Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional

The T wrote: jplanet wrote:   Epignosis wrote: ... Honestly, I spend very little of my time thinking about gay people. All I ask is that what little time you do think of them, is to think of them as equals. . Even better: stop even considering you're thinking on gay people as if they were some different kind of people.  If you spend time thinking about people, then some of that people can be gay, and that's irrelevant. Otherwise you just don't believe gays and hetero people are the same...

I tried that in Micah asked about good female comedians.  Here's what happened:

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Her: In a thread were the inferiority of female comedians versus male comedians  is discussed, you had to mention the one lesbian comedian...  I like her a lot. She's good. But I also like Wanda Sykes (though I see why Rob and others may dislike her...)

rushfan4 wrote: The problem with Polygamy is the "consenting adult" portion of it.

Indeed.  It doesn't bother me as long as it is between consenting adults and women are allowed to have multiple husbands.  Of course this rarely if ever happens in practice and often the wives are non-consenting children.

jplanet wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: jplanet wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: jplanet wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm off to bed, but here's a question: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage?  Why or why not? The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative. You're just as bigoted as you're claiming Rob to be. You're acting so high and mighty as a defender of people's rights, then you act as if polygamous marriages are any more objectionable. If Rob is being bigoted, then so are you, except you chose to include gay marriage in your accepted class of marriages which are worthy of recognition. Jesus Christ. Is your post a joke? Tell me it's a joke.  There's no joke. Rob's examples are classic homophobic rhetoric designed to scare people away from gay marriage, so they are examples that must be refuted.  When people were arguing against interracial marriage, they used the same reasoning, so there is historical precedent in the use of those examples to suppress the rights of others. And even though I take offense at Rob's posts, I am still respectful to him. There is no need to refer to my posts as a joke. Agree with me or disagree with me. Give me information to see another point of view. Be intelligent. But don't try to bully me and call what I have to say a joke. Explain yourself then. Why shouldn't three people decide that they want to enter into marriage together? Why can't a brother and sister do the same? What makes gays so special that they're entitled to marriage, but two people who are related are not? Your post is full of classic homophobic rhetoric just applied to different forms of marriage. You know, I thought about this and you're absolutely right. Bring on the group and incestuous marriage! Although, polygamists and incestuous couples are not being beaten in the streets or strung up on fences while fighting for the right, but absolutely, bring it on!

The problem with Polygamy is the "consenting adult" portion of it.  I believe in many instances the woman in question (a) is too young to legally consent, and (b) is forced into the arrangement by either her parents or her religion (cult) leaders.  

Equality 7-2521 wrote: jplanet wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: jplanet wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm off to bed, but here's a question: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage?  Why or why not? The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative. You're just as bigoted as you're claiming Rob to be. You're acting so high and mighty as a defender of people's rights, then you act as if polygamous marriages are any more objectionable. If Rob is being bigoted, then so are you, except you chose to include gay marriage in your accepted class of marriages which are worthy of recognition. Jesus Christ. Is your post a joke? Tell me it's a joke.  There's no joke. Rob's examples are classic homophobic rhetoric designed to scare people away from gay marriage, so they are examples that must be refuted.  When people were arguing against interracial marriage, they used the same reasoning, so there is historical precedent in the use of those examples to suppress the rights of others. And even though I take offense at Rob's posts, I am still respectful to him. There is no need to refer to my posts as a joke. Agree with me or disagree with me. Give me information to see another point of view. Be intelligent. But don't try to bully me and call what I have to say a joke. Explain yourself then. Why shouldn't three people decide that they want to enter into marriage together? Why can't a brother and sister do the same? What makes gays so special that they're entitled to marriage, but two people who are related are not? Your post is full of classic homophobic rhetoric just applied to different forms of marriage.

You know, I thought about this and you're absolutely right. Bring on the group and incestuous marriage! Although, polygamists and incestuous couples are not being beaten in the streets or strung up on fences while fighting for the right, but absolutely, bring it on!

jplanet wrote: Epignosis wrote: *sigh* We have equal rights. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man can marry a woman. A gay man cannot marry a man. A straight man cannot marry a man. That's equal. ... *sigh* No it's not, that's bigotry. A straight man or woman can marry who they love. A gay man or woman cannot.

jplanet wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm off to bed, but here's a question: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage?  Why or why not? The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative.

That's all I needed to see.

Polygamous marriage has been around as long as homosexuality.  The first two are among more than two consenting adults (obviously it isn't two- that's the definition of poly).  "There is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative."  Um...says you?

Man Overboard wrote: I can't believe this discussion is still carrying on like this. This should be simple. Epignosis, you in particular hold some repugnant views.

And exactly what is my view? 

Epignosis wrote: I'm off to bed, but here's a question: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage?  Why or why not?

jplanet wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: jplanet wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm off to bed, but here's a question: If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage?  Why or why not? The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative. You're just as bigoted as you're claiming Rob to be. You're acting so high and mighty as a defender of people's rights, then you act as if polygamous marriages are any more objectionable. If Rob is being bigoted, then so are you, except you chose to include gay marriage in your accepted class of marriages which are worthy of recognition. Jesus Christ. Is your post a joke? Tell me it's a joke.  There's no joke. Rob's examples are classic homophobic rhetoric designed to scare people away from gay marriage, so they are examples that must be refuted.  When people were arguing against interracial marriage, they used the same reasoning, so there is historical precedent in the use of those examples to suppress the rights of others. And even though I take offense at Rob's posts, I am still respectful to him. There is no need to refer to my posts as a joke. Agree with me or disagree with me. Give me information to see another point of view. Be intelligent. But don't try to bully me and call what I have to say a joke.

Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages have been recognised in New South Wales, Australia since 1999 and both parties are afforded the same legal entitlements as so-called 'Christian' mixed gender marriages. (However this situation varied between the other states until new legislation was passed on 1st July 2010)

Here's an extract of the defining parameters

A de facto relationship is a relationship that two people who are not married or related by family have as a couple living together on a ‘genuine domestic basis*’.
(*Arrived at presumably to filter out those benefit fraudsters impersonating same sex de-factos but found in reality to be nothing more than heterosexual same sex house/flat mates etc)

It can exist between 2 people of the opposite sex, or between 2 people of the same sex.

All the circumstances of the relationship will determine whether a couple have a de facto relationship. These include:

    * the duration of their relationship
    * the nature and extent of their common residence
    * whether a sexual relationship exists
    * the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them
    * the ownership, use and acquisition of their property
    * their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
    * whether the relationship has been registered, in a State or Territory with laws for the registration of relationships
    * the care and support of children, and
    * the reputation and public aspects of their relationship.

So yeah, saddle up homophobes and ride off into the sunset to join the rest of your
kissin' cousins y'all.