4/4/2013 12:29 PM
For some reason, I thought you meant the argument, and not the actual legalization of it.  

Yea, I don't think so.  I don't think there will be a big enough outcry for it, because some a small minority of people would want it.  I think I've heard 10% of people are homosexual.  Not all of them want to get married, are are out, but it's a much larger percentage than those who would want to marry multiple people.  I would think.  That, and there are other obvious issues, ones that you've brought up.  So, no, I don't think that's happening.
4/4/2013 12:30 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):
But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open.  There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate.  Then you make a decision on it.  I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.
We don't live in a vacuum.

Two men getting married.   Don't think I care as the same laws of common decency apply to them.

But we don't live in a vacuum.

Is that an acceptable answer?
Yes and no.  We don't live in a vacuum, everything we do affects something else.  But "bringing up the topic of polgyamous marriage" doesn't seem like a big enough issue to not allow gay marriage.  Every issue is dealt with as they come up.
OK, if I were to concede your point of "Every issue is dealt with as they come up", do you think polygamous marriage is right around the corner once SSM is universally accepted?
Nope, just like it wasn't in 1967.
4/4/2013 12:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):

If the premise of "happy people" and "equality" are the base argument for SSM, it is.

If you're building a house, do you measure the wood after you've cut it?

That's all I'm saying.   Look at the big picture before saying "It makes two people happy, why not?"

I've already told you I'm not necessarily against polygamous marriages, but we recognize that there are issues involved with allowing that.  So we have to examine them if the issue does come up (I would guess it wouldn't)  It does not appear there are the same or similar issues to SSM.  I'm all for looking at the ramifications of the decisions we make.
4/4/2013 12:41 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):

If the premise of "happy people" and "equality" are the base argument for SSM, it is.

If you're building a house, do you measure the wood after you've cut it?

That's all I'm saying.   Look at the big picture before saying "It makes two people happy, why not?"

I've already told you I'm not necessarily against polygamous marriages, but we recognize that there are issues involved with allowing that.  So we have to examine them if the issue does come up (I would guess it wouldn't)  It does not appear there are the same or similar issues to SSM.  I'm all for looking at the ramifications of the decisions we make.
Yep. What are the actual problems with gay marriage?
4/4/2013 12:41 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
For some reason, I thought you meant the argument, and not the actual legalization of it.  

Yea, I don't think so.  I don't think there will be a big enough outcry for it, because some a small minority of people would want it.  I think I've heard 10% of people are homosexual.  Not all of them want to get married, are are out, but it's a much larger percentage than those who would want to marry multiple people.  I would think.  That, and there are other obvious issues, ones that you've brought up.  So, no, I don't think that's happening.
If the primary argument is "equality", and I much prefer that to "happy people", I think we have to accept what equality means.   I have no idea how many people are bisexual or how many bisexuals would like to get married.   But, if there's just one threesome that wants it, it has to be approved under the umbrella of "equality" for SSM.   Unless, of course, far more people think like you in that one person loving two dilutes the relationship so deeply that it no longer qualifies as a "marriage".

Which, as you know, I think is ridiculously hypocritical and wrong.
4/4/2013 12:43 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
For some reason, I thought you meant the argument, and not the actual legalization of it.  

Yea, I don't think so.  I don't think there will be a big enough outcry for it, because some a small minority of people would want it.  I think I've heard 10% of people are homosexual.  Not all of them want to get married, are are out, but it's a much larger percentage than those who would want to marry multiple people.  I would think.  That, and there are other obvious issues, ones that you've brought up.  So, no, I don't think that's happening.
If the primary argument is "equality", and I much prefer that to "happy people", I think we have to accept what equality means.   I have no idea how many people are bisexual or how many bisexuals would like to get married.   But, if there's just one threesome that wants it, it has to be approved under the umbrella of "equality" for SSM.   Unless, of course, far more people think like you in that one person loving two dilutes the relationship so deeply that it no longer qualifies as a "marriage".

Which, as you know, I think is ridiculously hypocritical and wrong.
It doesn't have to be approved under the umbrella of anything.

You are implying that there are issues with polygamy that don't exist with gay marriage. Obviously they are not the same thing. 
4/4/2013 12:48 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):

If the premise of "happy people" and "equality" are the base argument for SSM, it is.

If you're building a house, do you measure the wood after you've cut it?

That's all I'm saying.   Look at the big picture before saying "It makes two people happy, why not?"

I've already told you I'm not necessarily against polygamous marriages, but we recognize that there are issues involved with allowing that.  So we have to examine them if the issue does come up (I would guess it wouldn't)  It does not appear there are the same or similar issues to SSM.  I'm all for looking at the ramifications of the decisions we make.
So is it OK if I look at the potential ramifications before making a decision?

In my business, I attempt to solve problems before they happen.   Makes my life so much easier.
4/4/2013 12:52 PM
Sure, but the ramifications of polygamy and the ramifications of gay marriage are not the same.

What are the ramifications of gay marriage?
4/4/2013 2:00 PM
I mean ****, if we let them go to prom together we won't be able to restrict polyamorous groups from going to prom together. Slippery slope, y'all.

I consider all ramifications before taking any step forward.
4/4/2013 2:27 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
For some reason, I thought you meant the argument, and not the actual legalization of it.  

Yea, I don't think so.  I don't think there will be a big enough outcry for it, because some a small minority of people would want it.  I think I've heard 10% of people are homosexual.  Not all of them want to get married, are are out, but it's a much larger percentage than those who would want to marry multiple people.  I would think.  That, and there are other obvious issues, ones that you've brought up.  So, no, I don't think that's happening.
If the primary argument is "equality", and I much prefer that to "happy people", I think we have to accept what equality means.   I have no idea how many people are bisexual or how many bisexuals would like to get married.   But, if there's just one threesome that wants it, it has to be approved under the umbrella of "equality" for SSM.   Unless, of course, far more people think like you in that one person loving two dilutes the relationship so deeply that it no longer qualifies as a "marriage".

Which, as you know, I think is ridiculously hypocritical and wrong.
You're right, it's hypocritical.  If I claim that 3 people in a marriage isn't "traditional" so we can't call it marriage, then I can't bash those who use the same argument against SSM. 

So allow it, unless there are issues that will affect society in a negative way.  Let them get married, have their big wedding and party, and we'll celebrate it.
4/4/2013 2:38 PM
Examine the issues that may arise before allowing it.    Does anyone HAVE to be married today?   Really?

Measure twice, cut once. 
4/4/2013 2:52 PM
OK. Let's do this-

SSM is proposed nationally.  Let's examine the issues that may arise by allowing SSM.  Well, by making everyone "equal" there may be other non-traditional forms of marriage proposed.  Hmmm...I think we can allow this, and deal with that if it arises.

<we allow SMS>

Polygamous marriage is proposed nationally.  Let's examine the issues that arise by allowing polygamous marriage.  What happens to property/children if someone dies? If someone wants a divorce, what happens? Do the other members stay "married?" Do the children answer to all parents equally? Is there a dominant parent to listen to? What about health benefits? Damn, there's serious issues, this isn't anything like 2 person marriage.  Maybe we shouldn't allow this.

See the difference?
4/4/2013 2:57 PM
I'm sure he does, but it doesn't fit his argument.

Without the slippery slope, mike's hosed.
4/4/2013 3:03 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
OK. Let's do this-

SSM is proposed nationally.  Let's examine the issues that may arise by allowing SSM.  Well, by making everyone "equal" there may be other non-traditional forms of marriage proposed.  Hmmm...I think we can allow this, and deal with that if it arises.

<we allow SMS>

Polygamous marriage is proposed nationally.  Let's examine the issues that arise by allowing polygamous marriage.  What happens to property/children if someone dies? If someone wants a divorce, what happens? Do the other members stay "married?" Do the children answer to all parents equally? Is there a dominant parent to listen to? What about health benefits? Damn, there's serious issues, this isn't anything like 2 person marriage.  Maybe we shouldn't allow this.

See the difference?
Cool.  So we've decided that "equality" is the right thing to do unless there are some serious issues involved.

The slave owners from 1858 will be thrilled to hear this.   Picking that damned cotton without slaves was very troublesome.   
4/4/2013 3:06 PM
"Well, yeah, I know we allowed two men to marry thus throwing "traditional" marriage out the window.   Yeah, I know we did this in the name of equality and happiness.   But, sorry, you're not allowed to love two people and marry them because it's kind of complicated.   Just pick one."
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.