Thread Rating:

AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 227
  • Posts: 12420
July 10th, 2015 at 5:52:37 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position?

Also, are most people who support legalizing polygamy also among gay marriage supporters or gay marriage opponents?

I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?



For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
July 10th, 2015 at 6:13:53 PM permalink
Are you people still bickering about this. You lost. Get over it! Get on with life. :)
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10306
July 10th, 2015 at 6:32:24 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position?



I haven't changed my position since I wrote this. Back in 2013 on same thread.

http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/15693-2016-election/50/#post299713

Quote:

I think terapined should reconsider. You have trailer trash getting married, serial murderers, the Kardashiians, welfare moms who may never hold a job, the Kardashians, (did I mention them). They all have questionable effects on the sanctity of marriage and possibly even harm to society.

As long as it's consenting ADULTS. Kids still can't consent as adults, and I think someone needs to prove animals can reason well enough to understand marriage before you can claim consent for them, so those two are still out. But the polygamists, I'm not sure why not as long as they don't marry children. They probably bring no more collective harm than many other people unfit to do much but breathe.

Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2344
July 10th, 2015 at 6:51:28 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"



Under any definition, giving rights to some people such as same-sex couples or polygamists, but not single people, is not fair. Nor is it a collapse of anything. It is an entrenchment of government discrimination.
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
July 10th, 2015 at 6:57:21 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Are you people still bickering about this. You lost. Get over it! Get on with life. :)



Ya know any of you 'righties' who are still obsessing over this gay marriage thing, really should wake up and move on. As 'righties' you have much bigger issues you should be concerned about, like how one guy who can't and won't win either the nomination or presidency is single handedly sinking your parties chances for the presidency. Not only is the situation becoming a disaster for this cycle, but it may take a REAL long time for 'ya'll' to recover from this clown.

I personally think he is a plant for the democrats, not sure if he is working on his own or who's idea this is/was. But I do know the Repubs have been caught totally of guard. In the beginning they just thought it would be an issue and story for a few days and then he would fade away as always, so they just tried to ignore him. Now they are not sure how to stop him from making a real mess of things.
Twirdman
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
July 10th, 2015 at 7:40:26 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"



We've redefined plenty of institutions and I hardly thing the world has devolved into bedlam like the conservatives keep claiming this redefinition will. Marriage has repeatedly been redefined throughout history with countries all over the world having many assorted customs including gay marriage and polygamy. Can we stop claiming that marriage was this institution handed down from on high that has never changed and was forever meant to be as it is today. I mean Robert's had this in his freaking dissent

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Anyone who knows anything about almost any of those cultures would find that statement laughable. Do you really think the marriage customs of the Han Chinese with their complex structure of concubine, their occasional same sex marriage, and the occurrence of ghost brides is even remotely related to modern day American marriage. The Bushmens marriage custom was also incredibly complex and nothing like modern American customs. The fact is not only are the people fighting for "traditional" marriage normally bigoted they have no historical perspective. I mean priest were not necessary for marriages until the Council of Trent in 1563, before then most marriage was simply by mutual agreement of the two marrying parties, then by the 17th century most protestant European countries had the state perform the duty of marriage.

Given history of cultures around the world performing homosexual marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, marriage of young children, complex concubine systems, and more rare practices like ghost brides what "tradition" are you actually protecting? Heck even if you just go with Abrahamic marriage you would still have polygamy, Levirate marriage, concubines, and marriage of young children. Also if we stick to Jesus divorce should be totally illegal.

Clearly marriage has been redefined plenty of times in the past; this newest redefinition is not going to be its death knell.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
July 10th, 2015 at 7:54:29 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Under any definition, giving rights to some people such as same-sex couples or polygamists, but not single people, is not fair. Nor is it a collapse of anything. It is an entrenchment of government discrimination.

What rights do singles not have that married people do? Single people don't even pay the marriage penalty on their incomes.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
July 10th, 2015 at 7:56:32 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position??

Depends on how you categorize Mormons.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
July 10th, 2015 at 7:59:45 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional.

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
July 10th, 2015 at 7:59:51 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional.

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.

  • Jump to: