CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Canadian government to study legal ramifications of polygamy People are twisting the gay marriage debate around and perverting it for their own gain. What really gets me is that these people think that because some act is in their religion, that act should be granted full legal status. I'm sorry, but if my religion says I should perform a live human sacrifice, can I get that recognized under the law? It's absurd. All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can have more than one spouse, how are people not being treated equally? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 What's so bad about polygamy?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I thought this thread was gonna be about Mexicans. Color me disappointed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Wha-? Rippers DISAPPOINTED?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I'm not quite sure what to think of all this. It seems ridiculous. Does that make me a hypocrite? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Eh, it's just a study. I'm sure some years from now Canada will bring it into the fold. If anything, it gives the anti-gay marriage people in the U.S. ammo to keep gay marriage illegal in the States by saying "see what happens when you let Bob and Tom marry?" And on a side note, I can't believe how offended I am by hearing a prayer at the inauguration right now. It makes me want to ... murder... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Frank_Nabbit Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Bob and Tom got married?, that will make their radio show that much funnier (not hard to do) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I hope Dr. Tom is not offended but I don't really want to marry him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I hope Dr. Tom is not offended but I don't really want to marry him. I am pretty sure that in the beginning he told you that he didn't want a "just sex" relationship and that he wanted to be sure that it was going somewhere. What you did was just plain dishonest bob, and now you have broken a good guys heart. i hope you are happy, you BASTARD. *runs off crying* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I'm not quite sure what to think of all this. It seems ridiculous. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. I didn't recall gays saying that it was their religious right to get married. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I hope Dr. Tom is not offended but I don't really want to marry him. Now you're just playing hard to get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can marry a person of the same sex, how are people not being treated equally? See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I'm not quite sure what to think of all this. It seems ridiculous. Does that make me a hypocrite? A bit, if you oppose polygamy between two....er, three consenting adults. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can marry a person of the same sex, how are people not being treated equally? See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. You're confusing the issue. How is there equality if people of one sexual orientation can marry, but people of the other cannot? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can marry a person of the same sex, how are people not being treated equally? See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. The easy argument against this is that the current marriage laws (regarding divorce, next-of-kin rights, tax deductions, etc) carry over perfectly well to the gay marriage situation. But how do you apply these for polygamy? It would require a total re-write of the laws, plus a bunch of decisions would have to be made (does only your first marriage "count"? or does everything get split up like a pizza?). I personally have no problem with people who want to be polygamists, but I don't think the marriage laws can accomodate them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Why does anyone think it's necessary to legislate what people do with their genitals in the privacy of their own homes? I still haven't heard one good argument against gay marriage that wasn't at heart based on religion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Clearly, nobody respects the cornholing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can marry a person of the same sex, how are people not being treated equally? See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. You're confusing the issue. How is there equality if people of one sexual orientation can marry, but people of the other cannot? Differences in sexual orientation or preference? That's not been shown yet, but either way, why can't someone who prefers to marry more then one person be denied when another man can marry a woman, or a man? How is there equality if some people can marry who they want, but if others want to marry more then one person, and they can't? What if all three (or four, or five) are perfectly happy together, and want to get married and can find a way to have the laws accomodate them? What's the problem in this? Why is it wrong for someone to marry more then one person, yet a person can change the definition to marry a person of the same sex? Why can't you change it again and change the laws to fit as such? I don't think I've ever had so many questions in one post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 All the law says is that everyone shall be treated equally. If no one can marry a person of the same sex, how are people not being treated equally? See how bad the logic is? Well, if this becomes a big deal, the real hypocrites will reveal themselves to be the people that were for gay marriage, and against this. I don't understand under which basis of logic can one be allowed and not the other. You're confusing the issue. How is there equality if people of one sexual orientation can marry, but people of the other cannot? Differences in sexual orientation or preference? That's not been shown yet, but either way, why can't someone who prefers to marry more then one person be denied when another man can marry a woman, or a man? How is there equality if some people can marry who they want, but if others want to marry more then one person, and they can't? What if all three (or four, or five) are perfectly happy together, and want to get married and can find a way to have the laws accomodate them? What's the problem in this? Why is it wrong for someone to marry more then one person, yet a person can change the definition to marry a person of the same sex? Why can't you change it again and change the laws to fit as such? I don't think I've ever had so many questions in one post. And they're all good ones. My main problem with this is the polygamists saying they have a "religious right" to have more than one spouse. If that's the main argument, they don't have a chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted January 20, 2005 This is so stupid. Saying gay marriage would open the door for polygamists (or man on dog sex if you're Rick Santorum) is just plain idiotic. Why, you say? Because even the laws that don't specifically state man and woman for marrige state TWO PEOPLE. This whole "gay marriage leads to *insert silly extreme*" is just a way for people to be against gay marriage without sounding like a homophobe. Besides, all the case law you need about polygamy should be in Utah when the Mormons had their case about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Report post Posted January 20, 2005 I don't give a shit if guys fuck each other, and I don't give a shit if 3 people fuck each other. In fact, I don't even give a shit if 3 guys fuck each other. Hell, I don't even care if people fuck animals. I can't think of a single sex act that shouldn't be legalized. if you disagree, please leave me your address so we can discuss it rationally, and then I can teabag you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 I don't give a shit if guys fuck each other, and I don't give a shit if 3 people fuck each other. In fact, I don't even give a shit if 3 guys fuck each other. Hell, I don't even care if people fuck animals. I can't think of a single sex act that shouldn't be legalized. if you disagree, please leave me your address so we can discuss it rationally, and then I can teabag you. I don't think people should be able to screw animals because it's not really consensual... and it's fricking horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 I can't think of a single sex act that shouldn't be legalized. Rape, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality all come to mind. if you disagree, please leave me your address so we can discuss it rationally, and then I can teabag you. Well darn, wouldn't you know it, I'm so absent-minded that I forgot my own address. You can look it up yourself though, my real name's George W. Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 You can look it up yourself though, my real name's George W. Bush. Well this is really odd. I thought you were Bill Clinton all this time. You've met him before, haven't you? With a title like "Fat Chick Thrilla," you must have seen him on a couple of occasions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Report post Posted January 21, 2005 ok actually Smitty and Jingus may have me on beastiality. Carry on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 ok actually Smitty and Jingus may have me on beastiality. Carry on. What about NAMBLA? You support that, too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 I think he means between consenting adults. At least I'm saying it for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Report post Posted January 21, 2005 well yeah. Sex crimes don't count. And frankly, I'm willing to let incest slide, provided it doesn't fall into the sex crime category. side note: NAMBLA is so completly ridiculous, I actually went over a year thinking that it was a joke, before someone explained to me that, no, seriously, there really is a NAMBLA. I mean they even have a logo for christ sake. It's the height of absurdity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 Incest is just about the only sexual activity that's been 100% scientifically proven to have disastrous results; just look at any portraits of the old Hapsburgs to see what inbreeding can give the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lando Griffin 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2005 Or just look at the British royal family. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
