|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 24, 2017 23:48:32 GMT
Before you tell me they're not, remember that actions speak louder than words. They lobbied for same sex marriage only, and to add insult to injury, they did it under the banner of "marriage equality" as if it were inclusive. Their whole political strategy is based on division, a powerless disenfranchised minority one moment, a large chunk of population with an ever expanding constituency of letters the next. But never a P for polygamy. Marriage used to be between one man and one woman. Now it's between two people, with the LGBTs completely unable to articulate why not two plus. It's still icky?
Polygamists are at least as notable as transsexuals, and if asked, you wouldn't have to scratch your head to come up with an example of unequal treatment for them. Transsexuals have nothing to agitate for, except that they have to pay for their own surgeries and think you should pay for them instead, which is criminally insane. Polygamists just want to be free to love. Why do we have to interfere? What do we get out of it?
Homosexuals tend to be very promiscuous. You would think multiple partners would be right up their alley. In fact, the same LGBT friendly Sex Ed professors who are teaching our kids about sex toys and anal, are also teaching about threesomes. Yet they shun polygamy. Can you say cognitive dissonance?
Discuss:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 2:22:36 GMT
...still not seeing how any of what you wrote equates to homosexuals being against polygamy.
Are you against polygamy? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 25, 2017 5:59:06 GMT
...still not seeing how any of what you wrote equates to homosexuals being against polygamy. Are you against polygamy? If so, why? You're posing in the LGBT section. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 10:53:53 GMT
...still not seeing how any of what you wrote equates to homosexuals being against polygamy. Are you against polygamy? If so, why? You're posing in the LGBT section. Your avatar has Trump in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 25, 2017 11:39:32 GMT
Before you tell me they're not, remember that actions speak louder than words. They lobbied for same sex marriage only, and to add insult to injury, they did it under the banner of "marriage equality" as if it were inclusive. Their whole political strategy is based on division, a powerless disenfranchised minority one moment, a large chunk of population with an ever expanding constituency of letters the next. But never a P for polygamy. Marriage used to be between one man and one woman. Now it's between two people, with the LGBTs completely unable to articulate why not two plus. It's still icky? Polygamists are at least as notable as transsexuals, and if asked, you wouldn't have to scratch your head to come up with an example of unequal treatment for them. Transsexuals have nothing to agitate for, except that they have to pay for their own surgeries and think you should pay for them instead, which is criminally insane. Polygamists just want to be free to love. Why do we have to interfere? What do we get out of it? Homosexuals tend to be very promiscuous. You would think multiple partners would be right up their alley. In fact, the same LGBT friendly Sex Ed professors who are teaching our kids about sex toys and anal, are also teaching about threesomes. Yet they shun polygamy. Can you say cognitive dissonance. Which homosexuals are against polygamy? Sound like you are just spewing up some warped rhetoric, to make some lame ass point to vilify homosexuals. And please don't even equate transsexuals with homosexuals, it has nothing to do with a persons sexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 25, 2017 11:48:12 GMT
Your whole first paragraph seems to be advocating reaching invalid conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 11:51:04 GMT
Call me old fashioned but I think love should only be between two people and I wouldn't share my Wifey with anybody just like I know she wouldn't share me 'cause she is mine and I am hers. 
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 25, 2017 20:50:47 GMT
I remember before same sex marriage was legalized, the main argument used in favor of it was that it would not lead to incest, pedophilia, bestiality. polygamy, etc... You guys are playing dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 25, 2017 22:49:10 GMT
Call me old fashioned but I think love should only be between two people and I wouldn't share my Wifey with anybody just like I know she wouldn't share me 'cause she is mine and I am hers. I had her last night. She wasn't as good as you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 25, 2017 22:52:54 GMT
I remember before same sex marriage was legalized, the main argument used in favor of it was that it would not lead to incest, pedophilia, bestiality. polygamy, etc... You guys are playing dumb. incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc... was already apparent before same sex marriage came onto the scene. Yes, you are dumb! |
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on May 26, 2017 5:07:50 GMT
I remember before same sex marriage was legalized, the main argument used in favor of it was that it would not lead to incest, pedophilia, bestiality. polygamy, etc... You guys are playing dumb. At least we're just playing  |
|
doivid
New Member
@doivid
Posts: 33
 
|
Post by doivid on May 26, 2017 11:05:29 GMT
Try to disguise the b8 a lil more next time.
lgbt ppl tend to be more in favor of poly relationships than non-lgbts, in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 26, 2017 16:34:52 GMT
I remember before same sex marriage was legalized, the main argument used in favor of it was that it would not lead to incest, pedophilia, bestiality. polygamy, etc... You guys are playing dumb. I'm afraid your memory isn't as accurate as you might think. Those examples you cite were never used as an argument - "main" or otherwise - in favor of same-sex marriages, but were instead employed by opponents as either scare tactics (along with ever more desperate ones such as marrying toasters or the destruction of "traditional" marriage, the family, democracy and civilization itself) or as equations to other things those opponents felt were perverse or dangerous. All these were mere distractions from the true "main argument used in favor of it:" laws restricting same-sex couples from the very same rights exercised by opposite-sex ones were discriminatory, and denied them their Constitutional equal protection under the law. That was the single, irrefutable issue. And that's why we won. The path to legal recognition of our unions was long and systematic, involving scores of court cases and legislative lobbying over decades. Those same judicial and legislative remedies are available to anyone wishing legal recognition of polygamous marriages, should they ever choose to pursue them. And it will then be up to them to make their cases, just as we made ours. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 27, 2017 21:11:45 GMT
I remember before same sex marriage was legalized, the main argument used in favor of it was that it would not lead to incest, pedophilia, bestiality. polygamy, etc... You guys are playing dumb. I'm afraid your memory isn't as accurate as you might think. Those examples you cite were never used as an argument - "main" or otherwise - in favor of same-sex marriages, but were instead employed by opponents as either scare tactics (along with ever more desperate ones such as marrying toasters or the destruction of "traditional" marriage, the family, democracy and civilization itself) or as equations to other things those opponents felt were perverse or dangerous. YOU felt those things were perverse or dangerous, when you guys promised same sex marriage would not lead to bestiality. Nobody said, "hey why not have bestiality, there's nothing wrong with it". You guys tried to use opposition to bestiality as common ground. Gibberish. Marriage is discrimination. That's all it is, married versus unmarried. A law against murder is discrimination. Your argument about discrimination is an argument for ABLOISHING marriage, NOT EXPANDING marriage. Again, you guys just grabbed a piece of the pie for yourselves and left everybody else hanging. Hence the logical argument that same sex marriage OUGHT to lead to human-toaster marriage. The only reason homosexuals got it instead of toasters is because you guys have more organized money and political power. This is the paradox of lobbying. Anyone who gets it doesn't really need it. Hold on a second. Heh, THIS is why you won. You are the establishment and you used your political power to subvert the will of the people. Even moonbat California voted down same sex marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on May 27, 2017 23:31:20 GMT
Is this guy really as dumb as he appears?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 27, 2017 23:49:11 GMT
I'm afraid your memory isn't as accurate as you might think. Those examples you cite were never used as an argument - "main" or otherwise - in favor of same-sex marriages, but were instead employed by opponents as either scare tactics (along with ever more desperate ones such as marrying toasters or the destruction of "traditional" marriage, the family, democracy and civilization itself) or as equations to other things those opponents felt were perverse or dangerous. YOU felt those things were perverse or dangerous, when you guys promised same sex marriage would not lead to bestiality. Nobody said, "hey why not have bestiality, there's nothing wrong with it". You guys tried to use opposition to bestiality as common ground. Again, your memory's not accurate. Neither bestiality nor polygamy nor any of those other items were central to any advocacy of same-sex marriage. They were introduced into the discussion only by opponents who were unable to debate the issue on its legal merits, and so - along with even wackier smoke screens like hurricanes, earthquakes or other phenomena visited upon civilization as so-called punishment - generated appropriate responses in spite of their hysterical nature. As a party to a 35-year relationship impacted by the debate, I paid very close attention over the years to everything relating to the issue, and those things were certainly never central to any such advocacy (much less as citations in any legislative or judicial action), and never dealt with other than as such responses, if only to point out the irrelevance and absurdity of their introduction. Gibberish. Marriage is discrimination. That's all it is, married versus unmarried. A law against murder is discrimination. Your argument about discrimination is an argument for ABLOISHING marriage, NOT EXPANDING marriage. If you wish to look at it that way. you're welcome to do so, although it seems an inoperative comparison: laws relating to murder apply indiscriminately to all citizens; until the SCOTUS ruling, that wasn't the case for all couples relating to marriage law. And that's an argument for expanding it. But you and any other citizens retain your right to remain free of marriage entirely if you choose. Again, you guys just grabbed a piece of the pie for yourselves and left everybody else hanging. "Everybody else?" Opposite-sex couples already had their "piece of the pie." Who else does that leave? Those wishing to marry siblings? Or children or pets or inanimate objects? You say we left them "hanging;" I ask, why should they be our responsibility? As I said before, they have the same legal and judicial remedies open to them. They have nothing to do with same-sex couples, and expecting us to address their problems as a requirement of solving ours was yet another smoke screen employed by opponents to obscure the issue. Hence the logical argument that same sex marriage OUGHT to lead to human-toaster marriage. The only reason homosexuals got it instead of toasters is because you guys have more organized money and political power. This is the paradox of lobbying. Anyone who gets it doesn't really need it. My husband and I have been legally married for only the past three of our 35 years together, and it's already benefited us in myriad ways; financial, legal and otherwise. You don't know us or our circumstances, so it seems presumptuous to proclaim that we don't "really need it." If you want to make an argument that nobody needs it as one against the entire legal concept of marriage, that would at least be one I could respect, regardless of whether I agreed with it. Last I heard, though, toasters and other inanimate objects possess no legal rights, so I really don't see how marrying them represents any "logical argument." Sorry 'bout that. Hold on a second. Heh, THIS is why you won. You are the establishment and you used your political power to subvert the will of the people. Even moonbat California voted down same sex marriage. "The establishment?" Again, if you want to look at it that way, fine; makes no difference to me. As long as the U.S. remains a nation of laws, "political power" is among the mechanisms by which those laws are crafted. But it wasn't purely political power that got us to the U.S. Supreme Court; it was that systematic process to which I referred earlier. And as was proper, the court ruled, among other things, that the Constitution prohibits "the will of the people" in the form of a state ballot initiative from restricting the rights of selected individuals or groups. The only way that could be overridden would be with a Constitutional amendment, which is a very unlikely possibility for the foreseeable future (certainly in my lifetime).
Here's my question you or anyone remaining opposed to that ruling: how has it harmed or affected you - or indeed should bother you - in any way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 28, 2017 0:49:23 GMT
...........Here's my question you or anyone remaining opposed to that ruling: how has it harmed or affected you - or indeed should bother you - in any way?
Because he thinks he is superior as a heterosexual and forgets that they are the ones doing the breeding and creating both homosexual and heterosexual beings. They go into denial, have blind expectations of what they think their children should be and have no freakin' clue about the damage they are causing. What a disappoint it must be for them to have gay children, who are not "normal".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 6:56:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 30, 2017 11:52:09 GMT
I had her last night. She wasn't as good as you.  I never heard somebody say that before but trust me, you wouldn't want me at the moment. I have been sick with the flu and spent most of the last 2 days in bed. No kissing anybody while you are contagious.  Pleased I made you laugh and hope you feel better soon enough. I had a flu shot about a month ago. Haven't had one before, so will see how that goes. Have still felt mildly icky at times though. Perhaps it is my body fighting off whatever virus, before it becomes full blown. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 4:59:54 GMT
I like how how last paragraph just lumps all homosexuals into one promiscuous group of heathens who like anal.
Short answer: gay couples have a diverse array of views like straight couples. Some are Christian and believe they're in a union with God, which only applies to two people.
|
|
