Salon rag suddenly has qualms about alternative "marriages"

[musterion]

"No, "Sister Wives" family, polygamy is not the new marriage equality fight."

The hypocrite writer doesn't really explain why homosexual marriage is different from polygamy, and really doesn't try to. Her argument sums up as,

If you want to argue that polygamy [between straight people] and marriage equality [between homosexuals] are the same thing, well, they’re not.

Forget for a moment that this was first said by us against sodomite "marriage," but it was dismissed out of hand. Can you guess what her real opposition to this case of polygamy is? Just look at this picture. Then look at the picture of the writer at the bottom of the Salon article. That's half of her objection right there. Can you guess the other half? The answer is also found in the photo of the three.

Editorial commentary here.

 

[TracerBullet]

"No, "Sister Wives" family, polygamy is not the new marriage equality fight."

The hypocrite writer doesn't really explain why homosexual marriage is different from polygamy, and really doesn't try to. Her argument sums up as,

If you want to argue that polygamy [between straight people] and marriage equality [between homosexuals] are the same thing, well, they’re not.

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

 

[musterion]

By your reasoning they must be the same. If one accepts that

a. man+woman = valid marriage,

and that

b. man+man = valid marriage,

then

c. man+woman+woman = valid marriage.

If one accepts the first premise - which you dislike because you're a sodomite but must accept as the baseline - and also accepts the second premise, then there is no logic by which the third proposition can be reasonably rejected. The syllogism is true.

 

[bybee]

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

Equality in the right to marry one's personal choice or choices?
Seems about the same to me....

 

[bybee]

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

Apparently they are only "sad and petty prejudices" if they aren't yours?:idea:

 

[Desert Reign]

By your reasoning they must be the same. If one accepts that

a. man+woman = valid marriage,

and that

b. man+man = valid marriage,

then

c. man+woman+woman = valid marriage.

If one accepts the first premise - which you dislike because you're a sodomite but must accept as the baseline - and also accepts the second premise, then there is no logic by which the third proposition can be logically rejected. The syllogism is true.

Equality in the right to marry one's personal choice or choices?
Seems about the same to me....

Both excellent posts.

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

Seems to me that you are only trying to defend your own sad and petty insecurities. It's a free country - we don't have to like you.

 

[TomO]

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

Sez you? :yawn:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

By your reasoning they must be the same. If one accepts that

a. man+woman = valid marriage,

and that

b. man+man = valid marriage,

then

c. man+woman+woman = valid marriage.

If one accepts the first premise - which you dislike because you're a sodomite but must accept as the baseline - and also accepts the second premise, then there is no logic by which the third proposition can be reasonably rejected. The syllogism is true.

And I agree, that's the logical extension.

Acceptance of polygamy has risen to 16%.

 

[bybee]

And I agree, that's the logical extension.

Acceptance of polygamy has risen to 16%.

No doubt it appeals to spineless women and libido driven men.

 

[GFR7]

Gay advocates have insisted that "Love is Love" - so why should it then be limited to two persons? Love is love even among 5 people, so polygamy and polyamory follow logically.

Indeed, in Canada there has arisen a robust polyamory movement, which flowed necessarily from same sex marriage.

It would appear that in this case, the gays are the ones driven by prejudice, placing themselves above others, and being biased for their own victory. Hypocrites, all.

 

[musterion]

It's all about being the most special prima-drama snowflakes.

If what they were just handed by the SC is handed to others, then the Special Snowflake status of homosexuals is diminished as they are thereby rendered equal with those others.

They don't want that.

That's the core of the opposition.

That and jealousy and resentment: homely feminists hate seeing a man marry one woman who is more attractive than she, much less two.

 

[GFR7]

It's all about being the most special prima-drama snowflakes.

If what they were just handed by the SC is handed to others, then the Special Snowflake status of homosexuals is diminished as they are thereby rendered equal with those others.

They don't want that.

That's the core of the opposition.

That and jealousy and resentment: homely feminists hate seeing a man marry one woman who is more attractive than she, much less two.

Well stated. :thumb:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Gay advocates have insisted that "Love is Love" - so why should it then be limited to two persons? Love is love even among 5 people, so polygamy and polyamory follow logically.

Indeed, in Canada there has arisen a robust polyamory movement, which flowed necessarily from same sex marriage.

It would appear that in this case, the gays are the ones driven by prejudice, placing themselves above others, and being biased for their own victory. Hypocrites, all.

It's all about being the most special prima-drama snowflakes.

If what they were just handed by the SC is handed to others, then the Special Snowflake status of homosexuals is diminished as they are thereby rendered equal with those others.

They don't want that.

That's the core of the opposition.

That and jealousy and resentment: homely feminists hate seeing a man marry one woman who is more attractive than she, much less two.

Both good points.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No doubt it appeals to spineless women and libido driven men.

I don't think spineless women would be woman-enough to handle another woman in her life as well as a husband.

I think a libido driven man would avoid women since sex with them equals children, unless he only has the one with her tubes tied... or maybe his tied so he can "work outside the home." Because the more kids, the less sex... every parent knows this. They put a natural limitation on the natural adult behavior.

 

[musterion]

I don't see how any man can put up with more than one wife. Just saying.

Go ahead and flip that around on me, ladies, it's okay.

 

[Mocking You]

they aren't the same. the only people pretending that they are are those desperately trying to defend their own sad and petty prejudices

OK, so stomping your feet and objecting will make it "not the same". Look, the gay community used the argument that "two people in love should not be denied the right to marry" or "we're in love--how can you deny us the same rights as you"?

Well, now, how can you deny the rights of three people who are in love? Why is it a different argument? Hmmmm?

 

[musterion]

OK, so stomping your feet and objecting will make it "not the same". Look, the gay community used the argument that "two people in love should not be denied the right to marry" or "we're in love--how can you deny us the same rights as you"?

Well, now, how can you deny the rights of three people who are in love? Why is it a different argument? Hmmmm?

And their love is potentially productive; i.e., children made the natural way, not adopted as fashion accessories/sex toys.

 

[JFish123]

Salon is the most far left anti-christian "news" on the internet. Well, one of them anyway lol

 

[musterion]

That's the point of citing it: Leftist hypocrisy.

 

[rocketman]

OK, so stomping your feet and objecting will make it "not the same". Look, the gay community used the argument that "two people in love should not be denied the right to marry" or "we're in love--how can you deny us the same rights as you"?



Well, now, how can you deny the rights of three people who are in love? Why is it a different argument? Hmmmm?

opcorn: