Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[troutman]

Two young girls in India were married-off to frogs to prevent a disease outbreak:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/T...ow/3994895.cms

In a bizarre ritual, two minor girls, both seven, from the remote Pallipudupet village in Tamil Nadu's Villupuram district were married off to frogs on Friday night. The ceremony, an annual feature during the Pongal (harvest) festival, is conducted "to prevent the outbreak of mysterious diseases in the village''.

[Gozer]

Girls marrying frogs?

Paging moral elitists to guide us:

Originally Posted by T@T

Male + Female = Normal

And this isn't just about the human race...this is nature in general. Anybody who thinks differently is NOT normal. Period.

*snicker*

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by T@T

Male + Female = Normal

And this isn't just about the human race...this is nature in general. Anybody who thinks differently is NOT normal. Period.
.

haha.

[Thunderball]

Before the righteous dogpile goes any further, I think rights are a two-way street, and I think the "moral elitists" around here need to recognize that.

Gays have the right to exist as persons without persecution. That's a given. Some people have stated homosexuality is either a lifestyle choice or a biological abnormality, and both may be dead on, or totally wrong. Its not the why that is important, but the person themselves. They have the right to be homosexual. Where the why matters is in how far we as society have to accomodate them.

However, people like T@T have the right to be opposed to homosexuality and deem it abnormal, so long as his rights do not interfere with the rights of homosexuals. People are quick to attack him, but he has never actually crossed the line from disapproval to hatemongering. He's simply saying he believes it to be abnormal. That's his right.

Tolerance and peacefulness are required, but people are not required to like it and accept that dogma as sancrosanct.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Before the righteous dogpile goes any further, I think rights are a two-way street, and I think the "moral elitists" around here need to recognize that.

Gays have the right to exist as persons without persecution. That's a given. Some people have stated homosexuality is either a lifestyle choice or a biological abnormality, and both may be dead on, or totally wrong. Its not the why that is important, but the person themselves. They have the right to be homosexual. Where the why matters is in how far we as society have to accomodate them.

However, people like T@T have the right to be opposed to homosexuality and deem it abnormal, so long as his rights do not interfere with the rights of homosexuals. People are quick to attack him, but he has never actually crossed the line from disapproval to hatemongering. He's simply saying he believes it to be abnormal. That's his right.

Tolerance and peacefulness are required, but people are not required to like it and accept that dogma as sancrosanct.

The snickers (at least mine) are about the whole "nature in general" gag and if anyone disagrees with him, we are abnormal too.

And the fact that his argument (and maybe rage) seems to come mainly from seeing of two guys necking on the dancefloor. I wouldn't like to see that either. I also wouldn't like to see a man and a woman making out on the dancefloor during a family wedding. I don't think any of us would condemn heterosexuality as a whole if cousin Gerry and his gal are pawing each other at the next wedding.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by T@T

Homophobic means having a fear of being gay does it not?

No.

Homphobic: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Homophobic

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Too bad this otherwise intelligent thread got dragged down with gaybashing.

On the bright side, someone initially predicted the intelligent debate wouldn't last until post #40.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

On the bright side, someone initially predicted the intelligent debate wouldn't last until post #40.

Yeah, guess I was off by a few hundred.

More like 160 or so. Meh, could've been worse.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Before the righteous dogpile goes any further, I think rights are a two-way street, and I think the "moral elitists" around here need to recognize that.

Gays have the right to exist as persons without persecution. That's a given. Some people have stated homosexuality is either a lifestyle choice or a biological abnormality, and both may be dead on, or totally wrong. Its not the why that is important, but the person themselves. They have the right to be homosexual. Where the why matters is in how far we as society have to accomodate them.

However, people like T@T have the right to be opposed to homosexuality and deem it abnormal, so long as his rights do not interfere with the rights of homosexuals. People are quick to attack him, but he has never actually crossed the line from disapproval to hatemongering. He's simply saying he believes it to be abnormal. That's his right.

Tolerance and peacefulness are required, but people are not required to like it and accept that dogma as sancrosanct.

Thank You for "getting it". And for the gays in here...I love you too.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No.

Homphobic: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Homophobic

Wasn't realy aware and truthfully didn't care much,,but thanks for the clearification anyway.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

haha.

Not the greatest responce from a "smart" poster.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Gozer

*snicker*

Another great one..

Your too smart for this also!

[flylock shox]

Quick update.

The polygamy charges against Winston Blackmore and James Oler have been thrown out after the BC Supreme Court found the charge approval process was unlawful.

Apparently the AGBC is considering an appeal.

[OMG!WTF!]

Man with 24 wives guilty of polygamy.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...rial-1.4218735

[Frequitude]

Atta boy, Daradon!

[nik-]

a lot of lifetime suspensions in this thread.

[Flashpoint]

I wonder if anyone is a polygamist without having a significant religious bent?

I'm guessing no? Which would be a pretty significant departure from the civil rights and equality justifications for homosexual marriage.

"God told me to do it" is a lot less compelling IMO.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I wonder if anyone is a polygamist without having a significant religious bent?

I'm guessing no? Which would be a pretty significant departure from the civil rights and equality justifications for homosexual marriage.

"God told me to do it" is a lot less compelling IMO.

I think you'd be guessing wrong.

I've never met a polyamoric triangle (or other combination) that had a religious bent, but I've met other types. One of my close (female) friends lives in a longterm relationship with two people (a man and a woman). Obviously actual polygamy isn't possible here because it's not legal.

Possibly the worlds first polyamoric three-way wedding was recently in Colombia between three homosexual men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...y-established/

Three gay men say they have gained legal recognition as the first "polyamorous family" in Colombia, where same-sex marriages were legalised last year.

"We wanted to validate our household... and our rights, because we had no solid legal basis establishing us as a family," said one of the men, actor Victor Hugo Prada, in a video published by Colombian media on Monday.

He said he and his two partners, sports instructor John Alejandro Rodriguez and journalist Manuel Jose Bermudez, signed legal papers with a solicitor in the city of Medellin, establishing them as a family unit with inheritance rights.

...
Lawyer and gay rights activist German Rincon Perfetti said there are many three-person unions in Colombia but this was the first one to be legally recognised.

[calgaryblood]

If someone can love whatever gender they want, why can't we love more than one person? Seems silly this is a law.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If someone can love whatever gender they want, why can't we love more than one person? Seems silly this is a law.

There is good reason for it if you look throughout history, a significant population of unattached/unmarried men is bad for long term stability. That is one reason why many societies banned polygamy throughout history.