Slog Comments
Congratulations, Maine
3
Of course, society is collapsing all around us in Washington state. Can't you see the panic in the streets?
4
My straight marriage is thrilled. Marriage for all who want it. Yay Maine.
(OK, maybe not "all". No goats, no polygamy. But regular two-person couples are fine with me.)
(OK, maybe not "all". No goats, no polygamy. But regular two-person couples are fine with me.)
5
@4
Your first exception is unnecessary, as goats are not considered capable of making the informed decision of wanting marriage, unless you redefine wanting marriage to eating blackberry bushes.
Your first exception is unnecessary, as goats are not considered capable of making the informed decision of wanting marriage, unless you redefine wanting marriage to eating blackberry bushes.
6
#2 and you know what else, for every 10 Hetero-marriages that a Gay couple's getting married destroys, that couple gets a toaster-oven. It's on page 315, paragraph 2 of The Agenda.
7
4
wear your bigotry proudly.
why do you deny polygamists their basic human rights?
why do you feel emboldened to brag about your prejudice on Slog?
wear your bigotry proudly.
why do you deny polygamists their basic human rights?
why do you feel emboldened to brag about your prejudice on Slog?
8
@6 - In my experience, toasters (and/or toaster-ovens) are specifically oriented towards the lesbian side of the Gay Agenda spectrum thingy.
And to the troll @7, as pained as I am to say it, I'm going to have to agree with your comment, sarcasm aside. I may not understand it, nor want it for myself, but if I truly believe that the government has NO business telling me who I may love/marry, then I must extend that same branch of logic to those that practice polygamy. It is an age-old practice that is still prevalent and legal in much of the world. If two (or eight) consenting adult women want to be "haremized", who am I to tell them that they are wrong? Now please go reread that word "consenting".
And to the troll @7, as pained as I am to say it, I'm going to have to agree with your comment, sarcasm aside. I may not understand it, nor want it for myself, but if I truly believe that the government has NO business telling me who I may love/marry, then I must extend that same branch of logic to those that practice polygamy. It is an age-old practice that is still prevalent and legal in much of the world. If two (or eight) consenting adult women want to be "haremized", who am I to tell them that they are wrong? Now please go reread that word "consenting".
9
@6 - Darn. I knew I should have chosen "Lesbian" when the time came to pick my sexual orientation. I could use a new toaster and/or toaster oven.
10
@8,
As a supporter of gay marriage, I have two reasons for opposing polygamy, and I'll let subsequent commenters call me on my bullshit.
The first is logistical: government and private industry offer numerous rights and benefits to a "spouse" and while it makes no difference in terms of cost or law whether that spouse is same-sex or opposite sex, multiple spouses throw the whole affair into disarray. I hate to say that bureaucracy and paperwork is a reason to deny people the right to marriage, but that's number one.
The second reason is history. In my understanding, polygamy is rarely the result of three (or more) people of equal power making a joint decision, but more often the result of one powerful person collecting spouses as property. Maybe I'm wrong and a number of bad apples should not spoil the institution for the possibly-existing groups that wish to enter such an arrangement, and if so, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong.
As a supporter of gay marriage, I have two reasons for opposing polygamy, and I'll let subsequent commenters call me on my bullshit.
The first is logistical: government and private industry offer numerous rights and benefits to a "spouse" and while it makes no difference in terms of cost or law whether that spouse is same-sex or opposite sex, multiple spouses throw the whole affair into disarray. I hate to say that bureaucracy and paperwork is a reason to deny people the right to marriage, but that's number one.
The second reason is history. In my understanding, polygamy is rarely the result of three (or more) people of equal power making a joint decision, but more often the result of one powerful person collecting spouses as property. Maybe I'm wrong and a number of bad apples should not spoil the institution for the possibly-existing groups that wish to enter such an arrangement, and if so, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong.
11
Yay, except for the gratuitous link to Goldy's previous essay, which did not bear repeating. Considering the number of same-sex couples waiting in the marriage license lines whose relationships have lasted a decade or more, Goldy should be asking for advice from these finally married couples, not offering it.
15
thanks for the marriage advice, Goldy.
under the circumstances, having a kid was a total asshole move.
but be sure to yuk it up....
under the circumstances, having a kid was a total asshole move.
but be sure to yuk it up....
16
10
Wow.
Perhaps some things should be kept to ones' self....
Government and private industry offer numerous rights and benefits to children. And whether there are no children or ten children in the household somehow the system seems to muddle on without the planet tipping off its axis....
And numerous countries and companies around the world manage the incredibly complex feat of administering benefits to polygamous families in the scores of nations where they are legal.
But where the Obama administration is concerned perhaps Democrap White Liberal paternalistic racism of lowered expectations makes that unimaginable....
The Slog is quick to assure us that heterosexual marriage has historically been an abuse exploitative relationship just a notch above chattel slavery but that didn't seem to keep folks from wanting to grant it to homosexuals.
It seems Prejudice and Ignorance really DO make people stupid....
Wow.
Perhaps some things should be kept to ones' self....
Government and private industry offer numerous rights and benefits to children. And whether there are no children or ten children in the household somehow the system seems to muddle on without the planet tipping off its axis....
And numerous countries and companies around the world manage the incredibly complex feat of administering benefits to polygamous families in the scores of nations where they are legal.
But where the Obama administration is concerned perhaps Democrap White Liberal paternalistic racism of lowered expectations makes that unimaginable....
The Slog is quick to assure us that heterosexual marriage has historically been an abuse exploitative relationship just a notch above chattel slavery but that didn't seem to keep folks from wanting to grant it to homosexuals.
It seems Prejudice and Ignorance really DO make people stupid....
17
@8, 16
You are absolutely right, and as soon as you found a polygamy equality organization, I will write a check. Be sure to alert all SLOG readers as soon as you choose a name and qualify for non- profit status.
You are absolutely right, and as soon as you found a polygamy equality organization, I will write a check. Be sure to alert all SLOG readers as soon as you choose a name and qualify for non- profit status.
18
#10
1. Bureaucracy/paperwork can't be changed? That has got to be the worst reason for denying a civil right I've ever heard.
2. You think the history of polygamy is bad? Read a little about the history of regular marriage.
1. Bureaucracy/paperwork can't be changed? That has got to be the worst reason for denying a civil right I've ever heard.
2. You think the history of polygamy is bad? Read a little about the history of regular marriage.
21
2
3
ha ha ha.
good ones.....
actually, however, homosexual "marriages" are the maggots that crawl out of the carcass of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Take Maine, for example:
in 1990 it had 9.7 marriages per 1000 population.
twenty short years later that had plunged 25% to 7.2
yikes
where do we send the flowers?...
but surely Maine is an aberration.
let's look at good ol' Massachusetts.
1990- 7.9 marriages per 1000 people
(oooh...already 20% below the national average)
by the time homosexuals were tying the knot that figure had PLUNGED 30%.
wait.
surely Washington State is better;
in 1990 9.5 per 1000.
twenty years later?
down THIRTY SEVEN percent to 6.....
please don't block the entrances, the hearse will be by in just a sec
3
ha ha ha.
good ones.....
actually, however, homosexual "marriages" are the maggots that crawl out of the carcass of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Take Maine, for example:
in 1990 it had 9.7 marriages per 1000 population.
twenty short years later that had plunged 25% to 7.2
yikes
where do we send the flowers?...
but surely Maine is an aberration.
let's look at good ol' Massachusetts.
1990- 7.9 marriages per 1000 people
(oooh...already 20% below the national average)
by the time homosexuals were tying the knot that figure had PLUNGED 30%.
wait.
surely Washington State is better;
in 1990 9.5 per 1000.
twenty years later?
down THIRTY SEVEN percent to 6.....
please don't block the entrances, the hearse will be by in just a sec
22
but!....but!.....
what about the ECONOMIC BOOM from gay "marriage"?
the flowers and cakes and strippers....
right. we forgot.
the floodgates were opened and demand built up since, well, since forever rushed what, 600 couples to the altar?
cha-ching!
alas.
if marriage rates were still what they were in 1990 there would be 6,200 more weddings than at present EVERY YEAR.
double alas....
gay 'marriage' is a tiny drop in the bucket of economic loss caused by the death of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
what about the ECONOMIC BOOM from gay "marriage"?
the flowers and cakes and strippers....
right. we forgot.
the floodgates were opened and demand built up since, well, since forever rushed what, 600 couples to the altar?
cha-ching!
alas.
if marriage rates were still what they were in 1990 there would be 6,200 more weddings than at present EVERY YEAR.
double alas....
gay 'marriage' is a tiny drop in the bucket of economic loss caused by the death of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
23
During the Christmas season I was in my brother's trailer with his 2 wives and 7 children. We were watching lots of Jerry Springer and since I don't own a TV I wasn't familiar with this show. Everyone on his show was heterosexual and they were having screaming arguments about their infidelities. So I think this is proof that opposite genders cause opposing relationships. This cannot be good for the children. Therefore I think heterosexuality should become illegal. Let's do this for the children.
27
@18 I'll take some shit too as the historical context of #10's 2nd argument does ring out.
I'm from Utah and a very good friend of mine escaped a poly compound when she was 13.
I'm all for marriages between however many people as long as they are equal partnerships, but that is not the context in which the discussion will be addressed currently. You want to create a poly rights organization? I will definitely contribute as long as you specify which poly rights those are.
Countries that currently allow Poly marriages are widely very misogynistic with a terrible history for women's rights.
These are things that the poly rights organizers will have to argue, and they are completely different then the hurdles of the LGBTQ community. That's why comparing the two have always been apples to oranges.
I'm from Utah and a very good friend of mine escaped a poly compound when she was 13.
I'm all for marriages between however many people as long as they are equal partnerships, but that is not the context in which the discussion will be addressed currently. You want to create a poly rights organization? I will definitely contribute as long as you specify which poly rights those are.
Countries that currently allow Poly marriages are widely very misogynistic with a terrible history for women's rights.
These are things that the poly rights organizers will have to argue, and they are completely different then the hurdles of the LGBTQ community. That's why comparing the two have always been apples to oranges.
29
28
oohhhh!
another witty comeback!
facts are so painful.
snark, like suicide, is painless.
and just as lethal in the long run to poor pathetic wienies who run from The Truth...
oohhhh!
another witty comeback!
facts are so painful.
snark, like suicide, is painless.
and just as lethal in the long run to poor pathetic wienies who run from The Truth...
Comments (31) RSS