Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[glennrod]

You say you would be fine with civil union that are in every way (legally) the same as traditional marriages. Let

 

[TheBox]

So what are the reasons for not allowing polygamy?

I don't think there are any particularly compelling arguments against allowing polygamy.

It might be a pain in the ass to implement, but the primary problem with polygamy seems to be that it's practiced largely by assholes in communities that engage in shit like having child-brides. That can be criminalized without a blanket ban on polygamy though.

 

[m52nickerson]

I know, im in a real conundrum with myself in this discussion

You are you simply will not admit it. You simply can say you believe that people should have egual rights and live free and say that people can't marry the person they love when it is not hurting anyone else. That is hypocritical.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I like the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman, I think by allowing homosexuals to get married it takes away from what marriage is about, a man and a woman making their vows before god, that's right, god, the same god that you just want to stick two fingers up to. I have no problem with civil unions that offer all of the same benefits legally as a traditional marriage, but you guys do because you want to be the same as other people, and I can understand that, you are not the same, embrace your differences.you

I'm fine with your opinion that the church of glennrod, whatever church that may be, does not want to and will not recognize gay marriages. That's fine. The issue, again, is that marriage is a legal construct and even you think that the legal construct should be available to gay couples. We currently call that legal construct marriage on 1040's and the same legal construct should be available to both gay and straight couples.

 

[glennrod]

You are you simply will not admit it. You simply can say you believe that people should have egual rights and live free and say that people can't marry the person they love when it is not hurting anyone else. That is hypocritical.

I just did...

 

[m52nickerson]

I just did...

Forgive me, I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

[Denter]

I'm fine with your opinion that the church of glennrod, whatever church that may be, does not want to and will not recognize gay marriages. That's fine. The issue, again, is that marriage is a legal construct and even you think that the legal construct should be available to gay couples. We currently call that legal construct marriage on 1040's and the same legal construct should be available to both gay and straight couples.

And plurals obv. Not very inclusive of you.

 

[glennrod]

Forgive me, I thought you were being sarcastic.

No, I was being honest. as I have been in the whole thread, I know it leaves me open for more attacks, but fuck it

 

[m52nickerson]

No, I was being honest. as I have been in the whole thread, I know it leaves me open for more attacks, but fuck it

I think it is a very good thing that you understand that you have the dilemma you do. Plus it is very hard to admit something like that. Introspection is never easy.

 

[glennrod]

I think it is a very good thing that you understand that you have the dilemma you do. Plus it is very hard to admit something like that. Introspection is never easy.

Im proud of my honesty, even though it can be detrimental to me at times.

 

[ultramanhyata]

So what are the reasons for not allowing polygamy?

All the reasons come down to personal, visceral distaste. To simple bigotry.

They're all a product of polygaphobia.

Yet as a guy who would love to see polygamy become an accepted, "on the books" part of our culture, I would have no problem with not using the word "marriage" in regards to it, as long as, as a type of civil union, it was afforded exactly the same legal privileges as conventional, heterosexual marriage.

And because I feel this I will go so far as to say that I think the gay community's militant insistence on co-opting the word "marriage" - in addition to gaining full legal and civil rights via gay unions (the real crux of the matter) - is just as mean spirited and lacking in a spirit of compromise as is the position of the hard-core traditionalists who are fighting to not allow committed gay couples the same legal/financial benefits as committed straight couples.

It does not take anything near the wisdom of Solomon to see how to split the baby on this one.

 

[UpaLoompa]

And plurals obv. Not very inclusive of you.

Personally I don't have a problem with that either. That, however, isn't what the discussion is about.

 

[glennrod]

All the reasons come down to personal, visceral distaste. To simple bigotry.

They're all a product of polygaphobia.

Yet as a guy who would love to see polygamy become an accepted, "on the books" part of our culture, I would have no problem with not using the word "marriage" in regards to it, as long as, as a type of civil union, it was afforded exactly the same legal privileges as conventional, heterosexual marriage.

And because I feel this I will go so far as to say that I think the gay community's militant insistence on co-opting the word "marriage" - in addition to gaining full legal and civil rights via gay unions (the real crux of the matter) - is just as mean spirited and lacking in a spirit of compromise as is the position of the hard-core traditionalists who are fighting to not allow committed gay couples the same legal/financial benefits as committed straight couples.

It does not take anything near the wisdom of Solomon to see how to split the baby on this one.

Well said. I have seen those who cry about "equality" avoid this subject because it reveals a hypocrisy on their side of the argument.

 

[glennrod]

Personally I don't have a problem with that either. That, however, isn't what the discussion is about.

well it is, we are talking about changing the definition of marriage, to not consider other groups would be selfish

 

[ncordless]

All the reasons come down to personal, visceral distaste. To simple bigotry.

They're all a product of polygaphobia.

Yet as a guy who would love to see polygamy become an accepted, "on the books" part of our culture, I would have no problem with not using the word "marriage" in regards to it, as long as, as a type of civil union, it was afforded exactly the same legal privileges as conventional, heterosexual marriage.

And because I feel this I will go so far as to say that I think the gay community's militant insistence on co-opting the word "marriage" - in addition to gaining full legal and civil rights via gay unions (the real crux of the matter) - is just as mean spirited and lacking in a spirit of compromise as is the position of the hard-core traditionalists who are fighting to not allow committed gay couples the same legal/financial benefits as committed straight couples.

It does not take anything near the wisdom of Solomon to see how to split the baby on this one.

Because you feel, even though you are not a polygamist, that you would be fine with polygamous marriages being called civil unions, that justifies withholding the title of marriage for gay marriages? That's some pretty dumb reasoning.

Why should gays have to compromise? They are and will continue doing just fine by not compromising, but instead eradicating the lingering effects discrimination, of which, refusing to call their marriage a marriage is one.

 

[Jack V Savage]

well it is, we are talking about changing the definition of marriage, to not consider other groups would be selfish

Not really. Logistically, it doesn't work given what marriage means these days (how is a dissolution resolved in that situation, for example?). There's no similar issue with regard to homosexuals--that's just straight up discrimination.

 

[glennrod]

Not really. Logistically, it doesn't work given what marriage means these days (how is a dissolution resolved in that situation, for example?). There's no similar issue with regard to homosexuals--that's just straight up discrimination.

The same argument can be made against gay marriage

 

[Jack V Savage]

The same argument can be made against gay marriage

Make it, then. I pointed out just one obvious logistical issue with regard to polygamous marriage (how are assets divided if there's a divorce? Who gets custody of the kids?). What is the argument that there are logistical problems with same-sex marriage?

 

[glennrod]

Make it, then. I pointed out just one obvious logistical issue with regard to polygamous marriage (how are assets divided if there's a divorce? Who gets custody of the kids?). What is the argument that there are logistical problems with same-sex marriage?

so you're citing "logistical" reasons to deny a group of people their "basic rights"?

thats not very inclusive of you

 

[Jack V Savage]

so you're citing "logistical" reasons to deny a group of people their "basic rights"?

thats not very inclusive of you

So this is what you're reduced to. I'm citing logistical reasons for why groups of people can't get married. You claimed that someone could make a similar argument for why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married. What is that argument? Why are you so hung up on "inclusiveness"?