It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Loves You
- Start date
scoobygang
Footballguy
None of them are like the others. One is a sexual orientation. One is a gender. One is a color. I'm trying to figure out what significance this "proof" problem of yours could possibly have. You haven't articulated one. So please, indulge me by explaining it.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
Its discrimination, shame on you...Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
It concerns me that these decisions and these societal designations and all this time and energy and dollars are being spent in the name of something there is no proof of. You can prove black and you can prove woman, but you can't prove gay. It shouldn't be as important as it has become.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Its what?Its discrimination, shame on you...Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Don't give me grief, I don't care either way if polygyny is legal.Its discrimination, shame on you...Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
I'm for polygyny without the marriage and without the religion.Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
scoobygang
Footballguy
Wait, so your position is that gay doesn't exist? I assure you that it does. If you need proof, I'd be happy to suggest a few bars you could visit if you're ever in DC.I'm going to try to recast your position into the point I think you were trying to say. Which is that equal protection analysis should only apply to characteristics that are inate and not chosen. I won't waste my time arguing over whether homosexuality is inate or chosen, because it doesn't matter. If a law disallowed the state from recognizing interfaith marriages, that law should be challenged under equal protection grounds. And it should be found unconstitutional. And it doesn't matter whether someone was born Christian or chose to be Jewish.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're probably for anything without the religion :(I'm for polygyny without the marriage and without the religion.Most people pushing the polygyny (including polygamy and polyandry) argument are knowingly presenting a red herring that they themselves would never formally support (through vote or legal action), but even in the case that they are serious in this discussion, it is much more likely that polygyny would be sought by certain religious sects rather than a large number of people who are demanding to marry more than one person, and fought like hell by people of other religious faiths as being a perversion of what they consider to be traditional marriage. Quite a fight you have brewing there.I personally don't have an inherent problem with polygyny, and I imagine that few people outside of those defending "traditional marriage" really do either. I think this idea that polygyny is an immediate flaw to the argument of same sex marriage is stupid on its face. A legal standing for polygyny should be pursued if there is public will for it, just as the debate over gay marriage has evolved. If a group wants to champion the cause, have at it. There are, however, reasonable arguments for why the state should deny marriages of three or more. A few of these have been mentioned in this thread already, but marriages are a zero-sum game where someone marrying more than one spouse would limit the number of potential marriages that can exist. There's an immediate change in the population of available partners. This is distinct from same sex marriages where gays marrying has no effect on the number of heterosexual partnerships or marriages that can result. Most societies naturally move away from polygyny, not toward it.It should as long as all parties are "consenting adults". Bunch of Polygamyphobes in here.
If you're interested in reading some of the arguments against polygyny, here is a decent article that dissects the issue to some extent.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
I was at a gay neighborhood street festival this past weekend. It was off-the-hook, all kinds of crazy. Wish you could have been here.
Painted the barn with glittaaah!! Good for you hack
dparker713
Footballguy
Human sexuality is not a binary option, no matter how convenient such classifications may be. And I'd think the easier argument against interfaith marriage would be the first amendment.
You have behaved yourself in this thread except when I told you I was not going to respond to you. Then you flipped.I often get called out and am not insincere in these discussions. But being insincere and mockery is a talent you have in spades.
You say my sources are shoddy- WHAT? There you go again.
I changed my online name because I got banned for 2 weeks because of our last go around- not to change my identity. You often make false assumption and use them to create personal and unsubstantiated attacks.
Now your being coy. or make scurrilous claims that people are attacking you. Is this how you rationalize your childish behavior by denying the obvious.
It is true that I tried softening my reply back to you from your abrasive comments so that we would not fight. You call that insincerity or glossing over the details so that we wouldn't fight. It was my attempt to keep the peace and it didn't work -it only enrages you more. I have found out that reporting you makes no difference. So if you want I fight I am game because honestly I don't know how to handle your childish behavior. I would prefer that you just leave me alone and I will leave you alone.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
How is that even remotely true. It may be that way on some occassions, but nothing about a union between two people is inherently based upon equality.
scoobygang
Footballguy
Not if you value the actual text and history. Nothing about a ban on government recognition would touch on free exercise.Race is also not a binary option, btw.
Maybe, I am not a lawyer. Also, it is difficult to see past ones biases and I just missed it. Could you provide something you consider results oriented from someone like Scalia or Thomas?
I don't really see the logic why polygamy should be banned and same sex marriage approved. The logic for both is very similar IMHO.The answer is: only if there's no legitimate state interest in barring polygamy. And frankly, if there isn't, then polygamy shouldn't be barred.Just asking a question
dparker713
Footballguy
You examples are equally general, as you're approaching both without referencing the desire of the person you're seeking to marry, ie Brad Pitt. It is the difference between saying I want to marry him and we want to marry each other. Or in other words, you can't marry a man, not the two of you cant marry each other.Sure, its semantic games, but it properly places the argument as a discussion of gender discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination.
I know many many polygamist. The woman do not feel subjugated and they entered the relationship based on their free will. They like the support they get from other woman. It is what they want so what right do we have to reject them from the kind of marriage they want.
I think the sound strategy is to call people bigots until they do...where have i see that before?I don't really see the logic why polygamy should be banned and same sex marriage approved. The logic for both is very similar IMHO.The answer is: only if there's no legitimate state interest in barring polygamy. And frankly, if there isn't, then polygamy shouldn't be barred.Just asking a question
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, I've got to ask- how do you know "many many polygamists"? Are you connected in some way to a religious polygamist community?
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I'm not attacking you. I go after hypocritical posts and people not adequately supporting their argument. If you were to make up a new alias tomorrow, chances are you'd play the same game and I'd end up criticizing your post not knowing who the heck you are.You're the one inviting the scrutiny here, and you're the one running from your legacy. That link I posted back to the RNA thread was an instance where you outright denied you were the same person as Master of Orion and golddigger. That's pretty consistent with someone that's ashamed of their legacy as a poster.
None of this is about "fighting" or making insulting attacks. In a dry thread like this, I'm considering what people write. I surely didn't come in here looking to pick a fight. As much as I disagree with you (or anyone else), I don't take it personally if we clash over it. You should realize, though, that you have a consistent pattern of illogical thought and a very impractical approach to a debate. It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.
I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you. It's not even remotely close, in fact. You're #1 with a bullet. Ironically, you're exactly the kind of poster you claim to loathe.
Do I get abrasive at times? You bet. But it's never personal. I've never sought you out to antagonize you for sport. And if you're not comfortable with how I do things, I suggest you either stop reading what I write, leave the site, or report me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interracial marriage was a legitimate marriage between a man and woman. The reason why people disapproved wasn't because of what marriage was but because some felt races shouldn't intermarry. It was part of battle over racial discrimination not the definition of marriage.
I considered the possibility. I asked my wife and a good friend to review your posts. They very much stated that you are extremely rude. It is not my imagination or me being thin skinned - sorry.
Last edited by a moderator:
You must be new
timschochet
Footballguy
Just curious- what country are you from, Konotay?
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Yes, I'm sure they did. I am rude at times. I don't have a problem with that perception when I feel as though the person is inviting it.Your characterization of me as being a troll and just pushing buttons is asinine. If it was true, there are plenty of moderators that would agree with you and ban me from the site. I'm not here to agitate you or anyone else for the thrill of it.There have been many times where I've made completely bland posts devoid of emotion -- not even aimed at you -- and you start in on this "personal" attacks diatribe. It's one of the reasons you're kicking it as Konotay, in fact. You don't find it odd that you were suspended instead of me? How many times have I been suspended due to insulting you? Nil. Chew on that for a bit.This forum gets a little rough at times when people are engaged in debate. I think for the most part people acquit themselves fairly well. I've found that you in particular have a very hard time with criticism. This includes very rational responses to your posts in addition to the ones that are more dismissive and "rude."Honestly, there are no hard feelings here. I don't mind you posting here or anything, nor do I target you personally. I've never done that. Honestly, you're not worth the effort. The thin-skinned argument is valid, though. You whine like hell over people criticizing your contributions, and I think it's worth taking a look at why people give you the grief that they do.
timschochet
Footballguy
I speak don't for Konotay, but what I wish to know is, why do you insist to continue that I am Mr. Ham. That very much does to displease me.
otello
Footballguy
Ted Olson on Fox was impressive, no surprise there.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Whatever, Ham.
The disorderly discourteous discourse of these discussions are displeasing and disheartening.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
To me the biggest difference is the administrative difference between laws and policies having one spouse as an option and having multiple spouses as an option. For example how would SS, the military, etc handle "survivor's benefits"? Absent a will who inherits the fortune? When laying unconscious in a hospital bed which spouse makes the medical decisions? Is every spouse a dependent on tax returns? Is every spouse eligible for spousal health insurance? etc., etc. There are also concerns that these relationships create the administrative burden of making certain young girls aren't placed in to marriages. The burden of policing increased violence which supposedly is statically likely. And other policing burdens.In the past I have posted that while these and items like seem like legitimate concerns, I don't think they rise to the level where the only solution to the problem is an outright ban. Curiously in the Prop 8 decision there is this-In addition, proponents appear to claim that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in easing administrative burdens associated with issuing and recognizing marriage licenses. Under precedents such as Craig v Boren, “administrative ease and convenience” are not important government objectives. 429 US 190, 198 (1976).
I'm guessing however that if there was a movement for polygamy the primary arguments against will have to do with the impact on children. I don't know of stats on this to determine if it holds any water.
McJose
Footballguy
Wow.Could you ask them to review mine? :edgeofmyseat:The only thing I have noticed is you seem to have a hard time keeping each color between the lines.Wow.Could you ask them to review mine? :edgeofmyseat:
pinequick
Footballguy
The only thing I have noticed is you seem to have a hard time keeping each color between the lines.
McJose
Footballguy
I asked my wife and a good friend to review your post. They very much state that you are extremely rude.The only thing I have noticed is you seem to have a hard time keeping each color between the lines.
My wife reviewed my posts, she thinks Im hot!!I asked my wife and a good friend to review your post. They very much state that you are extremely rude.The only thing I have noticed is you seem to have a hard time keeping each color between the lines.Wow.Could you ask them to review mine? :edgeofmyseat:
beavers
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
I will tell you something I have been holding back. I am not golddigger but I know him and we have an interesting relationship.I will tell you my relationship with him if you tell me who your aliases are ?You see you keep going back to golddigger. He was permanently banned several years ago. He told me why but it isn't for the reasons your are stating. I have tried to look up all the stuff you claimed golddigger did but I can't, there is no record of golddigger ever existing. The question is why do I even need to defend him or what he did or did not do? So you are holding a grudge that is over 2 years old. Don't you think that is extremely petty?But I have to say that your posts on this thread have been extremely insightful, thought out and interesting. I would love to converse with that Pickles. If you want to start over and bury the hatchet -so to speak, I am game.
the moops
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
This is not helping.
timschochet
Footballguy
After this decision goes to the Supreme Court, the two of you can make it formal.
tommyboy
Footballguy
pretty sure we've beaten that horse to death. sexuality is not a genetic trait. search for "twin studies"regardless, people are entitled to their opinions and given that homosexuality, or the idea of homosexuality, among heterosexual males on a football message board might cause "disapproval" should hardly be shocking.Yes, if it's a genetic trait.So simply disapproving of something is bigotry?
Scalia, in Gonzales v. Raich, was blatantly results-oriented. He came up with a cockamamie twisting of the constitution in order to keep pot illegal in California. Because he doesn't like pot. Thomas called him on it pretty good.Bush v. Gore is another example — and by coincidence it happens to feature the two lawyers from the Prop 8 case being discussed in this thread. (They were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, but were on the same side, opposing Prop 8, in this case.)
otello
Footballguy
Isn't the first case a Stevens decision with Scalia concurring?
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Isn't Thomas a Scalia alias?
