And remember, preventing someone from marrying the way they want is only evil if you’re preventing gays from marrying each other.
If you’re preventing a man from marrying 10 women at the same time, his sister, his dog, his favorite fictional character, a corpse, a corporation, an irrational number, an abstract concept, a pillow with the picture of an anime character, and/or anything like that, then it is not evil at all, it doesn’t violate anyone’s human rights, and it is not ignorant or bigoted in any form or manner.
It is the apex of wrongness for someone else to determine who can marry and who can’t, but it is perfectly OK for us to do so provided those who we are preventing from marrying the way they want to don’t have enough political power to make it a PC issue.
The issue here is consent, anyone should be able to marry anyone else as long as both parties are consenting. A dog can not consent to a marriage, neither can a toaster or a sex doll. 3 Women and 1 man can all consent, let them marry, 2 men can consent let them marry.
The main non-religious objection to polygamy is that the extremely wealthy (and those who want to look wealthy) would have multiple spouses, creating a situation where the number of available females is much lower than the number of available males.
While preventing a man from marrying his dog, his favorite fictional character, a corpse, an irrational number, an abstract concept, a pillow with the picture of an anime character, and/or anything like that may not violate anyone’s rights – it’s still illegal because those things can legally sign a contract – and Marriage is a contract.
What I find super-duper hilarious is the fact that, in the post right under this one, someone ( presumably someone who would disagree with prop 8 ) defaced the image of a staunch heterosexual conservative, and used being “gay” as if it were an insult.
Maybe we aren’t so different after all. Group hug?
oh no your using your brain on this site. Watch out they don’t like that here!!!
Jyjon (#)
12 years ago
You know, the most of the people in the top photo would beat someone who didn’t go along with them, a large number would kill. The ones in the bottom, a small number would beat on someone who didn’t go along with them and a couple would kill, also the bottom group will chase the violent ones away most of the time. The top picture is a picture of democrats, the bottom is republicans.
Yeah, we all know how much the Democrats hate race mixing, that’s why they’d NEVER consider a mixed-race candidate for President.
Yes, there was a time when many Democrats especially in the south, were heavily racist and wrote many of the Jim Crow laws. But that was then, this is now. I think that’s the point of the post, what looked like a good idea then often looks stupid a few decades later.
That also happened to be at a time where the Republican part stood for larger government and individual liberty and the Democratic party was for the nonintervention of the government and classic family values, the beliefs of the parties have swapped over the years.
- (#)
12 years ago
Every time I see the word ignorant used all it does is show the user is ignorant of it’s meaning.
And remember, preventing someone from marrying the way they want is only evil if you’re preventing gays from marrying each other.
If you’re preventing a man from marrying 10 women at the same time, his sister, his dog, his favorite fictional character, a corpse, a corporation, an irrational number, an abstract concept, a pillow with the picture of an anime character, and/or anything like that, then it is not evil at all, it doesn’t violate anyone’s human rights, and it is not ignorant or bigoted in any form or manner.
It is the apex of wrongness for someone else to determine who can marry and who can’t, but it is perfectly OK for us to do so provided those who we are preventing from marrying the way they want to don’t have enough political power to make it a PC issue.
So what’s so bad about marrying a corpse, dog, etc?
As long as they don’t fuck the dog it has no impact whatsoever.
The issue here is consent, anyone should be able to marry anyone else as long as both parties are consenting. A dog can not consent to a marriage, neither can a toaster or a sex doll. 3 Women and 1 man can all consent, let them marry, 2 men can consent let them marry.
The main non-religious objection to polygamy is that the extremely wealthy (and those who want to look wealthy) would have multiple spouses, creating a situation where the number of available females is much lower than the number of available males.
I’d imagine jealousy would be another big issue, especially as the man ages and consequently can’t provide as much sexy-time as before.
Oh! And what happens if the man dies? Do the women keep living together?
While preventing a man from marrying his dog, his favorite fictional character, a corpse, an irrational number, an abstract concept, a pillow with the picture of an anime character, and/or anything like that may not violate anyone’s rights – it’s still illegal because those things can legally sign a contract – and Marriage is a contract.
Ignorance is treating those two issues as equal, one and the same.
What I find super-duper hilarious is the fact that, in the post right under this one, someone ( presumably someone who would disagree with prop 8 ) defaced the image of a staunch heterosexual conservative, and used being “gay” as if it were an insult.
Maybe we aren’t so different after all. Group hug?
Some jokes just don’t play to the idiot fringe –
oh no your using your brain on this site. Watch out they don’t like that here!!!
You know, the most of the people in the top photo would beat someone who didn’t go along with them, a large number would kill. The ones in the bottom, a small number would beat on someone who didn’t go along with them and a couple would kill, also the bottom group will chase the violent ones away most of the time. The top picture is a picture of democrats, the bottom is republicans.
Yeah, we all know how much the Democrats hate race mixing, that’s why they’d NEVER consider a mixed-race candidate for President.
Yes, there was a time when many Democrats especially in the south, were heavily racist and wrote many of the Jim Crow laws. But that was then, this is now. I think that’s the point of the post, what looked like a good idea then often looks stupid a few decades later.
That also happened to be at a time where the Republican part stood for larger government and individual liberty and the Democratic party was for the nonintervention of the government and classic family values, the beliefs of the parties have swapped over the years.
Every time I see the word ignorant used all it does is show the user is ignorant of it’s meaning.
That’s just your brain trying to protect you from people when they’re trying to tell you things you need to know.
That doesn’t even make sense.
casemods 2.0 is annoying.