Comments on: Quick Gay Marriage Note

By: Syldoran

Syldoran — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:56:53 +0000

Tl;dr.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:44:05 +0000

@ Magic is temptation::::Leads people into deviate lifestyles

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGARBLEBlablablbab!!!11!

By: Magic is temptation::::Leads people into deviate lifestyles

Magic is temptation::::Leads people into deviate lifestyles — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:45:11 +0000

[Deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:08:52 +0000

OtherRob – I’m with you. The slippery slope argument is nonsense. So what if polygamy becomes legally recognized? Who the hell cares?!

The only hyperbolic statement they make that I agree with is along the lines of “or wanting to marry their dog!” Okay, yes, if somebody started demanding the right to marry a non-human, I would agree that should not be protected. You got me.

SILLINESS!

Oh and btw: http://www.marryyourpet.com/

By: OtherRob

OtherRob — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:16:47 +0000

I’ve often heard the argument that gays are asking for “special privileges” in wanting same-sex marriage. I even heard a nationally-syndicated radio talk-show host say that gays already have the same marriage rights as straights, the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

The counter-argument to that is that gays are not asking for special privileges at all. Straight folk would have just as much right to marry a person of the same sex as a gay person. Just because the choose not to doesn’t mean they aren’t gaining that right.

As for polygamy/polyandry…my take is that, as long as all of those involved are consenting adults, it’s none of my damn business who you marry or how many of ‘em you marry.

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:20:19 +0000

Or women who had hysterectomies, or men who have had orchiectomies, etc…

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:23:55 +0000

Nor should we allow post-menopausal women to marry.

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:52:40 +0000

I am married and have no kids. So, like, should I not receive marriage tax benefits, death benefits, and so on? Should a gay couple that has adopted or (and this is a real shocker) has biological children not be granted those benefits? Your argument makes no sense. Marriage was once used as a contract with the government to encourage offspring through legal benefits. That is no longer the case in modern society. It is now simply a set of legal conveniences and less red tape (and lower taxes) for the single most important person in your life.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:46:30 +0000

*quality (not quantity)

..that’s discrimination based on quantity rather than quality. Discrimination nonetheless.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:43:41 +0000

“My point is that the arguments in favor of gay marriage don’t work in favor of polygamy, because nobody in our society legally has multiple wives.”

Nobody in a society where gay marriage is not allowed, can legally marry a person of the same sex either, which renders your point moot. It is not an equality issue, if you look at it that way. Since people are allowed to have a wife, why not many, that’s discrimination based on volume rather than quantity.

Ok, enough with the hair-splitting. The function of marriage in a society’s view is reproduction. A society needs to produce offspring to continue to exist. Based on these premises allowing polygamy would be sensible, allowing gay marriage, not so, what’s the point?

By: The Watcher

The Watcher — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:35:39 +0000

Yeah, I don’t really see the whole “incestuous marriage” thing as a bandwagon that’s gaining speed. Polygamy, though, doesn’t really bother me. I know I’m departing with even some of my readers with that one (possibly even you, Ron), but I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass how many wives you want to have, as long as they’re all consenting.

Thanks for covering my back

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:47:54 +0000

Polygamy has existed successfully for a long time in other cultures without bringing them to collapse. My point in the article is that the arguments in favor of gay marriage don’t work in favor of polygamy, because nobody in our society legally has multiple wives. All the gays want is the same rights that everyone else has. Polygamists already have the same rights as everyone else: The right to marry one other person.

I’d prefer to keep marriage to two people. That already creates enough grief for us all. If it were up to me, we’d all go back to reproducing asexually. If society wants to allow polygamy, then we should have that discussion (write your congressman). Who knows, maybe I’ll change my mind. But if we allow multiple wives, we also have to allow multiple husbands.