Ug.. couldn't watch the whole thing. This kind of hateful ignorance can really ruin my day. Fortunately he remedy is right here.

>> ^taranimator:

@therealblankman - so right you are.
I used to be more strident but over the years I've realized people's opinions change so slowly, if at all. So I pick and choose my battles.


Well, QM's a long-term pet project of mine. I sincerely doubt that he'll be able to make a return to humanity, but perhaps we can prevent other from following down the dark path he's chosen.

That's not predicated by the polygamy. People make the same argument for gay marriage - all the horror and gay disease that follows with gay marriage.

I can agree that polygamy provides an excuse for crazy people to do crazy things, like Porn also does (if we remember that discussion). It attracts the wrong crowd. That said, principally there's nothing wrong with polygamy.

Muslims have a funny sense of honor..
>> ^therealblankman:

@gwiz665
Personally I don't give two shits about whatever consenting adults do- sexually, maritally, orally, anally or whateverly. The problem with polygamy isn't the multiple spouses per se, it's what accompanies it, such as child abuse, the severe repression of women, and domestic violence.
Polygamy is a sensitive subject here in Canada and especially in BC. A recent case involving a polygamous Muslim marriage in Ontario went a little sideways when a man and his second wife actually murdered the first wife and her 3 daughters in some sick nasty "honour" thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders
In BC there has been an ongoing case involving a small Mormon community called Bountiful. The Polygamous men there have been trafficking in young pre-pubescent girls, marrying them and consummating those "marriages". Pretty fucked up stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia
It's pretty hard to support Polygamy when such consequences seem to follow naturally. The above examples are admittedly extreme, but hardly isolated or unprecedented.

Why is there a problem with 3 people being married? I don't see the problem, if all three want to be married - either all three to all three, or one with two others. In the end, it's about people. If they want to, then go nuts.

Marriage is a stupid convention anyways, a mincing of words, a contract by any other name is still a contract. And that's all it is.
>> ^quantumushroom:

You misunderstand my point, as well an intent. I don't 'hate' gays and will go so far as to say it appears there is biological evidence for homosexuality (aka born this way).
I'm not even against gay marriage per se.
What I am saying is here is the side effect 'you' will create by supporting legalized gay marriage, and that is that 'you' then have no grounds for keeping polygamy illegal. You are "hating" and discriminating against polygamists and others supporting 'plural marriage', including, ironically, gay polygamists.
I've brought this up before and some sifters had the temerity to say they support both gay marriage AND polygamy, or don't care either way.
I'm sorry you feel that way @taranimator and @therealblankman. I think by now, after years, you understand I'm not here to merely piss in the punchbowl. I don't see how bringing up a very valid point about a serious legal and societal issue is 'hate'. As lovely as this video may be, it's still political propaganda, because everything is political. Everything. It was like this before we all got here and will be like that long after we're gone.
@therealblankman A better analogy would be me warning you there are possible turds in the garden before you go a-strolling. You're now more informed about the consequences.
If you think I'm wrong, so be it. Defend your position. Why gay marriage but not plural marriage? Because in your heart you "know" gays are sincere but 3 people can't be in love?

Here's the Cory Booker video he refers to towards the end for those interested.

http://videosift.com/video/Mayor-Cory-Booker-On-NJ-Marriage-Equality-Referendum

I want to highlight that last statement the reporter made: "... the state includes New York City, with its worldwide prominence."

That's what makes this such a significant win. In a lot of ways, New York is the capitol of the world. (As a resident of Los Angeles, I hate to admit that.) Unlike with economic theory, cultural trickle-down is a real thing, and this will accelerate the process of bringing marriage equality to other regions.

Now if we could only settle the issue in California...

Testimony given for and against Maine's marriage equality bill on April 22, 2009. Nearly 4,000 people attended the hearing, with marriage equality supporters out-numbering the opposition 4 to 1. -YouTube

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.


I wasn't married in a church.

>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.


Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.

I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.

I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?
That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.
Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?
First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.
Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.
Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.
The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.
Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?
And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?
Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).
I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"
I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.

But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.
For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.


Everything you just said is totally wrong. This country has never been more aware of its roots and morality. We've never been more free, the future looks bright with this new president, and I foresee no problems in the next 4 to 8 years. Also, I hate my life and Oprah is hot.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?

First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.

Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.

Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.

Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?

And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?

Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.


But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.

For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no liberal fascism, you say? Then what is mexifornia?
Any time Californians make their voice heard, an activist judge simply throws it out. Why waste people's time voting if you're already a dictatorship?
Blacks were fighting for the same rights as Whites, gays are fighting to redefine the very definition of marriage.
I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".
Schwarzy is a worthless RINO. Enjoy your new 5 billion in tax hikes to pay for illegals, CA.


QM, I normally just ignore your comments, but you lobbed such a softie at us (and a very common one at that), that I couldn't resist.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people? Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality. Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.