Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In this case you are disliking them for the heinious actions undertaken in the name of religion, not because they are religious. Your dislike is rational - hence not a bigot.

Actually, I dislike them for their beliefs regardless of whether they act on them or not. Just like I dislike someone who is a white supremicist regardless of whether they ever do anything to further their agenda. The simple fact that they hold that belief makes me dislike them. I am intolerant of that belief.

Same is true of the misogynistic religious beliefs. Regardless of whether they act on it or not, if they think that a woman should be shrouded in cloth from head to toe or stoned for comitting adultery, I don't like them and am intolerant of their beliefs. Their beliefs are heinous and hate-filled toward women. The fact that they label it a religious belief does not give it legitimacy.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure why you would dislike people for committing suicide.

It is not so much dislike as it is look down on them and won't associate with them. If you believe that at some point in time a space ship will be rendevousing with a comet to take you to heaven so you need to kill yourself to get onto that space ship, that is freakish and I won't associate with you. But I feel the same about those freaks in the philippines who nail themselves to crosses around easter time. I want nothing to do with the kind of wacked out thinking that inspires that. The haj is the same thing. It is just revolting to look at people so intoxicated with religious fevor that they behave like that.

But why is it that everyone feels free to mock those religions that have a small number of followers but those that are equally bizarre but have large numbers of believers are somehow legitimate. It is just stupid for people to legitimize a wacky belief simply because large numbers of people believe it.

BTW - at least when the Heaven's gate people killed themselves they only killed themselves.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tougher question because you've essentially taken away any intent on the part of the alleged bigot, which is a cop-out for those people. I would say you are not a bigot but your religion is.

Religions cannot be bigots, only people can. You choose your religion so if your religion advocates bigotted ideas, are you a bigot?

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your point seems to be that we must prohibit gay marriage because if we don't we can't prohibit polygamy. That seems to be somewhat backwards to me. If there are not sound reasons for prohibiting either, then both should be permitted.

There are two different issues - criminalizing a behavior and rewarding it. You could decriminalize polygamy,* which would mean it is allowed, but yet not legally recognize it as a marriage with all the attendant benefits, which would be rewarding it.

I am talking about the case of legally recognizing it and actually rewarding it. That is what gay marriage is all about. They want the government and other benefits that go along with marriage. So do the polygamists.

*Technical point - It is my understanding that only bigamy is illegal, which is where you get a marriage license to marry one person while you are still married to or before you are officially divorced from another, for instance, if you lie to get the second marriage license and say that you are not already married. I believe that polygamy, in which there is no marriage license for the unions after the first, is not illegal.

Originally posted by sgtclub
This constant reliance on the marriage definition is a farce to begin with, given that 56% of all marriages end in divorce. Marriage in not the societal underpinning that its advocates make it out to be.

I agree that marriage as it is practiced by many in this country is not such a great thing. However, it does confer certain benefits on those who enage in it. And it does it at the expense of single people.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I remind you that it was inter-species sex that brought us aids.

No it wasn't. It was people in Africa eating non-human primates and hacking them to death and getting plenty of blood exposure when they did. Then SIV jumped species and mutated.

They weren't fucking the monkeys. Just eating them.

Looks like they are still doing it; god help us all:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020318/020318-13.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Unless you believe that there are many times more men than women available in "public housing complexes," you must recognize that both men and women are having children with multiple partners.

Yes, I do realize that and I find the inner city men who father multiple children by multiple women and provide for none of them and abandon them are far more despicable creatures than Tom Green is. At least Tom Green makes an attempt to raise his kids, although given the sheer volume of kids, that is not something he can do very well. But at least he doesn't abandon them to be off to make more babies he cannot support with some other woman.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
On the other hand, having known plenty of people on welfare, I'm not sure that anyone makes a reasoned decision to have more children, with the thought that they'll pick up another whopping $200/month or whatever to support them.

I didn't say that they decided to have the kids for welfare. Neither does Tom Green. They are all just mindlessly breeding and expecting the rest of us to pay for the consequences of their actions. They aren't breeding for the purpose of obtaining welfare benefits. They are just breeding beyond their capacity to support the children they have because they are irresponsible and ignorant.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Personally, I would make contraceptives and abortion widely available, and perhaps even mandatory in some circumstances.

I have no doubt that those of you who claim to be pro-choice are in actuality pro-abortion.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0402121818.asp

[Link to letter from Al Qaeda operative]

I'm calling sock.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me

I think that the possibility that bigamy will at least be de-criminalized is high unless we get a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman given that the arguments used for gay marriage can be used to support polygamy and there is no good way to argue for one without also arguing for the other.

We have read on these boards many ways you could argue for one without arguing for the other. If polygamy and incest are truly the concern, why not press for a constitutional amendment banning them instead of homosexual marriage? Wouldn't your polygamy/incest arguments still be valid? How would polygamy/incest be prevented by a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know that you've been advocating inter-species marriage to combat the abuses of polygamy, and while I will acknowledge that inter-species marriage does solve all the breeding and tax related issues (we just treat the human part of the marriage as unmarried/head of household, right?), I remind you that it was inter-species sex that brought us aids.

Not all interspecies sex causes disease. Bigot.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
So are you for keeping polygamy illegal but alowing unfettered porn?

Have any of you ever watched hard-core porn? The stuff by Max Hardcore and the like. I am sure that there is even worse stuff out there, but I just came across his stuff because of a documentary I saw on the porn industry that he was in.

Can anyone defend that kind of hard core porn? Especially when so many of the women who are in those films are strung out on drugs and mentally ill and more than a few of them end up killing themselves.

Cite, please. But I agree with what appears to be your central premise. We should have more government services available for the mentally ill, more government funded treatment facilities for drug addicts, and we should treat drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal law issue.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We have read on these boards many ways you could argue for one without arguing for the other.

Never once has anyone articulated even one way. Ty's argument is that polygamy is abusive to women, which is a weak argument because not only is that not true of every conceivable polygamous union, many heterosexual and homosexual monogamous unions are abusive toward women. I know of plenty of cases of wife-beating by men and by lesbian lovers, although it is not as common by lesbian partners. No one argues for banning heterosexual monogamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a lesbian union is. So why does it make sense to ban polygamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a monogamous union?

Now please, explain to me all those other differences that were pointed out. Please.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If polygamy and incest are truly the concern, why not press for a constitutional amendment banning them instead of homosexual marriage? Wouldn't your polygamy/incest arguments still be valid? How would polygamy/incest be prevented by a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage?

Who is talking about incest? You don't need polygamy or marriage at all to have incest. That is a different issue.

BTW - Tom Green did not have an incestuous relationship. He married his step-daughter as did Woody Allen. Both are gross, neither are incestuous, one is a polygamist and the other is a monogamist. Incest doesn't go hand in hand with polygamy.

As for a constitutional amendment to ban certain types of relationships, I am not talking about banning relationships. I am talking about legally recognizing unions and conferring on the parties to the union government benefits and forcing employers to give out spousal benefits to those unions. That is what this argument is about.

BTW - The reason that I don't advocate for a constitutional amendment to ban polygamy is for the same reason I don't advocate that other religious practices be banned.

What on earth would be your rationale for banning polygamy but allowing both hetero and homo monogamous marriages? Explain to me what is it that would warrant allowing unions between 2 people regardless of gender that would also warrant banning unions of more than 2 people? No one has yet to articulate the reasoning behind that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me


Now please, explain to me all those other differences that were pointed out. Please.



What on earth would be your rationale for banning polygamy but allowing both hetero and homo monogamous marriages? Explain to me what is it that would warrant allowing unions between 2 people regardless of gender that would also warrant banning unions of more than 2 people? No one has yet to articulate the reasoning behind that.

Clear out your ignore list. You've missed a thing or two.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cite, please.

Do you want the cite to Max Hardcore's website or are you asking me to give you a citation showing that there are high rates of drug use and depression in women in hard core pornographic films?

Google it and there is plenty of information (much of it by those who work in the adult entertainment industry) about the rampant drug use and depression.

BTW - the hardcore stuff I am talking about isn't done by the stars making good money like jenna jameson and the like. I suspect that the average vivid girl isn't depressed or on drugs. But vivid films aren't the hard core stuff I am talking about. The stuff I am talking about much of it is some runaway or some young girl from an impoverished eastern block or asian country doing it to survive. Pay is a bit better than their regular job as a prostitute.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Never once has anyone articulated even one way. Ty's argument is that polygamy is abusive to women, which is a weak argument because not only is that not true of every conceivable polygamous union, many heterosexual and homosexual monogamous unions are abusive toward women. I know of plenty of cases of wife-beating by men and by lesbian lovers, although it is not as common by lesbian partners. No one argues for banning heterosexual monogamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a lesbian union is. So why does it make sense to ban polygamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a monogamous union?

Now please, explain to me all those other differences that were pointed out. Please.

Who is talking about incest? You don't need polygamy or marriage at all to have incest. That is a different issue.

BTW - Tom Green did not have an incestuous relationship. He married his step-daughter as did Woody Allen. Both are gross, neither are incestuous, one is a polygamist and the other is a monogamist. Incest doesn't go hand in hand with polygamy.

As for a constitutional amendment to ban certain types of relationships, I am not talking about banning relationships. I am talking about legally recognizing unions and conferring on the parties to the union government benefits and forcing employers to give out spousal benefits to those unions. That is what this argument is about.

BTW - The reason that I don't advocate for a constitutional amendment to ban polygamy is for the same reason I don't advocate that other religious practices be banned.

What on earth would be your rationale for banning polygamy but allowing both hetero and homo monogamous marriages? Explain to me what is it that would warrant allowing unions between 2 people regardless of gender that would also warrant banning unions of more than 2 people? No one has yet to articulate the reasoning behind that.

If you keep repeating this, some day you may convince someone it is true.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not all interspecies sex causes disease. Bigot.

You and Not Me have convinced me that I should not dismiss interspecies marriage so lightly.

I wish you every happiness together.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Clear out your ignore list. You've missed a thing or two.

No one's on my ignore list and have read all the posts. The only one who has articulated a reason was Ty and it was that polygamy is abusive towards women. I don't disagree with that as it is practiced by fundamentalist mormons, but so are many heterosexual monogamous relationships. So that is a weak argument.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you keep repeating this, some day you may convince someone it is true.

I am still waiting for my answer. Your silence on this topic is very telling.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you want the cite to Max Hardcore's website or are you asking me to give you a citation showing that there are high rates of drug use and depression in women in hard core pornographic films?

The documentary. I would be interested in seeing it. And I don't doubt that drug use and depression is rampant in the porn industry. Few little girls dream of doing porn when they grow up. At the lower end of the spectrum, the women do porn for lack of better options, as you have noted. Perhaps if they were not prevented from engaging in extracurricular activities in high school after failing a drug test, these women would have higher self esteem and would not have resorted to porn.