World Events
Topic: Schwarzenegger To Oppose Same Sex Marriage Ban

#	Author	Message
41	Dabob2 Wed 4/16/2008 9:33a	<Nothing will prevent the broadening of the language to say multiple persons> Many things will, actually. <especially since the court cases are based on legal arguments for equal protection rather than any argument for an unique arrangement between two men or two women.> And that's one of the reasons. Equal protection. Being gay is intrinsic to the individual. Polygamy is merely a social arrangement. If a straight man is legally allowed one wife or multiple wives, intrinsically he is still straight. So the society can (and does) say that you can only have one legal spouse. But it effectively denies that to gay people currently. Allowing citizens who are gay to also have one legal spouse of their choosing is equal protection. Allowing gay or straight people multiple spouses has nothing to do with that, since polygamy is not intrinsic to any individual. <In other words, open the gate and people will walk through it.> No, they won't. It hasn't happened in any country that has allowed gay marriage, or effective gay marriage under another name.
42	EighthDwarf Wed 4/16/2008 1:04p	I think marriage only works if it's an exclusive contract. So man on man, woman on woman, hobbit on hobbit, etc.) I would love to see polygamy become legal (just to put the Mormons on the spot) but I doubt that'll happen.
43	woody Wed 4/16/2008 7:50p	>>Polygamy is merely a social arrangement.<< Wow, that was what they said about gay people a few decades ago. Gay is one thing. Gay marriage is where the arguments are now. Funny how you say polygamy is different.... >>Allowing gay or straight people multiple spouses has nothing to do with that, since polygamy is not intrinsic to any individual.<< Of course polygamy is intrinsic to the person and those that choose to enter into the arrangement have many ideas about how it works for them. You also defined it rather narrowly. Some have a more broad opinion of the situation like a bisexuality where a man might marry two women and the women themselves might consider themselves to be married to each other. Or two men and two women like a real foursome. You can't deny that this doesn't happen. And also in the previous posts, there's no legal argument against incest. While there is a argument against birth defects, the odds are quite low it will happen. In addition, there is absolutely no reason to prevent brother/brother or sister/sister marriage.
44	SingleParkPassholder Wed 4/16/2008 9:38p	I just can't take seriously arguments like woody's or other similarly themed crap. I get so sick of it. It avoids the real issue and goes for a merry ride down the imaginary slippery slope. Most states define a marriage (and I'm paraphrasing) as between an unmarried male over 18 and an unmarried female over 18. So, in order to properly accomodate gay marriage, it gets changed to two unmarried, non-blood related (or non-siblings) people over the age of 18. See how simple that is? No brothers and sisters, no multiple wives, no dogs and cats. Moreover, it survives any equal protection challenge. And of course polygamy is NOT intrinsic or inherent to the individual. Being gay certainly is, just like being straight is a built-in feature. Polygamy is an add on accessory, period.
45	DouglasDubh Wed 4/16/2008 9:55p	I just can't take seriously arguments like SPP's or other similarly themed crap. I get so sick of it. It dismisses real issues and merrily imagines there's not a real slippery slope.
46	SingleParkPassholder Wed 4/16/2008 10:05p	"I just can't take seriously arguments like SPP's or other similarly themed crap. I get so sick of it. It dismisses real issues and merrily imagines there's not a real slippery slope." Stow it. I'd have a lot more respect for people who aren't for gay marriage if they'd leave out the asinine arguments about polygamy and incest and animals. Own up and just say they don't like it because it creeps them out, or they can't relate to man/man or woman/woman, or their God refuses to allow it. All this superfluous stuff is indeed, crap, and adds nothing to a real discussion of the issues. But who am I talking to? Someone who once told me my marriage was worthless to society because I have no children.
47	SingleParkPassholder Wed 4/16/2008 10:07p	This bears repeating, courtesy of ecdc: It just cracks me up that, with the economy tanking, the war going badly, and Republicans divided over McCain, you can always count on Conservatives to pop up over gay marriage issues. They seem to slink away on those other kinds of issues, but so long as there's two people in love who want to get married, they'll be there to thwart it and decry it anyway they can!
48	DouglasDubh Wed 4/16/2008 10:09p	I'd have a lot more respect for people who are for gay marriage if they'd have more respect for the legitimate concerns and arguments of those who aren't. And go stow yourself.
49	DouglasDubh Wed 4/16/2008 10:11p	<This bears repeating, courtesy of ecdc> Why does it bear repeating? It wasn't true then, and isn't true now.
50	SingleParkPassholder Wed 4/16/2008 10:31p	"I'd have a lot more respect for people who are for gay marriage if they'd have more respect for the legitimate concerns and arguments of those who aren't." Remember how you always accuse me of popping up out of nowhere to start fights? And there's no way animals, incest and polygamy are legitimate concerns. No chance, no way, no how. At best it's a strawman argument, at worst it is the mantra of those who are probably worried someone will steal their sheep. I've said it countless times here. Come up with cogent legal arguments on the issue, because that's where this is ultimately going to be decided. Leave out the farm animals, leave out your fantasies about your sister, and leave out having multiple spouses when in all likelihood you can't take care of the one you have, anyway. Gay people don't deserve to be insulted this way. They deserve the same respect and accord society shows straights. What the hell is so hard about that???????

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-114

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney World discounts, Mickey's Christmas Party, Disneyland holiday changes, the Disney / Verizon announcement and Reader Mail plus the crew give their favorite Magic Kingdom attractions, Brent's Corner, Stump the Crew and everyone's favorite - the Captain's Challenge.

What's on
The Latest
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California
Disneyland Resort Horticulture Honored for Excellence in Landscaping
International Superstar Yanni Signs to Disney Pearl Series

Click here for The Latest