DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
4/2/2013 1:21 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
It seems like that is exactly what the 14th amendment is for. Group A has a right to do something that everyone else also has a right to do. Voters decide that Group A shouldn't be allowed to do that. Group A sues because the new law violates their right to equal protection.
4/2/2013 1:24 PM
He's not arguing that gay marriage allows polygamy; he's saying the argument of "equality for all" allows for polygamy.
4/2/2013 1:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
I just want to make sure EVERYONE has equal rights to marriage.    Personally, I think it's possible to love many, many people/things without infringing on the rights of others.   Like 47 women or even a toaster oven.
4/2/2013 1:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
It seems like that is exactly what the 14th amendment is for. Group A has a right to do something that everyone else also has a right to do. Voters decide that Group A shouldn't be allowed to do that. Group A sues because the new law violates their right to equal protection.
And again isnt this a pretty low bar?

If we allow the Federal Government to make the call on this one where does it end?

Why would gay marriage be ok but polygamy or bestiality not be ok?

Again this isnt a pattern of discrimination. It is a simple policy of marriage. Gays as a rule are not discriminated against in society.

So where does the line get drawn.
4/2/2013 1:33 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
It seems like that is exactly what the 14th amendment is for. Group A has a right to do something that everyone else also has a right to do. Voters decide that Group A shouldn't be allowed to do that. Group A sues because the new law violates their right to equal protection.
And again isnt this a pretty low bar?

If we allow the Federal Government to make the call on this one where does it end?

Why would gay marriage be ok but polygamy or bestiality not be ok?

Again this isnt a pattern of discrimination. It is a simple policy of marriage. Gays as a rule are not discriminated against in society.

So where does the line get drawn.
They are being discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Blacks, as a rule, are not discriminated against in society anymore, but a state rule against interracial marriage would still violate the 14th amendment.

You know why bestiality would not be ok. 
4/2/2013 1:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
I just want to make sure EVERYONE has equal rights to marriage.    Personally, I think it's possible to love many, many people/things without infringing on the rights of others.   Like 47 women or even a toaster oven.
OK. The toaster oven can't contract but have at it with the polygamy. Let me know how that goes.
4/2/2013 1:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
I just want to make sure EVERYONE has equal rights to marriage.    Personally, I think it's possible to love many, many people/things without infringing on the rights of others.   Like 47 women or even a toaster oven.
OK. The toaster oven can't contract but have at it with the polygamy. Let me know how that goes.
I imagine, just like with gay marriage, polygamy will be met with resistance.  That's why it needs to piggyback on gay marriage.   Let's make sure everyone is EQUAL with regards to marriage, right?

As for the toaster oven, it should also piggyback.   I don't know why inanimate objects need to consent.  No rights are infringed upon, no?
4/2/2013 1:40 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage or marriage itself.

Slippery slope fallacy.

But I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and will not stand in your way if you want to argue in favor of it.
I just want to make sure EVERYONE has equal rights to marriage.    Personally, I think it's possible to love many, many people/things without infringing on the rights of others.   Like 47 women or even a toaster oven.
OK. The toaster oven can't contract but have at it with the polygamy. Let me know how that goes.
I imagine, just like with gay marriage, polygamy will be met with resistance.  That's why it needs to piggyback on gay marriage.   Let's make sure everyone is EQUAL with regards to marriage, right?

As for the toaster oven, it should also piggyback.   I don't know why inanimate objects need to consent.  No rights are infringed upon, no?
Keep trollin, troll.
4/2/2013 1:44 PM

Sez the user who has no teams.

4/2/2013 1:46 PM
I do find it funny that, when I abide by your rules "doesn't affect you" and "doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights", I'm now just a troll.

Is it because your guidelines for enacting laws are complete bullshit?
4/2/2013 1:49 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
It seems like that is exactly what the 14th amendment is for. Group A has a right to do something that everyone else also has a right to do. Voters decide that Group A shouldn't be allowed to do that. Group A sues because the new law violates their right to equal protection.

Every adult already has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex.  Nobody is being excluded.

4/2/2013 1:56 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/2/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
It seems like that is exactly what the 14th amendment is for. Group A has a right to do something that everyone else also has a right to do. Voters decide that Group A shouldn't be allowed to do that. Group A sues because the new law violates their right to equal protection.

Every adult already has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex.  Nobody is being excluded.

Every adult already has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex same race.  Nobody is being excluded.

Fixed that for you.
4/2/2013 1:58 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 1:49:00 PM (view original):
I do find it funny that, when I abide by your rules "doesn't affect you" and "doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights", I'm now just a troll.

Is it because your guidelines for enacting laws are complete bullshit?
You're a troll because you ignore common sense on purpose.

Toasters can't contract. What point are you trying to make?
4/2/2013 2:00 PM
Man, BL, MikeT23 is completely owning you right now.

You'd better come up with something quick. I know, tell him he's a "nutjob" or insult him in some other way. That'll make you seem really witty and smart and you won't have to argue a real point at all, just like every other time you paint yourself into a corner.

4/2/2013 2:05 PM
◂ Prev 1...15|16|17|18|19...358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.