Supporting gay marriage is now "hypocritical"

this is how I was called on another board, dominating by conservatives many of them are rabid:

"If you truly believe that, you will also need to accept siblings or parent/children of the same sex declaring their love to the world.

Notice that your definition excludes poligamy (sic). Why is it anyones business how many people someone wants to marry?

You are being hypocritical to claim that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else yet at the same time make your own definitions of what qualifies as "anyone else"."

=====
Of course, I never make any definition of "what qualifies as anything else."

My response was that, first, polygamy is often an abusive relations of women only. After all, we do not see women with many husbands. Also a statutory rape, since so many of the wives - as we've seen with that sect - are underage girls.

And then I added - and I have not seen a proclamation, yet, that I should burn in hell - that if two adults who are family members are single and want to marry, I have no problem with that.

I guess, by their logic, opposite-sex marriage means also needing to accept brother-sister, mother-son, and father-daughter marriages?

Also, the number of people in a marriage - 2 - is not changing, so there goes their polygamy argument.

this is what I am commenting: marriage should be between two consenting adults, allowing for each state to determine the age of consent. I also wondering how many of them would have agreed to criminalization of inter-race marriage, or of married couples using birth control. Yes, this was an important Supreme Court decision some 40 or 50 years ago.

And, it did not take long for someone to suggest marrying one's dog. This is always their last refuge.

I was doing some reading and research yesterday about Loving v. Virginia. The Virginia judge who justified the anti-miscegenation laws used this argument:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them in separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Loving v. Virginia in 1967 and overturned Virginia's law as well as laws of 15 others states.

and many others totally insanely neurotic over it.

like this one:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=slippery+slope+fallacy&aq=0&oq=slippery+slope

the anti-gay marriage folks generally come back to Biblical directives. Our society/culture
has evolved to the point that legal benefits are attached to marriage and that since the rationale
for denying marriage to gays stems from church sanctions, that constitutes a violation of the separation
of church and state, resulting in discrimination regarding the legal benefits of marriage.

There are genetic reasons for people related to each other not to marry--particularly if they intend
to procreate.

is mentioned in the Old Testament, is also prohibition to consume pork and shellfish, to wear clothes made from a mix of yarns, or for women to wear pants.

"You must know a lot of people who are interested in it."

As for polygamy--as long as they're aware, consenting adults, why should I care?

David had plenty. As did Solomon. Abraham had two. So did Isaac. Whatever floats your boat.

No one wants "polygamy," in actual fact. These husbands want one wife and one tax return, and a bunch of baby-mammas who are "single mothers" getting benefits from the state. If these old fools actually had to support those women, and exercise real responsibility for their children, instead of using their "wives" as slave labor, they'd give up the practice pretty quick.

I think we need to test the practice first with polyandry, myself--then we'll see how the wingnuts like it.

Personally, I think one spouse is enough, but whatever works.

in polygamy.

Remember last year when we had a chance to see and hear these women? Except when fiercely fighting to have their children back, they appeared so... flat, lifeless, without any free will, really.

And, of course, the young girls that they rape cannot consent to anything.

I think that we should care, just as when we see a clearly abused child clings to the abusing parent, resisting any attempt to take him away, because this is the only parent that he knows.

It is sad that in our society, in the 21st Century, there are still too many women who believe that they need a man in their lives to sustain them. Any man, even if they will be a part of a polygamy. It is sad that these women get brain washed that they support this kind of arrangement.

I would be hard pressed to describe these women as "consenting."

religion teaches them; that they aren't fully human and need to look to men to make every decision for them. Personally I honestly wouldn't mind being a "second wife" if religion were not a part of it. I've always been single and I've always wanted to have a family, and I'm burned out on struggling through everything alone. I wouldn't mind being a second wife who brought in a second income while either of the other two looked after the kid(s) and home. I'm domestically challenged, so I'd love to have someone else take care of that, but every family needs two incomes anymore... It probably would never work but since I'm just not the possessive or jealous type in theory it sounds like a good idea, as long as I really, really enjoyed the company of the other woman. :shrug:

Of course, I know several people who are polyamorous and would probably be happy with such a relationship, in whatever form it happened to come together. Not my thing, but I don't see anything wrong with it. When you're talking about cults such as that one, very few of the "brides" are of legal age of consent anyway, as I understand it. Not to mention the fact that they're brainwashed within inches of their lives.

Well, I'll let the polygamists and the incestuous and the beastialiphiles make their own case. That isn't my battle.

I just read "Church of Lies," a fabulous (but disturbing) book by Flora Jessop, who escaped the Fundamentalist LDS Church in Utah. It shows just how fantastic polygamy is :eyes:

If a group of people want to enter into a polyamorous marriage, then who am I to say no? There are already plenty of people who live in such an arrangement, except society tells them they cannot make it official. As for the argument that it often leads to abuse - there is already plenty of abuse present in "normal" marriages.