Gee, you sound like people who argue against the analogy of interracial marriage!

Traditional marriage is usually defined by one man and one women marrying each other. That definition covers the number of people entering into marriage, as well as the gender. Polygamy and gay marriage are the very flipside of that traditional definition--one challenges the number, and the other challenges the gender. Both are the main challenge to traditional marriage--your movement and polygamy are two sides of the marriage-challenge coin, so to speak. You have a lot more in common with the polygamy movement than you apparently realize. That's why early on your movement embraced the idea of polygamy, as I showed with that first gay rights charter.

I know it's misinformation and prejudice from my own personal life experience. What have you got? Fire and brimstone fear tactics and anti-gay propaganda.

Oh - they are just supposed to pony up to being all the ugly things that your fear mongering mind believes them to be or they are liars? Nothing like the courage shown when you demand that everyone else know their place somewhere below your own sanctamonious XXX. All the originality of a school yard bully.

I am not talking about activists. I am talking about people. The guy down the street, your doctor, your son' classmate's parents, you best friend's cousin. I am talking about showing respect for people who are gay - regardless of political activity or lack there of. If the kind of arguments being thrown around here against gays were used against any other group - you would be banned. I understand the anti gay stance no more than I do racists, neo-nazis, or serial killers.

Can we insult the love you have for your family? Can I tell you its perverse? That it's bad for your kids? Can I insult you this personally? Would you still just consider it debate? Is the validity of your marriage up for debate?

No - I don't find validity in a an opinion that serves to oppress.

__________________
“But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

"Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

So both represent two totally different things.

Both are the opposite sides of the coin, as you point out.

No, nothing in common. Gay people are challenging sex, polygamists challenge not sex, but number. With your logic polygamists have a lot in common with straight marriages, because polygamists don't challenge gender. Gay marriages must also have a lot in common with straight marriages, because gay marriages don't challenge number.

You really are dredging the bottom. The point that it was a long time ago is valid for what should be obvious reasons. The people who signed and supported polgomy are not the people who support modern gay rights. Under your logic the Catholic Church who supported mass executions of 'heretics' represents the modern Church. Your argument is COMPLETELY absurd.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

1972 wasn't THAT long ago for some of us. Do you not think that many of those people who signed on are still alive and active in the gay rights movement?

And besides, why get so defensive about polygamy anyway? It's not like it's some horrible thing to be compared to.

Of course I respect them as a person. You've mistaken disagreement with some points regarding gay rights with disapproval of them as a person. The mistake is yours.

That's because those are minorities based on legitimate claims--they are ethnic minorities. The concept of homosexuality in people's minds is as much based on behavior as anything, at least in the eyes of the public. But even then, gay people get plenty of respect anyway. And more importantly, those other minorities are not trying to change the institution of marriage in society. For that matter, I've read far more bannable material from people on your side of the aisle here--if the moderators were not fairly tolerant, many of the gay-rights proponents would be banned already.

I agree, you indeed do not understand the stance people are taking here against gay rights. (The very fact you call it "anti-gay" shows that.)

You are discriminating against the person who is gay.

That's the only "legitmate" category of minority in your view? That's outrageous! Gay people are a social group who are a legitimate minority.

It's not based on behaviour. I don't think it is based on behaviour in the eyes of most of the public.

You say this, after you suggest that gay people are not "legitimate".

They would be if they were disciminated against in marriage.

If you are against gay rights, you are anti-gay.

It IS a long time ago.

That's nonsense. They may have been and may still be active in the gay rights movement for all this time, but that does not mean they have been fighting for polygamy. That does not mean polygamy has been a part of the gay rights movement for all this time. That is in fact, not the case.

The problem is not that we are associated with polygamy, it is that you consider marriages as such: opposite-sex marriage, and everything else. So instead of consider same-sex marriage on it's own terms, you have chosen to believe that it is only possible have same-sex marriage if we also have everything else.

Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we? And there is no logical reason to believe that opposite-sex marriage is any less like polygamy than same-sex marriage, is there? So it appears to me that evidence is on the side of those who claim that same-sex marriage does not mandate polygamous marriage.

Further, even though being associated with polygamy is not a bad thing, such an association tends to make people forget that there are reasons to deny polygamous marriage which do not apply to same-sex marriage. So all a person has to do is say, "I know polygamy's wrong, so same-sex marriage must be wrong too." But in truth, no person is any more justified in saying that than they are in saying, "I know polygamy's wrong, so I know opposite-sex marriage must be wrong too."

As I have stated in the past, instead of stating that same-sex marriage mandates polygamous marriage, explain why the harms of polygamous marriage that I described are either false or also apply to same-sex marriage.

__________________
"Again, though a certain constitution should be contended for and supported by a majority of voices; yet this would be no sure evidence that it is free: an hundred may as truly tyrannize over one, as one over an hundred." -Nathaniel Niles

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." -Jesus, Matt. 5:10-11

No, that's not what I'm saying--I'm saying it is only possible to have equality in marriage if we also have everything else.

Oh oh, well... Yes, that is true. But equality is not always the right move. If equality can be shown to be more harmful than it is helpful, then we should not allow that equality.

But equality is a good thing. I can say, "We should allow incestuous marriage because it would be more equal." That is a logically valid point, and it accurately describes one of the benefits of incestuous marriage. However, incestuous marriage also has a lot of good reasons that we should disallow it as well. We've got to weigh the benefits of incestuous marriage against the harms, and we have to see which one comes out on top.

Certainly the arguments of freedom and equality apply as equally to same-sex marriage as they do to incestuous marriage, but foundation of the debate is the harms incestuous marriage creates. Those harms are not present in same-sex marriage.

In the case of polygamous marriage, I'm not so certain that claims of inequality or no freedom can be made. Polygamists are as able to use the benefits of marriage as anyone else is, they just can't extend those benefits to everyone in their relationship. Though realistically, no one is allowed to extend those benefits to more than one other; I really don't think that constitutes inequality or a denial of freedom by promoting one lifestyle over another.

__________________
"Again, though a certain constitution should be contended for and supported by a majority of voices; yet this would be no sure evidence that it is free: an hundred may as truly tyrannize over one, as one over an hundred." -Nathaniel Niles

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." -Jesus, Matt. 5:10-11

What "lies"???? What "misinformation"??? I have yet to see your side of the argument factually rebutt any argument brought forth in this forum. I do, however, continually see the very tactics you condem as the only tactics available to you.

__________________
Steve

Treaty of Tripoli : Appropriately Ratified
"ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

It's kind of funny, you're both playing different games by different rules and then complain when the other side doesn't play ball. I love political forums.

And once again, I can say the very same things about you. {shrug}

Every time you or someone else calls one of us "anti-gay", calls us a "bigot," or calls it "gay-bashing," it's a lie, pure and simple. And the really shameful thing is that you know it.

That's not the point. Trying to prove that a group of people in the past who said something now represent the modern movement is insane.

Do they represent it? No. Under your logic, the few catholic extremists who support executions for heretics represent the entire church. I swear a ever increasing amount of people here are completely brain dead to the basic notion of statistics. You obviously are one of them.

And you're ignorant. Polgomy is a astronomical rights abuser.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote