AX: Gay Rights page 2

actually i believe marriage is a religious right.

im sure accidentally perforating a colon would be quite serious.

On a willing participant. I am not willing to take the risk of being shot.

i believe marriage is a religious right.

You believe that inanimate objects deserve more rights than people?

That being the case, why is polygamy illegal?

Marriage is both religious and economic. Religions have the right to decide what they will call marriage, however, as far as the government is concerned, its a tax issue, as married couples have certain tax considerations that “life partners” do not. Marriage also exists in religions other then Christianity, some of which do not explicitly deny homosexuals from the practice.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

im sure accidentally perforating a colon would be quite serious.

On a willing participant. I am not willing to take the risk of being shot.

i believe marriage is a religious right.

You believe that inanimate objects deserve more rights than people?

you believe inanimate objects are capable of killing

Originally posted by Redem:

That being the case, why is polygamy illegal?

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

you believe in animate objects are capable of killing

No. I know for a fact that they facilitate the act.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

you believe in animate objects are capable of killing

No. I know for a fact that they facilitate the act.

i know my rights as an american should facilitate rights to own inanimate objects.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by Redem:

That being the case, why is polygamy illegal?

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

Polygamy generally interferes with a woman’s rights, as it generally refers to the practice of one man having many wives and thus gives more rights to men. If you treat it as a many to many situation, then there are still potential economic reasons to make (or keep, actually) it illegal. If nothing else, the tax paperwork would be a nightmare, just keeping the data of who is married to whom can get out of hand this way.

Nuclear weapons for all! They’re inanimate objects, right?

Originally posted by Jabor:

Nuclear weapons for all!

thats terrible im not so sure i really like the idea of something that powerful to begin with and no they are radioactive objects hardly inanimate they have half lives and such.

Originally posted by Jabor:

Nuclear weapons for all! They’re inanimate objects, right?

Nuclear material can kill without a humans action. Radioactive objects actually require certain action to be safe.

Conventional explosives are also particularly dangerous. Unlike guns, the average person can not be assumed to be qualified to handle explosives without putting himself or others at risk.

This is all off topic at this point, by the way.

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

Some do, some don’t. Generally depends on what reasoning they believe requires the legalisation of gay marriage. For some it’s a religious argument, in which case polygamy logically follows. for other’s it’s a gender/sexual equality argument, in which case the concept of marriage being between two people stays and polygamy does not necessarily follow, and of course if it’s an issue of gender equality they may consider polygamy to be degrading to women.

You will find both camps.

Gay marriage and polygamy are different. They have to be treated individually. If someone wants to make the case I will hear it, but you can’t bundle them together.

Originally posted by sotanaht:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by Redem:

That being the case, why is polygamy illegal?

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

Polygamy generally interferes with a woman’s rights, as it generally refers to the practice of one man having many wives and thus gives more rights to men. If you treat it as a many to many situation, then there are still potential economic reasons to make (or keep, actually) it illegal. If nothing else, the tax paperwork would be a nightmare, just keeping the data of who is married to whom can get out of hand this way.

The paper work for marriage is a nightmare already, it would make things easier to outlaw marriage. Im also not sure how it interferes with a woman’s rights if its a choice. Sure it can, but so can marriages now.

I still see no legitamate reason why I cannot marry more than one individual. I can’t have 2 people come to the hospital when im injured? One of my wives cant gain the tax benifits b/c im already married? Seems like discrimination to me

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

Whats the problem?

and of course if it’s an issue of gender equality they may consider polygamy to be degrading to women.

I don’t see how pure polygamy would be degrading.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Gay marriage and polygamy are different. They have to be treated individually. If someone wants to make the case I will hear it, but you can’t bundle them together.

they are differnt, but so is straight marriage and gay marriage… Why don’t you make a case of why gay marriage and polygamy should be treated individually but straight and gay marriage should not…

Why is polygamy degrading to women? I am not saying multiple women can marry a man, im saying multiple PEOPLE can marry someone… Thank you carados…

Originally posted by Carados:

those who support gay marriage should logically support polygamist marriages… Am I wrong here?

Whats the problem?

and of course if it’s an issue of gender equality they may consider polygamy to be degrading to women.

I don’t see how pure polygamy would be degrading.

In general, polygamy is used to refer to a situation in which a man has many wives. In most cases this would be considered degrading, or at least unfair, to the women involved. Cases where a man can have many wives, who each have many husbands simply get out of hand fast, leading to the general intermarriage of a large community.

they are differnt, but so is straight marriage and gay marriage… Why don’t you make a case of why gay marriage and polygamy should be treated individually but straight and gay marriage should not…

What? You aren’t understanding what I am saying.

Gay marriage and straight marriage are obviously different, though they should be granted equal protection under the law. Gay marriage and polygamy are different…should they both be granted equal treatment under the law?

That is what I am saying.

Unlike guns, the average person can not be assumed to be qualified to handle explosives without putting himself or others at risk.

You haven’t really justified that the average person can be assumed to handle firearms/firearm ammunition (which, I might add, contain explosive elements) without putting themselves or others at risk.

In general…

So you’re objecting to exploitative marriages. Those happen in monogamous marriages as well, you know.

Number one… its a frigging choice… Should having sex be outlawed because its degrading to women more often then men? Should saying “women suck” be outlawed because its degrading to women? These things are choices… Marrying the wrong man can be degrading too… With that being said…

Number two… polygamy would allow many men to marry a woman or many men to marry a man etc…

I don’t see how pure polygamy would be degrading.

Generally it’s only practised by the more repressive of religious groups in the west. That context making it degrading to women.

As a concept divorced from such contextual issues, it’s not in itself any different from normal marriage.

Originally posted by Jabor:

Unlike guns, the average person can not be assumed to be qualified to handle explosives without putting himself or others at risk.

You haven’t really justified that the average person can be assumed to handle firearms/firearm ammunition (which, I might add, contain explosive elements) without putting themselves or others at risk.

In general…

So you’re objecting to exploitative marriages. Those happen in monogamous marriages as well, you know.

The average child (age 10) could handle a modern firearm safely with about a minutes worth of instruction, not that I suggest you test that. That is because they have safeties, trigger guards, and should typically be kept unloaded. Children between 10 and 15 are often taught to fire real pistols, bb guns, and occasionally even own the latter. While there are occasional incidents, those are not common compared to the potential of incidents.

Bombs on the other hand, can be a problem if they are stored wrong or handled wrong, and there are very few legitimate reasons why an individual would have one, and none why they should have a nuke. Using one in all but the most carefully arrainged circumstances is suicidal, and causes far too much collateral damage.

Yes, I am objecting to exploitative marriages. Also, proper polygamy does not equalize rights, it simply adds new ones. I have no objection to polygamy itself, only the exploitative issue and the fact that if one man has three wives, who each have three husbands, who each have three wives (perhaps with some same sex pairs thrown in), its a marriage explosion.

Originally posted by darkninja210:

Originally posted by Jabor:

Nuclear weapons for all!

thats terrible im not so sure i really like the idea of something that powerful to begin with and no they are radioactive objects hardly inanimate they have half lives and such.

Did he really just say that?