4/3/2013 3:06 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
You're still missing it.

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force us to allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage did. Even though the exact same argument that you are using was used by the AG in 1967.
Why are you OK with gay marriage and not polygamy?
I really do t have a problem with polygamy. What's the damage in continuing to allow gay marriage. Change alone isn't damage.
4/3/2013 3:16 PM
If you don't have a problem with polygamy, then why not allow it along with gay marriage?
4/3/2013 3:24 PM
Polygamy isn't the issue before the Supreme Court. But if someone wants to sue for that right, I won't stand in their way.

What's the damage in continuing to allow gay marriage?
4/3/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Polygamy isn't the issue before the Supreme Court. But if someone wants to sue for that right, I won't stand in their way.

What's the damage in continuing to allow gay marriage?
It should never have been allowed in the first place.

That's the answer you're going to get, so no need for you to keep repeating the same question over and over.
4/3/2013 3:36 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Polygamy isn't the issue before the Supreme Court. But if someone wants to sue for that right, I won't stand in their way.

What's the damage in continuing to allow gay marriage?
It should never have been allowed in the first place.

That's the answer you're going to get, so no need for you to keep repeating the same question over and over.
What he's trying to say is that the sky didn't fall, and your marriage isn't less valid because of it.  So why are you against it?
4/3/2013 3:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
4/3/2013 3:41 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
BTW, I can easily apply your response to tec to polygamists and bisexuals.    Easily.
So do it.  OK. 

You said there were issues with polygamists marrying.  There are none with homosexuals marrying.

Who are bisexuals marrying?  Huh?
I'm confident polygamists/bisexuals don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.

Done.

Tec said we're being very politically correct and trying to get gays married.  That's not true, they want to get married because they're in loving relationships.  A rational human being should look at the situation, determine the consequences, and make a decision.  There is no downfall to gays getting married.  Nobody's current marriage is any different, and more people are happy. 

You said there were issues with polygymists getting married.  When that situation rises, we'll deal with it the same way.  If there are issues, maybe we say no to that.
4/3/2013 3:45 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
You understand the meaning of "random" right?

Do you think random lawmaking is a good thing?    Do I need to repeat, for the 100th time, why people are championing gay marriage?   The same applies to bisexuals.   Which leads to polygamy. 
4/3/2013 3:49 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
BTW, I can easily apply your response to tec to polygamists and bisexuals.    Easily.
So do it.  OK. 

You said there were issues with polygamists marrying.  There are none with homosexuals marrying.

Who are bisexuals marrying?  Huh?
I'm confident polygamists/bisexuals don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.

Done.

Tec said we're being very politically correct and trying to get gays married.  That's not true, they want to get married because they're in loving relationships.  A rational human being should look at the situation, determine the consequences, and make a decision.  There is no downfall to gays getting married.  Nobody's current marriage is any different, and more people are happy. 

You said there were issues with polygymists getting married.  When that situation rises, we'll deal with it the same way.  If there are issues, maybe we say no to that.
I dare say, since we're talking about it, that some folks see a downfall to SS marriage.

I think the reasons I'm seeing on this board are the happy, PC reasons to allow SS marriage.    "Makes more people happy, they're in love, they want equality, they're not affecting you, they're not infringing on anyone else's rights". 

Pretty sure that's the point tec is trying to make.  None of those are "good" reasons.   And I don't think tec's "traditional marriage" for preventing it is good either. 
4/3/2013 3:49 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
You understand the meaning of "random" right?

Do you think random lawmaking is a good thing?    Do I need to repeat, for the 100th time, why people are championing gay marriage?   The same applies to bisexuals.   Which leads to polygamy. 
I do understand what random means.  I'm not sure you do.  This certainly isn't random.
4/3/2013 3:51 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
You understand the meaning of "random" right?

Do you think random lawmaking is a good thing?    Do I need to repeat, for the 100th time, why people are championing gay marriage?   The same applies to bisexuals.   Which leads to polygamy. 
I do understand what random means.  I'm not sure you do.  This certainly isn't random.
If you don't understand that  "Makes more people happy, they're in love, they want equality, they're not affecting you, they're not infringing on anyone else's rights" applies equally to bisexuals and that preventing polygamy while accepting same sex marriage isn't "random lawmaking", I'm sure you don't understand "random".
4/3/2013 3:51 PM
"None of those are "good" reasons."

I think they're great reasons.  I think equality is a good one too.  And before you say "Equality! But..but...polygamists!!!!" remember that you admitted there were problems with polygamy.  You found no problems with gay marriage, except that it might lead to polygamous marriages, which isn't a good reason, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm also realizing polygamy and polygamous aren't easy words to spell)
4/3/2013 3:54 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
You understand the meaning of "random" right?

Do you think random lawmaking is a good thing?    Do I need to repeat, for the 100th time, why people are championing gay marriage?   The same applies to bisexuals.   Which leads to polygamy. 
I do understand what random means.  I'm not sure you do.  This certainly isn't random.
If you don't understand that  "Makes more people happy, they're in love, they want equality, they're not affecting you, they're not infringing on anyone else's rights" applies equally to bisexuals and that preventing polygamy while accepting same sex marriage isn't "random lawmaking", I'm sure you don't understand "random".
"Random lawmaking" would be "NO PERSON OVER THE AGE OF 65 SHALL KEEP A CARDINAL AS A PET."

Gay marriage makes people happy, promotes equality, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and affects nobody negatively.
You've argued that polygamy, while making people happy, may affect people negatively.

That's the difference...there is no randomness.
4/3/2013 4:09 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
Why not?  There are issues with polygamy.  There are not with gay marriage.  Right?
You understand the meaning of "random" right?

Do you think random lawmaking is a good thing?    Do I need to repeat, for the 100th time, why people are championing gay marriage?   The same applies to bisexuals.   Which leads to polygamy. 
I think you are the one that doesn't understand random. Making a choice to allow gay marriage but not polygamy because there are other considerations regarding polygamy is the opposite of random.
4/3/2013 4:10 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Polygamy isn't the issue before the Supreme Court. But if someone wants to sue for that right, I won't stand in their way.

What's the damage in continuing to allow gay marriage?
It should never have been allowed in the first place.

That's the answer you're going to get, so no need for you to keep repeating the same question over and over.
That's not an answer.

Gay marriage is happening. Whether or not it should have been allowed, what damage is it causing?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.