Judge: Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional - Page 7

Zydell · 09-05-2007, 02:04 PM

Can someone summarize this thread for me? I thought it was about allowing gay marriage, yes/no/monkey? What has that to do with plural marriage?

BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

Innoc · 09-05-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zydell

Can someone summarize this thread for me? I thought it was about allowing gay marriage, yes/no/monkey? What has that to do with plural marriage?

BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

Ah yes, heaven forbid you actually read the thread yourself to see the train wreck it started out as and the train wreck it has become. Oh and nice job on getting another jab on your favorite whipping boy.

Yeah, damn those damn Christian. Christian bad...bad....BAD!

halo · 09-05-2007, 02:58 PM

When Scuzzy doesn't want to answer a question or can't get around a point he diverts the subject and people have a tendency to just let him do it. Not that it does any good not to. You'd need a diamond tipped drill and a team of surgeons to get something into his head. That's why the subject has shifted away from the point.

Innoc · 09-05-2007, 03:02 PM

Well, you should consider that topics have the tendency to meander and drift off the original point naturally in unmoderated discussions. This happens regardless of any particular tendencies of someone participating in a thread.

halo · 09-05-2007, 03:04 PM

True enough but a quick skim-read seems to show that he brought up all of the alternate topics so far. Coincidence I'm sure.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zydell

BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

Leave it to Zydell to inject some cold hard bigotry into the thread.

Zydell · 09-05-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoc

Ah yes, heaven forbid you actually read the thread yourself to see the train wreck it started out as and the train wreck it has become. Oh and nice job on getting another jab on your favorite whipping boy.

T'was just a reminder, that this thread was derailed. It should be about wether gay marriage is ok or not, shouldn´t it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoc

Yeah, damn those damn Christian. Christian bad...bad....BAD!

I am not saying that christians are bad, don't lay those words in my mouth, I am simply describing what I encounter again and again when discussing with christians.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

When Scuzzy doesn't want to answer a question or can't get around a point he diverts the subject and people have a tendency to just let him do it. Not that it does any good not to. You'd need a diamond tipped drill and a team of surgeons to get something into his head. That's why the subject has shifted away from the point.

I believe the point of this thread has been described as discrimination against gays by not allowing them to marry. I brought up the parallel situation of plural marriage. Several people here who support gay marriage do not support plural marriage. It sounds like many of the reasons that some people do not support gay marriage are the very same reasons others do not support plural marriage: "Marriage should only be defined as XYZ because that's the way I want marriage defined." Either way I think I've kept the topic on track with marriage and discrimination. I understand that some people do not like the light shined on their hypocrisy, and will attack me because of it, but that is their flaw, not mine.

Scuzzy

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

Then why should the state really care about the gender of people in a marriage?

The state must enact legislation to permit or restrict behavior based upon the will of it's powerbase.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zydell

BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zydell

I am not saying that christians are bad, don't lay those words in my mouth, I am simply describing what I encounter again and again when discussing with christians.

So really what you meant to say is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zydell

BTW never forget that only the Christians I have had contact with but not necessarily all Christians in general have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

halo · 09-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Okay. Reasonable arguments against plural marriage:-

Strongly promotes sexism. multiple male partners to one female is very rare.

Gender split amongst humans is very close to 50/50. Widespread polygamy would result in fewer marriages and more lonely single people. More competition for partners, more social tension, more stress. Quite possibly a more superficial society.

A relationship of one man shared by two or more women is inequitable.

In countries like Senegal where polygamy is legal, multiple wives have become a status symbol. A symbol of wealth and power (you have to be quite wealthy to support them.) Basically men without wives are of very low status, married women are above them, unmarried women above them and married men at the top. It can create a tiered society in this way.

These are all reasonable arguments against introducing polygamy (which isn't even close to being an issue in Britain so you probably know it better than me.) It would upset the social status quo. I know of no argument against homosexuality. The parrellel is not there to be drawn.

Deadly Furby · 09-05-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

The state must enact legislation to permit or restrict behavior based upon the will of it's powerbase.

Just like Muammar al-Qaddafi, King Mswati III and Omar al-Bashir.

Innoc · 09-05-2007, 04:06 PM

Honestly, plural marriage commonly is brought up in discussions of gays and marriage. I believe I understand why it gets brought up but I don't think it belongs. Far better to focus on the discussion at hand and see it to whatever conclusion it may find. As far as one's own position on gays and marriage I think it's fine for someone to hold whatever view they choose to hold. That's their responsibility. To flame someone for their position is just the flamer being impolite and immature. Live and let live it's not like you're going to sway anyone on this anyway.

You guys are, honestly, ignorant when it comes to plural marriage and you're all too prideful to acknowledge it. It's fairly common knowledge that the punishment for having more than one wife is....having more than one wife. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Okay. Reasonable arguments against plural marriage:-

I'm sure that those people who believe in heterosexual marriage believe that their arguments are "reasonable" to them as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Strongly promotes sexism. multiple male partners to one female is very rare.

You're ruling out some people from reaping the benefits of marriage because you think some people can't do marriage properly. What about two men and two women that all want to be married to each other? What about one man and two women who are all "into" each other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Gender split amongst humans is very close to 50/50. Widespread polygamy would result in fewer marriages and more lonely single people. More competition for partners, more social tension, more stress. Quite possibly a more superficial society.

This sounds like you're also making a case for curing homosexuality. If the gender split is under such stress then getting to gay men to stop looking at each other and look toward women would decrease the single population, lesson competition for heterosexual partners by increasing their numbers, lessen social tensions and decrease stress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

A relationship of one man shared by two or more women is inequitable.

You aren't considering that the two women may be interested in each other as well. Just because you can not be happy in this situation does not mean other people can not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

It can create a tiered society in this way.

All societies are tiered in one form or another. Who are we to judge how that system is assembled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

These are all reasonable arguments against introducing polygamy (which isn't even close to being an issue in Britain so you probably know it better than me.) It would upset the social status quo. I know of no argument against homosexuality. The parrellel is not there to be drawn.

Yes, it can. You are saying because some people can not "get plural marriage right" that ALL people should not be allowed to participate in it. "It would upset the social status quo" sounds a lot like the arguments against homosexual marriage. You're guilty of the exact same type of discrimination as those against gay marriage.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadly Furby

Just like Muammar al-Qaddafi, King Mswati III and Omar al-Bashir.

In those states, yes, they are the powerbase, not the people.

halo · 09-05-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

You guys are, honestly, ignorant when it comes to plural marriage and you're all too prideful to acknowledge it.

Am not.

Quote:

These are all reasonable arguments against introducing polygamy (which isn't even close to being an issue in Britain so you probably know it better than me.)

See.

I agree with your first sentiment though. Plural marriage does not belong in a discussion about gay marriage. They're two different issues. It's a weak diversionary tactic of Scuzzy's because he can't argue a case against arse-bandits getting married.

I must admit to not being wholly comfortable with gay marriage. I was born and bred in a back-water, backward little town where people are very conservative (but not in a sense someone who hasn't lived in Yorkshire would recognise :P) and there's some of that in me I suspect. All I know is I can't find any argument against it so it's fine. Having said that, it's not something I care about at all.

Innoc · 09-05-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Am not.

It was a joke...re-read the paragraph and...lighten up Francis...

halo · 09-05-2007, 04:40 PM

Hence the childishness of my response... stinky.

Not responding to Scuzzy because he's typing bollocks again. It'll just take my faith in mankind sub zero.

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

I agree with your first sentiment though. Plural marriage does not belong in a discussion about gay marriage. They're two different issues. It's a weak diversionary tactic of Scuzzy's because he can't argue a case against arse-bandits getting married.

Whoaaaa nelly. Why do you think I should be arguing against gay marriage?

Scuzzy

Scuzzy · 09-05-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Hence the childishness of my response... stinky.

Not responding to Scuzzy because he's typing bollocks again. It'll just take my faith in mankind sub zero.

... and that's usually how people who discrimanate end up, they shut down and refused to discuss the position.

Scuzzy

09-05-2007, 03:02 PM	#124
Innoc Hitman 2 1 Actual Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "Oscar Mike" Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO) Affiliations: Your Mom Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times	Well, you should consider that topics have the tendency to meander and drift off the original point naturally in unmoderated discussions. This happens regardless of any particular tendencies of someone participating in a thread. __________________ Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few. You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

09-05-2007, 04:06 PM	#133
Innoc Hitman 2 1 Actual Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "Oscar Mike" Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO) Affiliations: Your Mom Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times	Honestly, plural marriage commonly is brought up in discussions of gays and marriage. I believe I understand why it gets brought up but I don't think it belongs. Far better to focus on the discussion at hand and see it to whatever conclusion it may find. As far as one's own position on gays and marriage I think it's fine for someone to hold whatever view they choose to hold. That's their responsibility. To flame someone for their position is just the flamer being impolite and immature. Live and let live it's not like you're going to sway anyone on this anyway. You guys are, honestly, ignorant when it comes to plural marriage and you're all too prideful to acknowledge it. It's fairly common knowledge that the punishment for having more than one wife is....having more than one wife. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. __________________ Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few. You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

09-05-2007, 02:04 PM	#121
Zydell Ex-king D&A Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: The Netherlands Affiliations: Knights of the Round Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	Can someone summarize this thread for me? I thought it was about allowing gay marriage, yes/no/monkey? What has that to do with plural marriage? BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

09-05-2007, 02:58 PM	#123
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	When Scuzzy doesn't want to answer a question or can't get around a point he diverts the subject and people have a tendency to just let him do it. Not that it does any good not to. You'd need a diamond tipped drill and a team of surgeons to get something into his head. That's why the subject has shifted away from the point.

09-05-2007, 03:04 PM	#125
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	True enough but a quick skim-read seems to show that he brought up all of the alternate topics so far. Coincidence I'm sure.

09-05-2007, 03:55 PM	#131
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Okay. Reasonable arguments against plural marriage:- Strongly promotes sexism. multiple male partners to one female is very rare. Gender split amongst humans is very close to 50/50. Widespread polygamy would result in fewer marriages and more lonely single people. More competition for partners, more social tension, more stress. Quite possibly a more superficial society. A relationship of one man shared by two or more women is inequitable. In countries like Senegal where polygamy is legal, multiple wives have become a status symbol. A symbol of wealth and power (you have to be quite wealthy to support them.) Basically men without wives are of very low status, married women are above them, unmarried women above them and married men at the top. It can create a tiered society in this way. These are all reasonable arguments against introducing polygamy (which isn't even close to being an issue in Britain so you probably know it better than me.) It would upset the social status quo. I know of no argument against homosexuality. The parrellel is not there to be drawn.

09-05-2007, 04:40 PM	#138
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Hence the childishness of my response... stinky. Not responding to Scuzzy because he's typing bollocks again. It'll just take my faith in mankind sub zero.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)