbing) that we have people whose sole case for group classification is who they like to have sex with. Each one thinks they have some sort of right to have their behavior recognized as normal when normal is defined as the average and they represent small segments of the population. Homosexuals, pedophiles, in-breeders and what have you all feel that they are being denied rights (Where do these rights come from? Who grants them?) because society has/had prohibitions on the public display of their bedroom behavior.

Hey Buddy, go to see you...:D

enslaved1
02-24-2011, 11:57 AM
Just reading on DU that the magic negro (piss be on him) is instructing the AG not to fight for DOMA anymore, just another nail in the coffin that is this country.

How long before the fags/lizbos start suing churches forcing them to marry them? (yes you think it wont happen but how many here thought as much as 10 years ago homo's would be allowed to openly serve or gay marriage in any state would be legal?


I hope they impeach the bastard.

That's long been my concern over the whole gay marriage debacle. It's less a matter of if they want to perform some kind of ceremony committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, and more a matter of legally forcing people who disagree with that idea to participate and recognize it. If a pastor is willing to forgo their proclaimed belief in the Bible and perform the wedding, that's on them, not me. If I'm ordained and don't want to because it goes against my firmly held beliefs, then I should be allowed to tell them to find someone else to condone their sin. :D

IMHO, the same should apply to the covering domestic partners mess (just to throw a big monkey wrench in). If a business wants to offer such benefits, that should be their call. Let them face the fallout. If a business doesn't want to, let them do the same, instead of forcing it on everybody by legislation.

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 11:59 AM
But notice how much noise that 2% makes, even when they're biting the pillow...

I think that's conservative, but let's say it's accurate. That means there are as many people people in the US as there are Jews or Mormons.

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 12:03 PM
Hey Buddy, go to see you...:D

Its my 50th birthday and I needed to see old friends!

wilbur
02-24-2011, 12:05 PM
I find it fascinating (and disturbing) that we have people whose sole case for group classification is who they like to have sex with. Each one thinks they have some sort of right to have their behavior recognized as normal when normal is defined as the average and they represent small segments of the population.

If "normal" is defined in the statistical sense (as the mean or the average) then no... homosexuality will never be normal. Neither will redheads, lefties, really short people, or really tall people. But so what?

Obviously, that's not the type of "normal" homosexuals are fighting for (because it would be nonsense).



Homosexuals, pedophiles, in-breeders and what have you all feel that they are being denied rights

We have good reasons to deny pedophiles the right to rape kids. We also have good reason to restrict incestual relationships in most cases.

We have no good reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. In fact, we have many good reasons to give them the right.

Not complicated.

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 12:09 PM
If "normal" is defined in the statistical sense (the mean or average) then no... homosexuality will never be normal. Neither will redheads, lefties, really short people, or really tall people. But so what?

Obviously, that's not the type of "normal" homosexuals are fighting for (because it would be nonsense).



We have good reasons to deny pedophiles the right to rape kids. We also have good reason to restrict incestual relationships in most cases.

We have no good reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. In fact, we have many good reasons to give them the right.

Not complicated.

But you are a person who lacks a moral compass so your opinion must be weighed in light of that fact.

Apache
02-24-2011, 12:10 PM
I think that's conservative, but let's say it's accurate. That means there are as many people people in the US as there are Jews or Mormons.

And what special rights are they asking for?

wilbur
02-24-2011, 12:10 PM
But you are a person who lacks a moral compass so your opinion must be weighed in light of that fact.

I do have a moral compass. And my moral compass totally kicks your moral compass's ass. :D

(seriously)

fettpett
02-24-2011, 12:20 PM
Why the man in a can for an avatar?:confused:

It's Boba Fett dude, my namesake :D

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 12:23 PM
It's Boba Fett dude, my namesake :D

Ohhh! I see.:D

Apache
02-24-2011, 12:30 PM
If "normal" is defined in the statistical sense (as the mean or the average) then no... homosexuality will never be normal. Neither will redheads, lefties, really short people, or really tall people. But so what?

Obviously, that's not the type of "normal" homosexuals are fighting for (because it would be nonsense).



We have good reasons to deny pedophiles the right to rape kids. We also have good reason to restrict incestual relationships in most cases.

We have no good reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. In fact, we have many good reasons to give them the right.

Not complicated.

Not for you, because you stand against anything that country or heritage or decency stand for...

Apache
02-24-2011, 12:33 PM
I do have a moral compass. And my moral compass totally kicks your moral compass's ass. :D

(seriously)

Equivocation is not a compass...

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 12:56 PM
I think that's conservative, but let's say it's accurate. That means there are as many people people in the US as there are Jews or Mormons.
None of whom are demand special redefinitions of law to accomodate their religions.

I do have a moral compass. And my moral compass totally kicks your moral compass's ass. :D

(seriously)

More like a weathervane. Seriously.

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:05 PM
Equivocation is not a compass...

I think you guys throw around these words but have no idea what they mean. Seriously, "equivocation" is like the word of the month here at CU. If I equivocated (ie, traded on ambiguity of word's definitions in a misleading way) then point it out. Its not a big deal, we all do it sometimes, usually not on purpose.

If you can't actually identify where an equivocation occurred, you can't claim I committed one.

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 01:10 PM
I think you guys throw around these words but have no idea what they mean. Seriously, "equivocation" is like the word of the month here at CU. If I equivocated (ie, traded on ambiguity of word's definitions in a misleading way) then point it out. Its not a big deal, we all do it sometimes, usually not on purpose.

If you can't actually identify where an equivocation occurred, you can't claim I committed one.

Tell us if you love America.

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:11 PM
Not for you, because you stand against anything that country or heritage or decency stand for...

False - opposing homosexual marriage is indecent.

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 01:13 PM
I think you guys throw around these words but have no idea what they mean. Seriously, "equivocation" is like the word of the month here at CU. If I equivocated (ie, traded on ambiguity of word's definitions in a misleading way) then point it out. Its not a big deal, we all do it sometimes, usually not on purpose.

If you can't actually identify where an equivocation occurred, you can't claim I committed one.

You are unproductive: useless, futile, vain, unsuccessful, pointless, fruitless, to no avail, ineffectual, unprofitable, to no effect, unavailing, unfruitful, profitless, bootless, inefficacious, nonsensical, senseless, inconsequential, inane, insubstantial, wanky.
Your arguments are: pointless, empty, useless, hollow, vain, trivial, worthless, futile, trifling, insignificant, aimless, valueless, purposeless, nugatory They seek strong sensations to dull their sense of a meaningless existence.

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:15 PM
Tell us if you love America.

I love america!

(Well, except Mexico, and most of the places in South America I have never been - and Greenland...who cares about Greenland).

<..patiently awaits for the accusations of lying..>

PS - I'll love it more when same-sex couples can marry. Its a two-fer..... same-sex couples could then enjoy equal status under the law, and it will deal a crushing blow to the perverse moral institutions that would work so hard to prevent it.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 01:18 PM
I love america!

(Well, except Mexico, and most of the places in South America I have never been - and Greenland...who cares about Greenland).

<..patiently awaits for the accusations of lying..>

I bet that hurt you to say that...

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 01:18 PM
I do have a moral compass. And my moral compass totally kicks your moral compass's ass. :D

(seriously)

You have a moral Ouiji board instead of a compass.

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 01:20 PM
False - opposing homosexual marriage is indecent.

Once again wilbur proves that he is not smarter than a fifth grader. :D

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:21 PM
You have a moral Ouiji board instead of a compass.

Actually, I think defining your moral compass according to the wishes of a supernatural being or beings is much closer to using a Ouji board!

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 01:23 PM
Actually, I think defining your moral compass according to the wishes of a supernatural being or beings is much closer to using a Ouji board!

So speaks the blind art critic.

Phillygirl
02-24-2011, 01:33 PM
False - opposing homosexual marriage is indecent.

Is opposing polygamy indecent as well?

Apache
02-24-2011, 01:35 PM
I think you guys throw around these words but have no idea what they mean. Seriously, "equivocation" is like the word of the month here at CU. If I equivocated (ie, traded on ambiguity of word's definitions in a misleading way) then point it out. Its not a big deal, we all do it sometimes, usually not on purpose.

If you can't actually identify where an equivocation occurred, you can't claim I committed one.

Where do I start? AGW or abortion? DADT? Where?

Apache
02-24-2011, 01:40 PM
False - opposing homosexual marriage is indecent.

Oppsition to the marriage of mentally screwed up people is not indecent...

Your view of, "If it feels good, do it." is...

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:41 PM
Is opposing polygamy indecent as well?

Probably not, though its a little less obvious.

I don't really know how polygamy would play out in a society where women have equal status with men. Would that status be preserved, or would it diminish? I don't know. I would guess the latter.. and that could render it indecent to support polygamy.

Wei Wu Wei
02-24-2011, 01:42 PM
Liberal post-modern multiculturalism and Conservative fundamentalism/nationalism are two sides of the same coin, mere inverses of each other.

FlaGator
02-24-2011, 01:42 PM
wilbur determining morality of same sex marriage...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/ouija_board.jpg

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:43 PM
Where do I start? AGW or abortion? DADT? Where?

How bout this thread?

Apache
02-24-2011, 01:47 PM
How bout this thread?


wilbur Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus
Tell us if you love America.

I love america!

(Well, except Mexico, and most of the places in South America I have never been - and Greenland...who cares about Greenland).

<..patiently awaits for the accusations of lying..>

:rolleyes:

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:47 PM
Oppsition to the marriage of mentally screwed up people is not indecent...

Lots of heterosexual married couples are quite mentally screwed up.


Your view of, "If it feels good, do it." is...

That DEFINITELY is not my view, dude.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Liberal post-modern multiculturalism and Conservative fundamentalism/nationalism are two sides of the same coin, mere inverses of each other.

I never read someone who typed so much but meant so little. (waits for predictable response)

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:50 PM
:rolleyes:

That was AFTER your accusation - and that's not really an equivocation, that was just sarcasm.

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 01:52 PM
wilbur determining morality of same sex marriage...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/ouija_board.jpg

:D:D

Apache
02-24-2011, 01:53 PM
Lots of heterosexual married couples are quite mentally screwed up. From the get go? I doubt it...




That DEFINITELY is not my view, dude.

Bullshit!

wilbur
02-24-2011, 01:54 PM
wilbur determining morality of same sex marriage...

Nope, sorry! Again.. I don't look to the supernatural for my morals, but you sure do!

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 02:00 PM
Nope, sorry! Again.. I don't look to the supernatural for my morals, but you sure do!

I am rubber and you are glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!:rolleyes:

fettpett
02-24-2011, 02:00 PM
Probably not, though its a little less obvious.

I don't really know how polygamy would play out in a society where women have equal status with men. Would that status be preserved, or would it diminish? I don't know. I would guess the latter.. and that could render it indecent to support polygamy.

ah, but the same arguments for same sex marriage are being used in Canada for polygamy. polygamy has been seen much more positive light historically than homosexuality.

Apache
02-24-2011, 02:01 PM
... - and that's not really an equivocation, that was just sarcasm.

Oh bullshit!


You dance around words better than any professional Ballroom couple out there. You do this crap on damn near every thread you engage in.

Every time you get your ass backed into a corner, you...

1) Throw something shiny hoping for a distraction.

2) ignore it...

wilbur
02-24-2011, 02:07 PM
ah, but the same arguments for same sex marriage are being used in Canada for polygamy.

So what?!

Polygamists also use the same arguments that opponents of same-sex marriage use:

1) They claim polygamy is natural (or it isnt unnatural)
2) They claim religious freedom


polygamy has been seen much more positive light historically than homosexuality.

Yep... again.. so what?

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 02:09 PM
Poli gummy, marrying short obnoxious people!

Bailey
02-24-2011, 02:12 PM
Poli gummy, marrying short obnoxious people!

LOL

:D:D

Apache
02-24-2011, 02:18 PM
Poli gummy, marrying short obnoxious people!

Dork :D

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 02:27 PM
I love america!

(Well, except Mexico, and most of the places in South America I have never been - and Greenland...who cares about Greenland).

<..patiently awaits for the accusations of lying..>

PS - I'll love it more when same-sex couples can marry. Its a two-fer..... same-sex couples could then enjoy equal status under the law, and it will deal a crushing blow to the perverse moral institutions that would work so hard to prevent it.
I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm accusing you of equivocating. You know that I meant the United States, not the western hemisphere. You also caveat your "love" of country with all sorts of conditions. In short, you are incapable of expressing an honest emotion.

So what?!

Polygamists also use the same arguments that opponents of same-sex marriage use:

1) They claim polygamy is natural (or it isnt unnatural)
2) They claim religious freedom

Yep... again.. so what?

But, you said that polygamy would never, ever, not in a million years, proven mathematically and all that, gain traction if gay marriage went forward. I guess that the Canadian court that is currently reviewing the constitutionality of their anti-polygamy laws missed your posts.

wilbur
02-24-2011, 02:36 PM
But, you said that polygamy would never, ever, not in a million years, proven mathematically and all that, gain traction if gay marriage went forward. I guess that the Canadian court that is currently reviewing the constitutionality of their anti-polygamy laws missed your posts.

I claimed that a recognition of same-sex marriage is unlikely to increase the probability that polygamy becomes a sanctioned form of marriage. In other words, I claimed that the old argument "same-sex marriage, therefore polygamy" was pure unadulterated BS. And it is.

That being said, polygamy has always had a pretty good chance of coming back, eventually.

What about Canada? Well, guess on what grounds the anti-polygamy laws are being challenged? Religious freedom! Not on the grounds of "But you let the gays do it!"

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 02:41 PM
What about Canada? Well, guess on what grounds the anti-polygamy laws are being challenged? Religious freedom! Not on the grounds of "But you let the gays do it!"

Link

wilbur
02-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Link

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp



The case began in 2009 when the attorney general of British Columbia filed charges against James Oler and Winston Blackmore, two leaders of separate factions in a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints settlement known as Bountiful. Authorities had been investigating polygamy at Bountiful since at least 1990, but had feared running afoul of the country’s religious freedom laws. Fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy as a religious principle.

In 2007, then-Attorney General Wally Oppal appointed the first of three different special prosecutors to review the case; two years later, charges were filed. When a court threw them out on religious freedom grounds, the new attorney general asked the Supreme Court to investigate whether the polygamy law is constitutional.


....

Tecate
02-24-2011, 02:49 PM
What is Doma?

Acronyms piss me off when I don't know what they are. :D

wilbur
02-24-2011, 02:51 PM
What is Doma?

Acronyms piss me off when I don't know what they are. :D


defense of marriage act - its the bill Clinton passed that said states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages.

Without it, other states would have been required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in states that allow it (as far as I know).

Tecate
02-24-2011, 03:00 PM
defense of marriage act - its the bill Clinton passed that said states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages.

Without it, other states would have been required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in states that allow it (as far as I know).
Okay, thanks.

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 03:01 PM
defense of marriage act - its the bill Clinton passed that said states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages.

Without it, other states would have been required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in states that allow it (as far as I know).

Do you have any ideas for marriage now? Maybe the night owl?


http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/25218651.gif

Apache
02-24-2011, 03:02 PM
I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm accusing you of equivocating. You know that I meant the United States, not the western hemisphere. You also caveat your "love" of country with all sorts of conditions. In short, you are incapable of expressing an honest emotion.




Notice how he did it?
You said America, he says america...

and like I said, he's now ignoring my point....AGAIN!:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
02-24-2011, 03:20 PM
I never read someone who typed so much but meant so little. (waits for predictable response)

sorry im losing my ability to speak fluently in Retard


HURF DURF GIT-R-DONE!

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 03:22 PM
sorry im losing my ability to speak fluently in Retard


HURF DURF GIT-R-DONE!

You mad bro?:confused:

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 03:25 PM
Is opposing polygamy indecent as well?

Should the Moron Church have had to change their marriage sacrament for Utah to become a state? I'd say the constitution was pretty clear on that, but some here can't see it.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 03:25 PM
sorry im losing my ability to speak fluently in Retard


HURF DURF GIT-R-DONE!

From what I read of your posts you speak it very well

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 03:28 PM
Should the Moron Church have had to change their marriage sacrament for Utah to become a state? I'd say the constitution was pretty clear on that, but some here can't see it.
Once again the human butt plug calls other people morons.:rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 03:36 PM
Once again the human butt plug calls other people morons.:rolleyes:

So what would you call someone who has a college education and still believes the LDS line of BS?

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 03:46 PM
So what would you call someone who has a college education and still believes the LDS line of BS?

People believe what they choose to believe, calling out Christian of any sect here is not the way to win friends an influence people. Just about every time you do this it results in you getting called names and whining about it. and then the moderators step in, I prefer to let them pummel you, but some here feel you need protection.

Bailey
02-24-2011, 03:49 PM
People believe what they choose to believe, calling out Christian of any sect here is not the way to win friends an influence people. Just afbout every time you do this it results in you getting called names and whining about it. and then the moderators step in, I prefer to let them pummel you but some here feel you need protection.

oh this describes tinkerbell to a T.

Apache
02-24-2011, 03:51 PM
So what would you call someone who has a college education and still believes the LDS line of BS?

I don't know, FAITHFUL...

What do...ah nevermind...

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 03:51 PM
People believe what they choose to believe, calling out Christian of any sect here is not the way to win friends an influence people. Just about every time you do this it results in you getting called names and whining about it. and then the moderators step in, I prefer to let them pummel you but some here feel you need protection.

The Mormons are a Special case, capital S. Central to their belief system is a completely unsupported history of North America- zero , zip, evidence to support it. At least some of the Bible is historical, but that Nephite and Lamanit crap is just off the wall. How, for example, could a person have a degree in archaeology or anthropology or history from BYU, and we're supposed to accept it as valid? That would be like a gynecologist who believes children come from the Cabbage Patch.

Novaheart
02-24-2011, 03:54 PM
I don't know, FAITHFUL...

What do...ah nevermind...

Is that how we regard people who believe in Magick or Voodoo? As "faithful"? Or do we regard them as idiotic or primitive? The only reason Mormons get a pass is because they call themselves Christians and we have this cheesy Pepsodent image of them, or because we secretly believe they might be the salvation of the white race.

Rockntractor
02-24-2011, 03:57 PM
The Mormons are a Special case, capital S. Central to their belief system is a completely unsupported history of North America- zero , zip, evidence to support it. At least some of the Bible is historical, but that Nephite and Lamanit crap is just off the wall. How, for example, could a person have a degree in archaeology or anthropology or history from BYU, and we're supposed to accept it as valid? That would be like a gynecologist who believes children come from the Cabbage Patch.
I have read the Book of Mormon , I don't buy it either, but you seem to go from one church to another insulting them , calling them racist whatever. The reason you do this is that they are socially conservative and don't support your view of homosexuality, we all know why you do it.
So let the record show that Nova hates conservative Christians. Now you don't have to continually inject it into threads, we all know!

Phillygirl
02-24-2011, 03:59 PM
Mormons aren't the only religious or secular sect to believe in polygamy. They are simply the largest and most notable group to do so in the U.S. in recent history, at least until the Muslim population starts to really expand.

I don't see how someone can claim that to be opposed to same sex marriage is unconscionable, but wriggle around the polygamy issue. Either one believes that there is an unfettered right for adults to engage in a moral and legal contract with each other, which the state must therefore recognize and grant similar benefits and obligations as it does with regards to the current most acceptable form of interpersonal unity, or one does not.

Consistency is thy goal.

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 04:03 PM
I claimed that a recognition of same-sex marriage is unlikely to increase the probability that polygamy becomes a sanctioned form of marriage. In other words, I claimed that the old argument "same-sex marriage, therefore polygamy" was pure unadulterated BS. And it is.
And it is not. You were and are wrong. In fact, the arguments before the court in Canada are identical to those used in the gay marriage cases, with the added weight of religious freedom thrown in.


Calling the proceedings "historic," polygamy advocate Marlyne Hammon proclaimed, "If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world. They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says. It's about people." Hammon added that the decriminalization of plural marriage in Canada would be a huge motivation to those fighting for its legalization in America. "We've established ourselves in our homes," she said. "We want to continue fighting for our civil rights."


That being said, polygamy has always had a pretty good chance of coming back, eventually.
Well, you're certainly blase about it. I was under the impression that you opposed it. Can we assume that you will be just as nonchalant about child marriage and bestiality? Fighting polygamy would have been much easier if we hadn't thrown out centuries of consensus on what a marriage is in order to satisfy a fringe group. And didn't you say that there was no chance that polygamy would make a comeback? That there were too many good arguments against it? Why, yes, I believe that you did. But, since being wrong in the past never influences your predictions for the future, why should now be any different?


What about Canada? Well, guess on what grounds the anti-polygamy laws are being challenged? Religious freedom! Not on the grounds of "But you let the gays do it!"

See above. "Civil rights", "the households are already established, so why shouldn't the state recognize them", sending a "message" to the world; In other words, all the same arguments that we've seen in gay marriage, plus religious freedom. Here's the link to the thread that I posted on the subject: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=375471

And, yes, the gay marriage precedent will strengthen the polygamists' case. They will argue that polygamy has a longer tradition of acceptance than gay marriage, that it is far more common globally, and that it is at least as worthy of sanction as gay marriage, which, let us remember, does not produce progeny. And, once the bigamy laws are struck down, the Muslims will argue that their marriage laws allow for a bride as young as 9 years old and that the marriage contracts is between the parents of the couple, not the couples themselves, so we'll see the introduction, not just of polygamy, but misogynist, pedophile Islamist polygamy. Today, that sounds absurd, but yesterday, polygamy's comeback sounded absurd to everyone except those of us who made the connection, and a decade ago, gay marriage looked like some bizarre fantasy from the religious right. Now, it's the law throughout those parts of the world that can't be bothered to recall why marriage exists in the first place. Let me know when you figure out that you were wrong.

Apache
02-24-2011, 04:05 PM
Is that how we regard people who believe in Magick or Voodoo? As "faithful"? Or do we regard them as idiotic or primitive? The only reason Mormons get a pass is because they call themselves Christians and we have this cheesy Pepsodent image of them, or because we secretly believe they might be the salvation of the white race.

I don't know Mormon tenents(sp?) So I can't say what gets him that way. There is one thing that we can, as Christians, believe...That Jesus died for our sins and has risen from the grave to grant salvation to those who take it...

wilbur
02-24-2011, 09:23 PM
I don't see how someone can claim that to be opposed to same sex marriage is unconscionable, but wriggle around the polygamy issue. Either one believes that there is an unfettered right for adults to engage in a moral and legal contract with each other, which the state must therefore recognize and grant similar benefits and obligations as it does with regards to the current most acceptable form of interpersonal unity, or one does not.

Consistency is thy goal.

No right is absolute, or "unfettered" as you say - as a lawyer, I'm sure you know this quite well. Our rights, even the ones we consider most sacred, are restricted in some capacity by their effects on other rights. We have a right to freedom of speech, yet we can be prosecuted for libel or slander. We have a right to keep and bear arms, but we don't have a right to put landmines in our front yard.

In the case of polygamy...it could be that allowing such a form of marriage could be so detrimental to the expression of other rights - that we are justified in prohibiting it. Polygamy could result in harmful marginalization and abuse of women and children. It could be that polygamy ultimately destabilizes societies by shrinking the mating pool for males to such an extent that they resort to violence and terrorism. (Odysseus an supply you with a laundry list of such consequentialist arguments.) There is a constellation of similarly plausible issues surrounding polygamy - issues that do not surround same-sex marriage.

I'm open to the arguments either way, but its simply not the case that the endorsement of same-sex marriage entails the endorsement of polygamy.

MrsSmith
02-24-2011, 09:48 PM
I do have a moral compass. And my moral compass totally kicks your moral compass's ass. :D

(seriously)

Unless, of course, it's doing its usual thing of spinning madly because it lacks the ability to find "true north"

wilbur
02-24-2011, 11:05 PM
And it is not. You were and are wrong. In fact, the arguments before the court in Canada are identical to those used in the gay marriage cases, with the added weight of religious freedom thrown in.

Oh I see... if religious freedom is cited, its just "thrown in"... if civil rights are mentioned, its the fulcrum of the case.



Well, you're certainly blase about it. I was under the impression that you opposed it.

I'm mostly convinced that polygamy would be a bad thing - but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.



Can we assume that you will be just as nonchalant about child marriage and bestiality?


I think I even explicitly said we have good reasons to oppose pedophilia marriage in this thread. Not that you actually care what your debate opponents say. You know what they think and believe before they do.



Fighting polygamy would have been much easier if we hadn't thrown out centuries of consensus on what a marriage is in order to satisfy a fringe group.

False. Polygamy will stand or fall on its own.



And didn't you say that there was no chance that polygamy would make a comeback? That there were too many good arguments against it? Why, yes, I believe that you did. But, since being wrong in the past never influences your predictions for the future, why should now be any different?


No, I never said that. For the millionth time... really read this.. comprehend it.. think about the words, so that you get it... polygamy will not be affected by same-sex marriage. Polygamy has always had a decent chance at coming back, (because of its strident proponents and its historical precedent). Same-sex marriage just will not affect that chance, one way or another.



See above. "Civil rights", "the households are already established, so why shouldn't the state recognize them", sending a "message" to the world; In other words, all the same arguments that we've seen in gay marriage, plus religious freedom. Here's the link to the thread that I posted on the subject: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=375471

And, yes, the gay marriage precedent will strengthen the polygamists' case. They will argue that polygamy has a longer tradition of acceptance than gay marriage, that it is far more common globally, and that it is at least as worthy of sanction as gay marriage, which, let us remember, does not produce progeny. And, once the bigamy laws are struck down, the Muslims will argue that their marriage laws allow for a bride as young as 9 years old and that the marriage contracts is between the parents of the couple, not the couples themselves, so we'll see the introduction, not just of polygamy, but misogynist, pedophile Islamist polygamy. Today, that sounds absurd, but yesterday, polygamy's comeback sounded absurd to everyone except those of us who made the connection, and a decade ago, gay marriage looked like some bizarre fantasy from the religious right. Now, it's the law throughout those parts of the world that can't be bothered to recall why marriage exists in the first place. Let me know when you figure out that you were wrong.

You are a lunatic of the highest order. There's simply nothing to say to someone who can spout of such ridiculous bullshit. From same-sex marriage to pedophilia marriage. Unbelievable. I've destroyed you to the point of shameful embarrassment on this point more times than I can count now. The only pity is that you havent the self awareness to realize it.

PoliCon
02-25-2011, 12:30 AM
Hannity had Jay Sekulow and some leftist woman on - sorry didn't catch her name - talking about this and Jay proposed the scenario where a president came into office and decided that he did not find the Civil Rights Act constitutional and just opted not to enforce it like Barry is doing with DOMA - and her best defense was that the CRA made sense and DOMA doesn't.:rolleyes:

CueSi
02-25-2011, 05:17 AM
He never said he supported DOMA. He made it pretty clear during his campaign that he was supportive of gay rights, including the right to marry legally. It's not like this should be unexpected or a surprise to anyone.

Actually, IICR, Obama isn't for gay marriage, he made that clear while campaigning. But most ignored it. That's why I think it's a 2012 insurance move.


I claimed that a recognition of same-sex marriage is unlikely to increase the probability that polygamy becomes a sanctioned form of marriage. In other words, I claimed that the old argument "same-sex marriage, therefore polygamy" was pure unadulterated BS. And it is.

That being said, polygamy has always had a pretty good chance of coming back, eventually.

What about Canada? Well, guess on what grounds the anti-polygamy laws are being challenged? Religious freedom! Not on the grounds of "But you let the gays do it!"

If it always had a good chance of coming back, why did they wait till now? That's the elephant in the room that you're unwilling to admit to. You're switching from back to forth here and that's why I gotta get my dope slap in on you. When Ody called your bluff you said, "it always had a good chance of coming back", something I've never seen you say before here to my knowledge. Bullshit, dude. Bullshit.

I don't think Ody stipulated the GROUNDS on which it would come back, just that it WOULD.That's not really BS. And it has, in a place that- - well tends to make sense. Canada's always been more socially progressive. No one's really made the GROUNDS on which it would come back an issue except you, in an attempt to make it different. I think you need to charge up the golf cart when you're done moving those goalposts, okay?

And you're right: you don't equivocate, you're a disengenous little bastard that thinks he's a magnificent one. (damn, that felt good.)




<snip-'cause I ain't talking about that now>

The only reason Mormons get a pass is because they call themselves Christians and we have this cheesy Pepsodent image of them, or because we secretly believe they might be the salvation of the white race.

Then how come I see the newest LDS temples in Little Haiti and the Redlands migrant camps? If they're trying to be the salvation of the white race, they're doing it VERY wrong.

~QC

txradioguy
02-25-2011, 05:31 AM
Actually, IICR, Obama isn't for gay marriage, he made that clear while campaigning. But most ignored it. That's why I think it's a 2012 insurance move.



If it always had a good chance of coming back, why did they wait till now? That's the elephant in the room that you're unwilling to admit to. You're switching from back to forth here and that's why I gotta get my dope slap in on you. When Ody called your bluff you said, "it always had a good chance of coming back", something I've never seen you say before here to my knowledge. Bullshit, dude. Bullshit.

I don't think Ody stipulated the GROUNDS on which it would come back, just that it WOULD.That's not really BS. And it has, in a place that- - well tends to make sense. Canada's always been more socially progressive. No one's really made the GROUNDS on which it would come back an issue except you, in an attempt to make it different. I think you need to charge up the golf cart when you're done moving those goalposts, okay?

And you're right: you don't equivocate, you're a disengenous little bastard that thinks he's a magnificent one. (damn, that felt good.)



Then how come I see the newest LDS temples in Little Haiti and the Redlands migrant camps? If they're trying to be the salvation of the white race, they're doing it VERY wrong.

~QC

QFT

Madisonian
02-25-2011, 08:37 AM
Maybe Obama recognized that the Constitution gives no authority to the feds to take a position on what is fundementally a religious ceremony and therefore the federal government has no business being involved in the marraige debate in the first place.:confused:

Nahhh... that can't be it.:D

Odysseus
02-25-2011, 12:22 PM
Oh I see... if religious freedom is cited, its just "thrown in"... if civil rights are mentioned, its the fulcrum of the case.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that it doesn't matter what the arguments are. The same players who fought for gay marriage will fight for poligamy, because ultimately, this is about the end of marriage and sexual rule of conduct. The advocates of "alternative" forms of marriage are seeking to eliminate any moral constraints on sexual behavior. They'll cite civil rights, religious freedom, historical inevitability, Manifest Destiny or the Magna Carta if it advances the cause.


I'm mostly convinced that polygamy would be a bad thing - but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
I'm not. History is a good teacher. But, it's interesting that you've gone from outright rejection of polygamy to being "open" to the arguments. The moral compass of yours must have passed a magnet...


I think I even explicitly said we have good reasons to oppose pedophilia marriage in this thread. Not that you actually care what your debate opponents say. You know what they think and believe before they do.
Wilbur, you have made your opinions clear throughout this and many other threads. Yesterday, you opposed poligamy. Today, as you stated above, you are open to arguments in favor of it. Tomorrow, when elite opinion favors it, you will, too. This is why your moral compass is a weathervane. It goes whichever way the wind is blowing.

False. Polygamy will stand or fall on its own.

No, I never said that. For the millionth time... really read this.. comprehend it.. think about the words, so that you get it... polygamy will not be affected by same-sex marriage. Polygamy has always had a decent chance at coming back, (because of its strident proponents and its historical precedent). Same-sex marriage just will not affect that chance, one way or another.
Wrong. It already has been affected by it, just as gay marriage was facilitated by civil unions, which were facilitated by no-fault divorce (once you accept that a marriage is only a contract, the arguments about who can enter into the contract become much more "diverse"), as the sexual revolution facilitated no-fault divorce (after all, why get hung up on something as archaic as marital fidelity?). Each weakened link in the chain weakens the chain as a whole. And, while you did, in one post, state that there were more historical precedents for polygamy, you also cited the list of objections that I had as "proof" that it would not advance and that I was insane for suggesting that it would. It must be interesting to hold two contradicting views of the same subject simultaneously...


You are a lunatic of the highest order. There's simply nothing to say to someone who can spout of such ridiculous bullshit. From same-sex marriage to pedophilia marriage. Unbelievable. I've destroyed you to the point of shameful embarrassment on this point more times than I can count now. The only pity is that you havent the self awareness to realize it.

If this argument is so insane, ridiculous and embarrassing, then you should be able to refute it with more than just namecalling. This response just smacks of desperation. The facts are clear. The past erosions of marriage have acted as stepping stones to the current erosion, and will continue to do so into the future.

BTW, there is another way that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, which I addressed in an earlier thread, and which you ignored, so I will repeat it here:


MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:
Married couples
∑ A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]
∑ A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]
∑ A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]
Male Homosexuals
Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
∑ The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
∑ Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
∑ In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
∑ A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
∑ A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]
∑ The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]
∑ In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif
Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170.
As I stated then, the prevalence of sexual contacts outside of "marriage" is a form of polyamory, which is the cornerstone of polygamy. The acceptance of the "new normal" of gay marriage means acceptance of marital infidelity as a standard of behavior, rather than a violation of marriage vows and grounds for dissolution. You may pretend that this strengthens marriage, as it permits marriages to survive infidelity, or even incorporate it, but clearly, such an arrangement is not a marriage so much as an ongoing playdate for adults.

linda22003
02-25-2011, 12:30 PM
All that bar chart tells us is that a lot of married women and married men lie, and homosexual men brag. :D

Novaheart
02-25-2011, 12:35 PM
Mormons aren't the only religious or secular sect to believe in polygamy. They are simply the largest and most notable group to do so in the U.S. in recent history, at least until the Muslim population starts to really expand.

I don't see how someone can claim that to be opposed to same sex marriage is unconscionable, but wriggle around the polygamy issue. Either one believes that there is an unfettered right for adults to engage in a moral and legal contract with each other, which the state must therefore recognize and grant similar benefits and obligations as it does with regards to the current most acceptable form of interpersonal unity, or one does not.

Consistency is thy goal.

No wriggling on my part. The limit of marriage to one other person at a time can be truly equally applied, so there is a defense for it. Howbeit, I don't oppose polygamy. Right now, our pretending that polygamy doesn't exist has lots of Mormons abusing social welfare systems which would probably be off limits if they were married. On the other hand, welfare rules will have to be tweaked to keep some modern day Solomon from getting $12,024 per month in food stamps, $8,345 per month in Section 8 housing assistance, and automatic scholarships because the family has so many kids they qualify as poor even though they have a 1,000 acre farm and a Greyhound bus.

Novaheart
02-25-2011, 12:45 PM
All that bar chart tells us is that a lot of married women and married men lie, and homosexual men brag. :D

He's using FRC resources. lol

Odysseus
02-25-2011, 02:04 PM
All that bar chart tells us is that a lot of married women and married men lie, and homosexual men brag. :D
Okay, so married heterosexuals consider infidelity a negative, while "married" gays consider it a point of pride? Doesn't that imply anything about the differences in how the two groups approach marriage?

No wriggling on my part. The limit of marriage to one other person at a time can be truly equally applied, so there is a defense for it.

So can the limit of marriage to one man and one woman, but you find that indefensible. How long do you expect the new standard to last?


Howbeit, I don't oppose polygamy. Right now, our pretending that polygamy doesn't exist has lots of Mormons abusing social welfare systems which would probably be off limits if they were married. On the other hand, welfare rules will have to be tweaked to keep some modern day Solomon from getting $12,024 per month in food stamps, $8,345 per month in Section 8 housing assistance, and automatic scholarships because the family has so many kids they qualify as poor even though they have a 1,000 acre farm and a Greyhound bus.
We don't pretend that polygamy doesn't exist, any more than we pretend that murder doesn't exist. Both are illegal and punished when found out.

And, as Wilbur has pointed out, I have provided a number of reasons why polygamy is destructive. Here is the recap:


Polygamy is bad for a number of reasons.

First, marriage is a zero-sum game. If one man can marry one woman, and the ratio of men to women is roughly equal, then there's no problem. If, OTOH, one man can marry multiple women, then other men cannot marry at all. Surplus single males with no prospects for family are socially disruptive. Many of the suicide bombers and radicals in the Islamic world are educated young men from affluent backgrounds who tend to be second or third sons, and whose marriage prospects are therefore not a priority for their families. Remember that in polygamous cultures, the proof that a man can support a wife is the "bride price" which his family pays to hers. That leads to the next issue.

Second, polygamy is exploitive of women, who become a commodity. In every polygamous culture, the status of women is lower than that of men. And far more men will seek multiple wives than women will seek multiple husbands. Affluent men will prove that they can support a wife by paying her family, while men of fewer means will not be able to do so. Thus, financial incentives will drive families to guard their daughters and keep them under close watch (virginity becomes a critical factor in polygamous cultures).

Third, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages. If a man with multiple wives divorces one of them, how much of the marital property is hers, as opposed to the other wives'? Inheritance becomes equally convoluted, with estates getting divided among far more children, with eventual dissolution of large holdings. There's a reason that polygamous cultures tend towards poverty.

Fourth, polygamy provides and unstable home environment for raising children. Wives in polygamous relationships cannot count on the stability of their marriages and tend to see their future security through their children, rather than through their own or their husband's efforts. This leads to constant intrigue. Multiple women, competing for their children's status within the household, create a culture of conflict and mistrust which is common in tribal cultures. Harems are notorious for their political machinations. This creates a culture of conspiracy and manipulation, rather than a culture of trust.


He's using FRC resources. lol

While you, as usual, provide no numbers at all. The FRC used data from groups and sources that were sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you deny the accuracy of the numbers? And if so, do you have alternate sources of information that refute them? Or is this just another example of you flailing in the face of uncomfortable facts?

linda22003
02-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Okay, so married heterosexuals consider infidelity a negative, while "married" gays consider it a point of pride? Doesn't that imply anything about the differences in how the two groups approach marriage?




Okay, that smiley thing at the end was supposed to indicate a JOKE. Sorry it didn't register.

txradioguy
02-25-2011, 02:38 PM
He's using FRC resources. lol

And you know this how exactly?

CueSi
02-25-2011, 02:51 PM
He's using FRC resources. lol

Then give countering numbers. I'm sure they exist. It's useless to just stand there and say someone's using a particular resource with a bias and not... back it up.

~QC

Odysseus
02-25-2011, 06:20 PM
Okay, that smiley thing at the end was supposed to indicate a JOKE. Sorry it didn't register.
My bad, but it was a valid point, which is why I responded.

And you know this how exactly?
No, he's correct as to the compilers, but the original sources are given in the text, and they are not FRC affilitates or even sympathetic to them.

Then give countering numbers. I'm sure they exist. It's useless to just stand there and say someone's using a particular resource with a bias and not... back it up.

~QC
He won't. He'll throw a few snarky comments in and then declare victory. The last time that I posted these numbers, Wilbur abandoned the thread rather than respond. I wonder what he will do now...:rolleyes:

FlaGator
02-25-2011, 06:24 PM
Then give countering numbers. I'm sure they exist. It's useless to just stand there and say someone's using a particular resource with a bias and not... back it up.

~QC

He can't.

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 04:47 PM
If "normal" is defined in the statistical sense (as the mean or the average) then no... homosexuality will never be normal. Neither will redheads, lefties, really short people, or really tall people. But so what?

Obviously, that's not the type of "normal" homosexuals are fighting for (because it would be nonsense).

The way I look at it, men and women are more similar than dissimilar... and by a wide margin. So, all of us are more gay than straight... and by a wide margin.

Consider George H.W. Bush. The man is married to a woman who has looked like a man for most of the time the two have been together. You can't tell me that guy is totally straight.

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 04:49 PM
And you know this how exactly?

If you right click on an image and select "properties" from the menu, you can see the image's address.

CueSi
02-27-2011, 04:54 PM
The way I look at it, men and women are more similar than dissimilar... and by a wide margin. So, all of us are more gay than straight... and by a wide margin.

Consider George H.W. Bush. The man is married to a woman who has looked like a man for most of the time the two have been together. You can't tell me that guy is totally straight.

You, sir, are a fucking asshole.

(you made me talk like Keith Olbermann. You should be locked in a room with the most Bright Eyed and Bushy Tailed Mormon Missionaries for that)

~QC

Apache
02-27-2011, 04:55 PM
The way I look at it, men and women are more similar than dissimilar... and by a wide margin. So, all of us are more gay than straight... and by a wide margin.

Consider George H.W. Bush. The man is married to a woman who has looked like a man for most of the time the two have been together. You can't tell me that guy is totally straight.

Oh goody! Another Leftist twisty dance....:D

And a 1

And a 2

And a 1234 :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 05:14 PM
You, sir, are a fucking asshole.

(you made me talk like Keith Olbermann. You should be locked in a room with the most Bright Eyed and Bushy Tailed Mormon Missionaries for that)

~QC

So, do I win a Worst Person in the World award?

CueSi
02-27-2011, 05:18 PM
So, do I win a Worst Person in the World award?

No.

~QC

wilbur
02-27-2011, 07:32 PM
What you refuse to acknowledge is that it doesn't matter what the arguments are. The same players who fought for gay marriage will fight for poligamy, because ultimately, this is about the end of marriage and sexual rule of conduct. The advocates of "alternative" forms of marriage are seeking to eliminate any moral constraints on sexual behavior. They'll cite civil rights, religious freedom, historical inevitability, Manifest Destiny or the Magna Carta if it advances the cause.


This is laughable... the actual facts contradict your assertion 100%. Its the Mormon's who are primarily fighting for polygamy in the US. The case before the supreme court in Canada was brought by Mormon's. You know... the people who spent boatloads of money in California to fight prop 8. The people fighting for polygamy are some of the biggest adversaries of same-sex marriage.

And I've seen little evidence that those fighting for same-sex marriage have any involvement in the polygamy debate. Sure, you might find a few isolated examples of polyamorous people fighting for plural marriage here and there, but they are by and large absent from the cause. In Europe its the same - except its the Muslims, not Mormons, fighting for the cause. And we all know how friendly they are towards homosexuals.



I'm not. History is a good teacher. But, it's interesting that you've gone from outright rejection of polygamy to being "open" to the arguments. The moral compass of yours must have passed a magnet...

Wilbur, you have made your opinions clear throughout this and many other threads. Yesterday, you opposed poligamy. Today, as you stated above, you are open to arguments in favor of it. Tomorrow, when elite opinion favors it, you will, too. This is why your moral compass is a weathervane. It goes whichever way the wind is blowing.


If we call evidence the wind, then yes, I do my best to be weather vane. This concept is stated quite nicely in this article - The 12 Virtues of Rationality. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues



The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can....


I am superficially aware of many of the arguments for and against polygamy, but I cannot say I have really delved seriously into how legitimate or illegitimate they are. At the moment, the arguments against seem more persuasive to me - arguments sort of like the one's you presented before - but I could be persuaded by good arguments the other direction.

I hold all my beliefs on a continuum with certainty on one end, and uncertainty on the other. My beliefs about polygamy stand somewhere in the middle. If the evidence demands I change my mind on polygamy, than I will. Its not a strength to draw an absolutist line in the sand on some arbitrary principle which you cannot justify - its a weakness - a weakness that you seem to mistake for a virtue.



Wrong. It already has been affected by it, just as gay marriage was facilitated by civil unions, which were facilitated by no-fault divorce (once you accept that a marriage is only a contract, the arguments about who can enter into the contract become much more "diverse"), as the sexual revolution facilitated no-fault divorce (after all, why get hung up on something as archaic as marital fidelity?). Each weakened link in the chain weakens the chain as a whole. And, while you did, in one post, state that there were more historical precedents for polygamy, you also cited the list of objections that I had as "proof" that it would not advance and that I was insane for suggesting that it would. It must be interesting to hold two contradicting views of the same subject simultaneously...


No again, you simply restate my argument falsely. I said same-sex marriage will not INCREASE the chances that we see polygamy in the US. In other words, if it returns, same-sex marriage will very little or nothing to do with it.

I was persuaded that the chances that polygamy will return are pretty low, though I never made any bones about the fact that it was a rough estimate. I believe I estimated the probability that polygamy would be recognized in the next 10 years as 15%. It may be higher, it may be lower - either way, the important part about my prior arguments was that that percentile will not increase (significantly) if we recognize same-sex marriage.

What I used your arguments for was to point out your contradictory position where you tried to maintain that there could be no arguments against polygamy if same-sex marriage was recognized, while standing by many arguments against polygamy that had absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Even for you, that was an amazing blunder.



If this argument is so insane, ridiculous and embarrassing, then you should be able to refute it with more than just namecalling. This response just smacks of desperation. The facts are clear. The past erosions of marriage have acted as stepping stones to the current erosion, and will continue to do so into the future.


Well, at some point you have to just call it. Because you can imagine some crazed reality where somehow courts and the people somehow manage to OK pedophilia marriage, doesn't mean it has any chance of occurring. As irrational as the American people and courts can be, its just idiotic to even suggest it as a realistic possibility, much less that same-sex marriage will pave the way. Silly scenarios pulled out of your ass are not in need of refutation.





MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:
Married couples
∑ A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]
∑ A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]
∑ A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]
.....


As I stated then, the prevalence of sexual contacts outside of "marriage" is a form of polyamory, which is the cornerstone of polygamy. The acceptance of the "new normal" of gay marriage means acceptance of marital infidelity as a standard of behavior, rather than a violation of marriage vows and grounds for dissolution. You may pretend that this strengthens marriage, as it permits marriages to survive infidelity, or even incorporate it, but clearly, such an arrangement is not a marriage so much as an ongoing playdate for adults.

Marriage infidelity already IS a standard of behavior. By some estimates, marriages with at least one cheating partner are as high as 80%. Maybe its higher, maybe its lower, but I have never seen stats anywhere where infidelity is as low as 25% for husbands, and 15% for wives.

The fact is that NONE of your scenarios have played out in any of the countries which have had same-sex marriage for going on 20 years now. Not one. No surrogate mothers and gay men attempting to form a plural marriages... no marital sanctity being eroded by poly-amorous homosexuals. In the places where we do see polygamy being fought for, we see it coming about because of religious fundamentalism. In the Canadian case, we see things playing out in a way that vindicates my position - that polygamy will live or die by virtue of the arguments for and against it specifically - arguments that same-sex marriage do not affect.

In short, the winds of evidence are blowing one way... maybe instead of a brick wall, you should try being a weather vane..

MrsSmith
02-27-2011, 10:23 PM
The way I look at it, men and women are more similar than dissimilar... and by a wide margin. So, all of us are more gay than straight... and by a wide margin.

Consider George H.W. Bush. The man is married to a woman who has looked like a man for most of the time the two have been together. You can't tell me that guy is totally straight.

http://www.dallascondoloft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/barbara.jpg

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/image.php?id=2263

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 10:36 PM
http://www.dallascondoloft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/barbara.jpg

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/image.php?id=2263

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's a man, baby.

txradioguy
02-27-2011, 11:19 PM
Originally Posted by The Night Owl
The way I look at it, men and women are more similar than dissimilar... and by a wide margin. So, all of us are more gay than straight... and by a wide margin.

Consider George H.W. Bush. The man is married to a woman who has looked like a man for most of the time the two have been together. You can't tell me that guy is totally straight.

Remind me again who the racist bogoted homophobes are?


:rolleyes:

TNO seriously...EADC

txradioguy
02-27-2011, 11:20 PM
If you right click on an image and select "properties" from the menu, you can see the image's address.

Again proving...nothing. Other than that's what the person cose to title the picture.

Novaheart
02-28-2011, 12:12 AM
He won't. He'll throw a few snarky comments in and then declare victory. The last time that I posted these numbers, Wilbur abandoned the thread rather than respond. I wonder what he will do now...:rolleyes:

It's because it's tiresome, and after so many years it's simply not worth it. If I put the time and energy into showing you how the FRC pulls their BS, are you going to have an epiphany? No. You're just going to ignore it, and do it all over again down the road. Frankly, you've shown that you're not worth the effort.

Zathras
02-28-2011, 01:00 AM
It's because it's tiresome, and after so many years it's simply not worth it. If I put the time and energy into showing you how the FRC pulls their BS, are you going to have an epiphany? No. You're just going to ignore it, and do it all over again down the road. Frankly, you've shown that you're not worth the effort.

Translation: You've handed me my ass in every argument we've had here so, to save what little dignity I have left, I refuse to debate against you anymore so I don't come off looking like an absolute fool.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 10:07 AM
It's because it's tiresome, and after so many years it's simply not worth it. If I put the time and energy into showing you how the FRC pulls their BS, are you going to have an epiphany? No. You're just going to ignore it, and do it all over again down the road. Frankly, you've shown that you're not worth the effort.

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/shark_derp_durr_hurr.jpg

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:18 AM
Again proving...nothing. Other than that's what the person cose to title the picture.

That's not how it works. The image resides on the FRC website and the address listed in Properties reveals that.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:24 AM
Remind me again who the racist bogoted homophobes are?

:rolleyes:

TNO seriously...EADC

If you think I'm saying something insulting by claiming that we're all gay to a certain extent then that's more a reflection of your attitude than mine. To my way of thinking, whether a person is gay or straight indicates very little about that person's character.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:35 AM
If you think I'm saying something insulting by claiming that we're all gay to a certain extent then that's more a reflection of your attitude than mine. To my way of thinking, whether a person is gay or straight indicates very little about that person's character.

You know what you were getting at and it's not anything close to what you're trying to convince us of.

I'm not some damn n00b that you can run this bullshit by.

You're using broad steretypical and homophobic desription of people you don't like in order to insult them. Which for some odd reason you thinnk is perfectly ok because you're a Liberal. The rules of civility don't apply to you.

And once you've been called on it you try and go ingo a faux shocked mode that we would think that of you.

Spare us the drama. No one buys your act.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-28-2011, 11:37 AM
I don't understand why it bothers some so much if a gay person gets married. I'm straight, and I have straight friends like myself, but I also have gay friends, bisexual friends, lesbian friends, etc--and if one of them was to get married to member of the same sex, the only thing that'd matter to me is if their spouse treated them with love and respect. Love, respect, and fidelity are in my opinion the cornerstones to marriage, not what genitalia the members of the couple have.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:44 AM
I don't understand why it bothers some so much if a gay person gets married. I'm straight, and I have straight friends like myself, but I also have gay friends, bisexual friends, lesbian friends, etc--and if one of them was to get married to member of the same sex, the only thing that'd matter to me is if their spouse treated them with love and respect. Love, respect, and fidelity are in my opinion the cornerstones to marriage, not what genitalia the members of the couple have.

Ever hear of that thing called...The Bible?

How about the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't support letting people of the same sex "marry"?

Maybe people have a problem with it because it cheapens the vows and one of the main reasons for marriage?

Or how about the fact that it really has nothing to do with being able to "marry at all"? It's about money. More specifically the money that a gay couple can't get in the way of employee benefits insurance payouts etc because two guys or two girls marrying isn't accepted.

Or how about the fact that the gay comunity wants to ouse the marriage issue to push their alternative lifestyle down our throats and force us to see it as perfectly acceptable behavoir.

Beyond that...yeah I don't see what the big deal is.

:rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-28-2011, 11:44 AM
I don't understand why it bothers some so much if a gay person gets married. I'm straight, and I have straight friends like myself, but I also have gay friends, bisexual friends, lesbian friends, etc--and if one of them was to get married to member of the same sex, the only thing that'd matter to me is if their spouse treated them with love and respect. Love, respect, and fidelity are in my opinion the cornerstones to marriage, not what genitalia the members of the couple have.

Some straight people don't actually like members of the opposite sex. Poor things, they are hardwired sexually to be attracted for copulation to the opposite sex, but emotionally they prefer their own sex. It confuses them. They live lives stuck between fear and excitement. It leads to premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in men, and compulsive shopping and workplace viciousness in women. Eventually they join cults in which men and women are largely kept apart except when mating.

wilbur
02-28-2011, 11:46 AM
Ever hear of that thing called...The Bible?

How about the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't support letting people of the same sex "marry"?

Maybe people have a problem with it because it cheapens the vows and one of the main reasons for marriage?

Or how about the fact that it really has nothing to do with being able to "marry at all"? It's about money. More specifically the money that a gay couple can't get in the way of employee benefits insurance payouts etc because two guys or two girls marrying isn't accepted.

Or how about the fact that the gay comunity wants to ouse the marriage issue to push their alternative lifestyle down our throats and force us to see it as perfectly acceptable behavoir.

Beyond that...yeah I don't see what the big deal is.

:rolleyes:

You are one sick, sick, delusional old dog.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:48 AM
Ever hear of that thing called...The Bible?



What about the Bible?

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:49 AM
You are one sick, sick, delusional old dog.

Coming from an illiterate psychotic douchebag like yuo rubilw...that's a compliment.

And since you went straight to the gutter with the personal attack...you've let us all know you can;t build a credible argument against what I said.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:51 AM
Thanks to the Libtards here we've gone far afield from the discussion of DOMA and the fact that the President and his attorney general have announced they are willfully going to ignore the oath they took when they assumed office.

Whether you agree with his politics or not this is shameful behavior by the President.

Thoughts?

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:52 AM
What about the Bible?

You're an athiest. Why do you care?

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:52 AM
You're an athiest. Why do you care?

I'm curious.

wilbur
02-28-2011, 11:53 AM
Coming from an illiterate psychotic douchebag like yuo rubilw...that's a compliment.

And since you went straight to the gutter with the personal attack...you've let us all know you can;t build a credible argument against what I said.

What argument?!??! You didnt give any. You just launched ad hominem attacks and accusations against an entire group of people with nothing but your own hateful prejiduce to back it up! What a joke

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 11:58 AM
I'm curious.

Bullshit. Your comments in previous threads prove this.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 12:00 PM
What argument?!??! You didnt give any. You just launched ad hominem attacks and accusations against an entire group of people with nothing but your own hateful prejiduce to back it up! What a joke


I gave several valid point tht if you thought you could...you'd try to refute. You won't because you can't.

rubliw you should know by the numerous times you've run aswy form a thread when I present facts that I'm not bringing any kind of preconcieved prejudice to this.

I leave that to you.

wilbur
02-28-2011, 01:21 PM
I gave several valid point tht if you thought you could...you'd try to refute. You won't because you can't.

You offered several prejudiced bare assertions based on your delusional idiocy - they don't get to stand just because you uttered them. As I told Odysseus, shit pulled straight out of your ass needs no refutation - it needs support.

FBIGuy
02-28-2011, 02:12 PM
You offered several prejudiced bare assertions based on your delusional idiocy - they don't get to stand just because you uttered them. As I told Odysseus, shit pulled straight out of your ass needs no refutation - it needs support.

Says the guy who really needs to wash his hands.

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2011, 02:20 PM
Some straight people don't actually like members of the opposite sex. Poor things, they are hardwired sexually to be attracted for copulation to the opposite sex, but emotionally they prefer their own sex. It confuses them. They live lives stuck between fear and excitement. It leads to premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in men, and compulsive shopping and workplace viciousness in women. Eventually they join cults in which men and women are largely kept apart except when mating.

this post is a good post

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 02:31 PM
You offered several prejudiced bare assertions based on your delusional idiocy - they don't get to stand just because you uttered them. As I told Odysseus, shit pulled straight out of your ass needs no refutation - it needs support.

Show me where they are false.

Otherwise YOU are just talking out your ass...again.

wilbur
02-28-2011, 02:34 PM
Show me where they are false.

Otherwise YOU are just talking out your ass...again.

You made the claims, its upon you to show me where they are true. If you can't bear the burden of demonstrating your beliefs, then we are not required to do anything but dismiss them.

Bailey
02-28-2011, 03:34 PM
this post is a good post

Says the Maxis/Leninist.

Odysseus
02-28-2011, 04:22 PM
It's because it's tiresome, and after so many years it's simply not worth it. If I put the time and energy into showing you how the FRC pulls their BS, are you going to have an epiphany? No. You're just going to ignore it, and do it all over again down the road. Frankly, you've shown that you're not worth the effort.
Or, perhaps because you are unable to provide any refutation?

This is laughable... the actual facts contradict your assertion 100%. Its the Mormon's who are primarily fighting for polygamy in the US. The case before the supreme court in Canada was brought by Mormon's. You know... the people who spent boatloads of money in California to fight prop 8. The people fighting for polygamy are some of the biggest adversaries of same-sex marriage.
The people fighting for an international caliphate are some of the biggest adversaries of gay rights, and yet, gays come out to march in antiwar rallies all the time. And, in fact, there are quite a few GBLT groups working in favor of polygamous marriage, but they have kept a low profile because their priority was gay marriage and they didn't want to scare off moderates. How do I know thiis? They said it. From Beyond Marriage:


It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.

We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.

And who has signed onto this? Let's see... according to the website, hundreds of gay-marriage supporters, including big names like Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, Rabbi Michael Lerner (of Tikkun Magazine), and Barbara Ehrenreich. And the mission statement explicitly states that the goal was to do this incrementally, starting with gay marriage and moving to polyamory. But wait, there's more! From a 2003 article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?page=2) on the subject:

Writing in the Village Voice, gay leftist Richard Goldstein equated the drive for state-sanctioned polygamy with the movement for gay marriage. The political reluctance of gays to embrace polygamists was understandable, said Goldstein, "but our fates are entwined in fundamental ways." Libertarian Jacob Sullum defended polygamy, along with all other consensual domestic arrangements, in the Washington Times. Syndicated liberal columnist Ellen Goodman took up the cause of polygamy with a direct comparison to gay marriage. Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board, defended polygamy in the Tribune and in Slate. The New York Times published a Week in Review article juxtaposing photos of Tom Green's family with sociobiological arguments about the naturalness of polygamy and promiscuity.

The ACLU's Matt Coles may have derided the idea of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy, but the ACLU itself stepped in to help Tom Green during his trial and declared its support for the repeal of all "laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage." There is of course a difference between repealing such laws and formal state recognition of polygamous marriages. Neither the ACLU nor, say, Ellen Goodman has directly advocated formal state recognition. Yet they give us no reason to suppose that, when the time is ripe, they will not do so. Stephen Clark, the legal director of the Utah ACLU, has said, "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives."

All this was in 2001, well before the prospect that legal gay marriage might create the cultural conditions for state-sanctioned polygamy.

So, the premiere civil rights group on the left has gone to bat for a polygamist, and a Mormon, too. And yet, we are told that the left will not support people who they don't like, just as Sunni and Shia will never work together, thus the Shiite Iranian resupply of Sunni Hamas must have been a fiction, right? :rolleyes:


And I've seen little evidence that those fighting for same-sex marriage have any involvement in the polygamy debate. Sure, you might find a few isolated examples of polyamorous people fighting for plural marriage here and there, but they are by and large absent from the cause. In Europe its the same - except its the Muslims, not Mormons, fighting for the cause. And we all know how friendly they are towards homosexuals.
You see what you want to see. Need more evidence? Here's a bit of Newsweek's ("http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html) touching paean to polyamory in 2009:


Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not. It's these dynamics that have made polyamory, as longtime poly advocate Anita Wagner puts it, "the political football in the culture war as it relates to same-sex marriage."
In other words, it's purely tactical.

Odysseus
02-28-2011, 04:24 PM
If we call evidence the wind, then yes, I do my best to be weather vane. This concept is stated quite nicely in this article - The 12 Virtues of Rationality. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues



The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can....


I am superficially aware of many of the arguments for and against polygamy, but I cannot say I have really delved seriously into how legitimate or illegitimate they are. At the moment, the arguments against seem more persuasive to me - arguments sort of like the one's you presented before - but I could be persuaded by good arguments the other direction.

I hold all my beliefs on a continuum with certainty on one end, and uncertainty on the other. My beliefs about polygamy stand somewhere in the middle. If the evidence demands I change my mind on polygamy, than I will. Its not a strength to draw an absolutist line in the sand on some arbitrary principle which you cannot justify - its a weakness - a weakness that you seem to mistake for a virtue.
But evidence is more substantial than just wind. You have evidence, which you will ignore, numbers, which you dispute without evidence, or precedents, which you ignore, and then complain that you haven't been convinced. See below for another example.


No again, you simply restate my argument falsely. I said same-sex marriage will not INCREASE the chances that we see polygamy in the US. In other words, if it returns, same-sex marriage will very little or nothing to do with it.

I was persuaded that the chances that polygamy will return are pretty low, though I never made any bones about the fact that it was a rough estimate. I believe I estimated the probability that polygamy would be recognized in the next 10 years as 15%. It may be higher, it may be lower - either way, the important part about my prior arguments was that that percentile will not increase (significantly) if we recognize same-sex marriage.
Uh, no, you stated that the reasons that I gave would be effective against polygamy, and that I was crazy to suggest that they would not carry the day. You also claimed that the odds were much lower than the 15% that came out of your calculations, saying:


i think you are just thrown off because i used 50% and 75% straight across the board. in reality, the probabilities at each step would probably be different - and according to my arguments, much lower - but for ease of demonstration i just decided on a uniform upper boundary, which i generously applied to each step. raising the p-value at each step of the chain to a whopping 75%, for example, seems like a hell of a lot.

In other words, you thought that 15% was ridiculously generous. Now that the activists are targeting it, you're backpedaling.


Marriage infidelity already IS a standard of behavior. By some estimates, marriages with at least one cheating partner are as high as 80%. Maybe its higher, maybe its lower, but I have never seen stats anywhere where infidelity is as low as 25% for husbands, and 15% for wives.

Then you clearly haven't been looking. The Berkeley study on sexual behavior (http://sda.berkeley.edu/D3/GSS04/Docyr/gs040096.htm#EVSTRAY) cited even lower numbers, with an average of about 14% of all participants admitting infidelity, while more than 60% denied it (the remainder were never married). Even polygamists acknowledge the lower percentage:


According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, infidelity was the reason for divorce in 17% of cases. During the same survey 22% of married men and 14% of married women said that they had extra-marital relations. If this is an official statistic, then what is the real number of cheating spouses? It is well-known that people, especially women, donít always tell the truth during such surveys. Even if they are assured that the survey is anonymous, not everyone would want to reveal intimate details about their life. Therefore, we can assume that the real percentage of people having extra-marital relations is much higher. Peggy Vaughan, author of "The Monogamy Myth," has come to the same conclusion: "60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair in their married life."

In other words, the author of a book that presumes that monogamy is a myth (and who has a vested interest in inflating the number) has a SWAG which estimates that only 50% of married people will cheat, which is still far lower than your claimed (but not cited) 80% number. The wind is breaking your way, Wilbur. Care to acknowledge that you're wrong?

And since infidelity is not the norm, as proven, then the astronomically high incidence of infidelity in gay relationships, including marriages, clearly shows that a new "norm" is being imposed.


The fact is that NONE of your scenarios have played out in any of the countries which have had same-sex marriage for going on 20 years now. Not one. No surrogate mothers and gay men attempting to form a plural marriages... no marital sanctity being eroded by poly-amorous homosexuals. In the places where we do see polygamy being fought for, we see it coming about because of religious fundamentalism. In the Canadian case, we see things playing out in a way that vindicates my position - that polygamy will live or die by virtue of the arguments for and against it specifically - arguments that same-sex marriage do not affect.

No? The first registered plural marriage in the Netherlands was in 2005:


ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they'd met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation contract," the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

The bi divorcee had been married when she met the de Bruijns, but divorced her husband to move in with them, so the first legally registered triple marriage in the Netherlands was also the cause of the breakup of a conventional marriage. No symbolism there. And, as far as the activist position goes, here's one of many discussions of the subject from that obscure, little-read web zine, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/why-are-gay-marriage-advo_b_155476.html):


Polyamory recently got an online publicity boost when influential personal development guru Steve Pavlina announced he was going to try poly relationships this year. For those interested in learning more, this Wikipedia.article is a good place to start. Another longtime poly resource is the book The Ethical Slut.

Polyamory shouldn't be confused with Warren Jeffs / crazy Mormon-offshoot style polygamy, where creepy old guys marry twelve year olds. Nor is it 'cheating'. The key difference is, of course, consent.

But what's a poly person to do if they want to enter into a committed relationship with the people they love? Polygamy - marriage to more than one person - is no more an option for conseting adults in the United States than gay marriage is in all states expect Massachusetts and Connecticut. If the rights of gay people are being trampled on, then it's two states worse for poly people.

If you follow the same argument template as many gay marriage advocates, anyone who opposes polygamy is a bigot and a hater. Rick Warren has made it clear that he opposes poly relationship, too. And even comparing consensual poly relationship to Jeffs is equating polyamorists with PEDOPHILES!

If Melissa Etheridge has the right to marry Tammy Lynn Michaels - and I think she does - then Melissa and Tammy also have the same right to make it official with David Crosby, it they choose to do so. In fact, if they wanted to marry Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Linsday Lohan, Samantha Ronson, Mark Ronson AND Ani Difranco...it's their choice and their right and it'd make quite a tour, too.

There's no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn't work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.

Aside from reasons of consistency, advocates of gay marriage should also be vocally in favor of polygamy since it allows bisexuals to be actively practicing married bisexuals. Bisexuals are the B in GLBT but they really get short shrift in the marriage discussion.


In short, the winds of evidence are blowing one way... maybe instead of a brick wall, you should try being a weather vane..
It appears that the wind is blowing the other way. Will you now follow the direction of the evidence, or continue to break wind noisily in our direction?

You offered several prejudiced bare assertions based on your delusional idiocy - they don't get to stand just because you uttered them. As I told Odysseus, shit pulled straight out of your ass needs no refutation - it needs support.
Spoken like a true internet proctologist. My supporting documentation is above. What I don't see is yours.