Thu January 16, 2014 7:45 pm
Lament wrote:surfndestroy wrote:I am sorry that you don't feel those in the poly community shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and government support as those in the LBGTQ* and hetero communities have when it comes to marriage.
I have actually never said anything of this nature. I simply pointed out the sheer absurdity of your "equivalency." The irony of this is I probably know people who are legitimately members of the poly community than you do, but you're just trying to make an asinine point on a message board as opposed to actually knowing people who are affected by these issues. Not a single one of them would be dumb enough to try to make the equivalency claim you're making here between child rights and marriage rights. But then again you appear to be the equivalent of one of those teenagers who are really into LGBTQ rights because of Glee or some shit like that and view them as more about being an expression of "out there" as opposed to actually being someone concerned about the rights of actual people, aren't you?
Hey, I finally found an equivalency here that works!
Thu January 16, 2014 7:50 pm
surfndestroy wrote:harmless wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:When can we expect to see polygamist same-sex marriages receiving the blessing of the state?
When can we expect to see your slippery slope?
I honestly can't see why anyone would be against marriage being open to multiple partners. If people can live as married with multiple partners then they should be able to avail themselves to the sames rights and responsibilties and status as those who choose to have just one partner. Women and men can both have children with multiple partners and they have all the same rights and responsibilities as parents who choose to have children with just a single partner. Marriage should be no different.
Thu January 16, 2014 10:04 pm
harmless wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:When can we expect to see polygamist same-sex marriages receiving the blessing of the state?
When can we expect to see your slippery slope?
Thu January 16, 2014 10:09 pm
Thu January 16, 2014 10:13 pm
BurtReynolds wrote:Why is marriage recognized by the state in the first place?
Fri January 17, 2014 4:55 pm
Lament wrote:surfndestroy wrote:I am sorry that you don't feel those in the poly community shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and government support as those in the LBGTQ* and hetero communities have when it comes to marriage.
I have actually never said anything of this nature. I simply pointed out the sheer absurdity of your "equivalency." The irony of this is I probably know people who are legitimately members of the poly community than you do, but you're just trying to make an asinine point on a message board as opposed to actually knowing people who are affected by these issues. Not a single one of them would be dumb enough to try to make the equivalency claim you're making here between child rights and marriage rights. But then again you appear to be the equivalent of one of those teenagers who are really into LGBTQ rights because of Glee or some shit like that and view them as more about being an expression of "out there" as opposed to actually being someone concerned about the rights of actual people, aren't you?
Hey, I finally found an equivalency here that works!
Fri January 17, 2014 5:06 pm
Fri January 17, 2014 5:37 pm
surfndestroy wrote:You have yet to make a single arguement why a person should not be able to have multiples marriages concurrently even though they can have serially have multiple marriages.
Fri January 17, 2014 7:13 pm
Lament wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Why is marriage recognized by the state in the first place?
Burt is on the right track.
Fri January 17, 2014 7:27 pm
stip wrote:There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o ... ed-couples
Fri January 17, 2014 7:39 pm
Lament wrote:stip wrote:There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o ... ed-couples
If those 1,138 benefits/rights/protections were provided under a different name than "marriage," then recognition of marriage could be in the eye of the beholder and whatever they believe in, while the government could say "We recognize NO marriages; We issue rights/benefits/protections to people who file for an economic partnership, which we can define however we'd like since we invented it."
I'm not blaming them for not doing that, but honestly that seems to be the simplest solution to me (though, once again, it could never reasonably happen as we're way too far down the rabbit hole at this point. But yeah, I'd prefer a government that says "Marriage is like a confirmation/bar mitzvah/whatever religious rite of passage you believe in; It's irrelevant to us as a government," and then replaces it with something that more or less has all of the same legal benefits without using a name for it that is loaded with religious history and ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" be. Hell, then you could make people re-file for it every five years.
Fri January 17, 2014 8:52 pm
Fri January 17, 2014 9:21 pm
Fri January 17, 2014 9:39 pm
malice wrote:I've been trying to read this thread, and I'm still confused over what lament and snd are arguing about :/
Fri January 17, 2014 9:41 pm
stip wrote:Having said that, since we do place so much cultural importance on the idea of marriage that legalizing it becomes important as a way of saying that our culture recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate choice, as opposed to a deviant behavior to be tolerated.
Fri January 17, 2014 10:11 pm
Lament wrote:malice wrote:I've been trying to read this thread, and I'm still confused over what lament and snd are arguing about :/
SND thinks that polygamous marriages are the same thing as people having kids with multiple partners. Instead of dealing with the fact that he's just flat out wrong, he keeps trying to turn it into me arguing against the idea of polygamous marriages, but he's running into problems because I've never actually argued against them, I've just pointed out how unbearably stupid his reasoning is.
A less intellectually challenged person (and the the most convincing polygamous marriage advocates I know) would argue that a good justification for legalizing polygamous marriage would be the fact that a person can start as many LLCs as with as many different people as they want. An LLC and a marriage are far more similar in nature than a child and a marriage, but I've realized over the past few pages that expecting SND to wrap his head around the concept is unreasonable, and he'll probably just keep responding to this made up idea that I'm fighting against polygamous marriage.
Fri January 17, 2014 10:12 pm
Fri January 17, 2014 10:14 pm
malice wrote:I better go back and read the thread again
Fri January 17, 2014 10:16 pm
malice wrote:I better go back and read the thread again
Fri January 17, 2014 10:19 pm