4/3/2013 7:36 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
It should be painfully obvious by now that I'm not going to give you a different response that what I've already given you.  Yet you keep asking the same question over and over and over again, as if you expect that I will.

Which begs the question . . . are you really that stubborn, or are you just plain stupid?

Either one is equally likely, in my opinion.
By "response," I'm guessing you mean the non-answer you have given for several pages.

What is painfully obvious by now is that there is no reason to prevent gays from marrying. It has exactly zero effect on anyone else's life. Attempts to deny gays the right to marry are rooted nothing more than malice.
4/4/2013 8:38 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
It should be painfully obvious by now that I'm not going to give you a different response that what I've already given you.  Yet you keep asking the same question over and over and over again, as if you expect that I will.

Which begs the question . . . are you really that stubborn, or are you just plain stupid?

Either one is equally likely, in my opinion.
But it's necessary to continue to repeat yourself.   I guess.

At the end of the day, "makes them happy and equal while not infringing on the rights of others" is the reason to allow it.    Of course, when put to the test, those reasons fail.    Bisexuals would like to be "happy and equal without infringing on the rights of others."   And that leads directly to polygamy.    Can't have SSM without agreeing to allow polygamy.   And, as previously mentioned(and agreed upon by rational folks), there are potential legal problems with polygamy.   
4/4/2013 8:47 AM
Well, I guess you can have SSM without agreeing to polygamy.   But the legal door is open so it would just be a matter of time.    If you don't agree, you have to admit you don't care if bisexuals are happy and equal.
4/4/2013 9:08 AM
Why do you assume bisexuals are polygamists? 
4/4/2013 9:19 AM
They aren't necessarily.  But, if they want to marry the people they love and it's one man/one woman, they will be.

It's just math. 
4/4/2013 9:20 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Well, I guess you can have SSM without agreeing to polygamy.   But the legal door is open so it would just be a matter of time.    If you don't agree, you have to admit you don't care if bisexuals are happy and equal.
Are you saying polygamy and gay marriage are the same thing?
4/4/2013 9:24 AM
Yeah, I stopped responding to you yesterday when you began insisting that anyone with a differing opinion repeat themselves. 

Say yourself some time.   Don't ask me questions.   The answer is "Read the thread".

You're welcome.
4/4/2013 9:27 AM
So you're responding by saying you're not responding? Interesting move, biz.

Why do you think polygamy and gay marriage are the same thing?
4/4/2013 9:28 AM
Mike, that's fine, but anyone can be a polygamist, I was just interested why you single out bisexuals when describing polygamists.  And most bisexuals find one person to spend the rest of their life with rather than a desire for more than 1.

Here's my opinion on what this comes down to re: polygamy.  Marriage is a bond between 2 people - it's a commitment to spend the rest of their life with someone, and it's a celebration of that.  I would argue that if you marry multiple people, it dilutes that bond every time you have another marriage, to which I'd argue what was the point in the first place?

Now, if you're going to argue "You're changing the definition of marriage when you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry, so let's change it to allow multiple people to marry, what's the difference?" - the difference is gay marriage isn't any less of a marriage than straight marriage.  It's 2 people making a commitment to each other.  If you make it 6 people making a commitment, it's not the same thing.

I'm sure there's holes in that argument.  Poke at em.
4/4/2013 9:31 AM
Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. No need to automatically allow one just because you allowed the other.
4/4/2013 9:36 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 9:29:00 AM (view original):
Mike, that's fine, but anyone can be a polygamist, I was just interested why you single out bisexuals when describing polygamists.  And most bisexuals find one person to spend the rest of their life with rather than a desire for more than 1.

Here's my opinion on what this comes down to re: polygamy.  Marriage is a bond between 2 people - it's a commitment to spend the rest of their life with someone, and it's a celebration of that.  I would argue that if you marry multiple people, it dilutes that bond every time you have another marriage, to which I'd argue what was the point in the first place?

Now, if you're going to argue "You're changing the definition of marriage when you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry, so let's change it to allow multiple people to marry, what's the difference?" - the difference is gay marriage isn't any less of a marriage than straight marriage.  It's 2 people making a commitment to each other.  If you make it 6 people making a commitment, it's not the same thing.

I'm sure there's holes in that argument.  Poke at em.
Sure.   I'm not the ruler of everyone's emotions. I personally believe I care more about my dogs than some people care about their kids.  I'm certain I give them more time.    Nonetheless, I'm not in everyone's head so I don't really know that to be fact.

You seem to think that one person cannot love two people equally.   I'd disagree simply based on children.  I'd hope that parents don't love child A more than child B.  If a car is speeding down the road towards a child, I'd hope a parent wouldn't say "Meh, I love Johnny more than Jill.   Jill's on her own here because I'll still have Johnny" and continue their yardwork.

Therefore, I have to believe a man, or a woman, can love two people, in a relationship way, equally. 

With that in mind, I don't believe, once SSM is approved based on equality/happiness, that a M/M/W or W/W/M marriage can be denied.   And, quite honestly, I don't think a M/M/M or W/W/W marriage can be denied.
4/4/2013 9:46 AM
I'd argue you can't give 2 wives the same love and commitment that you could if you just had 1.  You may LOVE both equally, but it doesn't mean you're showing it to both as much as you could.

I'm arguing that you can change the "traditional" definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" on the argument of equality.  If you change the definition to allow multiple people, you can't have the same bond that marriage is supposed to signify.  As in, if you have 20 children, you can't give the same love and attention that would could if you had 1.  It doesn't mean you don't LOVE all 20 children the same way you would love just the 1.
4/4/2013 9:52 AM
The government should just take itself out of marriage altogether. People should govern their own relationships without government interferance.

As for children, I think we should castrate everyone at birth and reproduce using modern science.

It would save a ton of trouble. Think about it - no more problems of guys thinking with their **** because the hormones just aren't there. There's a lot less crime and no one is making babies they can't afford to care for.



4/4/2013 9:58 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 9:46:00 AM (view original):
I'd argue you can't give 2 wives the same love and commitment that you could if you just had 1.  You may LOVE both equally, but it doesn't mean you're showing it to both as much as you could.

I'm arguing that you can change the "traditional" definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" on the argument of equality.  If you change the definition to allow multiple people, you can't have the same bond that marriage is supposed to signify.  As in, if you have 20 children, you can't give the same love and attention that would could if you had 1.  It doesn't mean you don't LOVE all 20 children the same way you would love just the 1.
I'll disagree.  It's possible to "make" more time if you remove some of "my time" from your life.   All of us have our little "side" projects that don't involve loved ones.   Things I've done(with times) in the last week that DID NOT involve my wife:
Softball:   2+ hours
Gym:  6+ hours
Drinking with my buds:  8 hours(knocked off work around noon)
Watching baseball:  5+ hours
Video games:  1+ hour

That's the last 7 days.    That's almost an entire day.    I could easily have a 2nd wife if I cut some of that out.
4/4/2013 10:06 AM
And please don't use "that marriage is supposed to signify" when we're changing what is a traditional marriage.    tec's head will explode.
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.