Should Polygamy be illegal?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

[DownWithTheLeft]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

[DownWithTheLeft]

So you oppose the right of old, infertile people to marry?

Should straight couples that get married and fail to produce children have their marriage license revoked?

As I mentioned before, there are multiple tenets of marriages, the most important being man/woman and reproduction, gay marriage meets neither while old-inferitle couples do.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

[DownWithTheLeft]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

Way to avoid Debate.

I was having a debate, then Earl broke out the "you must be gay card" to which the only response is "no I"m not", which would be followed by an Earl reponse of "yes you are", to be followed by many responses either in the negative or affirmative discussing my sexual orientation, which is not a debate worth having.  If Earl would have given a legit response, as usual, I would have responded to it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

[/quote]
Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

A slippery slope like giving women the vote?

No doubt "most people" did not want women to have the vote, at least respectable people they just don't think about that sort of thing.

Anyway wouldn't Polygamy be a rather slippery summit than a slope, all we would back to is a more ancient (in Western Europe\Anglosphere) form of relationships. But as you said "You must be living in the past".

Some things are necessary for a society to progress.  I believe all people should never be discriminated against for something they can control (women, minority, etc.), however, having a gay marraige does not fall under this realm.  People are all about pushing the boundaries, and the boundaries are being pushed way to far in my opinion.  I do not ask you to subscribe to my opinion, however, that is what it is.

[DownWithTheLeft]

DWTL, I was going to respond to your inane excuse for logic, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you type like an eight year old.

I wasted my time typing slower and reading over what I wrote, while that would be nothing short of a waste of time.  As long as my message is understood which in most cases it is.

[DownWithTheLeft]

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Why can't the goal to marriage be raising children, something a gay marriage could achieve?  We have enough people in this country as it is.

And why is marriage for procreation?  Explain.  Give a logical reason for this.  Why can't it just be for two people who love each other, like it is now?

I think a lot of the gay marriage debate is trying to mingle in all different emotions and feelings people have the issue, it isn't a clear cut issue that can decided using numbers and fancy equations.  It is an issue that someone usually feels one way or the other because a set of beliefs they have.  The "slippery slope" argument I had before was certainly valid, but my biggest objection to gay marriage is a personal belief that God intends for marriage to be between a man and a woman.  You can say "God shouldn't shape beliefs", but my belief is shaped on that and it is reprehensible for someone to tell me I shouldn't be able to believe that and fight that as much as my heart desires.  There is no reason I cannot object to something for the simple reason I find it morally reprehensible, if you would like to discuss civil unions I have much more mixed feelings on that.  However, the institution of marriage should no way be extended to gay people.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

Just because you don't like my argument does not make it wrong.  Certain beliefs, and for this issue on both sides, are nothing but personal ideals.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

Just because you don't like my argument does not make it wrong.  Certain beliefs, and for this issue on both sides, are nothing but personal ideals.

You're not making an argument. You're not providing any premises on which to base your conclusion, you're just stating your conclusion over and over again and plugging your ears.

Gay marriage provides all classic liberal arguments and finally number #1 has emerged, "I said it and I think I'm smarter so I must be right."  My reasoning is that not only is it morally reprehensible, but you open up the door to polygamy and other mockeries of marriage.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Then again, you are saying you feel it is a mockery so you must be right. That's why government should not marry people. We have opened the door to an artificial discourse where whinning actually constitutes  a real objective argument.

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

[DownWithTheLeft]

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

Dark blue Oregon, where, out of 100 voters, 51 will have voted for Kerry.  "Dark blue."  Right.

Your religion considers it a sin.  Stop playing moralist.  No one is being hurt by what they do except them, even in your religious views.  You may disagree with my morals, but that doesn't really mean what I believe in is less "moral" than you; just different.  It shouldn't be a point of attack.

I was referring to Oregon socially which is a liberal state.  While you believe no one else is hurt, Christians everywhere are spit on when they see the government show such blatent disrespect for morality.  An endorsement of one faith or belief is dangerous, and many who oppose the Catholic Church wishes for the government to supplant it with the United Church of Liberalism