Incest and polygamy...I thought you were just, you know, making a joke, until I followed the link:

"If we remove the gender requirement for marriage, there is no rational basis to define the number,” he said. “So we open up the possibility of the constitutional recognition of polygamous relationships."

Was he dropped on his head as a child? How do you get from gender to number? It's been pretty straightforward that you only get to marry one person at a time, regardless of gender. That's like saying, "well if we start giving gays driver's licenses, next thing you know, they'll be trying to fly planes, it's a slippery slope. WTF?
The proposal not only bans marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

So, as usual, the "we're not bigots, we don't hate gays, we only want to preserve the sanctity of marriage!" line is bullshit.

How sad. What a sad group of haters.
@1 I want to fly a plane. /fatuousness

Associating married gays with polygamy and incest is a decades old argument. Or at least one decade if not more. So passe and cliche.

What happened to you Iowa? You used to be cool, man. Now, I dunno anymore. Nope, not anymore.
Why not legalize polygamy? If sex positive liberals are for open marriages, why not 3 or more person marriages..
isn't a solid commitment to mulitple partners you love just as, important and "sacred" as one you make through marriage to a single partner?
Is it too soon to actually be asking the question: What in the world is wrong with allowing more than two people to join in marriage? How does this hurt anyone at all? And oh man, I am going to go there...incest is taboo and yes, birth defects, but it isn't like keeping first cousins- or anyone- from marrying is going to keep them from procreating- and if they do procreate, isn't it better for their children that their parents have the legal rights and stability associated with marriage?
@3 ....a biplane? ;)

This is good opportunity for gays and their supporters to promote a ban on High Fructose Corn Syrup.


Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" if you think that polygamy is inherently victimless. Then rethink your position.
Dammit, marriage is a civil contract between two people that confers lots of benefits that only work for two people, like inheritence and insurance and limited power of attorney and parenthood and tax breaks. If you throw another person or two in there, the math goes all to hell.
Can anyone tell me what Zach says? I spotted this clip yesterday, but the auto caption is... um... creative (I really like what it did with his closing sentence, but I really doubt that's what he said...)

This young man was a very eloquent and courageous speaker. Before the comments of this post focus purely on the content of the law, for one minute perhaps we should recognize and appreciate this young man's bravery to, at 19 years old, stand up to his government and speak on behalf of so many.
It astounds me that their legislature can watch this kid, and then pass the ban (on virtually any kind of gay relationship, not just "marriage"!!!). Every republican voted for the ban without a single exception.

This is why GOProud is totally full of shit.
@5 it's more complicated than that because the legal aspect of civil unions/marriage deals with things like shared assets, properties and so on. with two people, the issues are pretty straightforward (aside from dealing with community property -- or not -- in some states). throw in more people and the complexity goes up exponentially (A+B, A+C, B+C, A+C, A+B+C, and double that for the other direction -- that's way more combinations than just the three A, B, C people in it). so as far as legalizing that goes, that's going to take a long time -- we need a cultural tradition, probably, to guide that, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

in any case, yeah thinking that poly, incest, and bestiality are all guaranteed outcomes of legalizing SSM is just absurd and pure FUD.
@8 -- that argument doesn't impress me in the *slightest* because you cannot argue that 1-1 marriage is inherently victimless by way of contrast to poly.
oh god ::sobs:: can't we just get over this shit all ready??? Seriously America! WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!
@5 Wikipedia says, "The United States has the only bans on cousin marriage in the Western world." That's not nationwide, though. It's legal in several states for first cousins to marry. (In an ironic poke at stereotype, Kentucky isn't one of them, but New York is.)
Isn't incest pretty much legal anyway? With cousins anyway. And it sounds like the GOP WANTS children of incest to be born as long as the mom at least 18. And what's so bad about polygamy? I think Mormons are crazy, but outside that, why not legalize plural marriage?

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage, just sayin'.

And I can't believe that kid is only 19! He's awesome!
The polygamy and incest claims remind me of Santorum who suggested that the slippery slope of gay marriage might lead to marriages of men and dogs and look where that got him- nice google result, asshole.
I want to hug that kid. And then smack the shit out of every member of the legislature who voted for the ban.

Have you read the book? Because if you dismiss the argument without understanding the point to be made, well then, I guess I'm not impressed in the, ahem, *slightest.*
First off, that kid rocks. That was a totally awesome speech. Eloquent, heartfelt, clear, and convincing. His parents must be very proud of him. What a total repudiation of the notion that children require two parents of the opposite sex in order to develop into worthy, contributing adults.

And then... polygamy? Really? That again? Up here in Canada (Equal marriage legal nationwide since 2005) there is actually a reference case in the B.C. Supreme Court dealing with the question. And what is the primary group promoting the legalization of polygamy? That bastion of gay rights, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Why can't we legalize polygamy/polyandry, hmmmmmmmmmm?!?!?!

I should be able to marry into a group.
Religious bigotry & fear-mongering to religious bigots, the current guiding principles of the GOP.

@10 I'm sorry that I don't have time to transcribe the whole thing for ya, BEG, I hope someone does because he's fantastic. The gist is that he has two mom's, his grandparents used to be bigots too until they saw how cute he was as a baby, the proposed amendment would be the first time discrimination would be codified into the Iowa constitution, he understatedly mentions how he's awesome (99th percentile on ACT, Eagle Scout, in college, runs a small business) and no one has ever guessed that he was raised by gay parents because their sexuality has nothing to do with his character.
This is so freaking sad.
...what @20 said.
This is all we can expect from the GOP. They have absolutely no positive agenda, and no plans to improve the lives of anyone other than their wealthy puppet masters. The only way they can hold onto power is by promoting hatred, hypocrisy and hostility towards the well-being of others, which unfortunately appeals to the majority of AmeriKKKans.
And just how does banning gay marriage make more jobs in America?
I thought the most important thing for the GOP was creating jobs?
What is wrong with polygamy?

Legalizing polygamy would be a much smaller change in the current definition of marriage than allowing homosexuals to marry.

And polygamy is a model that has existed as long as mankind. Compared to homosexual marriage which has been around for, well, never....

Why can't someone marry the people they love?

Dan, you are always preaching poly this and poly that.

Do you support legalizing polygamy?
@1 Canuk, I see exactly what the connection is. Legalizing gay marriage is the logical, rational thing to do. That opens the door to basing all marriage laws on logic. If we arrive at our marriage laws based solely on rational discourse...we could EASILY arrive at legal polygamy. Therefore, we should continue to base our marriage laws on the morals derived from bronze age mythology.

@8 The story you cite has victims of religious extremism, not polygamy. The polygamy in it is incidental. There are fervently religious communities today wherein marriages are 1-1 and the women are treated far more cruelly.

I didn't read the book. I read the wiki summary and it doesn't look like anything I would want to spend my time on. If you can't make the argument yourself, then you don't have an argument to make. Nobody is beholden to complete your reading assignments in order to disagree with you.

Does it also say that Iowa will not recognize homosexual marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions, either?
Lot's of states have ammended their constitutions to say and do all that.
By margins of up to 80%......

Good evening Mr. Charman, my name is Zach Wahls, I'm a sixth generation Iowan and an engineering student at University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women.

My biological mom Terry told my grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked and they wouldn't even acknowledge it. Actually it wasn't until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson. Unfortunately neither of them lived to see her marry her partner Jackie of 15 years when they wed in 2009. My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994. We actually have the same anonymous donor so we're full siblings, which is really cool for me. The point is, our family isn't really so different from any other Iowa family. You know, when I'm home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations, but, y'know, we have our hard times too, we get in fights.... Actually my mom Terry was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000. It is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair, so we've had our struggles. But – you know, we're Iowans. We don't expect anyone to solve our problems for us. We'll fight our own battles. We just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.

Being a student at the University of Iowa the topic of same-sex marriage comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions. The question always comes down to, “Can gays even raise kids?” And the conversation gets quiet for a moment because most people don't really have an answer. And then, I raise my hand and say, “Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I'm doing pretty well.” I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I'm actually an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd make you very proud.

I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family isn't really so different from yours. After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, “You're married—congratulations.” No. The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other, to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones, it comes from the love that binds us, that's what makes a family. So what you're voting here isn't to change us. It's not to change our families, it's to change how the law views us, how the law treats us, you are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution – a constitution, that but for the proposed amendment, is the least amended constitution in the United States of America. You are telling Iowans that some among you are second class citizens that do not have the right to marry the person you love.

So will this vote affect my family? Would it affect yours?

You know, over the next two hours, I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.

Thank you very much.
Fingers crossed that this will die as expected in the Iowa Senate.…
BEG, see comment#32 for my transcription. for some reason it's hiding as if I didn't register.
@29: "Legalizing polygamy would be a much smaller change in the current definition of marriage than allowing homosexuals to marry."

Learn2Math, douchebag. As it stands, the "traditional" definition of marriage is a contract between two people.

1 man + 1 man = 1 man + 1 woman

1 man + 3 women =/= 1 man + 1 woman
I'm really tired of my comments hiding even though I registered! BEG, see comment #32 for transcription. Urgh!

You're so cute when you're angry...
not very insightful but cute nonetheless.

Hiring a house painter is also "a contract between two people"......

As it has recently evolved in Western society, the "traditional" definition of marriage is a contract between man and woman.
Polygamy has existed as long as mankind, in all cultures, and currently exists in many.

Legalizing polygamy would require no change in the 'definition' of marriage and only a slight change in how it is implemented.

Boy, if only that kid had been articulate and reasonable, maybe he could have convinced what is, at heart, an un-prejudiced group of Republican house members.

Seriously, that kid is going places. And what GOP lawmakers are doing every day to maintain bigotry toward gays is getting damn well unforgiveable. It's getting harder and harder to see my Republican acquaintances as well-meaning anymore, even if they're okay on the gay issues.
@13: I'm too much of a math nerd to not point out that the number of combinations increases factorially, not exponentially. Which, of course, just furthers your point.
@37: Homosexuality has existed as long as mankind, in all cultures, and currently exists in all.

Legalizing homosexual marriage would require no change in the definition of marriage and no change in how it is implemented.

Fixed it for you.

(And, an anal sex joke about my nickname! That's precious. Takes me back to grade school, that does.)
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the repubs voted the way they did, even after hearing that speech. The problem is that the hate groups and bigots didn't hear Zach's speech, and probably never will, and they're the ones who voted the repubs in. The repubs are simply pandering to their base. It's still shameful and pathetic, but not surprising.
Wow this guy is so incredibly impressive and brave. Thank you and Way to go!
He did an awesome job. Also, red suspenders FTW!
@36 WOW! Thanks!!

@30 -- entirely correct!

As for victimless poly or not, I'm aware of that type of argument and it still does not impress me. And again, I say, one on one marriage is not victimless either. There's a LOT structurally wrong with the entire concept of marriage full stop. There's a lot more variables than just who is in the marriage affecting these relationships (het, gay, 1-1, poly, whatever).

I support marriage equality only because denying it to a group of people make those people second class especially when they want and/or need that right. And maybe, just maybe by expanding it in this direction, some of the inherent problematic issues with the concept of marriage will start to erode.

Personally, I'd be happier to see it done away with altogether, although like legalization of poly marriage, (which I don't care about one way or another, for the record) that isn't likely.

You read the wiki summary and think you're qualified to judge the book? I would recommend you read the book if only because it's a phenomenal piece of writing (Krakauer is an excellent writer, no matter what the subject), but, unfortunately, it would be wasted on your dumb ass, so never mind.

FYI, the book is about the negative consequences of the FLDS brand of polygyny (which is the brand of polygyny practiced throughout human history). If anything, the crime committed by wannabe polygamists was incidental to the point of the book.
@40 Like all true egomaniacs, I am wildly flattered when the troll gives me a nickname...I got "Cansuck" once...and really, you have to forgive trolls when they mistake backyards for backdoors; I mean, he does quite well for having the reasoning skills of a mollusc.
Oh for chrissakes. How many countries have legalized same-sex marriage now? A dozen? More? And in how many of those countries is it legal to marry your sister? Your dog? Four other people? None. Fuck your idiotic slippery slope arguments. These are false equivalencies.

We have REAL-WORLD examples of what happens when you legalize same-sex marriage. The world does not end. Society does not crumble. Men do not marry sheep.

@47: "Men do not marry sheep."

They don't? Damn. There go my weekend plans.
Wish we had more comments here about what a fabulous speech this was. What an amazing 19-year-old! He had the eloquence and polish of someone beyond his years. Congrats to his moms for producing such a fine kid.
@48 You don't have to change your plans, BB, just don't propose...
@51: But it was made very clear to me that gay marriage leads to bestiality, incest, and polygamy. And, sex before marriage is wrong. So I need to marry that sheep first. While I am stilll married to my wife.

(Of course, to hit the trifecta, the sheep would have to be my cousin. And perhaps dead.)
Cripes, what was I thinking?! Of course having sex with a sheep before marrying it would be sinful! God, I'm such a heathen schmuck sometimes...and nah, I don't think it has to be dead, cause I don't think anyone thinks gay marriage causes necrophilia, but if I were your wife, I'd make sure you got a sheep with nice wool, because while you're getting your jollies, she should at least get a nice cashmere sweater out of the deal.
It's this boy's attitude that gives me hope that someday I might live in a sensible, reasonable country. But then again, the Republicans can never just let you keep that good feeling. And I wonder why the Nordic countries look so promising to me. They at least can see reason.... And they don't have Republicans.
To put it in its simplest form. THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO VOTE AGAINST IT !! PERIOD
What a beautiful, intelligent young man. Truly, a decent human being.

Wished there were more like him.
Don't lose hope Period Troll, this young man is the face of the coming generation. Why even GW's daughter has given marriage equality her public support! Sure there will be set backs, as there always are when civil rights are being advanced, but you will live to see gay weddings here in the US, just like in Canada I promise. xoxo
only in america can such insane ideas of incest etc be linked to the union of 2 people. such stupidity would never be suggested in any like mannered educated free societies in the western world. such words would instantly destroy the political careers of such fools in other nations due to the insanity of such suggestions would lead to rational questioning of such fools. how embarrassing for america that such lesser people could even get elected dog catcher.
That kid should run for state office. I'd vote for him.
@8- That book convinced me that the FLDS is a criminal syndicate, but it's not really an indictment of consensual polygamy between rational adults.

Nope, the argument against poly-whatever is that I can't fucking deal with one person at a time, I fail to see how doubling my interpersonal issues makes any sense.
What a lucid and beautiful address. Thank you.

A rampant heterosexual,
who isn't afraid of gays.
Boy, if only that kid had been articulate and reasonable, maybe he could have convinced what is, at heart, an un-prejudiced group of Republican house members.

Alas, I think it's precisely because he was articulate and reasonable that hardened the hearts and minds (though evidence of ANY capacity to feel or think is subject to debate) by those voting. Why? Because outwardly intelligent people are resented and feared (liberal elite, anyone?) and, by gum, ain't no college-educated kid raised by deviants gonna tell me he's better than my lazy, ignorant kids - but at least they were raised normal, by a mother and father.

After all, wasn't it enough to vote down marriage to solidify their objections? No - they had to deepen the deliberate pain with cruel intent by making civil unions and DPs equally unattainable. Bastards! And let's see how hard they'll make it for Zach's Mom-1 to visit Mom-2 in hospital.
What an eloquent and beautiful address.

This comment from a rampant heterosexual who isn't terrified by anyone else's sexuality.

And hugs to your moms.
My wife and I are thinking about having a child of our own in the near future. If my child is half as articulate, well mannered, well spoken, and well dressed as this young man I would be thrilled. His mothers did an fantastic job. As one of the higher rated comments on the YouTube page states "If thats how the average kid raised by gay parents turns out, we should make being gay required by law" - Crayshack
I don't think his parents' sexual orientation had zero effect on the content of his character - it probably had a positive effect, by making him more accepting of other people who are different.
Good thing you posted this Dan. I was just about to email you the link. I saw this speech on the news and it had me sniffling by the end. If I were 20 years older I would be proud to call him my son.
Clearly the kids been brainwashed. *rolls eyes*
Dear Heavens...he looks like Levi Johnston!

I guess we now know what he would look like with brains!!
This amazing speech just got broadcast nationwide on CBC radio in Canada. Like him, I'm 19 years old and I'm amazed at how eloquent this person is. If I could be half the public speaker he is...
The flight to Italy leaves in the morning, but out of the goodness of my heart, I'll leave my liberal fellow citizens with a bit of rational thought. For most of you rational thought is a foreign concept. I'll offer my apologies for the strangeness of a realists approach to the world in advance.

The young man was certainly eloquent and appears an accomplished person.

How this is supposed to be definitive evidence of the efficacy of gay parenting is a bit obscure to me. I know smart, eloquent successful people who grew up in the ghetto to single moms on various forms of welfare. This doesn't mean I recommend that particular parenting style. It just means that the person had the drive and discipline to do well despite their challenges.

And it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on those who support gay marriage, not on the majority among us who don't. YOU must prove that you are being harmed by not being married to someone of the same gender, and that this harm is not of your own choosing. (Spoiler alert; you aren't and even if you were it would be.) YOU must prove that your Constitutional rights are being violated by the denial of such marriages. YOU must show society a compelling reason for us to change the way marriage has worked for millenia.

Those defending the status quo have to prove nothing. We don't have to defend against anecdotal stories of bright young men with 'two mommies.' We don't have to defend the advantage for most children of being raised in heterosexual households. Since you want to turn society upside down only for your convenience, you must prove why this needs done. Otherwise, the presumption rests with the status quo.

Seattleblues... give it a rest. Really. You're way out of your league.
@71: "Turn society upside down"

Really? Really? You think that is what equal marriage will do?

Why don't you ask someone who lives somewhere that adopted it what happened to society?

Because you know the answer will be "Nothing. It wasn't turned upside down. No one really noticed."

Equal marriage would do no harm to you. You are the worst sort of selfish bastard - you would deny to someone else something that would cost you nothing and that would mean everything to them, just because you can.
Some fucking Christian you are, Seattleblues. I hope all the gay flight attendants spit in your drink tonight. God, the poor Italians, how they must dread the return of the ugly American every year.
@71: Seattleblues, on this topic, wouldn't know rational thought if it came up and bit you. You are blinded by selfishness and irrational hatred. You are a bad person. Bon Voyage.
@75 Wait, wait...He wouldn't know rational thought if it were a RABID SNOW CAT that bit him on the ass, and then gave him RABIES!!!
Seattleblues, you're on the wrong side of history on the issue of marriage equality. Seriously. & clearly you're someone who argues just for the sake of it. Why else would someone w/ your views post here..?

Of course by commenting we are trollfood. Meh.

That kid is AWESOME & eloquent, & I hope his moms are proud of him.
Seattleblues, in all seriousness, I think you might want to get a mental health evaluation. It should be clear by now that no one is taking you seriously. You're wasting your time and energy on obsessively writing essay-length comments for almost every single blog entry that no one will even bother reading, and at this point it's frankly disturbing. Please either a) get help, or b) find another blog (preferably one that has posts you consider to be "unbiased").

I'm actually not being sarcastic, I really do think you need help.
And a quibble: "YOU must show society a compelling reason for us to change the way marriage has worked for millenia."

"It has been this way for millenia" is not a good arguement in favor of the status quo. It is not sufficient justification for ANY social contruct to remain the same- it's laziness and fear of change.

For millenia, people believed the earth was flat, that the sun orbitted around the earth, that women were property, that bad weather was caused by angry Gods, that slavery was okay, that racism or religious differences were justification for genocide, etc. For millenia, peope got married as soon as they hit puberty, almost no one could read or write, there was no such thing as public education or schooling, etc. Trust me, I could go on.

"It was like this for millenia" IS NOT A REASONABLE ARGUEMENT. Just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't make it right, good, or reasonable. It's an arguement consisting of fear and laziness, not common sense.

For millenia, marriage was only for making babies. Women got married the second they started bleeding and had to get pregnant right away. If she didn't, she was considered worthless and her husband was encouraged to leave her and find a more fertile wife. By your logic, this was a great system that should never have been changed.
Jesus, Iowans aren't much different from how they're portrayed - busybody little nobodies. Given Dan's obsession with musicals, I'm surprised he hasn't made some funny comment/connection...…
@77: You make an very good point Canuck! (Snarl hisssss spit)


Standard question for canuck military is more like it.

"Homosexuality has existed as long as mankind, in all cultures, and currently exists in all."

so true.

in all the thousands of years
and all the hundreds of cultures
how many have legalized homosexual marriage?

yes, that's right-


Not even cultures where homosexuality was very prevalent and totally accepted and no monotheiest religion existed.
Not the heathens or the pagans or even the Greeks...

Societies where the ruling class accepted and practiced homosexuality.
Really clever cultures like the Greeks that the homos just adore....




What did those cultures know that canucks don't?
gosh- that would be a big book.....

@84 So your argument is that it shouldn't be done now because it's never been done before? And you believe that marriage now in this particular culture is regarded exactly the same way it was in previous cultures?

As for it having "never" existed, same-sex marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989. That's only a little more than two decades, but even that is more than "never".

"Homosexuals" usually become parents the same way everyone else does, sport.
They just pretend they don't know about the birds and the bees.....

hello rhett.
sorry, no, you got it all wrong.
you must be a product of southern public education...

Our "argument" is that legalizing homosexual marriage is poor public policy.

We observed that history shows that, of the myriad of social relationship styles that have come and gone, homosexual marriage has NEVER been embraced by ANYONE.
(at least no society that lived to tell about it...)

It makes the enquiring mind wonder, doesn't it?

And we noted that polygamy was widely practiced in many cultures for most of history and currently.

The same polygamy that Dan mocks.

Nuetral observers might wonder why society owes a narrow minded bigot like Savage any consideration when he refuses it to others...

(and, yes, 22 years in Denmark might be a curiosity but it still counts as NEVER....)
@87 It appears the education you got in Renton isn't much better than what's available in the South, but then the quality of an individual's education can be improved by taking advantage of available resources, such as libraries. Perhaps you should try reading a book some time.

You've noted that same-sex marriage hasn't been practiced by other cultures--except, of course, in those places where it's legal, but you conveniently ignore those by saying "22 years in Denmark might be a curiosity but it still counts as NEVER"--but you fail to explain why it's "poor public policy".

Just because earlier societies didn't recognize same-sex marriages doesn't make it "poor public policy". You haven't given any evidence to back up this statement. Why is it poor public policy?

How do any of those developments compel society to recognize homosexual "marriage"?

Are homosexuals unable to resist the urge to artificially impregnate poor women in third world countries and require a legal framework to accomodate their fetish?

Now rhett, we've explained it many times on slog.
Did we use too many big words those times?
Perhaps we can find you a colouring book to explain it...

the cliff notes version-
Actual "Marriage" (man-woman) is the best social institution for creating and raising functional adults that society needs in order for society to thrive (or even for the species to continue to exist....)
"Marriage" (man stays with woman and helps raise family) is not Natural or Easy and requires lots of support from society.
Society has a vested interest in fostering, promoting, subsidizing "Marriage" (remember- "Marriage" = man-woman...)

are we going too fast? we can type slower...

Recognizing, promoting, subsidizing competing institutions and elevating them to the same status as "Marriage" confuses the youngsters (who might get the notion that homosexual pairings are "just as good as Marriage"...) and deflects scarce resources away from society's critical task of promoting and fostering "Marriage".

At present the institution of "Marriage" is under assault from many sides and critically weakened in our society, and it is an especially poor time to be dabbling in fatuous fads.

does that clear it up for you?
Straight people don't believe in marriage - which is why they spit out illegitimate babies at a rate of 4 out of 10 & keep increasing it every year - so it's little wonder they don't believe in gay marriage.
@91 And you're repeating the same tired arguments. You seem to be stuck on this idea that marriage is solely for the purpose of producing children. I would ask if you realize that's been addressed, but you know it has.

So, yes, that does clear everything up perfectly. Lacking any valid argument you resort to repetition and sarcasm.

I hate to be a nag Period Troll, but you have done your shopping for that anniversary gift for Dan and Terry haven't you? Time's a wasting! Before you know it, you'll have to be getting a High School graduation gift for The Kid too.
@91: Wait, I though good-old-fashioned man-woman marriage was a cornerstone of human society that had existed unchanged through the millenia because it is just so damn perfect. Now you tell us that "Marriage... is not Natural or Easy and requires lots of support from society."

So which is it, sport? Millenia-old cultural cornerstone, or fragile flower that needs protection?

One more time, because you seem to be particularly slow and stupid: recognition of equal marriage has zero impact on opposite marriage. Zero, "none. nada. zip-o-rino.." as you would put it.

The summary gave me an overview of the content of the book, something you should have done. You have yet to state your position on this. You simply contend that I should read this book because it will inform my opinion.

I think the reason is that what you found convincing about the novel wasn't that it laid out an argument and rigorously supported it. I think it told a very emotional story with an engrossing, arresting style that made you feel like you were right there and really pulled your heart strings.

I am not convinced by emotional appeal, generally. Reading a page turner or being called a dumb-ass by a stranger on the internet are not the sorts of things that sway my vote. FYI.

Your original position was that the book will show that polygamy isn't an inherently victimless crime. Now, you contend that the book shows that FLDS brand of polygyny isn't a victimless crime.

It looks to me like I was absolutely correct that the book is in no way an indictment of polygamy itself. It is an indictment of a system in which men are afforded a whole host of rights and opportunities that are expressly denied to women. See, the multiple spouses are incidental. It's the fact that only men get to do it that makes it wrong.

Also, forcing a person to do something against their will is wrong regardless of what it is. Forcing a person to live their life in service to your will is wrong because it's slavery. If you enslave a person into a polygynous marriage, your crime is still slavery, not polygamy.
quite so.
you see the sad shape of the Family and Marriage.
and along come the homosexuals wanting to chunk another straw on the poor camel's back.....

tired? not at all.
but really really good arguments.
what do you think marriage is for, rhett?
how quaint.
Unrealistic, but sentimental and quaint...
do only people who 'marry' deserve insurance and pensions?
marriage is a poor vehicle for delivering social benefits.
tell us, rhett- what desirable benefit does society derive from subsidizing homosexual pairings?

ah, the 'tired old' "homosexual marriages are going to save society by raising all the unwanted babies" argument.
we've already established that homosexual marriage would only increase the pool of child rearing households by 0.02% (zero point zero two...).
hardly worth the bother.
a little effort encouraging girls to postpone having children until in a stable marriage (the CDC calls it: "abstinence until marriage and monogamy thererafter...") would yeild much much much greater benefit to society.
(ps- you do realize that anecdotal evidence is a really shitty basis for formimg public policy, don't you?...)


you're not very original, are you.
let us guess- product of canadian taxpayer supported papist school? you and rhett should compare notes...
however we are nothing if not generous with the disadvantaged so we will help you grasp it (again....)
'marriage' as a male-female relationship has existed, well, FOREVER.
we have (repeatedly) discussed how 'marriage' has often been polygamous, and what great distress marriage is under currently.
Stable longlasting "Marriage" relationships ARE the most perfect social unit known to man.
And they DO require societal support.
Many civilizations have seen the family unit disintergrate, and the society soon followed.
name calling is a poor debating technique.
you must remember you are on slog and not bellowing at your heiffer of a wife for supper....
So (again)...

Dan, do you support legalizing polygamy?
Alleged, you're dumber than a bag of hammers today. Sure, in old-timey societies that were comfortable with Teh Ghey, there still wasn't gay marriage. You want to know why?
Because marriage, back in those days, was not about love. It was about raising children and little else. Luckily, today's world is different; marriage is about the romantic relationship between two people, not purely about popping out babies. It is precisely BECAUSE the institution of marriage has ALREADY changed that gays should be allowed to marry.
Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

If marriage isn't about love, what is it for? You seem to think it's all about producing and rearing children, but if that's the case, why aren't heterosexual couples required to have children? As for the rearing, there are quite a few same-sex couples that seem to be doing a fine job of that. If marriage is essential to the well-being of children, why not let those couples marry?

As for the benefits, I never said benefits should be denied to people who aren't married. I would repeat your tired joke about what happens when you assume, but it's inaccurate since you're the only one who's making an ass of himself.

However, providing the children adopted by same-sex couples with the stability of parents who enjoy the legal recognition that comes with marries is a definite benefit.

Of course you can't cite any actual drawbacks to legalizing same-sex marriage. Even if there weren't any benefits there's no downside either, at least none that you can cite other than the threat of children being "confused". And you have no evidence that such a threat exists, which makes it pretty clear as to who's actually confused here.
@100: You have scarred me for life with that second link.
@102: Thank 4chan for that one. Why did you click it, anyway? This is like when I said "go eat a bag of dicks" and people clicked the link and freaked out.
@103 I can understand why people freaked out, but I also think it's fair to say that you provided more than sufficient warning.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.