16-03-2005 13:49									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Gay marriage is between two adults. And traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is not traditional. I do wonder why homosexuals recoil when their rights are linked to polygamist rights. What is so wrong with polygamists? The fact of the matter is that allowing homosexuals to marry will open the door. There will be no exclusive club anymore and maybe groups like polygamists won't have to hide their faith and be able to get married like they used to. It seems like homosexuals just want themselves to go through the door and shut that door behind them.

Homosexual marriage is between two individuals, not more then that, so the point that religious nuts make about polygamists is void. That simple.

Allowing marriage to homosexuals will open the door? Here we go again with that cop-out argument. They said the same thing about inter-racial marriage. It just isn't true.

Again, homosexual marriage has nothing more to do with polygamy, then heterosexual marriage does.

So please stop with the reasoning errors. Don't compare me to a polygamist.

	16-03-2005 13:55									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Allowing marriage to homosexuals will open the door

Yes. Traditional marriage's door will be forever open to all who want the same rights that heterosexual couples have had for all these years. It, hopefully, will be the final nail in the coffin.

quote: Don't compare me to a polygamist.

So NOW it comes out. You are just bigoted towards polygamists. You want to open the door for yourself, but them close it before the polygamists can come in and have their rights vindicated...

	16-03-2005 13:57									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Allowing marriage to homosexuals will open the door Yes. Traditional marriage's door will be forever open to all who want the same rights that heterosexual couples have had for all these years. It, hopefully, will be the final nail in the coffin.

Traditional this, traditional that... if you were so traditional you would still be advocating burning people at the stake.

Personally, I'll say this homosexual marriage does not lead to anything else. The logical errors in your judgement is glaring.

quote: quote: Don't compare me to a polygamist. So NOW it comes out. You are just bigoted towards polygamists. You want to open the door for yourself, but them close it before the polygamists can come in and have their rights vindicated...

Damn it. I never said anything against polygamists. I said, personally, do not compare me to them because I do not do anything they do. Again your argument sucks.

	16-03-2005 14:19									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Traditional this, traditional that... if you were so traditional you would still be advocating burning people at the stake. Personally, I'll say this homosexual marriage does not lead to anything else. The logical errors in your judgement is glaring.

What is traditional marriage in our society? Is it not between a man and a woman? Is not homosexual marriage something different? If that is the case than how can traditional marriage hold the doors closed if another form of marriage is vindicated? Would it not have to allow those with perfectly valid marriage claims inside? How could it turn back polygamists? After all, they are kept out because they don't conform to the traditional marriage stereotype. It logically makes sense that once the conservative's keeping everything not considered traditional marriage is overcome, then other forms of marriage which have been subject to discrimination will overcome the barrier as well.

Like I said before, you want to break through the door, but then close it right behind you.

quote: I never said anything against polygamists. I said, personally, do not compare me to them because I do not do anything they do.

Do they not love like you love? Do they not what the same for their lovers as you want for your lover? Why do you hate polygamists so?

	16-03-2005 14:20									#65
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, really. Nor does it have to do with bestiality. Those are cop-outs that were typically used against inter-racial marriage. Total cop-outs. Gay marriage is between two adults, not more then two, and certainly not between a human and an animal. So your argument just doesn't hold.

Yo, G. You aren't keeping up with the plot.

Note. I state I'm for Gay marriage.
Note. I state that as long as being gay makes you a federally protected minority, that the feddies will eventually have to allow gay marriage under "equal protection.
Note. I state that other people will feel that they should be entitled to the same rights to marry whatever they choose.
Note. I never state that beastiality will be made legal. Just that some wackos that want to marry their animals will come forward and file papers to try.
Note. Once marriage is defined as a contract purely between 2 people, irregardless of sexual mix, then the polys will come out, and file papers to formalize their relationships. They will eventually win the same right as all other consenting adults. Equal protection will protect them (at least in "religious" cases).

You fall on your own sword on this. Again, the changes to many states to allow inter-racial marriages is the same laws that now protect same sex marriage. Alabama is an excellent example. One of the few states in the US were same sex marriage is legal. You just cannot find anyone there to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. However, if a court house in AL decided to start issuing them, they'd be legal. There isn't any law that could be invoked to invalidate the licenses. Unlike the case in SF, where California had a state law.

What other people will do, or try to do with the precendent, won't stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal. But if you are really that worried about polies, you should consider why you are being such a bigot. If 2 guys and 2 gals want to enter into a contractual, state sanctioned relationship making each other responsible for the others, what does it matter to you? As long as its all consenting adults involved, why should it matter to you? It shouldn't.

	16-03-2005 14:22									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What is traditional marriage in our society? Is it not between a man and a woman? Is not homosexual marriage something different? If that is the case than how can traditional marriage hold the doors closed if another form of marriage is vindicated? Would it not have to allow those with perfectly valid marriage claims inside? How could it turn back polygamists? After all, they are kept out because they don't conform to the traditional marriage stereotype. It logically makes sense that once the conservative's keeping everything not considered traditional marriage is overcome, then other forms of marriage which have been subject to discrimination will overcome the barrier as well.

So you are all for preventing homosexuals from getting married? Just answer that for me. Actually I don't really care if polygamists get married or not.. I don't really have a problem with it. I do however have a problem with people as yourself using the "well it opens up doors" argument against gay marriage. So no, you are shoving words into my mouth that i'm not saying. I never said anything against polygamy. I just said homosexuality has nothing to do with it.

quote: Do they not love like you love? Do they not what the same for their lovers as you want for your lover? Why do you hate polygamists so?

Again, I'm in love with one guy... not many. I don't have anything to say about someone having many lovers (except for the fact that's kinda mean because it is saying they aren't satisfied with just one.. but that's just my own standpoint). I don't care if they get married or not. Not my call. However I do think homosexual marriage should be legal because I just have as much right as you do to get married to another human being. I am afterall a citizen in this country too.

	16-03-2005 14:25									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar You fall on your own sword on this. Again, the changes to many states to allow inter-racial marriages is the same laws that now protect same sex marriage. Alabama is an excellent example. One of the few states in the US were same sex marriage is legal. You just cannot find anyone there to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. However, if a court house in AL decided to start issuing them, they'd be legal. There isn't any law that could be invoked to invalidate the licenses. Unlike the case in SF, where California had a state law.

Alabema? You must be kidding me? You mean Massaschusetts. That's the only state in the United States where it is legal to have a gay marriage.

quote: But if you are really that worried about polies, you should consider why you are being such a bigot.

Wait a minute how the **** am I a bigot?

quote: If 2 guys and 2 gals want to enter into a contractual, state sanctioned relationship making each other responsible for the others, what does it matter to you? As long as its all consenting adults involved, why should it matter to you? It shouldn't.

Because I'm gay.

	16-03-2005 14:39									#68
	Support Apolyton

Wrong. Alabama. In fact, there's a major bit of legislature trouble going on in Alabama because of it. It has come to the attention of certain minority community leaders in AL that Same Sex Marriage is 100% legal in Alabama. They are agitating for a constitutional ban to be put on the docket to specifically ban same sex marriages. That's to stop Alabama from being overran by gay marriage seekers and becoming the new gay mecca of the US. Never happen of course, but some people are just so phobic.

You are a bigot. You state "Because I'm gay" you are against them. So, you are worried your SO will emotionally blackmail you to accept his other man? You being gay should not make you against polies. It's completely unrelated, other then they, like you, practice a non-traditional marriage. Actually, they practice the oldest form of marriage known to man, one continuously practiced from at least 120K BC. However, puritanism pretty much stopped the acceptance of such arrangements in the Anglo influenced world. You know, the same movement that damned gays for not conforming to their standards.

If you have a legitamate reason to be against it, that's fine. But you should base it on something other then "because I'm gay". That's a total logic failure.

Last edited by Darkstar on 16-03-2005 at 14:46

	16-03-2005 14:51									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar Wrong. Alabama. In fact, there's a major bit of legislature trouble going on in Alabama because of it. It has come to the attention of certain minority community leaders in AL that Same Sex Marriage is 100% legal in Alabama. They are agitating for a constitutional ban to be put on the docket to specifically ban same sex marriages. That's to stop Alabama from being overran by gay marriage seekers and becoming the new gay mecca of the US. Never happen of course, but some people are just so phobic.

Okay I have no problem with it... I just did not know about Alabama because I have not seen anything in the newspapers or media. I didn't know. I only thought it was in Massachusetts.

quote: You are a bigot. You state "Because I'm gay" you are against them. So, you are worried your SO will emotionally blackmail you to accept his other man? You being gay should not make you against polies. It's completely unrelated, other then they, like you, practice a non-traditional marriage. Actually, they practice the oldest form of marriage known to man, one continuously practiced from at least 120K BC. However, puritanism pretty much stopped the acceptance of such arrangements in the Anglo influenced world. You know, the same movement that damned gays for not conforming to their standards.

WTF? I'm against gay marriage? I'm against gay people? How can you figure that one? Dude wtf? I have been arguing FOR (IN FAVOR OF) of gay marriage ever since I got into this thread. As far as polygamists go... I said it doesn't bother me if they have marriage. I didn't say anything against them. Again, it is your who is being the bigot here. You should try to attack someone's ideas when you actually know them. That'll help.

quote: If you have a legitamate reason to be against it, that's fine. But you should base it on something other then "because I'm gay". That's a total logic failure.

I never said I was against polygamist marriage. In fact I said it didn't bother me if they got married.. in fact I said that many times. Again, you are the one committing logical failures.. not me.. and you just don't pay attention to a damn thing I say.

	16-03-2005 15:11									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Giancarlo, is English your native language? I ask seriously. Please, re-read your posts. You state you are against Polys (quoting you)"because I am gay". If that isn't what you meant to post, you should clarify that. You are the one that is apparently having trouble reading. And perhaps posting. Is that a mistype on your part? An editting error?

You also jumped subjects. You stated clearly you were against polygamy, because you are gay. Not that you are against gay marriage. That, you state clearly that you are for. I presume that's (quoting you)"because I am gay".

Perhaps you should calm down? Are you actually posting what you think you are posting? Is there a Giancarlo to English translator available, or is that a cypher that isn't made available until I make my 100K post?

I'm just posting on what you posted. If you don't care what others do, you should clean up your posts. Or you will draw some more comments about it. It's just not logically connected as it currently stands.

	16-03-2005 21:24									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Republican Catholic judges seem to be taking the lead on this issue, which belies the smears of opponents of gay marriage that the issue is being driven by looney leftist judges.

Who are you, and hwat have you done with Ned?

	16-03-2005 21:28									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: So you are all for preventing homosexuals from getting married?

No.

quote: I don't have anything to say about someone having many lovers (except for the fact that's kinda mean because it is saying they aren't satisfied with just one.. but that's just my own standpoint).

Bigot .

	16-03-2005 21:29									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It seems like homosexuals just want themselves to go through the door and shut that door behind them.

No, they're just smart enough to realize that being linked with polygamy hurts their chances of gay marriage being recognized. So they artificially try and keep them seperate.

	16-03-2005 22:23									#74
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar Wrong. Alabama. In fact, there's a major bit of legislature trouble going on in Alabama because of it. It has come to the attention of certain minority community leaders in AL that Same Sex Marriage is 100% legal in Alabama. They are agitating for a constitutional ban to be put on the docket to specifically ban same sex marriages. That's to stop Alabama from being overran by gay marriage seekers and becoming the new gay mecca of the US. Never happen of course, but some people are just so phobic.

Oh, the irony!

	17-03-2005 00:01									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

well when marriage become some thing between 2 consenting adults gays can marry...if polygamists want to marry marriage should be changed in something between 2 or more people...

linking polygamy and gay marriage is nonsense because they are in general 2 seperate groups that want something...we can all agree that forbidding inter-racial marriage was stupid and rasict then why cant we do the same about forbidding gay marriage

but the shutting the door behind gay marriage is a stupid agrument...gay marriage has been legal in many other era`s...way before christianity...we all think marriage is a christian invention....WRONG...

	17-03-2005 00:05									#76
	Suffering from ads?

quote: we can all agree that forbidding inter-racial marriage was stupid and rasict then why cant we do the same about forbidding gay marriage

We are... inter-racial groups, homosexual groups, and polygamist groups are all correct in wanting to change the law. Simply because they are seperate groups doesn't mean they are not fighting for similar ends (and should be fighting for those ends).

quote: but the shutting the door behind gay marriage is a stupid agrument...gay marriage has been legal in many other era`s...way before christianity...we all think marriage is a christian invention....WRONG...

So has Polygamy. In fact, I'd say polygamy has been much more widespread than homosexual marriage in history.

	17-03-2005 00:25									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Perhaps one of the reasons people have a different response to polygamy is the association with child abuse that it has acquired.

This argument won't go anywhere because all of this depends on what you define as marriage. In the end it will be what people think 20 years from now that decides this issue, and I don't think court rulings at this point will have much effect on what the issue in the long run. The definition of marriage (two adults, or a man and a woman, or multiple people of any gender) isn't any more concrete than the opinions of the majority, and is subject to change as people continue to die and raise hippie children.

	17-03-2005 01:22									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Odin You conveniently leave out that Jesus told a rich guy that if he want's to go to heaven he must give away all his earthly belongings, or when he said that the meek will inheret the Earth. Good Christians, like my family (who would be categorized as religious progressives) would be FOR wealth redistrobution. My family would call you a sinner for your support of greed.

Giving away wealth is one thing. Taking it away is quite another. That is theft, which violates yet another commandment.

No, you socialists believe that wealth per se is "cruel." Al Gore used and still uses this phase constantly. Their is no ambiguity that the goal of socialism is to eliminate the wealthy -- as fast as possible. Why, when you get into total power, we begin to see long lines of the wealthy waiting their turn at the guillotine.

The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. The desire of the socialists to steal it from them though is.

	17-03-2005 01:28									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned

The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. [QUOTE]

The hell if it isn't

	17-03-2005 01:32									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

Now that's the Ned we know and love.

	17-03-2005 01:38									#81
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: No they won't, because those on the side of freedom will eventually prevail.

Not if people like you keep voting for the other side.

	17-03-2005 01:43									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Now that's the Ned we know and love.

Thanks Che.

On the polygamy issue, I dare say that it can still be outlawed under the rational of the court because the marriage of a spouse to a third person violates the essential "exclusivity" of the first marriage contract.

But, of course, this is unimportant in Islamic societies where women do not seem to have the same rights as men. There, men seem to have exclusive rights in their wives, but not the other way around.

	17-03-2005 01:58									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar Giancarlo, is English your native language? I ask seriously. Please, re-read your posts. You state you are against Polys (quoting you)"because I am gay". If that isn't what you meant to post, you should clarify that. You are the one that is apparently having trouble reading. And perhaps posting. Is that a mistype on your part? An editting error?

I thought you were referring to why I was in favor of gay marriage. Obviously it was a communication error on your part. I do not have against polygamists (don't use polys because that sounds like you are refering to posters here lol). I'm not a bigot. So stop accusing me of such. In this thread we are talking about gay marriage, not polygamy.

quote: You also jumped subjects. You stated clearly you were against polygamy, because you are gay. Not that you are against gay marriage. That, you state clearly that you are for. I presume that's (quoting you)"because I am gay".

I never said I was against polygamy. I said personally I don't care.. honestly, I don't care if someone has more then one wife or husband. But it is pretty mean to not be satisfied with one person. Now you are just being a jerk for making up my beliefs for me.

quote: Perhaps you should calm down? Are you actually posting what you think you are posting? Is there a Giancarlo to English translator available, or is that a cypher that isn't made available until I make my 100K post?

YOu are the one who should lay off the ad hominems. Everything I have made here is in clear english (despite a few mistakes that any human can make). I think you should calm down and stop attacking people personally.

quote: It's just not logically connected as it currently stands.

That's correct. Polygamy is not logically connected to gay marriage.

	17-03-2005 02:08									#84
	Support Apolyton

quote: On the polygamy issue, I dare say that it can still be outlawed under the rational of the court because the marriage of a spouse to a third person violates the essential "exclusivity" of the first marriage contract.

Actually, I bet that when polygamy is taken up by the court again, the Court will not be able to continue to say the state can make it illegal. Back in the 1870s, they used a 'rational basis' test for free exercise of religion. They don't use that test anymore for the free exercise clause.

	17-03-2005 02:50									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Giving away wealth is one thing. Taking it away is quite another. That is theft, which violates yet another commandment.

Taxes are not theft. Even the Bible says so. "Give unto Caesar"

quote: No, you socialists believe that wealth per se is "cruel." Al Gore used and still uses this phase constantly. Their is no ambiguity that the goal of socialism is to eliminate the wealthy -- as fast as possible. Why, when you get into total power, we begin to see long lines of the wealthy waiting their turn at the guillotine.

you have it backwards, the goal of socialism is to eliminate the poor

quote: The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. The desire of the socialists to steal it from them though is.

this is what we call, "****ed reasoning"...

	17-03-2005 02:55									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"the goal of socialism is to eliminate the poor"

If I were you sava, I would change the wording cause that kinda sounds like you get rid of them by force.

	17-03-2005 02:57									#87
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sava this is what we call, "****ed reasoning"...

	17-03-2005 02:58									#88
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo If I were you sava, I would change the wording cause that kinda sounds like you get rid of them by force.

interpretation is in the eye of the beholder... it's not surprising you read it that way...

	17-03-2005 02:59									#89
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sava interpretation is in the eye of the beholder... it's not surprising you read it that way...

Well suit yourself.. just don't come back whining to me when people interpret it differently then what you intended.

	17-03-2005 03:02									#90
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Well suit yourself.. just don't come back whining to me when people interpret it differently then what you intended.

I'm not responsible for other people's stupidity.