If homosexual marriage is a Right, why can't I have multiple wives? (Being Serious NO CAT TALK)

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by waynos
 


You were the one who brought up medical reasons to support only what you think is self determination(a sexual preference!).


No I didn't. I said there were medical reasons why incest is not acceptable, do you deny it? Incest is not a sexual preference.


My advice is the same to all those angry gay men in existing personal relationships, grow up, stop playing the victim , validate your own personal relationship.


Wanting rights that other citizens have but you are denied is not 'playing the victim'. If they want to get married, they should be able to. isn't egalitarianism a major part of what the US constitution was about?



Or don't as you seem to want to think I want to stop homosexuals from having personal relationships.


No I don't, I haven't said and don't think anything of the sort so please don't put words in my mouth. But you are hung up on marriage, which I simply don't understand as a union between two people should not be anyone else s business if its what they both want and are both in a position to make that choice freely.


You didn't listen and you don't understand that a govt cannot force a change in the social definition of marriage, a social institution, without a social mandate.


Why isn't there a social mandate? Has there been a vote on the issue?



You are divided and so you argue, many in this " changing the social definition of marriage "debate lose happiness in their personal relationship thinking it is unequal to other personal relationships.
Meanwhile in other parts of the world has the injustice of death for homosexuals and yet for all this media attention none of you try to make the changes that are needed and just fight for what you already have while your brothers get killed for being gay. Why don't you seek to change the injustice instead of imagining it where it doesn't exist.
Marriage was and is a social institution, my points were not lost on most of the thread readers.




Who is 'you' in this statement? I am not gay, I just believe in equal rights for all.
edit on 31-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



Wanting what you have and claiming that your personal relationship is denied in the USA because you are gay is playing the victim.
(As the social institution of marriage mentioned in the American constitution was that of a man and woman to found a family it was not directed at the union of a man and man, the US constitution does not grant the right of union of a man and a man to be defined as a marriage.)


You said; A union between two people should not be anyone else business if its what they both want and are both in a position to make that choice freely (but you have unreasoned exceptions ... incest and mature 15year olds, and that this very business of gay personal relationships is your business) .
(So what if you are not gay, it doesn't matter ) you just told me you believe in “equal rights for some” (but not “rights” for the Rothschilds or any other inbreeding group that has practiced incest for many generations.) in this you want some concept that is not "equality" by your own admission.
If you are gay and have the right of a lifelong committed personal relationship in the USA why do you believe homosexual people don’t already have that what you consider to be a “right”.

Where is the social mandate. Has there been a vote on the issue.Nope.It was another top down social takeover and you fell for the idea just because they used the word "equality" (with the growing inequality ) and it causes division . Please use the word equality to takeover our social institutions?!

You are still missing the big picture on govt intervention in a social institution and the right to, and the very existance of gay personal relationships in the USA( that you seem to deny). We agree on one thing here, that committed lifelong personal relationships are just that.
Good day and happy easter.

edit on 31-3-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
My personal opinion about gays and polygamy:

Firstly, the human body was not designed to be gay.

Secondly, polygamy is nothing compared to what "traditional" wedlock is supposed to be. You promise to be faithful to the one you marry. How can you be that by marrying multiple people????

What is this world coming to? Accepting something that is not natural just goes over my head.

BTW, I am not religious at all. The two subjects above makes my soul scream "WRONG"!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Pologamy is illegal in the USA.

Niether gay folks or straight folks are permitted to have multiple "legal" spouses.

Marriage between two persons is legal.

Thus discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and denying that right to one group on that basis is "unequal".

You are conflating two very different questions. Equal application of existing law in a way that does not discriminate (equal rights) vs. changing existing law.

Your logic is a fallacy.

Marriage as a legal institution is defined as...two people...not animals...not your car or truck.

We do not legislate that legal marriage must produce children...lest we nullify marriages where the parties are unable to concieve.

We do not legislate what consensual sexual acts a legally married couple may engage in...nor nullify marriages that engage in sexual acts that the government dissaproves of.

The legal institution of marriage (not religious) does not have cause to dictate sexual orientation beyond discriminating based on that orientation....and gay or straight, black or white etc. you don't want your government deciding such things.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
First off my logic isn't a fallacy, yours is if you're claiming that marriage between 2 people of the same sex is legal because it's not (yet).

And if you want to use logic we can look at traditional marriage, gay marriage, and polygamy this way.

If A(male) + B (female) = C (legal marriage)

Yet B + B = D (illegal)

And A + B + B = D (illegal)

Therefore D = D (gay marriage) = (polygamy) as far as legality goes in most of the country

Logic says they are the same.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


In my opinion, gays should be allowed to marry and you should be able to take multiple wives. I see nothing wrong with people being happy and being able to love and marry whoever they want. Just a few decades ago I would not have been able to marry my husband just because we are different ethnicities. It will take take time but in a few decades we will look back and think how ridiculous the laws regarding gay marriage were. Just as we look back and think how stupid the laws were regarding marriages between 2 different ethnicities.

I'm rooting for you, buddy!! I hope one day you can marry whoever makes you happy!!



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
First off my logic isn't a fallacy, yours is if you're claiming that marriage between 2 people of the same sex is legal because it's not (yet).

And if you want to use logic we can look at traditional marriage, gay marriage, and polygamy this way.

If A(male) + B (female) = C (legal marriage)

Yet B + B = D (illegal)

And A + B + B = D (illegal)

Therefore D = D (gay marriage) = (polygamy) as far as legality goes in most of the country

Logic says they are the same.


Your fallacy only holds once you differentiate between men and women and then disregard the foundation of the equation only including TWO factors.

1+1 = 2

1+1+1+1+1 does not.

1=1...It is X+X (X being a person) not X+Y (Man +Woman) becuase there is no relevant distinction between the two for the LEGAL recognition of marriage. We can not ask the law to decide the legallity of marriage based on anatomy or the ability to reproduce. It is not relevant to the legal institution. We cannot assign greater or lessor values to each participant. They are equal...1+1=2

Your argument is essentially that if we allow African Americans to vote in US elections, we should permit everyone in the world to vote in US elections....

You make the qualifier Human Beings, when it should be US Citizens...

For marriage the qualifier is "two people"...not gender ...

So you argue about the NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ...When the gay marriage argument is about the unfounded discrimination between the TWO participants that are already legally recognized.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY

A + A, B + B, or A + B, where the latter is a traditional marriage.

According to gay marriage opponents, neither A + A nor B + B can equal A + B, therefore A is not equal to B.

This implies that men and women are not equal.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
You still don't make sense... especially with the citizen ship logic

if a WHITE US citizen equals A, and a BLACK US citizen equals A, and a BlACK AFRICAN equals B, therefore A does not = B. Therefore A can vote and B cannot vote.

But none of this even makes sense.
And that's the point. This DOESNT MAKE SENSE!



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Why are you going to discriminate against my *choice* of lifestyle while I can't? Because marriage has always been about TWO PEOPLE? I thought for the most part MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT TWO PEOPLE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX? Except for the past decade maybe...

Oh yeah and polygamy isn't a choice, I knew I was born polygamous.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Actually some people could argue that their brain chemistry has made it so they were born to have multple wives, nowadays we call those people cheaters, so I guess I answered my own question.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Why are you going to discriminate against my *choice* of lifestyle while I can't? Because marriage has always been about TWO PEOPLE? I thought for the most part MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT TWO PEOPLE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX? Except for the past decade maybe...

Oh yeah and polygamy isn't a choice, I knew I was born polygamous.


I am not arguing against polygamy...I am disputing that the argument for polygamy is the same as the argument for permitting gay marriage.

They are two completely different arguments...and the validity or lack thereof of those two seperate arguments are built upon different sets of logic.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Actually some people could argue that their brain chemistry has made it so they were born to have multple wives, nowadays we call those people cheaters, so I guess I answered my own question.


Not only "could" they argue...it has been argued with a good dose of credibility, complete with associated scientific research suggesting that human beings are not monogomous by design or evolution....but again that is a different debate and unrelated to the discrimnatory practice of same-sex marriages not being legal.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Bringing this old thread backup because just like I suspected:
www.npr.org...

I knew I was a fortune teller! Now everybody give me control of their ROTH IRA's! I promise you'll get a 2000% return within 2 months!



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Exacltly. I already take care of, and have children with, multiple women. It would save me money, if I could have them all under one roof, and call us a family. My current wife wouldn't have much problem with it, and the other women would be open to the idea. It's not as if I would be taking any women away from other men, as I already "have" them. If I want to deal with the headache, of having multiple wives, it should be my problem. At the end of the day, I imagine it all comes down to tax exemptions. I'd forfiet my right to claim any of my wives on my taxes, and even pay a multiple-spouse tax.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I don't believe we are asking to have multiple same sex marriages, just the same rights as a heterosexual person has to have one marriage. this argument is made to lessen same sex marriages into other categories that it is not

though, i don't care about polygamy, if you want multiple marriage, be my guest



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 





though, i don't care about polygamy, if you want multiple marriage, be my guest


I feel the same way. If someone wants same sex marriage, then that should be their choice. I really don't care what other people are doing, as long as they cause no harm to another person.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
This needs to be moved to the HOAX bin. No one wants more than one wife.

However , their should be all types of marriage licenses.

Gay marriage, straight marriage and even political marriages.


The question is are they looking for the benefit of marriage or forcefully make everyone accept the lifestyle?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Or maybe they are not looking for acceptance, but instead to simply be free from discrimination.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

tamusan
reply to post by interupt42
 


Or maybe they are not looking for acceptance, but instead to simply be free from discrimination.


Personally, I don't care who or what gets married assuming no one or anything is hurt and both party are consenting adults , or it involves inanimate objects.

I just think that they would have had better results had they tried to fight for equal benefits and perhaps a different type of license like partner license or civil union versus trying to change a marriage license.


edit on 19-12-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
It's ironic most of the arguments being made against polygamy are the same arguments being made against gay marriage. You can have as many partners as you want, you can have a spiritual contract with them, I don't want to pay for it (via tax dollars), etc.

I agree with the OP, once you throw out the basic tenet of marriage being between a man and a woman it opens the door for people to argue for any variation of rules they want. Civil Unions that provide the same or similar tax/death benefits should be the answer.





top topics
 
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join