What state will be LAST to legalize gay marriage?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CJOHN

BiSex how are you going to get the sperm you need if you get married? Adultry or adopt or STEAL SPERM or no children or from other gay?

Welcome back Uncle Han, errrrr Marshy, et al.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by urhuckleberry

Give me some good rational reasons why polygamy should be prohibited by law (other than the same religious reasons that are used to ban gay marriage)?

If it's all about separation of church and state. I don't see any difference between allowing gay marriage or polygamy. Historically, laws were passed banning both activities, based upon Judeo-Christian tenants. If we toss out all theology-based laws, it follows that we should throw them all out!

Horseshit. Theology has nothing to do with resistance to polygamy.

Polygamy fails in any modern society that tries it. In ancient times, where a very few rich noblemen could afford dozens of wives it might have passed by without causing too much social chaos. But that isn't the case any more.

If 25% of the men have 4 wives, the other 75% of the men have NO wives. it is a human want and need to have companionship. But if there are no marriageable women around, you have a lot of angry, lonely single men. And that is a recipe for disaster.

Worse yet, all those single men still have to pay taxes to support the education and healthcare of the children of the polygamist marriages - even though they have no children of their own.

In modern times, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one bullet makes four widows.

China has had an epidemic of gender selective abortions, with the result that about 10-15% of the female population is missing among younger people. That means tens of millions of men with no hope of family life. That is a bigger threat to peace than any other single factor. But whether the cause of a shortage of marriageable women is gender-selective abortion or polygamy, the end result is the same: a large population of lonely, angry men with NO stake in society.

The Saudis permit it, yet they regularly have to import Muslim women into the country from Indonesia, Africa, and Pakistan to make up for the shortfall of brides for Saudi man. But what happens if EVERY country is doing that? Then there are no sources of foreign brides.

The Mormon cults in Utah and elsewhere have a practice of throwing teenage boys out of the commune because they are competition for the older men seeking young wives. This is a problem that happened and continues to happen with Warren Jeffs group of LDS nuts in Texas. Fathers give in to pressure from other elder men of the group and throw their own sons out of the house once the boys start showing interest in girls. The only way for them to get back in is to find one or more brides on the outside and bring her/them into the cult.

In Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and many other polygamist societies, there is an outrageous amount of child molestation and rape - both of young girls and young boys. And those societies look the other way. They even lower the age of consent down to 12 or 13 years old and permit young girls to be sold in arranged marriages. All of that is the result of too many men with no sexual outlet because of polygamy.

So, there you have multiple rational reasons explaining why ploygamy is an awful practice that victimizes young men just as much as it victimizes young women. And I never ONCE has to resort to some bullshit ancient scriptures to provide a reason to oppose polygamy.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Horseshit. Theology has nothing to do with resistance to polygamy.

Polygamy fails in any modern society that tries it. In ancient times, where a very few rich noblemen could afford dozens of wives it might have passed by without causing too much social chaos. But that isn't the case any more.

If 25% of the men have 4 wives, the other 75% of the men have NO wives. it is a human want and need to have companionship. But if there are no marriageable women around, you have a lot of angry, lonely single men. And that is a recipe for disaster.

Worse yet, all those single men still have to pay taxes to support the education and healthcare of the children of the polygamist marriages - even though they have no children of their own.

In modern times, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one bullet makes four widows.

China has had an epidemic of gender selective abortions, with the result that about 10-15% of the female population is missing among younger people. That means tens of millions of men with no hope of family life. That is a bigger threat to peace than any other single factor. But whether the cause of a shortage of marriageable women is gender-selective abortion or polygamy, the end result is the same: a large population of lonely, angry men with NO stake in society.

The Saudis permit it, yet they regularly have to import Muslim women into the country from Indonesia, Africa, and Pakistan to make up for the shortfall of brides for Saudi man. But what happens if EVERY country is doing that? Then there are no sources of foreign brides.

The Mormon cults in Utah and elsewhere have a practice of throwing teenage boys out of the commune because they are competition for the older men seeking young wives. This is a problem that happened and continues to happen with Warren Jeffs group of LDS nuts in Texas. Fathers give in to pressure from other elder men of the group and throw their own sons out of the house once the boys start showing interest in girls. The only way for them to get back in is to find one or more brides on the outside and bring her/them into the cult.

In Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and many other polygamist societies, there is an outrageous amount of child molestation and rape - both of young girls and young boys. And those societies look the other way. They even lower the age of consent down to 12 or 13 years old and permit young girls to be sold in arranged marriages. All of that is the result of too many men with no sexual outlet because of polygamy.

So, there you have multiple rational reasons explaining why ploygamy is an awful practice that victimizes young men just as much as it victimizes young women. And I never ONCE has to resort to some bullshit ancient scriptures to provide a reason to oppose polygamy.

I think if we legalized prostitution and for every one prostitute serving eight men per day, that would make up for any poor guy that wasn't getting laid. And who is to say that one woman couldn't have four husbands?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I think if we legalized prostitution and for every one prostitute serving eight men per day, that would make up for any poor guy that wasn't getting laid.

That would make no difference. Having a wife is about FAR more than sex. A prostitute won't give you companionship. She won't give you children. She won't care for you when you are sick or in old age. She won't provide a family. She won't LOVE you. Those are human needs above and beyond simply getting laid.

And polygamy denies that to most men.

Originally Posted by nwarounder

And who is to say that one woman couldn't have four husbands?

The four husbands, that's who. I don't see men sharing on a wide spread basis. A lot of men will be hypocrites and want more than one wife, but very few will put up with sharing a wife.

I don't think women in polygamist marriages are happy to begin with. Most of them ended up there in arranged marriages. Many of the rest ended up there as a result of desperate economic circumstances. Very, very few are happy about the situation. They just put up with it to get security.

And the percentage of men that would put up with being one of several husbands are even smaller.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That would make no difference. Having a wife is about FAR more than sex. A prostitute won't give you companionship. She won't give you children. She won't care for you when you are sick or in old age. She won't provide a family. She won't LOVE you. Those are human needs above and beyond simply getting laid.

And polygamy denies that to most men.


The four husbands, that's who. I don't see men sharing on a wide spread basis. A lot of men will be hypocrites and want more than one wife, but very few will put up with sharing a wife.

I don't think women in polygamist marriages are happy to begin with. Most of them ended up there in arranged marriages. Many of the rest ended up there as a result of desperate economic circumstances. Very, very few are happy about the situation. They just put up with it to get security.

And the percentage of men that would put up with being one of several husbands are even smaller.

I understand what you are saying and agree to many of the points, but as the original question that was posed to you, it answers nothing in the way of why it should be prohibited by the government on a legal basis, or constitutionally. Unless the fallback is all this stuff may be bad for us, and we need them to prohibit it in order to protect us from ourselves.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

6:00 PM CST, opponents of gay marriage file an injunction with the Supreme Court to stop any futher gay marriages in California.


Told ya.

It appears that SC Justice Kennedy did not read JD's above referenced "told ya" so prediction. Otherwise he almost certainly would have ruled differently. Instead, Justice Kennedy rejected the injunction earlier today. Each passing day seems to yield another political disappointment for poor ol' Barley4Brains.

While on the subject of "disappointment," that particular word best describes JD's pitiful and dismal political existence.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...170036934.html

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I understand what you are saying and agree to many of the points, but as the original question that was posed to you, it answers nothing in the way of why it should be prohibited by the government on a legal basis, or constitutionally. Unless the fallback is all this stuff may be bad for us, and we need them to prohibit it in order to protect us from ourselves.

Why doesn't it answer it?

Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. And it is regulated by the state.

I think I laid out perfectly sound bases for NOT permitting polygamy and they have nothing to do with religion.

If a state cited those reasons for prohibiting polygamy, they will constitute a rational basis for prohibiting it. What grounds would there be for overturning it?

It doesn't discriminate on the basis of some immutable characteristic like race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

The law addresses the specific and actual harms to society that polygamy causes.

In contrast, there is no actual harm to society caused by gay marriage except to religious types who can't get over the "ick" factor.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I neither know nor care, but I hope South Carolina is the last state, in keeping with thier being the first state with the balls to succeed when they didn't like what was what.

That's "secede", not "succeed". In point of fact, South Carolina actually failed.

And by "they didn't like what was what" I assume you mean they didn't like the idea that blacks might soon be free? That they wouldn't be able to exploit other human beings any more? If so, is doesn't take balls to secede, it takes hatred and greed.

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Finally, it is perilous fallacy to think that a course of action is right just because it has been popular over the last fifteen years. That is still a fad, and rarely worth merit.

Do you really think that the people getting married are participating in a fad? Do you really think gay marriage is going to go away after a while?

People are still going to get sick and want to be visited by their same sex spouses. People are still going to die and leave estates that should be inherited by their same sex partner. And as long as they happens, there is going to be a need for marriage.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why doesn't it answer it?

Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. And it is regulated by the state.

I think I laid out perfectly sound bases for NOT permitting polygamy and they have nothing to do with religion.

If a state cited those reasons for prohibiting polygamy, they will constitute a rational basis for prohibiting it. What grounds would there be for overturning it?

It doesn't discriminate on the basis of some immutable characteristic like race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

The law addresses the specific and actual harms to society that polygamy causes.

In contrast, there is no actual harm to society caused by gay marriage except to religious types who can't get over the "ick" factor.

It is not just regulated by the states, there are several acts of congress prohibiting the same things gays were just permitted to receive, one being federal benefits. I agree the states should have the right to prohibit it, but I still haven't heard a legal basis for the federal government to prohibit it or discriminate against it.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

It is not just regulated by the states, there are several acts of congress prohibiting the same things gays were just permitted to receive, one being federal benefits. I agree the states should have the right to prohibit it, but I still haven't heard a legal basis for the federal government to prohibit it or discriminate against it.

The federal government probably does not have the power to prohibit polygamy.

But it does have the power to decide how it spends money - particularly benefits.

And I can't see a problem with a federal law that restricts benefits to ONE spouse. If only one worker is paying the FICA tax, I don't see why the feds cannot restrict benefit recipients to that worker and ONE spouse of that worker.

The one spouse rule doesn't discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

No one is born a polygamist. It is a choice you make. And there is no reason to expect society to pay for that personal choice.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The federal government probably does not have the power to prohibit polygamy.

But it does have the power to decide how it spends money - particularly benefits.

And I can't see a problem with a federal law that restricts benefits to ONE spouse. If only one worker is paying the FICA tax, I don't see why the feds cannot restrict benefit recipients to that worker and ONE spouse of that worker.

The one spouse rule doesn't discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

No one is born a polygamist. It is a choice you make. And there is no reason to expect society to pay for that personal choice.

Astroturf much?

Astroturfing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the type of advocacy. For the artificial grass, see AstroTurf.
Astroturfing refers to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.

LOLing you.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Astroturf much?

Astroturfing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the type of advocacy. For the artificial grass, see AstroTurf.
Astroturfing refers to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.

LOLing you.

Stooge. Listen up.

If you have to post a definition of "astroturf" every time you use the term, you probably shouldn't use it. If you think I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, just say it in plain English. Not internet jargon.

And then try to back it up with some facts. If you can.

Now brush your tooth and go to bed, hillbilly.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's "secede", not "succeed". In point of fact, South Carolina actually failed.

And by "they didn't like what was what" I assume you mean they didn't like the idea that blacks might soon be free? That they wouldn't be able to exploit other human beings any more? If so, is doesn't take balls to secede, it takes hatred and greed.


Do you really think that the people getting married are participating in a fad? Do you really think gay marriage is going to go away after a while?

People are still going to get sick and want to be visited by their same sex spouses. People are still going to die and leave estates that should be inherited by their same sex partner. And as long as they happens, there is going to be a need for marriage.

Thanks for the the heads' up on the spelling error, you got me there. While we are on grammar, your last sentence needs work.

It is unfortunate that one can't discuss secession or the confederate flag without being labeled a slavery minded racist. Nevertheless, I see great loss as states' rights fall to our massive federal government, and my post was in favor of an entity with the gumption to go their own, albeit wrong, way.

I did not say marriage was a fad. I did say and stand by the idea that anything that has seen a spike in popularity over the last 15 years is potentially a fad and too new to be considered tried and true. Especially these last 15 years, with the introduction of so much fast information. I believe the OP referred to that time frame.

I also said government should get out of marriage. Sure, I can see how laws need be in place to settle disputes, but I can also see how capitalist hooligans could pretend to be gay lovers for financial gain. That's what the laws are about, and gay folks that want to be married because they are in love should just do so. The national guard won't break in, snipers won't take out the flower tranny.

The financial bullshit can get worked out. If money is the reason for marriage, one is working the law for gain to begin with. And the health insurance issue is so fucked it isn't a credible influence on any other issue.

[JD Barleycorn]

Unbelievable! I put down fact and SSOB wants to argue with it. Hey, the sun came up this morning SSOB. Care to argue the point? Or are you just trying to make fun of the way I speak. Funny, I have heard that so many times. I talk over the heads of the local morons and they don't like it....do you SSOB?

As for something a couple of days ago (I've been gone): NWA was talking about the way government should be; the federal says one thing and the state says another or vice versa. The problem is that in California the people have the power and right to say what they want. They did and the state is saying that it doesn't count. Is that the way government is supposed to work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

52% of the population voting said yes to Prop 8 (or NO to gay marriage). 79% of the population voted. There were 300,000 invalid ballots so the yes's won by almost 5% or by the same percentage that Obama beat McCain.

[Yssup Rider]

The confederate flag represents secession, slavery and bigotry.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IT REPRESENTS?