[Obgrfbke]

She's basically right, but some of her numbers don't look accurate.

[BliliBoopsy]

Polygamy's already there, and it didn't even take 5 years. So I'm really not sure Asher is criticizing the people who said so.

[Aagotiq]

Is is my contention that legal recognization of polygamy occurred after legal recognition of gay marriage? Gosh, that would be yes. Strawmen suck.

[Poreponko]

Since when was polygamy legal in Canada?

Seriously, the lies some people will tell if they think it will support their stupid political positions...

[VyacheslaV]

In fact, Canada still has a law on the books explicitly banning polygamy and Canadians are against Polygamy 6 to 1. So much so that you are permitted to practice it freely and openly. At least in British Columbia. What law?

If Polygamy was legalized, even today, it's not the fault of gay marriage causing society to falter. It'd be a question of constitutional rights, not society. Actually, almost instantly after the gay marriage 'debate', in the media we had the folks standing up for bountiful. Same people behind both.

[dHXaE2h9]

A law openly defied, not enforced, legally challenged and not presently resolved.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

[serius_06]

So yeah, people who claimed legalizing gay marriage would cause polygamy to be legalized were being spot on FTFY. Read the link, same people, same arguments.

[acneman]

You could make similar arguments for alcohol being legal and pot being legal but that doesn't mean legalizing one would cause the other to get legalized. So you don't see how the arguments related to discrimination by marital status pertain to gay marriage?

[MightyMasd]

So you don't see how the arguments related to discrimination by marital status pertain to gay marriage?

This is just sad. I said that just because some of the arguments are similar does not mean one causes the other. And you respond by saying "some of the arguments are similar, aren't they?" It's like you can't even read

[Hoglaunccoolf]

Yes, I've admitted that gay marriage and polygamy are both marriages involving consenting adults. Quite an admission on my part

[sposteTipsKage]

That is not an argument I would use.

[cmruloah]

That is not an argument I would use. Simple question, Gribbler. Yes or no.

[Amerworma]

Simple question, Gribbler. Yes or no.

I do not think that if gay marriage should be legalized, then that means we should also legalize polygamy.

[mr.calisto]

No idea. Fine, make homosexual polygamy legal. I really don't care.

[replrobin]

I also think that alcohol and pot should both be legal. Sadly the legal status of alcohol has not caused marijuana to be legalized because not everyone shares my opinions.

[Escamsrasiush]

Mental state. Heh. I;ve got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

Consent is ambiguous. We do not allow 12 year olds to consent, because we judge them as not being mentally capable of it. Indeed. Are you arguing that they should be permitted to marry? You aren't helping your argument by arguing that one of the crucial things necessary for marriage is consent and then arguing that consent is ambiguous.

If consent is ambiguous, then having a harem can be explained away by saying that they consented to do so.

There's a tremendous amount of evidence that polygamous relationships involve compromised mental states of the women that clouds the issue of consent. Eh, you can't prove lack of consent, if consent in general is ambiguous. Consent is huge. I'm arguing that polygamy can be done with proper consent, and I don't see how arguing that 'mental state' inhibits people from consenting to such a marriage.

Who is bigoted? You, you're in essence arguing that people in polygamy are cultists, etc. That's obviously not true, and is a bigoted statement.

First, did you ever see me say polygamy should be illegal? So again, you admit that you think Polygamy is ok.

My personal opinion is the government should be 100% out of the marriage/civil union game. Then why are you arguing for gay marriage, and increasing government intervention and intrusion? You should be happy that it's not in play, because when it's there, there will be more intrusion. That much is inevitable. Marriage is not a private institution, it's very much a public one.

Consent is not easy to establish in situations with mentally compromised people, such as in cult settings. Arguing that people engage in polygamy only because they are compromised is a bad argument.

I'm in favour of zero martial discrimination, because this shouldn't be done by government in the first place.
But you are arguing that the state should discriminate against a gay man who wants to marry both of his gay lovers. You're saying he has to choose between one or the other. You don't think that's wrong?

If you want to start your own cult with Filipinas and marry them all because it makes you righteous in God's eyes, then good ****ing luck with that. None of my business. But you think it is your business. Otherwise you'd be fine with the state recognising these relationships as valid and a blessing to everyone.

[numinertyuesk]

Good for you. Why don't you try getting one woman first before building your own Christian harem? You wouldn't be the first Apolytoner to do that. What's wrong with a harem, asher, other then the fact that you think they are stupid?

Never heard of one not in a cult-like situation. So you are suggesting the people that wrote that article are cultists and not say swingers? Plenty of swingers out there, Asher.

I think seafood should be legal, but I can't ****ing stand it either. That about ends this argument. Once again, someone who claims that one does not lead to the other and swears up and down left and right that he believes it to be wrong, is ok with polygamy being legal.

The fact that I refuse to get into your bedroom and tell you what to do doesn't mean I think what you do is okay. You tell me all the time what I should be doing, just like you just did now. So yes, you want to be the one in charge telling people what to do with their love lives.

I want equality, not specifically gay marriage. But you don't. You don't want polygamy, you find it detestable, despite the fact that if they love each other, why shouldn't they be married? You don't want equality at all. You want the line to end where you are and no further.

Yeah, I can see where you get this from. It's typically an attitude of big government supporters such as myself to tell the government it has no right whatsoever to regulate and/or sanction my personal relationships. Isn't that what marriage is about, regulating your personal relationships?

It's the small government heros like you, campaigning to get the government to specify who can marry, that drive the libertarian movement. You just specified it here that you don't believe people can legitimately marry more than one person with consent. Isn't that the government specifiying who can and can't marry.

I've seen tons of evidence of it, nothing to say otherwise. I personally believe the women involved in polygamous relationships are brainwashed. And I think the same about homosexuality. Yet you would argue strenously to the contrary. Odd that, I find my arguments coming right back at me, isn't it? For the titan of tolerence and the radisson of relativism.

I cannot even fathom how you think saying the government should not regulate any personal relationships means that it discriminates against gays.
So you are saying it's ok for the government to regulate personal relationships, just not yours? And I'm the believer in big government?

Big story here, Asher hates polygamy, but thinks it should be legal, and proves my argument here. He wants to limit it to just himself, but is hamstrung by the philosophical limitiations of his position. Which is what I was saying all along.

You cannot get one without the other. You cannot change that which is to suit yourself, and expect the change to not continue to change to something that is disgusting. You cannot argue that the winds of liberalism and relativism uphold your own convictions.

[TheLucyLee]

What's wrong with a harem, asher, other then the fact that you think they are stupid?



So you are suggesting the people that wrote that article are cultists and not say swingers? Plenty of swingers out there, Asher.



That about ends this argument. Once again, someone who claims that one does not lead to the other and swears up and down left and right that he believes it to be wrong, is ok with polygamy being legal.



You tell me all the time what I should be doing, just like you just did now. So yes, you want to be the one in charge telling people what to do with their love lives.



But you don't. You don't want polygamy, you find it detestable, despite the fact that if they love each other, why shouldn't they be married? You don't want equality at all. You want the line to end where you are and no further.



Isn't that what marriage is about, regulating your personal relationships?



You just specified it here that you don't believe people can legitimately marry more than one person with consent. Isn't that the government specifiying who can and can't marry.



And I think the same about homosexuality. Yet you would argue strenously to the contrary. Odd that, I find my arguments coming right back at me, isn't it? For the titan of tolarence and the radisson of relativism.



So you are saying it's ok for the government to regulate personal relationships, just not yours? And I'm the believer in big government?

Unsurprisingly, every single sentence in this post is flat-out wrong. Why don't you just post another reply and pretend I wrote a long post, because it's not like you can read it anyway.

[paydayus]

I also find it very amusing that a hyper-hardcore Christian thinks homosexuals are brainwashed, BTW.

[eduptultyt]

Yeah, which is why plenty of hardcore Christians end up with homosexual children... they must have brainwashed their kids to be that way... yeah, that really makes sense...