A long-time lesbian couple believe in the sanctity of marriage.

[Provost Harrison]

I must say I have no objections to polygamy if no one objects...I tire of religious bigots going on about how homosexuals can't marry. Quite frankly, they should mind their own damn business. What two consenting adults choose to do is their own business providing it doesn't harm anyone. And therefore there is no reason why they shouldn't marry. If the church doesn't want to marry them, they don't have to, but they should not be imposing on others what they can and can't do

[GePap]

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.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Theben
Actually that is a fine answer to your trolling;

Actually, it isn't. The state already allows people to enter into and stay in bad marriages already and if there is a case for abuse that is an issue for law enforcement and not the person officiating the marriage vows.

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.

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 becomes more acceptable to sociaty at large?

[Asher]

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.

[Q Classic]

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.

[Asher]

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

[DinoDoc]

I was under the impression that you considered civil unions (regardless of the benefits provided under such an arrangement) to be different from marriage, Asher. Therefore I saw no reason to count it as support for the concept of gay marriage.

[DinoDoc]

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.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I was under the impression that you considered civil unions (regardless of the benefits provided under such an arrangement) to be different from marriage, Asher. Therefore I saw no reason to count it as support for the concept of gay marriage.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

[DinoDoc]

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

[Asher]

Doesn't matter.

I don't think mass bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity should infringe on human rights.

I also think you're cherry picking stats. As I said, according to one of the recent polls on that site a minority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Stats say what you want them to say.

Your best approach now is to insist that now that gays can marry, next up is marrying farm animals and mothers. I see you've already started on that route.

Have you ever considered simply ****ing off and minding your own business?

All of the effort you and your ilk spend making sure gays can't be happy and on equal footing in society is a bit creepy. Move on. Shouldn't you be finding a wife instead of wasting time arguing why I can't marry my love?

[DinoDoc]

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.

[Theben]

No, you put words in my mouth. I said values change. I never said a 50%+ majority, based on citizen polling no less, is a requirement to enact new legislation.

Nice try, but you still lose. Again.

[MrFun]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

How the **** does whether or not the Bible contains anti-miscegenation passages have anything to do with my point about interracial couples valuing their relationship during their own past civil rights struggle?

Sanctity of marriage was never the issue. That's my point, you love blindingly throwing out that trope that the two are exactly the same, which is like me saying abortion is exactly like the holocaust.

The bible says nothing about miscegenation, but it does have provisions against homosexuality, which you seem to enjoy ignoring. How can Christianity bless that which is contrary to their own teachings?