- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,852
- Reaction score
- 30,122
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So we should judge all black people by gang bangers? All gay people by those who do the parade? Sorry blanket judgments don't work.
Since we can't truly discriminate against a "number" of people involved in a marriage, then there is no "separate but equal". There is no equal for everyone that might be involved in a polygamous marriage. You show me a way to guarantee everyone actually can be equal (and that means everyone), then it will work.
Also, then you must agree that those same sex couples who are/get married in a religious ceremony in the US now are also being discriminated against based on their religion, as well as their sex. Good to know that you now agree that same sex couples deserve to be in legal marriages.
Gangbangers are a small minority of black people (and are actually found in many other racial groups as well). Gays who are indecent in public (since not all those in gay pride parades are actually indecent in public) are a small minority of gay people as a whole (and, again, indecent straight people are out there too).
Polygamy marriages where the women are being oppressed and/or abused and not given all the same rights as the husband are the majority of polygamous marriages.
The small minority would be group marriages and/or any polygamous marriage where the wife/wives has the same rights and is treated the same as the husband/husbands, under the laws of the religion or the government where such marriages are legal.
I don't have to show anything, although it would not be that hard, I mean really.
But discrimination is OK as long as I you or I agree with it for whatever reason. So this argument has no validity at all.
Discrimination is OK, legally speaking, as long as there is a valid reason for it based on the rules of scrutiny of the 14th Amendment. That is what is being dealt with here. So if you want to claim that polygamy falls under the base of religious discrimination because those in certain religions can practice polygamy (although it is almost always polygyny that their religions allow, not polygamy as a whole), then it would hold true that those in certain religions also "practice" same sex marriage (they allow it to happen and some probably even teach that sex outside of a marriage is a sin, even among homosexuals). So both would fit into that level of scrutiny, and would both have to be judged under the strictest level of scrutiny.
I am not talking about SSM. How often do I have to tell you this? I am talking about polygamy and don't care how it does or will affect SSM, OK?
Don't care why someone is being discriminated against, just know according to you and everyone else it is OK as long as you agree with the reasoning. Makes it no less discrimination of course.
I will say this...
Out of all the people who posted you are the only one that made a really good case at any point. To bad you ignored it and just block posted.
Can't it be both?
Here is a post the I wrote about 2 years ago, identifying why polygamy is completely dissimilar to GM and why it should not be lega:
When it comes to adult individuals (consensual), all social unions are a right.
Link to page, please, otherwise you're hiding the responses you got from that post.
Hiding. Sounds like an accusation, Jerry. I'm hiding nothing. I archive posts in Word documents... something that YOU suggested I do. I don't know exatly where the post is. Feel free to comment on it in THIS thread.
It probably sounds like an accusation because it's an accusation. Link or you're running away from being smacked down on that thread by the Barron.
Baron's not here. You are. If you cannot debate the position yourself, then whatever happened when my post was originally posted concerns me not. Either discuss the issue or not. Your choice. You want to play some of your ridiculous games, you will not find a player in me.
I'm not the one quoting material without links.....
No links. It's my own material. I wrote it. Any sources are discussed in the post. So, you have a choice. Discuss it or not.
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
Here's where I'm coming from: you gave that post as a quote. Not in the context of being something you're saying now, but in the context as part of a previous discussion, like a sound clip. That's just fine, but just as I would demand a source had you provided a sound clip, so that everyone can access the while conversation, so is a link necessary now.
See, here's the thing:
We're not saying homosexuality is the same thing as polygamy.
We're saying that both are protected from discrimination under the law.
Just like when you people pipe up with "oh yeah but the bible forbids shellfish and mixed fabrics". You're not saying shellfish and mixed fabrics are the same as homosexuality, you're saying that all 3 are forbidden in biblical law.
Bringing up polygamy is a test to see if someone truly is for equality or if they're just presenting any argument which seems to work to get their way; just like when you people bring up random crap forbidden in scripture, you just want to see if we're cherry-picking. Same.....exact...thing. It's an integrity test.
So go ahead and reiterate how homosexuality is not polygamy. We already agree with that and then go on to bring up polygamy.
You know I do not argue from an equality position, but from a individual/family/society benefit position. To me, the equality argument is far weaker, and more self-serving, not how I view GM. You know this and have known this for more than 4 years. This is not our first rodeo. My post on polygamy takes an individual/family/society benefit position, not an equality position, so the discrimination argument has nothing to do with what I presented.
Well sure just like a diet rich in purines (shellfish) and fraud (mixed fabrics) have nothing to do with sodomy. But people will keep bringing these things up. We'll just have to live with it I suppose.
You must be a very fragile person if you think someone else's union harms you in any way.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?