"Because people aren't born polygamists..." Sorry John, but whether you learn a behavior of mutual love and respect for the bonds with other human lives, you're still fucking human. I hate this shit that he spouts, the veiled hatred that conservatives jack off to with glee. The same hatred discriminating blacks used against gays... That's great...I love the support the gay community gets but not those that believe in alternative forms of marriage. It is funny that if read that another way, most people are born gay or straight. Essentially, if they aren't born that way and instead grow naturally into it, John thinks you're a pickle puffing faggot who doesn't deserve equality? I say that pissed off because homosexuals have always compared polygamy closer to bestiality than to their own sexual orientation. Its been laughed at. Haha. Fuck Stewart's views on this. I love him, but fuck his stupidity here.

I'm calling bullshit on your statement 'homosexuals have always compared polygamy closer to bestiality than to their own sexual orientation'.
Most homosexuals I've known have lived in what would be called polygamist relationships if they had been allowed to marry at the time. Certainly there are those that want a monogamous relationship with only one person, but far more seem to enjoy multiple sexual partners, often at the same time.
The difference... multiple adults can give consent, animals can't.

I'm just going to go ahead and say..., "What?"

Yeah, I'm going to echo @Sagemind and ask if you want to re-write that when you're not high.

I just had a literal LOL at that - kudos! So much funny in the world that it takes a real bawler to get a laugh out of me.

Srry, *on tv would have been better. All those in the media throw that lifestyle under the bus because the argument is used against them.

As Stewart, an open-minded liberal makes note, polygamists are not at all worthy of marriage equality like gays. Not even close--dismissive. I have often (more often than not) seen discussions on this matter where a conservative will say "Yeah, what next, marriage between animals, or multiple marriages?" The best response was from a gay man, although not alone, it was just asinine. "No, no one is saying THAT..." That, as in those two things compare how? It was his tone that said the most--"I completely agree."

As I told Newt, you can't argue with multiple marriages when you are just trying to legalize gay marriage right now. So when one side demeans it, the other either ignores or joins in. Classic, if you can't stop the bully, pick on his target.

Now that I have calmed down from that judgmental bullshit; better?

To play devil's advocate, there's a reasonable argument to be made that polygamists really aren't worthy of marriage equality.

His point is absolutely valid. People are born homosexual, people choose to be polygamous. It might be that as a society we make an arbitrary decision that polygamy is not ok. Maybe future generations will decide that it is ok.

Personally, I don't give a damn what consenting adults get up to, but I think it's pretty important not to let the issue of SSM equality get sidetracked by the orthogonal issue of polygamous marriage.

If you want to campaign for polygamous marriage, go for it, but I think it's reasonable to pick your battles and in the USA, change happens slowly. It was over a century from the emancipation proclamation to the Civil Rights Act.

I'll quite happily say that SSM is a more important (but unrelated) issue than polygamous marriage.

Polyamorous feelings are hardly learned. You only like one person at any given time? Lies. Not even speaking about SEX, which always seems to be the trigger word for our collective fears. Why does it come down to sex? Most of my romance is asexual, y'all (society, the royal y'all) are oversexed because you're afraid of your feelings. Either you can't free your feminine self or your masculine self because you are afraid or embarassed, or lack the ability to think beyond that into nonbinary worldviews. Removing negative values from sexual acts so that they become naturally flowing, and not repressed sudden bursts of violence. Practice being asexual around people you're deeply attracted to. Treat them like *gasp* people.

Group hugs, anyone? Holding hands in prayer? I can't be the only one that feels that built in polyamorous tingle, can I? Sporting collisions? Animals born in litters crawling all over each other. Ain't sexual, is just a deep rooted desire to be among life close up and in that shit; protected and secure; loved. Any concert goers out there like getting close to the stage? That's a lot of sweaty people you're being sandwiched between. I know not everyone likes these situations, but it's enough latent desire, again not just for sex, but to be VERY close with more than one other person.

Haha... anyway! It's not all about dirty, sexual acts. If someone I hardly knew asked me or my wife to hang out and tried to have group sex, it wouldn't work anyway. Friendship and asexual romance are higher powers of coexistence anyway; more honest, less messy and ancient mammalian.

But... what is so wrong with bonds that form out of such natural human need beyond the twosome -- also think of all the lonely people out there who you're depriving of human touch, and just because you irrationally believe it's wrong. Shame on society. Shame.

So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.

Erm, Stewart didn't say he was against marriage equality for polygamists... He was pointing out the polygamists, much like bisexuals, make a choice, as opposed to gays being born attracted to their own sex. That it's not comparing apples to apples as it were. I didn't see any specific condemnation of polygamists although the joke was at their expense.

Damnit, I had written a long response addressing your points, but it got lost somehow and I can't be bothered typing it all out again.

Basically, your arguments are all either irrelevant or wrong.
Definition of monogamy? Widely accepted as one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
Romans / Greeks? Irrelevant, paranoid, and wrong. (They had good and bad stuff).
Circumcision? Irrelevant.
Polygamy is learned? I never said that.
Monogamy is inconvenient for "damn near everyone"? Patently false. Also irrelevant... what does the convenience or otherwise of monogamy have to do with anything?

*Promote

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by christo351 because christo351 is not privileged - sorry.

The connotation is definitely there from the phrase he used. Gays deserve equal rights as same sex couples because they are born that way...leaves what to be implied about everyone else? That is not a joke...

"People choose to be polygamous" means people what polygamy? A-they are born that way? B-it just happens? Or C-Hrm, lets see...they must LEARN it. You specifically compared it with being born gay versus choosing (ie., learning something and then choosing it.) Whether this was intentional or not is...irrelevant...

Second, most of the stuff was meant to be irrelevant to the content but also explaining why I hate moral connotations from judgmental assholes. You twist that as though I related it to the video or used it directly against your argument--which I did not. If you didn't understand this, I am not sure how to spell out something so obvious, especially to someone as well-learned as you Chaos. Even if you didn't twist it, your constant poking at it was irrelevant to the argument, and makes your argument seem very petty.

Furthermore, the definition of monogamy is crafted in the best possible light for those "practicing it." They can sugar coat the shit all they want, but it's still shit. Basically they took the most convenient definition they could find and applied it. Remember, I said, "You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine." Keyword, "that's fine." So yeah, I agreed in a way that the common definition accepted by others is as you said--don't correct bullshit that didn't need correcting.

Lastly, Rome was an example of how history affects perception. Nothing paranoid about that. I think its bullshit, but it happens. It would be like saying that people hate persecution of Jews because of Nazis. In fact Israel can abuse Palestinians these days exactly because of the past. @newtboy was damn right about child rape and didn't need to use sarcasm. Yeah, Rome/Greece had some good and bad, absolutely. But all in all they were hated as a greedy, mass-murdering peoples who brought hell to their vanquished.

The Trump analogy should be more like comparing a businessman failing 3 business to trying to legitimize some criminal enterprise. The failed businessman is still legitimate and the criminal still isn't.


This decision is a rip in the American fabric equal to Roe VS Wade.

The key word is "implied". You're making a judgement based on what you have read in to his comments, not what was said...

And yes, polygamists have a choice. A gay man could be a polygamist as well, but he's always going to be gay. That should not be seen as criticism of polygamists (as long as everyone can legally consent, I don't see why the state should step in), but someone else made the slippery slope argument as in, if we allow same sex marriage, we open the flood gates. He is pointing out why that is a fallacious argument to withhold the right of SSM, not that we should extend the right to gays/lesbians only and not go further. You're shooting the guy pointing out what a ridiculous argument it is rather than the person promoting said argument, and then flailing at anyone who doesn't agree with you...

re. the second paragraph quoted below, that is your opinion of marriage and you are entitled to it, but the mistake you are making (the same that most conservatives who don't want gays to be able to get hitched let alone polygamists) is believing that your view is the last word on the situation. Ultimately, the right to be able to marry (in which ever configuration suits you, again, as long as everyone is legally consenting) should be up to you, and how others choose to define their love is none of your damn business. Once you start trying to define and dictate to others what their relationship is (or is not), how are you any different to the judgemental assholes you apparently abhor?

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

I got ya!

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, June 30th, 2015 8:46am PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

You are saying I ignored the subtext, but that would infer that what you interpret is in fact what is being written between the lines. Perhaps someone should ask Stewart what his position is on polygamists marrying prior to attacking him based on a subjective interpretation of what he said?

I have no cards in the game so to speak, I'm straight and "conventionally" married (for whatever that is worth), but I 100% support the right to marriage equality for people able to legally consent. I'm not a Stewart fanboy and I don't believe he is infallible, but I just do not see your interpretation in what was said (and what wasn't). We obviously have a difference of opinion, and think each other incorrect, but that's cool as well, we aren't required to agree. But saying 'it's completely obvious and if you don't see it my way, don't bother replying' is a cop out... Never mind adding Nazi's and an inferred cocksucking insult. You going for a world record of logical fallacies in one post? \= )

Irt marriage in general, my point wasn't that the institution itself was perfect, it's that every couple should be allowed to define their relationship on their own terms without anyone else stepping in to define it for them. Yes, it's a contract, but like any contract we choose to enter in to, we have to be satisfied by the terms of it. That it can be toxic is stating the obvious, but that's neither here nor there irt the topic at hand.

As to whether monogamy is a natural state, that's kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And my naughtiness? \= )

"but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it."

How is this not defining other people's relationships? That statement is pretty unequivocal. Not really much to be inferred there. ; )

It isn't defining other peoples relationships. It is defining something tangible based on a universal. But that's an old subject between us.

And I didn't coin the Nazi reference, nor the cockersucker one, in that those were oldie but goodies from Stewart himself as he made fun of conservative pundits, as was implied by the previous paragraph--almost spelled it out actually.

Also, you had quoted Chaos and I was saying directly to him that he had implied it was learned behavior. Now I am not sure...did you think I meant the Stewart video?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Lawdeedaw.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Mordhaus.