4/3/2013 4:13 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
"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)

I'm sure polygamists see no problems with polygamous marriages.   I assume the gays would be on board with polygamous marriages. 

And, as I said, if we're making sure gays have equality in terms of marriage, I think we have to do the same for bisexuals.

 

4/3/2013 4:17 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
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.
I've never said SSM has no negative effects.   It might.  I just don't care enough to educate myself on it.

I'm also speculating that polygamous marriages would have negative effects.  Mostly legal as in property division upon death/divorce, possibly with regards to health benefits and, of course, the potential for "marriage communes" which I think would destroy the traditional family.  Or it might have none.

I just think we should know before we're good with just "making more people happy."
4/3/2013 4:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
"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)

I'm sure polygamists see no problems with polygamous marriages.   I assume the gays would be on board with polygamous marriages. 

And, as I said, if we're making sure gays have equality in terms of marriage, I think we have to do the same for bisexuals.

 

No we don't.

You have said over and over again that we shouldn't allow polygamy. Presumably because there are issues related to polygamy that you don't like. 

Do those same issues exist for gay marriage? If you think so, what are they?

If not, we can allow gay marriage and not allow polygamy because the situations are not the same.
4/3/2013 4:44 PM
This thread exploded over a few days, anything worth reading?
4/3/2013 4:49 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 4/3/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
This thread exploded over a few days, anything worth reading?
Probably not.
4/3/2013 5:03 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 4/3/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
This thread exploded over a few days, anything worth reading?

Seems like at least one person posting wasn't bothering to read it.   So, obviously, you can comment without understanding, reading or remembering anything.

4/3/2013 5:08 PM
Yes, I can also think of several reasons why polygamous marriage a bad idea.

"I've never said SSM has no negative effects.   It might.  I just don't care enough to educate myself on it."

OK - Would love to hear a negative effect of allowing gays to get married.  From anyone, ever.  Claiming that we shouldn't change the definition of marriage because it would change the definition of marriage isn't an answer.
4/3/2013 5:15 PM
You refused to accept "It's an affront to my God".    Deeply religious people think two dudes getting it on is akin to Satan nailing their daughter.    And I said I'm not telling that guy his religion is ****** up.

Why won't you let him have an opinion?
4/3/2013 5:17 PM
Then that person shouldn't get it on with a guy.
4/3/2013 5:20 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 4:10:00 PM (view original):
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?
What part of "That's the answer you're going to get, so no need for you to keep repeating the same question over and over" do you not understand?

If I change the word "answer" to "response", does that make it easier for you to understand that I'm not going to play this game with you?

Can you bring anything new to the conversation, or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?
4/3/2013 5:23 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Then that person shouldn't get it on with a guy.
Do you understand the meaning of "affront"?

It's offensive to his God.  He can't stand for it.  So he fights against it.

Seriously, religion has been around a long time.   When people believe you're taking away their beliefs, they will not be happy.   And they have just as much right to say why it's wrong as you do to say "If it makes people happy....."

Why can't liberals, the tolerant side, get this?
4/3/2013 5:25 PM
Again the left needs to define this in terms of discrimination against gays. That is how they can win the issue.

In reality it isnt an issue of discrimination. Gays getting married crosses some lines for people that they would rather not allow.

And if a state allows it everyone is in favor of it. No one wants a Federal Law banning all gay marriage.

If we allow the Federal Government to step in on this issue and declare one answer for America we no longer need states, becuase we should just have one nation with all the same rules. And that is not what America is supposed to be about.

So lets look at this as a simple legal issue, and not a civil rights issue!
4/3/2013 5:26 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 4:10:00 PM (view original):
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?
What part of "That's the answer you're going to get, so no need for you to keep repeating the same question over and over" do you not understand?

If I change the word "answer" to "response", does that make it easier for you to understand that I'm not going to play this game with you?

Can you bring anything new to the conversation, or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?
I'm asking you a question that you are refusing to answer.

If you are arguing that gay marriage is so harmful that no one should be allowed to do it, you should spell out the harm.
4/3/2013 5:27 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Then that person shouldn't get it on with a guy.
Do you understand the meaning of "affront"?

It's offensive to his God.  He can't stand for it.  So he fights against it.

Seriously, religion has been around a long time.   When people believe you're taking away their beliefs, they will not be happy.   And they have just as much right to say why it's wrong as you do to say "If it makes people happy....."

Why can't liberals, the tolerant side, get this?
His God is not everyone's God. Freedom of religion, ya know?

No one's beliefs are being taken away.
4/3/2013 5:27 PM
Again, if we're allowing same sex marriage in the name of equality, and I find that a much better reason than "It makes people happy", I think we have to address the type of marriage a bisexual would require.   And that's polygamous. 

So, at this point, you have to say "I don't care about equality for bisexuals" or "I don't think one person have love both a man and a woman equally."

Are you prepared to make one of those statements?
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.