It's a negative impact when your lifelong bigotry, which has always been seen as just dandy by society at large, suddenly becomes not okay, and makes you a target of scorn. The bitter taste of losing isn't very positive, either.
There's a certain erosion of quality of life when you sit in the dark corner of your own small world, stewing in your hatred and bigotry, pondering all the horrible, awful things that are surely occurring (the flamboyance! the fabulosity! the fucking!) that really have nothing to do with you, but that you just know are wrong, because Jesus.
They keep crawling out from under their beds! And they're in the kitchen, eating my wife's jam!!! Why doesn't Mr. Maulding do something before it's too late!!?
@9, exactly. Now they have to explain to their kids why they should still be little bigots even though society is increasingly accepting of marriage equality.
Public Policy Polling's tweets link here but the full results PDF doesn't have a question about marriage. I'd kind of like to see what they were asked and if there were follow ups.
Everyone in the lobster and fishing industry has been given invites as their fellow crew members got gay married, and you can only go to clambake weddings so often before all the days just start running together.
I have the same reaction to legalizing marriage for gays as I do for polygamists. Whatโs the big deal? Legalize it. Itโs kind of like arguing against giving women the vote because then women will want to enter the work force. (Horrors!)
@24 Thanks for that. @21 brought out my "super-confused" face since I was pretty sure, but had no immediate proof, that Dan had no problem with consensual polygamy.
In his 2012 dinner debate with NOM's Brian Brown, Savage was strongly *against* polygamy citing reasons such as destabilization of society and sexism (males get multiple females leaving some males frustrated, females in unequal roles).
But this Big Love picture is archaic. Today it equally could go the other way with poly relationships and all even out in the long run.
Dan should re-evolve on this, his 2006 piece was rational.
I can understand how he has to be careful not to undermine same-sex marriage movement and being pro polygamy might do more harm than good, but at least he could say "no opinion" on it.
The problem with polygamy is that whenever it is practiced on a large scale, it eventually ends with twelve year olds girls being handed out to old men to rape at their leisure, while the other "wives" do the housework.
Not that this will, or always happens, but the reluctance of society to approve of polygamy is basically because the above mentioned scenario happened, and continues to happen, a lot.
But I can see no intrinsic problem regarding people marrying how ever many people they want, as long as they can avoid the above scenarios, and everything is above board: no welfare cheating like the polygamist sect Mormons.
@28 in that debate, Dan said polygamy would have to be evaluated on its own merits in response to Brown's slippery slope argument. Dan listed a couple of things that might weigh against polygamy, as you listed, but I didn't get the sense that he was set against it. Just that it had negatives that gay marriage did not, and thus the slippery slope was a logical fallacy.
Just as how, to Sir John Middleton, the increase by two to the number of inhabitants of London was something, so to the 22% any reduction in the number of people who can be oppressed for no just cause is equally something.
@32: More like the traditional way that polygamy has worked throughout the world, across all of history.
Which has typically been that the rich and powerful got lots of wives as a show of how rich and powerful they are, with few other considerations for the people that those wives are.
And while I'd *like* to believe that wealthy actresses would collect many husbands just the same as their male counterparts, I seriously doubt that would play out that way for various reasons.
22% of those polled in Maine either had to realize that they were on the losing side of history or had to realize that they (and their antiquated notions of propriety) would be dead soon.
::listens to the stomping of angry feet::
Everyone in the lobster and fishing industry has been given invites as their fellow crew members got gay married, and you can only go to clambake weddings so often before all the days just start running together.
Also, there is a severe shortage of mimosas.
In his 2012 dinner debate with NOM's Brian Brown, Savage was strongly *against* polygamy citing reasons such as destabilization of society and sexism (males get multiple females leaving some males frustrated, females in unequal roles).
But this Big Love picture is archaic. Today it equally could go the other way with poly relationships and all even out in the long run.
Dan should re-evolve on this, his 2006 piece was rational.
I can understand how he has to be careful not to undermine same-sex marriage movement and being pro polygamy might do more harm than good, but at least he could say "no opinion" on it.
So I guess dan never devolved. Still, he could evolve, right?
Not that this will, or always happens, but the reluctance of society to approve of polygamy is basically because the above mentioned scenario happened, and continues to happen, a lot.
But I can see no intrinsic problem regarding people marrying how ever many people they want, as long as they can avoid the above scenarios, and everything is above board: no welfare cheating like the polygamist sect Mormons.
Hooray for the majority of my fellow Mainers!
Which has typically been that the rich and powerful got lots of wives as a show of how rich and powerful they are, with few other considerations for the people that those wives are.
And while I'd *like* to believe that wealthy actresses would collect many husbands just the same as their male counterparts, I seriously doubt that would play out that way for various reasons.