[Apparpsmose]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm denied those privileges as well. No, you're not. You can marry your partner and get them.

We've been through this. You're either completely retarded or ****ing with us, and either way you should get lost.

[pushokalex1]

Originally posted by MrFun
I do not support polygamy among heterosexuals, or homosexuals. By what right do you deny the same equal rights you seek for yourself to others that seek the same access and based on the same reasons?

[PefeFoesk]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's discrimination. Why should I have to marry to get the same rights as everyone else? Clearly our word should be good enough. We are currently in a relationship. The whole purpose of the benefits comes under the guise of a cooperative relationship. That is why.

Please come back and debate me when you can compete on my level.

[irrawnWab]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's discrimination. Why should I have to marry to get the same rights as everyone else? Clearly our word should be good enough. We are currently in a relationship. duh

It's not discrimination because the privileges and rights that come with marriage concerns the relationship between the two spouses - not that of two romantic partners who do not wish to enter into binding responsibilities of a legally contracted relationship (marriage).

[emuffette]

Originally posted by MrFun
Historically, and in many cases even today, polygamous relationships among heterosexuals have been about unequal power with the man in such relationships holding dominance and control over his wives. You can probably point out that there are examples today of polygamous relationships where the wives are supposedly on an equal footing with their husband but around the world, isn't the dominant pattern of polygamous relationships is that several women are beholden to their husband as subservient persons? That's not really an answer to the question, Fun. That's a reason why you find the type of relationship to be icky.

[jurnalkduo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not really an answer to the question, Fun. That's a reason why you find the type of relationship to be icky. So, we should extend legal protection of polygamous relationships to further the subordination of women to men since, according to you, that's not really a valid position for opposing legal recognition of polygamy?

[DavidShreder]

I'm asking you to provide a meaningful (rather than one's stemming from your own biases) reason why other groups (polyandrous groups and incestuous relationships) who have been denied equal rights and respect should be denied the same respect you seek now that some states are starting to change the definition of marriage in the pursuit of equal rights.

[flielagit]

Originally posted by Ninot
Please not that I said the idea of marriage was linked to biblical verses, not that it was created by them.

Also please note that in no way was I siding with Ben, I was just trying to jump to the point he was trying to make without all the silly back and forth.

Also please note that I think all these lady-weddings are awesome The men marriages too.

[jojocomok]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not really an answer to the question, Fun. That's a reason why you find the type of relationship to be icky. Actually that is a fine answer to your trolling; the state as well as society have reasons to insure their members aren't being abused by other citizenry. As to the rest, values change over time as I'm sure you're aware. It used to be okay to duel to the death. Maybe someday a future society will find polygamy acceptable again, for now it isn't.

[Dweplyododo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm asking you to provide a meaningful (rather than one's stemming from your own biases) reason why other groups (polyandrous groups and incestuous relationships) who have been denied equal rights and respect should be denied the same respect you seek now that some states are starting to change the definition of marriage in the pursuit of equal rights. Can you provide a meaningful reason why polyandrous groups should be denied marriage license based on your own beliefs?

If marriage is supposed to be about procriation, then there is nothing wrong with polyandrous marriages, and if the issue is Biblical, well, we all know polygamy was well accepted and practiced, and God never seemed to have a problem with it.

Like Provost Harrison said, I have no conceptual issues with polynadrous marriages - as long as they are non-abusive, why shouldn't they be allowed? They are certainly more complex than bilateral marriages, but only because of the number of people involved.

[realfan87]

So it's an issue of societal views? 70% of Americans don't support same sex marriage. Does that mean in your view that we should stop the rush of marriages currently going on in California until the idea becaomes more acceptable to sociaty at large?
You're trying very hard here, and that's admirable, but also a bit sad.

Only 36% don't believe gays deserve legal recognition for their partnerships.

Statistics are fun.

And a minority of Americans (49%) oppose gay marriage according to a poll on your site.

[Haremporblape]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
If we want to go by majority rule, doesn't that sorta lead to a tyrrany of the majority?

Y'know, a while back, over 50% of the population in America had regressive views on race, and thought it was okay to treat them differently. To be fair, in DinoDoc's own state this is still the case.

DinoDoc and his state are about 50 or 60 years socially behind the curve here. It's not DD's fault, it's just

[BruceQW]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
If we want to go by majority rule, doesn't that sorta lead to a tyrrany of the majority? I agree with you here. Tubbums made a poor arguement.

[DenisMoor]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
This has nothing to do with what I said. If you insist here's a little gem from the same site:

"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Should: 40% Should Not: 56% Unsure: 4%

5/8-11/08

[aceriscoolon]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
I don't think mass bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity should infringe on human rights. I didn't start that particular line of this arguement. Tubbums did.

[infelconi]

I'm sure there were some bigoted opponents to legalizing interracial marriage in 1950s who used the red herring approach of screaming about polygamy becoming the next thing to be legalized.