View Poll Results: If you are for gay marriage are you pro bigamy too

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm pro gay marriage and pro bigamy too

    27 81.82%
  • I'm pro gay marriage anti bigamy

    6 18.18%
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 160

Thread: Should bigamy be legal

  1. #81
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    All the current research shows that children do best, all other things being equal, in a two parent home. The research also shows that the gender and orientation of those parents is irrelevant.
    That sounds like the same thing i just said. i am pretty sure i am missing something.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  2. #82
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    All the current research shows that children do best, all other things being equal, in a two parent home. The research also shows that the gender and orientation of those parents is irrelevant.
    Nevermind, I misread your the original post. I read it as kids do best in SSM homes. I was stating that sexual orientation didn't matter thinking you were saying SSM couples were better at raising kids. sorry.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  3. #83
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisshort View Post
    I don't understand the confusion on this, bigamy means bigamy.
    IMO, you phrased the question obtusely in order to get a desired result and 'prove' some nebulous point.

    In a nutshell, "bigamy" is when a person is married to two or people at the same time but none of the spouses know about each other. Bigamy is illegal. A type of fraud, if you will.

    "Polygamy" is when a person is married to two or more people at the same time, but everybody knows about it, and probably even live together as one big happy family. Polygamy is also currently illegal in most places, but does have significance in some religions, societies, etc.

    So, let's try again: Which one do you mean?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #84
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    bigamy..... would cause many economic problems for business.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Turns out you are correct,
    Full disclosure, didn't know about that one. I was thinking of the one a year or so ago in California.

    I do not see this. The battle is for SSM, not for something more.
    I understand that. You and I have discussed this before and we simply disagree.

    I think the gender issue is CLEARLY the stronger case of the two, even if you think the sexual orientation case is strong. There's zero question that gender is a middle teir issue, there's significant question as to whether sexual orientation should be anything above rational basis. I also think there's absolutely clear cut gender discrimination going on.

    The only reason I can think that would be a legitimate reason to NOT choose and go with the clearly stronger case with a designation that is clearly at a higher teir of protection is because the desire is not simply to win regarding same sex marriage, but to firmly establishes a higher level of scrutiny and protection given to sexual orientation. If that was not the primary, or at least equal, reason than it would make no sense not to go with the far simple, straight forward, and clearly higher tier case.

    I know we've disagreed on this one a bunch, but that's simply my take. I firmly and fully believe that by and large, within the core of the activist movement on the matter, it's not at all primarily about same sex marriage and is almost singularly about establishing sexual orientation as a highly protected status. They simply see this as the simplest and best chance to go about it. Now, as is the case with most political issue movements, the rank and file folks out in the world aren't likely thinking about it at that more in depth level and are just going along with what the political leaders and social swing says they should do.

    I understand this and was not trying to dismiss nor diminish your belief.
    I get that. Just wanted to make sure and clarify. Often people will make that claim as if somehow that means ones opinion on the matter can't possibly be different. I know that's not what you were actually suggesting.

  6. #86
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,306
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Full disclosure, didn't know about that one. I was thinking of the one a year or so ago in California.



    I understand that. You and I have discussed this before and we simply disagree.

    I think the gender issue is CLEARLY the stronger case of the two, even if you think the sexual orientation case is strong. There's zero question that gender is a middle teir issue, there's significant question as to whether sexual orientation should be anything above rational basis. I also think there's absolutely clear cut gender discrimination going on.

    The only reason I can think that would be a legitimate reason to NOT choose and go with the clearly stronger case with a designation that is clearly at a higher teir of protection is because the desire is not simply to win regarding same sex marriage, but to firmly establishes a higher level of scrutiny and protection given to sexual orientation. If that was not the primary, or at least equal, reason than it would make no sense not to go with the far simple, straight forward, and clearly higher tier case.

    I know we've disagreed on this one a bunch, but that's simply my take. I firmly and fully believe that by and large, within the core of the activist movement on the matter, it's not at all primarily about same sex marriage and is almost singularly about establishing sexual orientation as a highly protected status. They simply see this as the simplest and best chance to go about it. Now, as is the case with most political issue movements, the rank and file folks out in the world aren't likely thinking about it at that more in depth level and are just going along with what the political leaders and social swing says they should do.
    I agree that the gender discrimination case should e easy to make. However, I believe that the reasoning used is that orientation is clearly Rational Basis, and that is all that is really needed to overturn the laws in the courts. So far for the most part, the courts have agreed.

    I get that. Just wanted to make sure and clarify. Often people will make that claim as if somehow that means ones opinion on the matter can't possibly be different. I know that's not what you were actually suggesting.
    Should bigamy be legal-highfive-jpg
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I agree that the gender discrimination case should e easy to make. However, I believe that the reasoning used is that orientation is clearly Rational Basis, and that is all that is really needed to overturn the laws in the courts. So far for the most part, the courts have agreed.
    You need a ride home.

    Say you know there's a 95% shot that if you offer the guy you see on the street $10 bucks that he'll take you home. You also figure there's a 75% shot that if you offer him $5 he'll take you home. But if he doesn't take you home, you're pretty much stranded.

    Why would you possibly give only the $5 dollars, even if there's a good chance he'll do it for that, when you're almost positive you'll get that ride home by giving a little bit more? Why risk being strandard? It makes no sense unless you have a specific reason.

    That's my issue here. Going "Well, the rational basis argument is going to be good enough so we'll just go with that instead of the argument that would admittedly be easier and stronger" doesn't make logical sense. There's no logical reason to go with the worse argument, even if it's still a good argument, UNLESS you have an extra reason for doing so.

  8. #88
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,984

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisshort View Post
    If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.
    And to think it all started when we allowed people to marry outside their race! My gods how slippery the slope has become!
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #89
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,984

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    What on Earth are you babbling about? I have no interest in debating the positives, negatives or whatevers of the Warren Jeffs clan with you or anyone else.

    Don't worry about my post to him which had nothing to do with you, and wasn't a debate post.
    Please do not associate the rest of us poly with the FLDS and we'll not associate you with WBC.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #90
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,306
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should bigamy be legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You need a ride home.

    Say you know there's a 95% shot that if you offer the guy you see on the street $10 bucks that he'll take you home. You also figure there's a 75% shot that if you offer him $5 he'll take you home. But if he doesn't take you home, you're pretty much stranded.

    Why would you possibly give only the $5 dollars, even if there's a good chance he'll do it for that, when you're almost positive you'll get that ride home by giving a little bit more? Why risk being strandard? It makes no sense unless you have a specific reason.

    That's my issue here. Going "Well, the rational basis argument is going to be good enough so we'll just go with that instead of the argument that would admittedly be easier and stronger" doesn't make logical sense. There's no logical reason to go with the worse argument, even if it's still a good argument, UNLESS you have an extra reason for doing so.
    Because prior to SCOTUS, you can always offer the next guy 10 bucks. I would also argue that your percentages are pretty skewed. Gender discrimination, while to my mind is more correct, is alot harder sell to make to judges I strongly suspect. In a perfect world logic wins, always, but it isn't a perfect world, and giving people an easy way to duck the issue, or rule against it without ruling "against gays" is probably not something you want to do, especially when it could take years to "get home" if you fail.

    Edit: that first couple sentences came out way wrong and I got to run and no time to think about where I went wrong. Kinda disregard them please....
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •