Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Maybe a better choice of word would be "tolerated" or even "unenforced," just as with a major reported problem for civil unions.Quote: boymimboYou are in a formal polygamous relationship if you accept that you have multiple wives. Legally recognized, no. Allowed, yes.
Quote: boymimboYep, some homosexual activists want to make Bert and Ernie gay. These do not generalize to all gays.
It's like me saying "gun activists want to arm children". A few of them do. It probably doesn't represent the entire community.
My post didn't say every gay wants to do this so I am not sure why an intelligent person would assume implied so.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy post didn't say every gay wants to do this so I am not sure why an intelligent person would assume implied so.
You certainly did say, " Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years! They want to homophile the entire culture. This is why i have never bought the line that they just want tolerance.They demand acceptance and will swarm and attack anyone or anything that differs from their line"
Seems pretty clear you were grouping all gays together when you said the word gays and then referred to gays as them. You didn't say some of them. So either you're lying or you don't think all gays demand acceptance and swarm and attack and its just some gay people. Which is it?
Quote: s2dbakerYeah, you're not very good at this but the flailing fun to watch.
This could be said about just about everything you post.
When you think you've got a good point you're all business and serious. When someone pokes a hole or two in it (remember the auto plant shutdown that you were completely wrong about?) you go snarky and ridiculous. Or you just go (and hide until it blows over).
The rest of the time your posts are just snarky and ridiculous.
Your posting style is pretty much the definition of "not very good at this," but sadly the flailing isn't fun to watch, it's just pathetic. I honestly can't see why anyone opposed to you even bothers to engage, it's a complete waste of time.
Quote: boymimbo
The government can't stop *any* woman from having babies, but the government can ban the form of relationship (polygamy) because it's harmful to both women and children, which is exactly what the BC Supreme court ruled.
That's all well and good, but what do you believe?
Over at DT when we played the political survey game I came out the most moderate with a slight lean to the left. And I don't care what consenting adults do. I don't care if people, in any imaginable configuration, want to be in a civil union together. And I don't care if adult incest happens and those folks want to be in a civil union together.
So how about it? Anyone that agrees with the title of this thread, that this decision is "good news", sound off with your personal opinion about polygamy and adult incest. And if you're opposed to it, please let us know why you're ok with discriminating against those people.
I can't wait for the deafening silence of hypocrisy. Go ahead though, prove me wrong.
Adult incest? Is it really going to break out big time? I doubt it. It's about like worrying about leprosy in the U.S. It's kind of revolting, but I don't have to watch that either.
Abdon* Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus
Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David
Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon
Heman* Hosea* Ibzan* Issachar** Jacob
Jair* Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash
Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses
Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei*
Simeon Solomon Terah* Zedekiah Ziba*
Quote: rxwinePolygamy = not against. ("for" is like i'm gung ho, but there's lot's of stuff I'm neutral on, don't care what others do though)
So, you're not gung ho for people in love to not be discriminated against. Interesting.
Quote: rxwine
Adult incest? Is it really going to break out big time? I doubt it. It's about like worrying about leprosy in the U.S. It's kind of revolting, but I don't have to watch that either.
The "it can't be more than a small number of people" angle is a disgusting cop out. Gays represent only a small percentage of the population, are you saying it's ok to dismiss them too?
Quote: BeardgoatYou certainly did say, " Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years! They want to homophile the entire culture. This is why i have never bought the line that they just want tolerance.They demand acceptance and will swarm and attack anyone or anything that differs from their line"
Seems pretty clear you were grouping all gays together when you said the word gays and then referred to gays as them. You didn't say some of them. So either you're lying or you don't think all gays demand acceptance and swarm and attack and its just some gay people. Which is it?
I will say it again, an intelligent person should know how to read a statement and know the difference between "generally speaking" and "every last person in the group." They should also be able to know when a statement has an implied "some" in front of it. For an example of the later:
"Toyota cars are high quality."
Not totally true as the Tundra pick-up has had major frame-rust problems. But an intelligent reader sees what is implied.
Back to B&E, as of this morning a google search "Bert and Ernie Gay" yields 417,000 results. (point #1) Any person who pays attention to at least some popular culture will remember that there have been calls by gay activists to have them "come out" for years (point #2.) So an intelligent person takes point #1 and point #2 and understands that it is the leaders of the groups and at least a good part of the rank-and-file of the whole, the whole being the 1% of the general population that is gay.
I am not going to qualify each and every statement half a dozen ways because a small few people cannot make this connection themselves, for if they cannot make the connection they probably have little to add. This is true in the case of your reply. Instead of trying to make a counterpoint you attacked the writer (me) personally by accusing me of lumping 100% of the gay population in my point.
I will repeat the points I made earlier, and I will allow you to read them again, assuming you have read this post and understand how the point is being made:
1. Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years
2. This is part of gays trying to homophile the entire culture
3. If you do not fall into this homophile demand of acceptance they will swarm and attack
Now, if you wish to continue the conversation, please pick any or all points and rebut them directly. Remember, this is not a math thread where if it is once incorrect it is always incorrect, and finding one gay who does not want B&E to be gay makes my statement incorrect. Rather you must show how the behavior on the record is *not* trying to do what I stated. When you do that the discussion may continue, but if you want to continue saying "every gay does not feel this way" then you are adding nothing and it cannot continue. My guess is it will not because after the points I have just made is when the swarming usually begins but I would prefer an intelligent debate.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
The "it can't be more than a small number of people" angle is a disgusting cop out. Gays represent only a small percentage of the population, are you saying it's ok to dismiss them too?
I come across consensual adult incest so little, I only see it in the news once in a rare while. That's how little.
Quote: s2dbakerYeah, you're not very good at this but the flailing fun to watch.
Apparently you didn't read his sappy post. ;)
Quote: terapinedyou are probably going to hate me for it but here goes...The last time I actually cried was the fall of 2007...It was the night Obama got elected.
LOL!!!!
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYou're really disappointing me, you usually come across as a poster that thinks deeply, even at times when I disagree, this acting like s2dbaker is really beneath you.
Oh, I can be really flippant. You'll just be disappointed in the long run. Like negative EV.
Here's a story. Very nice people, man and woman, wholesome family, (not related by birth) decide to have a child. Their doctor finds something unusual, suggests some tests. Maybe an amniocentisis, sonogram, turns up something not so great. This baby is going to be born with some major defects. Couple decide they want the child. Continue the birth, and have the child. Perfectly acceptable; people even cheer this decision.
Second story - couple of not so approved nature, decide to get married. Not violent, bug no one. Some people want to throwup, when they see this couple together, they are so disgusted. Couple have some children. Children are not perfect either. Maybe one is deformed.
But still bug no one.
I see no problem with either story.
Wish I had more time, but won't be back until tomorrow. See ya for now.
Quote: Sabretom2Oh goodie, another discussion about queers. Wonder if Baldwin will get the same kind of treatment as Paulette dean.
Of course not. He's a die-hard lib, so he will get a pass. He'll probably get a little more criticism since his comments involved gays, but he'll still get a pass, nonetheless. We all know about that famous liberal double standard.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyThis could be said about just about everything you post.
When you think you've got a good point you're all business and serious. When someone pokes a hole or two in it (remember the auto plant shutdown that you were completely wrong about?) you go snarky and ridiculous. Or you just go (and hide until it blows over).
The rest of the time your posts are just snarky and ridiculous.
Your posting style is pretty much the definition of "not very good at this," but sadly the flailing isn't fun to watch, it's just pathetic. I honestly can't see why anyone opposed to you even bothers to engage, it's a complete waste of time.
+2
When you make the statement "Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for year", the statement is implied, AND completely untrue, because in an implied statement, "Gays" mean virtually all or most. I don't see the 30 million gay people wishing for Bert and Ernie to be gay, and I don't see a poll of gay people who want Bert and Ernie to be gay.
The muppets on Sesame Street are desexualized. None of them have had relationships, save Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, who are not on Sesame Street.
So your points are categoritically untrue, because you can't generalize a whole population, which, when you say "GAYS", identifies an entire population. Duh.
It's like me saying: the Dodge neon is a great car, Pennsylvania is hot, a natural blackjack pays 6:5, or the field bet on Craps pays 3:1 on a 12, or the pay table in 3-card poker is 1-4-6, all of which are in the distinct minority most of the time.
So be more accurate in your statements: "Some gay activists have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years", "This is part of some gay activists to homophile the entire culture", and so on and so forth, ALL OF WHICH I agree with. Otherwise, you're just being lazy. And since you know better, you're just being inflammatory on purpose.
---------------------------
On polygamy: I do not support legal polygamy, because it's been proven to be extremely harmful to women and children, much more so than any other kind of relationship. A WESTERN government would never support or endorse a relationship that harms children. That said, spousal abuse and child abuse are covered by the law. Moreover, it's accepted in many cultures throughout the world.
Therefore, I am indifferent to polygamous relationships. To a few people, it may be preferred. They may get into a situation where it is a preferred and loving situation between the three or more of them, and who am I to judge them? The law should take care of abuse cases. It's kind of the same as the gun ownership debate. Even though gun ownership is inheritently more dangerous than not owning a gun, we criminalize gun violence but not the ownership by itself.
But I am against legal recognition.
Quote: terapinedyou are probably going to hate me for it but here goes. The truth.
The last time I actually cried was the fall of 2007. And it was totally unexpected and it really surprised me. It was the night Obama got elected.[q/]
No, feel sorry for you. I almost cried, but for the right reason - the country elected an empty suit who would take us closer to ruin
Quote: boymimboWhen you make the statement "Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for year", the statement is implied, AND completely untrue, because in an implied statement, "Gays" mean virtually all or most.
C'mon now, I think most people here knew exactly what AZ meant. I think you did, too.
Quote: boymimbopolygamy...it's been proven to be extremely harmful to women and children
So are you implying that all women in multiple-person marriages are being harmed? The women in the show Sister Wives would be offended by your statement.
I can't be certain AZ doesn't mean exactly what he says. He often makes the most ridiculous sweeping and completely wrong statements about liberals. It is clear that he lives in a world on conspiracies and AM talk radio.Quote: Beethoven9thC'mon now, I think most people here knew exactly what AZ meant. I think you did, too.
Yet it bodes to increase, especially if someone or some law enforcers make a court case based on it.Quote: rxwineI come across consensual adult incest so little, I only see it in the news once in a rare while. That's how little.
The data to back up the statement are clear, abundant and longstanding. The figures, despite Ray LaHood's earnest efforts, are in the unmatched resale prices.Quote: boymimboIt's a little bit different, AZ when you say "Toyota cars are high quality", because there is data to back it up, yet it's not an accurate statement. Most Toyota cars are of high quality.
That can be taken to mean the polygamy should be construed like any analogous relationship. Why then should they be deprived of "legal recognition"? It would seem that if the unsourced reports of abuse and other problems are borne out, those are exactly the relationships that should receive all the protections that the state can manage.Quote: boymimboI am indifferent to polygamous relationships. To a few people, it may be preferred. They may get into a situation where it is a preferred and loving situation between the three or more of them, and who am I to judge them? The law should take care of abuse cases. It's kind of the same as the gun ownership debate. Even though gun ownership is inheritently more dangerous than not owning a gun, we criminalize gun violence but not the ownership by itself. But I am against legal recognition.
Oscar is a hottie! Not only is he green but he's artistic and appreciates Sondheim:Quote: kewljWhy would gay guys want to 'make' Bert and Ernie gay? They are both weird and goofy looking. Now the Cookie Monster....he's someone I could cuddle up with. :)
WOW, I can't believe they did that! Sesame Street busts out the real elite references sometimes.Quote: s2dbakerOscar is a hottie! Not only is he green but he's artistic and appreciates Sondheim:
Quote: AZDuffmanI will say it again, an intelligent person should know how to read a statement and know the difference between "generally speaking" and "every last person in the group." They should also be able to know when a statement has an implied "some" in front of it. For an example of the later:
"Toyota cars are high quality."
Not totally true as the Tundra pick-up has had major frame-rust problems. But an intelligent reader sees what is implied.
Back to B&E, as of this morning a google search "Bert and Ernie Gay" yields 417,000 results. (point #1) Any person who pays attention to at least some popular culture will remember that there have been calls by gay activists to have them "come out" for years (point #2.) So an intelligent person takes point #1 and point #2 and understands that it is the leaders of the groups and at least a good part of the rank-and-file of the whole, the whole being the 1% of the general population that is gay.
I am not going to qualify each and every statement half a dozen ways because a small few people cannot make this connection themselves, for if they cannot make the connection they probably have little to add. This is true in the case of your reply. Instead of trying to make a counterpoint you attacked the writer (me) personally by accusing me of lumping 100% of the gay population in my point.
I will repeat the points I made earlier, and I will allow you to read them again, assuming you have read this post and understand how the point is being made:
1. Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years
2. This is part of gays trying to homophile the entire culture
3. If you do not fall into this homophile demand of acceptance they will swarm and attack
Now, if you wish to continue the conversation, please pick any or all points and rebut them directly. Remember, this is not a math thread where if it is once incorrect it is always incorrect, and finding one gay who does not want B&E to be gay makes my statement incorrect. Rather you must show how the behavior on the record is *not* trying to do what I stated. When you do that the discussion may continue, but if you want to continue saying "every gay does not feel this way" then you are adding nothing and it cannot continue. My guess is it will not because after the points I have just made is when the swarming usually begins but I would prefer an intelligent debate.
If you want an intelligent debate it is impossible. You are trying to use your own short sighted views and call that intelligent discussion. Sure some gay people do want bert and ernie to get married. I know some people even demand acceptance and not just tolernance. Where youre wrong though is implying most gay people do this stuff. Most gay people dont give a crap if bert and ernie are gay. And most people arent all in your business demanding acceptance of you. Id challenge you to bring actual facts supporting your statements before we just consider your opinions to be fact. It's not my duty to discredit your opinion. In the real world people must prove their theories to be real before they are decided upon as facts. Ill give you an example of why the things you write are just your opinion/ flame. It's obvious you're not looking for an intelligent discussion. You're just looking to flame your opinion.
Republicans are murders
Republicans are racist
Republicans are rapists
Per your guidelines outlined above, now you must show the behavior I have mentioned regarding republicans is *not* what I have stated. Now if you challenge me by saying every republican doesn't do these things then you are adding nothing and this discussion cannot continue.
So now I have thrown out some blanket statements regarding republicans that are 100% true. Now unless you can prove that not all republicans are murderers, then I expect you'll have no rebuttals to my blanket statement. ( and this is where I claim if you can't prove all republicans aren't murderers than its not intelligent discussion)
Quote: rxwineI come across consensual adult incest so little, I only see it in the news once in a rare while. That's how little.
The issue is not even remotely about how often you "come across" any particular situation, but whether or not you feel it's ok to discriminate against some people in loving relationships and not others.
So, enough evasion, please answer the question. All other liberals and leftists (excluding s2dbaker, who does not add value to any discussion) are also encouraged to answer.
by pre schoolers? 4 year olds? Is this a stupid argument
or what.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeySo, enough evasion, please answer the question.
I find it quite amusing how so many libs in America justify gay marriage by citing "equal rights", yet they throw that whole argument out the window when it comes to equal rights for polygamists. Based on their own stated views, they could be called "bigots" for believing in equal rights for some but not for others.
Edit: So my limited research has found that being gay and having gay sex is not illegal. Incest and incestual sex is illegal. If it is not illegal to be gay, then gay people should have equal rights to be married. Since incestual relationships are illegal, I don't believe there is any reason to allow incestual marriage.
Edit 2: I am neither gay nor incestual. My point is that people that are not doing illegal things like being gay should have equal rights. People that are doing illegal things with incestual relationships should not be provided with equal rights In regard to marriage since its illegal in the first place.
Quote: BeardgoatIs being gay illegal? Is incest illegal?
Inaccurate questions. What you should be asking is: Is gay marriage illegal? Is incestuous marriage illegal? (Answers: Yes and yes)
The inconsistent people are the ones who want to legalize one but not the other.
Quote: BeardgoatValid point. But since being gay is not illegal I don't understand the logic of gay people not being allowed to get married.
Fair enough. I respect your views since you're trying to use solid arguments in favor of gay marriage. All too often (in my experience, at least), I come across scores and scores of gay marriage supporters who don't even attempt to back up their position with sound arguments. Seriously, like 90%+ of them. *headshake*
Quote: Beardgoat
Republicans are murders
Republicans are racist
Republicans are rapists
And I can say:
Democrats are murderers
Democrats are racists
Democrats are rapists
I don't see the connection to pointing out that gays have been calling out to make Bert and Ernie gay for years. I am still not going to re-write every sentence on a blog to pass a legal-review (I do that enough at work.) Please learn to understand how informal conversation works.
Quote: BeardgoatIncest and incestual sex is illegal.
This varies by jurisdiction, so your answer is not entirely correct.
And seriously, are you resting your argument on whether or not something is legal. Weak.
At one time it was legal to own other people, did that make it right? At one time it was illegal for women to vote, was that right?
Consider the foundation of your argument before you start building.
Quote: Beethoven9thInaccurate questions. What you should be asking is: Is gay marriage illegal?
No.
Quote: kewljWhy would gay guys want to 'make' Bert and Ernie gay? They are both weird and goofy looking. Now the Cookie Monster....he's someone I could cuddle up with. :)
I'm more of a Kermit the Frog kind of guy... ;)
Ok, AZ, so when you make statements, I will put the filter on. When you say a statement, I will preface a noun with the modifier "a few". That includes when you say 47% -- A few of the 47%.
I'll call my bank tomorrow and ask them some refund all of the interest I've been paying on my mortgage, as interest should apply only to "a little" of my principal.
Thank you and good night.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyThe issue is not even remotely about how often you "come across" any particular situation, but whether or not you feel it's ok to discriminate against some people in loving relationships and not others.
Sorry you're not the boss of the issue.
Quote:So, enough evasion, please answer the question. All other liberals and leftists (excluding s2dbaker, who does not add value to any discussion) are also encouraged to answer.
You're encouraged to answer yourself since you seem to want to make some point more badly than we do. I gave you an answer that you're not happy with. That's your problem, if you don't like it.
Quote: boymimboI do not support legal polygamy, because it's been proven to be extremely harmful to women and children, much more so than any other kind of relationship.
Polygamy is often wrapped up in religious trimmings. (Warren Jeffs). I myself, don't know if someone tried to study polygamy in and of itself, or forms of polygamy in cults and religions where it maybe is best known (at least by me).
You can probably see why one would probably have more troubling outcomes when you have a guy issuing lifestyle arrangements basically without consultation.
I can't remember where I read this, so I'll assume it may not be necessarily true. (could be even fiction, I forget what I've read sometimes) Warring tribes who lost many of their young men used polygamy to allow some honor among the widows left, because they needed them to produce children, and these young widows were still fertile. So, some high muckymuck blessed the situation and said it was OK. Problem solved.
Quote: NareedQuote: Beethoven9th
Inaccurate questions. What you should be asking is: Is gay marriage illegal?
No.
Still unconstitutional in Wisconsin.
For now. Give us some time to find a judge to throw that out too. It won't take long.Quote: CalderStill unconstitutional in Wisconsin.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyThis varies by jurisdiction, so your answer is not entirely correct.
And seriously, are you resting your argument on whether or not something is legal. Weak.
At one time it was legal to own other people, did that make it right? At one time it was illegal for women to vote, was that right?
Consider the foundation of your argument before you start building.
2 way street man. If you say incest is legal then gay marriage is legal ( in 13 ish states ) . And since I don't have any religious views I do take into account wether things are legal or illegal prior to considering the situation.
And you're right, at one time it was legal to own people and to not allow women to vote. And then most rational people said that doesn't really seem like equality. So they changed it. Much like I don't think gay marriage has equal rights when compared to heterosexual couples. So what is happening? The rational people see the discrimination and are changing it
Quote: rxwineSorry you're not the boss of the issue.
I understand, answering would tend to make you look like a hypocrite so you're opting out.
Quote: rxwine
You're encouraged to answer yourself since you seem to want to make some point more badly than we do.
I already have, several times. I have said I have no problem with gay civil unions, polygamist civil unions, or incestuous civil unions. Consenting adults and all that. Surely you recall trying to nail me with that. Too bad you don't have the courage of your convictions on the 'gay' issue to stand up and say you're against all forms of discrimination.
Quote: rxwineI gave you an answer that you're not happy with. That's your problem, if you don't like it.
I "don't like it" because you haven't answered the question at all, you've essentially refused to answer on the basis that occurrences of the situation in question aren't ubiquitous. Your refusal to take a stand against discrimination is why, even though I identify as more liberal than conservative, I can hardly stand most liberals, the hypocrisy is sickening. Some (many?) conservative ideas are repugnant to me, but at least they say what they mean and mean what they say, and that I can respect.
Quote: Beardgoat2 way street man. If you say incest is legal then gay marriage is legal ( in 13 ish states ) . And since I don't have any religious views I do take into account wether things are legal or illegal prior to considering the situation.
I'm at a loss for how any of the above is germane to the discussion, but... um, ok.
Quote: Beardgoat
And you're right, at one time it was legal to own people and to not allow women to vote. And then most rational people said that doesn't really seem like equality. So they changed it. Much like I don't think gay marriage has equal rights when compared to heterosexual couples. So what is happening? The rational people see the discrimination and are changing it
So... are you saying that you're in favor or allowing polygamist groups and participants in adult incest to have marriage-like rights because to do otherwise would be discrimination, or... what? You didn't seem to say much of anything.
I don't play by rules as you define them. That is the courage of my convictions.
I am not interested in how you want me to answer. If you don't find answers to your liking, then find someone else to ask.
But then later on, he claimed that he answered my question and that I just didn't like his answer! LOL!
