Regardless of whether or not you agree with homosexuality what does the state have ANYTHING to do with a union between two consenting adults. Marriage license? That's a joke. The only thing that should be bound on paper is how things will be split up in case you..well..split up. Like Punk Patriot said there are already religious institutions that acknowledge same sex marriages so let them.
Either way I'm not opposed to homosexuality, but what really is the difference between civil unionization and same-sex marriage?
I mean I support same-sex unionization that each member receives the same benefits as a opposite-sex unionization. I just never understood what's the difference between calling it a marriage or a civil union. Is there really that much of a distinct difference?
Both marriage and civil unions are different institutions of the state.
Civil unions create a "separate but equal" situation, except that often, civil unions exclude a large number of rights that come with the civil union known as "marriage."
The solution here is to make same-sex marriage legal, or to just make all state marriages "civil unions" in name.
The institution of marriage is so beaten down, why not allow gay marriage?
Oaths taken in this culture are treated with such contempt lately. We should be talking about what a pos marriage has become instead of homosexual rights that few of us have any need for.
THIS. Please tell me you're going to be at the marriage hearing at the Augusta Civic Center tomorrow. The opposition is going to be chartering in busses full of people, and we're going to need all the help we can get.
Also, I appreciate the Nostalgia Critic reference. He always kinda reminded me of you. :)
Hee ... thank you very much for making this video! It brightened my day! There should be more people who can look at this issue with your brand of clear thinking.
Agree on every point, and I wish more people would not confuse blind traditionalism for "logic."
Only thing I would be wary of for poly marriages is regulating against entire corporations of people form "marrying" each other for the benefits. Nothing morally wrong with polyamory, but it seems a tricky legal situation.
Again, as you said, really complicated forms to fill out.
Agreed - uneducated people should not be allowed to teach sex education, or promote sexual equality. We are on the same team for this one. I do not agree that it is the parents duty to educate children about sex. I believe it is the parent's duty to be the FIRST to do so.
I found a list of religions and the rites that they had for same sex marriage.
The Greek Orthodox Church has a ceremony for bonding two men in love. It's not called marriage, it's called "Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin", and it's been used in the ancient past.
The Unitarian Universalist Church and some Congregationalist and Methodist churches recognize gay marriage as well.
They SHOULD teach homosexuality in the schools. At least 5 to 10 percent of humanity is gay - who the hell is going to teach them about sex? It is the responsibility of the education system to keep our children (gay and straight) correctly informed, and not delete certain information simply because some ignorant fool believes in only protecting straight children because they are more worthy of protection. Time will expose these "concerned parents" for the sick fuckers they truly are.
"Whatever-- what a nice little victory to you. You should write home to your parents and tell them you won a YouTube comment fight."
I'm not the retard getting owned repeatedly for making feckless videos. You dumb fuck worthless wastrel. What goes for youtube comments goes double for morons making video fights. Except that you lose, so there's not even something to write home about to mitigate your idiocy. :)
Hahaha--Brilliant! Thank you for articulating for people the difference between marriage in a religious sense and the secular contract that it is regarding rights under the law. More people need to be slapped in the face with that reality. Great video, Asher. - Kayla
Hahaha, your video is really funny, but I must say some of these comments are so stupid that they are funny xD Since when was this video about seriously protecting or being all pro or con polygamy??? The video is about GAY MARRIAGE; people xD
More like you're retarded. The video does exactly that at 3:16. If the logic of legalizing gay marriage entails the legalization of polygamy, then the defense of the latter is necessary for the justification of the former.
Well, just because something is mentioned does not make it the main theme of a video that is supposed to be stricken up in heated debate in the comments section :P But hey, I'm cool as a cucumber, so please chill out. I think that the whole defending polygamy is only a tool for the actual point of the video. And in any case comparing gay marriage to polygamy is stupid. And his tone suggests that he doesn't think the comparison is quite accurate either. Anyway, I don't need another flamer reply.
Except I did not say it was the "main theme" -- that's a figment of your own imagination. Rather, I said that IF the logic of one compels the other, as assumed by the video, then the defense of one is necessary for the justification of the other. Nor is the comparison "stupid" -- consensual polygamists have the same grievances as GM advocates. You're discriminating against them the same way gays claim they are being discriminated against.
Anyway, when are you going to strip on your videos?
"The relation is always regulated by government. It is more than a contract. It requires certain acts of the parties to constitute marriage independent of and beyond the contract. It partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community." Maynard v. Hill.
If it was merely a contract involving no third parties (i.e., the state) no one would care.
No, sorry, but the marriage I'M talking about is nothing BUT a contract.
Say what you want, it's still nothing more than a legal contract. The state "officiates" all contracts, it's how those contracts are honored should somebody be brought to court (another part of "the state") for breech of contract.
That's the Supreme Court saying it's more than a contract. You think you know better than the Supreme Court?
The state doesn't merely "officiate" a contract. It is a bona fide third party that provides are basket of state-sanctioned fiscal benefits, exemptions, obligations, and marital privileges to marriage. It is therefore "more than a contract," but an institution.
Studies suggest that children in polygamous families suffer from more psycho-emotional difficulties and behavioral problems than children from monogamous families:
"children of actually polygamous marriages were at greater risk of experiencing marital conflict, family violence [etc.] particularly that related to high levels of unhappiness of women in polygamous unions, absence of the father and financial stress." Expanding Recognition of Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada.
You lose. Their subjects were polygynous cultures in Africa and the Middle East, among other places, where polygamy is still practiced; their control subjects were monogamous families in the same cultures.
Except that the studies controlled for culture by using monogamous families from the same culture as control subjects. Polygamous marriages are _still_ objectively worse off by that measure, relative to their own patriarchal aspects which are accounted for by the control groups.
It doesn't matter what the control is, because there is no example of a polygamous or polyamorous group in which all parties consent used in these studies, so they are not a representation.
It's like saying that the house slaves were better off than the field slaves. The house slaves have it "objectively better" --they're still slaves. Yet monks perform the same labor with consent.
I'm not "owned." You're a prick who has too much free time & misses the point.
Says the retard who spends too much free time making videos that get refuted within minutes. :)
You're wrong. Again. "Numerous kinds of unions are recognized in most African societies...they include unions sanctioned by...CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS." Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.
Your "point" is undone by the facts.
Studies on consensual polygamy nevertheless show deleterious effects on children living under that arrangement, with culture accounted for by control groups.
If the key is "consent," then consensual incestuous marriage should be legal. (Except it's not.) Consensual slavery should be legal. (Except it's banned by the 13th Amendment.)
You're a owned douchebag whining about "consent" like a dullwitted simpleton. :)
Because the possibility of inbreeding causes genetic defects in children, and should not be encouraged as a matter of public policy. Therefore the blanket ban on incestuous marriages.
Are you seriously this stupid? (Yes you are.)
So far you've owned yourself by trying to justify polygamy and incest and failing.
It's also hilarious that you think your humiliation should be higher placed in the search results. :)
Oh, you don't know me. I'm totally a shameless self-promoter. :-)
Anyways, inbreeding doesn't actually carry as high a risk for genetic defects as we're led to believe. There is a risk, but it's quite low. Also, there is nothing to say that a married couple ever have children.
Does it make me feel "icky"? Yes. Does that mean that it should be banned? That's ludicrous.
But then that's the argument in regards to gay marriage. There is no logical reason for it to be banned.
Quite wrong as usual. "Close inbreeding, for example as a result of marriage between siblings or even first cousins, produces a high incidence of genetic defects." Posner, R., Sex & Reason (citing Lerner & Libby, Heredity Evolution and Society).
You are scientifically illiterate, and immune to facts.
So yes, it should be banned.
Banning gay marriage also has a public policy rationale. Gays tend not to have children. Gay marriage is thus an inefficient use of state resources.
Made up papers? You're an incompetent liar. I. Michael Lerner was a geneticist at Berkeley. Posner's book citing Lerner is published by Harvard University Press and rigorously cite-checked. The one being petulant and silly is you. :)
High means high. That's enough to ban incestuous marriage as a matter of policy, because the state does not want to encourage genetic defects if it can help it.
Laws against theft don't stop SOME people from stealing either. So? Abandon all laws? Dont be dumb thx.
Oh. Well, I can cite papers published by Harvard University that say that Blacks are genetically dumber than whites, that interracial marriage leads to birth defects, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that homosexual parents raise crazy children.
Science "fact" comes and goes with social consensus.
"High" is not a scientific measurement.
The reason why stealing is bad is that it is taking property from somebody who owns it against their consent. CONSENT IS KEY!
No you can't. You fail when you admit that you're advocating incest against the scientific consensus that it results in a high incidence of genetic defects.
You're like a creationist--debating with you is a waste of time because you're scientifically illiterate and nothing will change your mind.
Note that I never once said that homo = mental disorder. That's something you made up.
This is my last message to you as I've owned your science-ignorant self completely. :)
I never said that YOU said that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but surely somebody who thinks of themselves as being as smart as you are would have known that homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder in the DSM II? That was widely accepted as scientific fact, and they had all sorts of studies to back that up, relying mostly on correlation between other mental illnesses with homosexuality as well, such as depression, suicide, etc.
"well there are already people living polygimast...lifestyles as it is"
Does that make it okay? "there are practical benefits" such as costs of living, cleaning i.e. in the video
Bush was fed bad intel for us to invade Iraq.
Does that make it okay? There are practical benefits such as a woman who is raped in the country where we spread our democracy might not be sentenced to prison for it, which happens
not trying to make a comparison...but yes, good things do come out of invading a country such as Iraq - like women are sentenced to prison for being raped.
I would say a child growing up in a polygamy household could see the world different from another child not growing up in such an environment. Could kids be hurt by it? yes, of course.
NOT trying to make a comparison. Just asking, does that make it okay? even with benefits...[Benefits can be seen an a lot of wrong doings...]
On taxes, everything comes down to money, doesn't it?
pro-gay people want the opportunity for the same tax write-offs in order to have more money
anti-gay people use it as an argument that taxes could end up going up b/c gay marriage is on the rise and the government needs its money.
(A tolerance or allowance of gay marriage would become more accepted overtime, therby spreading across america for just these two arguments to become in effect or not)
the adopted child argument: pro-gay people love this argument b/c only one person can adopt one child and they'd love to show the parentless child as a martyr to marriage laws in place.
anti-gay people would say, it is an easy solution to just create a law that allows up to two people, be it male or female - of a certain age to be allowed to adopt. (In fact most of the posed problems allow just this)
divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage. also marriage is a social contract.... that was made meaningless by no fault divorce.
mmechill 1 year ago
Regardless of whether or not you agree with homosexuality what does the state have ANYTHING to do with a union between two consenting adults. Marriage license? That's a joke. The only thing that should be bound on paper is how things will be split up in case you..well..split up. Like Punk Patriot said there are already religious institutions that acknowledge same sex marriages so let them.
migsluck1 1 year ago
I've got a few questions.
Either way I'm not opposed to homosexuality, but what really is the difference between civil unionization and same-sex marriage?
I mean I support same-sex unionization that each member receives the same benefits as a opposite-sex unionization. I just never understood what's the difference between calling it a marriage or a civil union. Is there really that much of a distinct difference?
MelonCawly 2 years ago
Both marriage and civil unions are different institutions of the state.
Civil unions create a "separate but equal" situation, except that often, civil unions exclude a large number of rights that come with the civil union known as "marriage."
The solution here is to make same-sex marriage legal, or to just make all state marriages "civil unions" in name.
trichenosis 2 years ago
Well that's actually what I believe that all marriages should be "civil unions" in name.
MelonCawly 2 years ago
The institution of marriage is so beaten down, why not allow gay marriage?
Oaths taken in this culture are treated with such contempt lately. We should be talking about what a pos marriage has become instead of homosexual rights that few of us have any need for.
Here's my bumper sticker:
"Support Gay Marriage
because marriage is a joke."
TheEditorialist 2 years ago
Yeeesss, why haven't I discovered you yet???
shananciole15 2 years ago
Thoroughly enjoyable.
TheGayConservative 2 years ago
RIGHT ON. I've said many of these things myself, thanks for adding some reason to the debate.
GuitaristInProgress 2 years ago
THIS. Please tell me you're going to be at the marriage hearing at the Augusta Civic Center tomorrow. The opposition is going to be chartering in busses full of people, and we're going to need all the help we can get.
Also, I appreciate the Nostalgia Critic reference. He always kinda reminded me of you. :)
AgeAdrienne 2 years ago
Hee ... thank you very much for making this video! It brightened my day! There should be more people who can look at this issue with your brand of clear thinking.
GaryAnyanka 2 years ago
Dude, you're hilarious!
Agree on every point, and I wish more people would not confuse blind traditionalism for "logic."
Only thing I would be wary of for poly marriages is regulating against entire corporations of people form "marrying" each other for the benefits. Nothing morally wrong with polyamory, but it seems a tricky legal situation.
Again, as you said, really complicated forms to fill out.
Ophidimancer 2 years ago
good job putting in the ironic humor alert... people get the wrong idea so easily
Capitalocracy 3 years ago
I'm glad to find SOMEBODY else out there who understands that there's nothing wrong with polygamy.
gunsandbullhorns 3 years ago
Agreed - uneducated people should not be allowed to teach sex education, or promote sexual equality. We are on the same team for this one. I do not agree that it is the parents duty to educate children about sex. I believe it is the parent's duty to be the FIRST to do so.
nicksum29 3 years ago
When government gets involved in relationship laws, the result is always contradictory.
Example: A guy (or gal) that sleeps around with 5 people, makes babies, and doesn't care about any of them, breaks no laws.
But a guy (or gal) that promises loyalty, love, and to stick by those 5 people, is a polygamist and is a felony.
falstoffe 3 years ago 4
You are a fellow genius of the internet!
I wish I had thought to include that in my video!
trichenosis 3 years ago
I found a list of religions and the rites that they had for same sex marriage.
The Greek Orthodox Church has a ceremony for bonding two men in love. It's not called marriage, it's called "Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin", and it's been used in the ancient past.
The Unitarian Universalist Church and some Congregationalist and Methodist churches recognize gay marriage as well.
trichenosis 3 years ago
I am glad you went into the beast claim, although just hearing it hurts my HEAD SO MUCH! People have actually argued with me over this.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
Dude, where did you get that falg??? I want one!
Thrice13 3 years ago
Suit Still + "Gay Marriage" title = Funny
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
They SHOULD teach homosexuality in the schools. At least 5 to 10 percent of humanity is gay - who the hell is going to teach them about sex? It is the responsibility of the education system to keep our children (gay and straight) correctly informed, and not delete certain information simply because some ignorant fool believes in only protecting straight children because they are more worthy of protection. Time will expose these "concerned parents" for the sick fuckers they truly are.
nicksum29 3 years ago
Bravo Mr. Critical Thinking Skills. Get a better haircut and you'll be golden. :)
tpetdoctor 3 years ago
"Whatever-- what a nice little victory to you. You should write home to your parents and tell them you won a YouTube comment fight."
I'm not the retard getting owned repeatedly for making feckless videos. You dumb fuck worthless wastrel. What goes for youtube comments goes double for morons making video fights. Except that you lose, so there's not even something to write home about to mitigate your idiocy. :)
Logic. I use it so you don't have to.
sklanger 3 years ago
Hahaha--Brilliant! Thank you for articulating for people the difference between marriage in a religious sense and the secular contract that it is regarding rights under the law. More people need to be slapped in the face with that reality. Great video, Asher. - Kayla
Jamethiel1 3 years ago
Hahaha, your video is really funny, but I must say some of these comments are so stupid that they are funny xD Since when was this video about seriously protecting or being all pro or con polygamy??? The video is about GAY MARRIAGE; people xD
Anyway, keep up the great work MrPatriot :D
MS
MissSababa 3 years ago
More like you're retarded. The video does exactly that at 3:16. If the logic of legalizing gay marriage entails the legalization of polygamy, then the defense of the latter is necessary for the justification of the former.
Logic. I use it so you don't have to.
sklanger 3 years ago
Well, just because something is mentioned does not make it the main theme of a video that is supposed to be stricken up in heated debate in the comments section :P But hey, I'm cool as a cucumber, so please chill out. I think that the whole defending polygamy is only a tool for the actual point of the video. And in any case comparing gay marriage to polygamy is stupid. And his tone suggests that he doesn't think the comparison is quite accurate either. Anyway, I don't need another flamer reply.
MissSababa 3 years ago
Except I did not say it was the "main theme" -- that's a figment of your own imagination. Rather, I said that IF the logic of one compels the other, as assumed by the video, then the defense of one is necessary for the justification of the other. Nor is the comparison "stupid" -- consensual polygamists have the same grievances as GM advocates. You're discriminating against them the same way gays claim they are being discriminated against.
Anyway, when are you going to strip on your videos?
sklanger 3 years ago
Cute, but unnecessary.
MissSababa 3 years ago
Very necessary I'm afraid.
sklanger 3 years ago
Sklanger clearly didn't get enough hugs growing up.
trichenosis 3 years ago
You clearly did not get enough nutrients growing up. Hence your deficient i.q.
sklanger 3 years ago
But marriage is more than a contract.
"The relation is always regulated by government. It is more than a contract. It requires certain acts of the parties to constitute marriage independent of and beyond the contract. It partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community." Maynard v. Hill.
If it was merely a contract involving no third parties (i.e., the state) no one would care.
sklanger 3 years ago
No, sorry, but the marriage I'M talking about is nothing BUT a contract.
Say what you want, it's still nothing more than a legal contract. The state "officiates" all contracts, it's how those contracts are honored should somebody be brought to court (another part of "the state") for breech of contract.
trichenosis 3 years ago
That's the Supreme Court saying it's more than a contract. You think you know better than the Supreme Court?
The state doesn't merely "officiate" a contract. It is a bona fide third party that provides are basket of state-sanctioned fiscal benefits, exemptions, obligations, and marital privileges to marriage. It is therefore "more than a contract," but an institution.
I use logic so you don't have to.
sklanger 3 years ago
Yeah, I do know more than the Supreme Court in this instance. That's easy to do sometimes.
The Supreme Court also said that blacks were only 3/5ths a human being for a long time.
They said that laws banning homosexuality were constitutional for a long time.
The Supreme Court said that abortion was illegal. And then they said that it was legal. Clearly not even THEY know better.
trichenosis 3 years ago
No you don't.
The Constitution said blacks were 3/5ths human for a long time -- that's the fault of the Constitution, not the Court.
The Supreme Court never said that abortion was illegal before Roe v. Wade. It ruled on the question for the first time in Roe, so you're wrong again.
Out of the 3 examples you give, the Court only overruled itself once. So no, I don't think you "know" better. You're as clueless as you sound.
Marriage is not a mere contract under current law. You're owned. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Studies suggest that children in polygamous families suffer from more psycho-emotional difficulties and behavioral problems than children from monogamous families:
"children of actually polygamous marriages were at greater risk of experiencing marital conflict, family violence [etc.] particularly that related to high levels of unhappiness of women in polygamous unions, absence of the father and financial stress." Expanding Recognition of Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada.
sklanger 3 years ago
I haven't seen those studies, but I'm willing to bet that they use cults as their subjects.
trichenosis 3 years ago
You lose. Their subjects were polygynous cultures in Africa and the Middle East, among other places, where polygamy is still practiced; their control subjects were monogamous families in the same cultures.
sklanger 3 years ago
Not really. Those cultures are highly patriarchal, and the women have no say in the relationship. The key here is consent.
The women in polygamous cults, and the women in those society do not consent to their living arrangements.
trichenosis 3 years ago
Except that the studies controlled for culture by using monogamous families from the same culture as control subjects. Polygamous marriages are _still_ objectively worse off by that measure, relative to their own patriarchal aspects which are accounted for by the control groups.
You're owned. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Listen, the key is consent.
It doesn't matter what the control is, because there is no example of a polygamous or polyamorous group in which all parties consent used in these studies, so they are not a representation.
It's like saying that the house slaves were better off than the field slaves. The house slaves have it "objectively better" --they're still slaves. Yet monks perform the same labor with consent.
I'm not "owned." You're a prick who has too much free time & misses the point.
trichenosis 3 years ago
Says the retard who spends too much free time making videos that get refuted within minutes. :)
You're wrong. Again. "Numerous kinds of unions are recognized in most African societies...they include unions sanctioned by...CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS." Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.
Your "point" is undone by the facts.
Studies on consensual polygamy nevertheless show deleterious effects on children living under that arrangement, with culture accounted for by control groups.
Deal with it.
sklanger 3 years ago
"key is consent"
If the key is "consent," then consensual incestuous marriage should be legal. (Except it's not.) Consensual slavery should be legal. (Except it's banned by the 13th Amendment.)
You're a owned douchebag whining about "consent" like a dullwitted simpleton. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Why shouldn't consensual incestuous marriage be legal?
What's the harm in that? You're not marrying any cousins or siblings, (right?), so it doesn't affect you.
Your elevated sense of self-worth is amusing, and your comments keep driving my video higher in the search results. I love it!
trichenosis 3 years ago
Because the possibility of inbreeding causes genetic defects in children, and should not be encouraged as a matter of public policy. Therefore the blanket ban on incestuous marriages.
Are you seriously this stupid? (Yes you are.)
So far you've owned yourself by trying to justify polygamy and incest and failing.
It's also hilarious that you think your humiliation should be higher placed in the search results. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Oh, you don't know me. I'm totally a shameless self-promoter. :-)
Anyways, inbreeding doesn't actually carry as high a risk for genetic defects as we're led to believe. There is a risk, but it's quite low. Also, there is nothing to say that a married couple ever have children.
Does it make me feel "icky"? Yes. Does that mean that it should be banned? That's ludicrous.
But then that's the argument in regards to gay marriage. There is no logical reason for it to be banned.
trichenosis 3 years ago
Quite wrong as usual. "Close inbreeding, for example as a result of marriage between siblings or even first cousins, produces a high incidence of genetic defects." Posner, R., Sex & Reason (citing Lerner & Libby, Heredity Evolution and Society).
You are scientifically illiterate, and immune to facts.
So yes, it should be banned.
Banning gay marriage also has a public policy rationale. Gays tend not to have children. Gay marriage is thus an inefficient use of state resources.
sklanger 3 years ago
Actually no it isn't, and I can make papers up too. (citing Bronislaw & Suchaneck, Why Sklanger is acting really silly)
First, define "high incident," second, why does that mean it should be banned?
And even if it is, it's not going to stop people from doing it.
Keep it up with the comments dude.
trichenosis 3 years ago
Made up papers? You're an incompetent liar. I. Michael Lerner was a geneticist at Berkeley. Posner's book citing Lerner is published by Harvard University Press and rigorously cite-checked. The one being petulant and silly is you. :)
High means high. That's enough to ban incestuous marriage as a matter of policy, because the state does not want to encourage genetic defects if it can help it.
Laws against theft don't stop SOME people from stealing either. So? Abandon all laws? Dont be dumb thx.
sklanger 3 years ago
Oh. Well, I can cite papers published by Harvard University that say that Blacks are genetically dumber than whites, that interracial marriage leads to birth defects, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that homosexual parents raise crazy children.
Science "fact" comes and goes with social consensus.
"High" is not a scientific measurement.
The reason why stealing is bad is that it is taking property from somebody who owns it against their consent. CONSENT IS KEY!
Keep posting.
trichenosis 3 years ago
No you can't. You fail when you admit that you're advocating incest against the scientific consensus that it results in a high incidence of genetic defects.
You're like a creationist--debating with you is a waste of time because you're scientifically illiterate and nothing will change your mind.
Note that I never once said that homo = mental disorder. That's something you made up.
This is my last message to you as I've owned your science-ignorant self completely. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
I never said that YOU said that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but surely somebody who thinks of themselves as being as smart as you are would have known that homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder in the DSM II? That was widely accepted as scientific fact, and they had all sorts of studies to back that up, relying mostly on correlation between other mental illnesses with homosexuality as well, such as depression, suicide, etc.
trichenosis 3 years ago
Also, you've still failed to provide any sort of evidence of birth defects, or what the incident rate is.
"High" is what? How does the study define "high"? 1% incident rate? 20% incident rate? 99% incident rate? That's important to know.
What is the margin of error for that study? Is it even scientifically significant (less than one tenth of one percent?)
Lastly, you've failed to provide any rational justification why a ban on these consensual acts should be codified into law.
trichenosis 3 years ago
"well there are already people living polygimast...lifestyles as it is"
Does that make it okay? "there are practical benefits" such as costs of living, cleaning i.e. in the video
Bush was fed bad intel for us to invade Iraq.
Does that make it okay? There are practical benefits such as a woman who is raped in the country where we spread our democracy might not be sentenced to prison for it, which happens
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
Who is hurt by polyamoury?
If everybody involved in the act is concenting, I see nothing wrong.
To compare it to the invasion of Iraq is silly-- over a million people were murdered as a result of that.
People are not cluster-bombed as a result of consenting to be in a polyamorous relationship. Except for by intolerant extremists.
trichenosis 3 years ago
not trying to make a comparison...but yes, good things do come out of invading a country such as Iraq - like women are sentenced to prison for being raped.
I would say a child growing up in a polygamy household could see the world different from another child not growing up in such an environment. Could kids be hurt by it? yes, of course.
NOT trying to make a comparison. Just asking, does that make it okay? even with benefits...[Benefits can be seen an a lot of wrong doings...]
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
On taxes, everything comes down to money, doesn't it?
pro-gay people want the opportunity for the same tax write-offs in order to have more money
anti-gay people use it as an argument that taxes could end up going up b/c gay marriage is on the rise and the government needs its money.
(A tolerance or allowance of gay marriage would become more accepted overtime, therby spreading across america for just these two arguments to become in effect or not)
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
the adopted child argument: pro-gay people love this argument b/c only one person can adopt one child and they'd love to show the parentless child as a martyr to marriage laws in place.
anti-gay people would say, it is an easy solution to just create a law that allows up to two people, be it male or female - of a certain age to be allowed to adopt. (In fact most of the posed problems allow just this)
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
the animal argument: pro-gay people love that people actually make this argument so that they feel like the sane ones
anti-gay people love that there are actually people who have engaged in sexual activities with animals
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
Ew! Anti-gay people have sex with animals?!
trichenosis 3 years ago
um, in you socialsm/capitalism vid, you said your iq is higher in a suit...
so, watching vid in 5, 4, 3, 2, and action
Rosetteismyname 3 years ago
do you sell insurance?
votethirdpartynow 3 years ago 2
I *love* your critical thinking skills! You are a riot, man :o)
ninamichelle77 3 years ago 2