NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the anti-gay contingent have no logic behind their argument, I think it's safe to say that eventually our side will win.
What do you think will happen after that? Before gay-rights we had black rights, and there are still plenty of wronged groups around, so who's next?
BTW, I am serious here, even though I'm also partially joking.
Second BTW, I'm mostly including sexual things here because between black rights and the reaction to the holocaust, everything else is covered.
I doubt gay rights will bring all the other odd sexual preferences along with them due to the argument of the religious right that "If gay rights is legalised, eventually bestiality etc. will".

ummmm....

What makes you think it would necessarily have to do with sex?
Personally, I think the next civil rights battle will be about getting back those rescinded in the "war against terror".

Since the anti-gay contingent have no logic behind their argument, I think it's safe to say that eventually our side will win.
What do you think will happen after that? Before gay-rights we had black rights, and there are still plenty of wronged groups around, so who's next?
BTW, I am serious here, even though I'm also partially joking.
Second BTW, I'm mostly including sexual things here because between black rights and the reaction to the holocaust, everything else is covered.
I doubt gay rights will bring all the other odd sexual preferences along with them due to the argument of the religious right that "If gay rights is legalised, eventually bestiality etc. will".

Since the voting rights act is set to repeal and the Republicans don't want to renew it, I guess that's going to be the next battle.

The gay-marriage side is going to win because the youth of today are comfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage and will vote it in once the bigots of todays middle-age to old generation dies off in the next 10 to 20 years.

The only, heh, "realistic" choice on that list is Polygamy, and even then it's a little iffy...

Really, what else is there?

I can see polygamy as being a fairly quick one, since it's between consenting adults, and I can't think of any reasons for the state to have a compelling interest in a marriage being just two people.

The only, heh, "realistic" choice on that list is Polygamy, and even then it's a little iffy...

Really, what else is there?

*waits for this to become a second amendment thread...*

Necrophilia is realistic too, assuming the corpse consented.

I can see polygamy as being a fairly quick one, since it's between consenting adults, and I can't think of any reasons for the state to have a compelling interest in a marriage being just two people.



Polygamy is the marriage of multiple people, and people get tax breaks for being married. You can't degrade marrige like that. It is between 2 people and there is no good reason to change that.

Necrophilia, because that's part of the Democrat's voting base. :D

Necrophilia, because that's part of the Democrat's voting base. :D


So THAT's how Kerry got so many people to vote for him!

Polygamy is the marriage of multiple people, and people get tax breaks for being married. You can't degrade marrige like that. It is between 2 people and there is no good reason to change that.
There's no good reason NOT to change it either.

Polygamy is the marriage of multiple people, and people get tax breaks for being married. You can't degrade marrige like that. It is between 2 people and there is no good reason to change that.

How does that "degrade" it in any way other than a religious sense.

So THAT's how Kerry got so many people to vote for him!
Kerry? That's how BUSH got so many people to vote for him.
Come on, you were surprized too when Bush won.

How does that "degrade" it in any way other than a religious sense.



It makes it a joke and something people do just to get Tax breaks. You can't beat that fact.

I'd say that it might actually go towards Arab and otherwise Middle-eastern-looking people, since there's been quite a bit of discrimination against the above since 9/11. Which really sucks for the Middle-eastern-looking and/or those with similar-sounding names, but have nothing to do with it, even as an innocent from <insert relevant country here, since a few are involved>.

Kerry? That's how BUSH got so many people to vote for him.
Come on, you were surprized too when Bush won.


No I wasn't, I voted for him.

Er, I'm not sure the existing civil rights battles - voting rights, women's rights, gay rights - are exactly a done deal yet.

It makes it a joke and something people do just to get Tax breaks. You can't beat that fact.

Given the rate of divorce already, I think that most people think it's a joke already.

I'd say that it might actually go towards Arab and otherwise Middle-eastern-looking people, since there's been quite a bit of discrimination against the above since 9/11. Which really sucks for the Middle-eastern-looking and/or those with similar-sounding names, but have nothing to do with it, even as an innocent from <insert relevant country here, since a few are involved>.
I don't think that there's been a big rise in discrimination agaisnt Arabs since 9/11. Hell, I don't even think that they're being profiled like they should be.

Given the rate of divorce already, I think that most people think it's a joke already.



Ang you want to make it worse? I knew you couldn't beat that argument.

It makes it a joke and something people do just to get Tax breaks. You can't beat that fact.
People can marry for tax breaks NOW.
Considering it's not very common, I don't see why it would be common for polygamists either.

Polygamy is the marriage of multiple people, and people get tax breaks for being married. You can't degrade marrige like that. It is between 2 people and there is no good reason to change that.
Culturally, the most widely practiced form of marriage is polygyny. It is actually more expensive to have a polygamous marriage.
And no, people won't get married just for tax breaks. And if that is such an issue, don't give them. There is no reason a married couple absolutly has to have a tax break only for being married.

People can marry for tax breaks NOW.
Considering it's not very common, I don't see why it would be common for polygamists either.


But they can only marry ONE person! Make polygamy legal and they will marry MULTIPLE people for tax breaks! :rolleyes:

Also, Polygamy has been used for fraud in some states/counties...A bunch of women are married to one guy...Guy sends them out to collect welfare checks...Each one collects a check...See how prone to fraud it would be?

Some extreme groups call it "Draining The Beast" :rolleyes:

Er, I'm not sure the existing civil rights battles - voting rights, women's rights, gay rights - are exactly a done deal yet.
Even if they're not, once they're acknowledged won it leaves space for something else.

Also, Polygamy has been used for fraud in some states/counties...A bunch of women are married to one guy...Guy sends them out to collect welfare checks...Each one collects a check...See how prone to fraud it would be?

Some extreme groups call it "Draining The Beast" :rolleyes:


More reasons to be against it.

Even if they're not, once they're acknowledged won it leaves space for something else.


Why do Liberals always need a war to fight?

But they can only marry ONE person! Make polygamy legal and they will marry MULTIPLE people for tax breaks! :rolleyes:
Yeah. People marry for the tax breaks all the time nowadays. They even stay with their spouse when they start to hate each other because otherwise they'd lose their tax break. That's why there's no divorce.

No it hasn't been used for fraud in some states, as there is currently no state in which it is legal.

Why do Liberals always need a war to fight?
Why do Conservatives always need to fight the war?

Why do Liberals always need a war to fight?
Because there are people and principles to fight for.

No it hasn't been used for fraud in some states, as there is currently no state in which it is legal.
Don't confuse the issue with "facts" and "logic". It just makes 'em angry.

No it hasn't been used for fraud in some states, as there is currently no state in which it is legal.
Why don't you read the news sometime, doof? I saw it on America's Most Wanted, where some guy was running a Cult in one county in Utah or one of them mormon states, and the men would often send their wives to collect welfare checks in order to "Drain The Beast" (and also collect lots of cash).

The leader is currently on the run...

Also, Polygamy has been used for fraud in some states/counties...A bunch of women are married to one guy...Guy sends them out to collect welfare checks...Each one collects a check...See how prone to fraud it would be?

Some extreme groups call it "Draining The Beast" :rolleyes:
Where/when did this happen? I'd like to see an actual link than just the claim.
Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US, and as such, a polygamist marriage could not occur.
If it were legal, then there would be checks on it, same as there is with standard marriage.

Why do Conservatives always need to fight the war?



OOOOOHHHHH, good comeback! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then they could have accomplished the same on their own, as there still is no state in which polygamy is legally recognized.
Including Utah, as the main group of mormons doesn't practise it anymore, and hasn't since about the 1800's.

Because there are people and principles to fight for.



Not really, Liberals just like to fight.

Why don't you read the news sometime, doof? I saw it on America's Most Wanted, where some guy was running a Cult in one county in Utah or one of them mormon states, and the men would often send their wives to collect welfare checks in order to "Drain The Beast" (and also collect lots of cash).

The leader is currently on the run...
Who can argue with concrete facts like that:rolleyes:

The fact is, they were not legally married. They could not have been, as polygamy is not legal in the US.

People seem to be really concerned with this imaginary "tax break". The truth is that, in most places in the US, as well as many European countries, married couples pay MORE in taxes than they would individually. The "married" tax brackets were designed for a single income home. Most homes are no longer single income. As such, marriage generally increases the taxes paid, rather than decreasing them.

As for polygamy, it is a situation that a group of people might want to enter into - and that situation would need legal protections. However, the protections afforded to marriage couldn't really be neatly applied to a polygamous relationship. Thus, a new type of construct would be necessary (even if it was still called "marriage", it would have to be different from what we currently refer to as such). The most likely legal construct for polygamous marriage is actually incorporation.

Where/when did this happen? I'd like to see an actual link than just the claim.
Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US, and as such, a polygamist marriage could not occur.
If it were legal, then there would be checks on it, same as there is with standard marriage.

Do a google search on "Warren Jeffs". The marriages aren't civilly recognized, but that doesn't matter to Jeffs' followers--they just have a religious ceremony and call it good.

Do a google search on "Warren Jeffs". The marriages aren't civilly recognized, but that doesn't matter to Jeffs' followers--they just have a religious ceremony and call it good.



He also forces young girls to get married.

Not really, Liberals just like to fight.

There ARE principles to fight for. Actually, every civil right battle has been the same principles applied to different groups.

Do a google search on "Warren Jeffs". The marriages aren't civilly recognized, but that doesn't matter to Jeffs' followers--they just have a religious ceremony and call it good.
Well, this thread has moved to debating making polygamy legal. As it is not legal, that was not a marriage. Marriage is primarily a legal contract in the United States and most other nations. If there is no legal contract of rights and responsibilities, there is no marriage. As such, the point fails.

I can run out into the street, grab the first girl I see, and declare us married. It doesn't make it true, and it would not be recognized. I would not get tax breaks, I would not get medical rights, I wouldn't get insurance rights, etc.

If there were legal polygamist marriage, there would be the same checks on it as there are on monogamous marriage. And as it is, few marriages occur to commit fraud.

The next Civil Rights battle will be about me. Whole swarms of people all across the United States will protest until I get many more rights than anyone has ever had before. Including the right to steal things which I feel will benefit me and make me a more well rounded person. Like a porsche or a super computer.

The next Civil Rights battle will be about me. Whole swarms of people all across the United States will protest until I get many more rights than anyone has ever had before. Including the right to steal things which I feel will benefit me and make me a more well rounded person. Like a porsche or a super computer.

No! No! It will be about ME!

Reproductive freedom is the battle I'm up for next. The Supreme Court is beginning to scare me.

I say it'll propably be incest.... all those southern conservatives should jump right on that one, as soon as somebody tells them what it means... :p

Why don't you read the news sometime, doof? I saw it on America's Most Wanted, where some guy was running a Cult in one county in Utah or one of them mormon states, and the men would often send their wives to collect welfare checks in order to "Drain The Beast" (and also collect lots of cash).

The leader is currently on the run...
And why is he on the run? Because they were defrauding the welfare system, right? It's not legal. Saying that polygamy invariably leads to welfare fraud is as absurd as saying the internet will invariably lead to athelete's foot. One has nothing to do with the other.

And why is he on the run? Because they were defrauding the welfare system, right? It's not legal. Saying that polygamy invariably leads to welfare fraud is as absurd as saying the internet will invariably lead to athelete's foot. One has nothing to do with the other.
Just to be safe, I'm going to start applying foot cream and illegally torrenting software to drain the internet.

Not really, Liberals just like to fight.
And conservatives just like to make up facts as they go along rather than pay attention to reality.

....wait, you're not supposed to rub your feet on the computers at the library?!?

....wait, you're not supposed to rub your feet on the computers at the library?!?

As long as they have an anti-virus program running, you're ok...

....wait, you're not supposed to rub your feet on the computers at the library?!?
EEW! You've been doing that? I'm sure the creepy old men who use those computers to masturbate don't appreciate touching them after you've smeared them with toejam. Well, unless they're foot fetishists. Then it's ok.

Reproductive freedom is the battle I'm up for next. The Supreme Court is beginning to scare me.

That's another good possibility, although it will probably go under "women's rights" and then someone will declare "but women ARE equal to men!" and it will be shoved aside no matter how untrue the second statement is... :/

Polygamy is the marriage of multiple people, and people get tax breaks for being married. You can't degrade marrige like that. It is between 2 people and there is no good reason to change that.

Uhuh...

If three or more people want to marry, and they all consent, I se absolutely no problem in that. Why do you?

Second BTW, I'm mostly including sexual things here because between black rights and the reaction to the holocaust, everything else is covered.

I'm going to dispute that. Right now, American society is heavily biased in favour of team players and people who work well with others. Anti-social people - introverts, really - are being marginalised, and it's unfair. They can't help that they prefer solitude.

The Neurodivserity movement is starting to pick up on this. It's really fighting for Autistic rights, but since that extends to Asperger's Syndrome they're also fighting for the rights of people to be loners, and not be subjected to hostile work environments where they need to work in teams, because they simply can't do that. They find it too stressful.

As far as the tax breaks go for polygamy, why not just tie the tax break into having/adopting children? thats the reason we want people married anyway, right? so no tax break for getting a piece of paper signed, but a fair tax break for each kid you are legally financially responsible for. That takes care of the one reasonable objection ive heard against gay marriage, and makes polygamy fight by the same rules.

As far as the tax breaks go for polygamy, why not just tie the tax break into having/adopting children? thats the reason we want people married anyway, right? so no tax break for getting a piece of paper signed, but a fair tax break for each kid you are legally financially responsible for. That takes care of the one reasonable objection ive heard against gay marriage, and makes polygamy fight by the same rules.

No, that's really not why, so your argument is flawed. :/

No! No! It will be about ME!
Got a mob, man? I've got mad mobs.

And why is he on the run? Because they were defrauding the welfare system, right?

That and the whole sex with underage girls thing, yup.

It's not legal. Saying that polygamy invariably leads to welfare fraud is as absurd as saying the internet will invariably lead to athelete's foot. One has nothing to do with the other.

Indeed. Recognized polygamy would actually reduce the possibility of such fraud. As it is, those who commit such fraudulent actions do not report the fact that they are married to more than one person - and it is this lack of reporting that makes the fraud possible.

As far as the tax breaks go for polygamy, why not just tie the tax break into having/adopting children? thats the reason we want people married anyway, right? so no tax break for getting a piece of paper signed, but a fair tax break for each kid you are legally financially responsible for. That takes care of the one reasonable objection ive heard against gay marriage, and makes polygamy fight by the same rules.

Sounds about like what the law says in most places. Generally, there is a tax penalty on marriage, rather than a tax break. But those who can claim dependents - whether married or not - get a tax break for that.

Sounds about like what the law says in most places. Generally, there is a tax penalty on marriage, rather than a tax break. But those who can claim dependents - whether married or not - get a tax break for that.

SO whats the practical objection to legalizing polygamy and gay marriage? I don't think there is one.

Since the anti-gay contingent have no logic behind their argument

I'm sure this has been said before in this thread . . .

but when has that ever stopped anyone?

What makes you think it would necessarily have to do with sex?
Personally, I think the next civil rights battle will be about getting back those rescinded in the "war against terror".

Those are normally gotten back once hostilities are over. Hopefully sooner rather than later, though I can't think of one that actually has effected me.

Personally, I think the next civil rights battle will be regarding language. The Spanish/English thing is huge.

SO whats the practical objection to legalizing polygamy and gay marriage? I don't think there is one.

Polygamy makes filing taxes a bitch!! ;)



Q: What's the penalty for polygamy?
A: Having more than one wife! <rimshot!>

Polygamy is the only one that has a fair shot. So, if abused by hard-core mormons, polygamy can be a bad thing, but there are a few cases where the women are consenting. Of course, if it were legalised, it would have to be equally legal for a woman to marry several men....I can be both Princess of Luxembourg and Mrs. Alexandre Despatie...

I'm not holding out much hope, but I'd rather like to see the rights of the mentally ill defended a little better in the future...

Wow, didn't know there would be so much in other.

Since the anti-gay contingent have no logic behind their argument, I think it's safe to say that eventually our side will win.
What do you think will happen after that? Before gay-rights we had black rights, and there are still plenty of wronged groups around, so who's next?
BTW, I am serious here, even though I'm also partially joking.
Second BTW, I'm mostly including sexual things here because between black rights and the reaction to the holocaust, everything else is covered.
I doubt gay rights will bring all the other odd sexual preferences along with them due to the argument of the religious right that "If gay rights is legalised, eventually bestiality etc. will".
Until women have legal equality, that will always be "the next civil rights battle."

Until women have legal equality, that will always be "the next civil rights battle."
I have to say, the first thing I thought when I saw the thread title was "next one? Have we won the others so completely?"

Until women have legal equality, that will always be "the next civil rights battle."
Gonna have to disagree with you there.
After women's rights, the next civil rights battle was black rights. That's not over either, but it started after it was generally acknowledged women had won theirs.
Next was gay rights, which started after it was generally acknowledged black people had won their civil rights battle. Again, it's still not completly over
I'm asking what's next, not whether the last two are truely over.
And yes I know that wasn't supposed to be taken literally.*ducks shoe*

Gun owners.

Already had that one when the constitution was written, DM.
Or rather, we already zoomed over that one when the constitution was written.

Of all the listed...polygamy, because of all those listed, that is the one most easily defended and sets the least people off.

Already had that one when the constitution was written, DM.
Or rather, we already zoomed over that one when the constitution was written.

Looking at the new papers of today sure did fool me.

I dont see how anyone can be against Gays getting married...why shouldnt they have to suffer just like the rest of us ?

Polygamy is the only one that has a fair shot. So, if abused by hard-core mormons, polygamy can be a bad thing, but there are a few cases where the women are consenting. Of course, if it were legalised, it would have to be equally legal for a woman to marry several men....I can be both Princess of Luxembourg and Mrs. Alexandre Despatie...


I was about to thank everyone in the debate for not confusing Mormons with Polygamists :P but alas someone had to do it.

Polygamists are not Mormons. If a Mormon were caught practicing he/she would be immediately excommunicated, IE made no longer a Mormon.


This is probably going to be the issue that will be fought next as it affects middle eastern religions and others. So people coming here from those countries would probably like to have that respected.

Since the voting rights act is set to repeal and the Republicans don't want to renew it, I guess that's going to be the next battle.

The gay-marriage side is going to win because the youth of today are comfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage and will vote it in once the bigots of todays middle-age to old generation dies off in the next 10 to 20 years.

Middle aged people are 70 now?

Theres also the flip side of people with aids kicking the bucket to offset bigots going 6 feet underground to consider. It may take a little longer.

SO whats the practical objection to legalizing polygamy and gay marriage? I don't think there is one.

There really isn't. Polygamy, as I already pointed out, would need a separate legal construct, as legal marriage is specifically designed for two people and much of the protections therein cannot simply be applied to more. But there is no reason that four people who choose to live as a single entity cannot be recognized as such.

And there is absolutely no logical objection to gay marriage.

You're comparing gay rights to our dark-skinned friends rights...one is stupid and the other is important.

You're comparing gay rights to our dark-skinned friends rights...one is stupid and the other is important.

Why?

You're comparing gay rights to our dark-skinned friends rights...one is stupid and the other is important.
Which means you're either a homophobe or a racist.