I am not a polygamist personally, but the arguments look the same to me.
Then you're sticking your head in the....sand since I just explained how they aren't remotely comparable. Lost Boys: not a problem when two women marry. Devaluation of a person when they're 10% of a relationship instead of 50%: not a problem when two men marry. No amount of avoidance or faux reasonableness on your part is going to change that.
Look, we already went over all this crap in the 60's with inter-racial marriage. 50 years ago, people were making the same arguments you are right now, only with the variables switched around. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
Your opposition is based on the fact that some people in a group are bad, therefore, the entire group should be deprived of benefits enjoyed by the rest of society.
Project much? You're describing your motivations here, pal, not mine.
As the other respondent pointed out, polygamy does not just mean one man and many women, the opposite is possible as well.
Possible, and beyond rare for quite some time even if anti-polygamy laws disappeared tomorrow. Everyone knows the people to first jump on that bandwagon would be Mormons, who have never had multiple "brother husbands" for their women. Far behind them would be Muslims, for whom polygamy is also a one-way street.
So, my statement holds true: legalized polygamy would inherently devalue women.
Shouldn't consenting women and men be free to enter into any relationship they choose (note that these relationships involve legal consent; something an animal, toaster, or child cannot do)?
Shouldn't you be free to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude if you are desperate enough? Just because you have free will doesn't make it a legal contract, and that's before you get to the fact that "a necessitous man is not a free man", or women in this case. Don't bother trying to bring that back to same-sex marriage until you deal with the problems of devaluation and Lost Boys rather than ignore them.
Scalia isn't an origionalist, he's a hack that makes up his mind before hearings even begin, and then proceeds to find a justification for his pre-made decisions. Over and over again.
Couldn't you just as easily show this as bias toward the "left" by MSNBC and CNN?
The MSNBC that has Joe "dead intern" Scarborough on for three hours every morning, or the CNN who's star "reporter" just asked Greenwald why he shouldn't be locked up for espionage? Both networks are water carriers for right wing policies and right wing politicians. Yes, that includes Democrats, who today on most issues are to the right of Reagan in the 80's.
To put it another way: yes, Ron Paul believes that governments should only have the limited powers he agrees with
Ron Paul is a hack. He voted against a resolution calling for the end of genocide in Darfur not because he's supporting the genocide, but because he says (purely symbolic) resolutions are outside of Congress's delegated powers.
Okay, fair enough. But then what part of the Constitution supports Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception?
Laws against polygamy are most likely unconstitutional and by following the same logic as in this case
Not remotely the same logic. See my other replies in this thread.
Furthermore, laws preventing the marriage of siblings are also likely unconstitutional.
Again with the moranic comparisons. Consensual same-sex relationships have what to do with the genetic dangers posed by incest and the increased risk of sexual abuse, how again?
Polygamy inherently devalues women, because instead of being half the relationship, now they are 25%, 15%, 5% of the relationship while the husband always remains at 50%. It also prevents (poor) young men from having families of their own, because the richest people in town have already bought all the eligible young women. Sometimes those young men are even excommunicated or driven out of town, as I already cited with a link that three people have now skipped over.
None of those problems exist with same-sex marriage. None. So, again, this is comparing apples to irrelevant oranges and you are on the wrong side of history and basic human decency.
They all involve redefining marriage to include the unnatural, some more extreme than others.
More unnatural than getting it on with your son? A table condiment? "Marrying" the girl you just raped who's land you've invaded? Knocking up your sister-in-law because your brother died before they had kids? With your 700 wives and 300 concubines?
but I wouldn't call it idiotic -- the argument has merit
The argument is asinine. None of the problems of polygamy - see again the lost boys - have anything to do with what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Polygamy inherently devalues women and prevents poor men from having families of their own. And homosexuals wont be free to engage in polygamy either, so WYFP again?
Or are you trying to claim permanent homosexual coupling is not unnatural? Nature certainly disagrees
Oh, it certainly does - with you. Long term homosexual relationships have been observed in everything from penguins to flamingos.
This is the same bigotry that banned inter-racial marriage. Same bigoted BS, different pile.
Great, I assume we'll see your support for overturning 100+ years of discrimination against polygamists and the restoration (with interest) of the properties confiscated from them by the state and federal governments?
Great, but where's the equally idiotic comparisons to marrying your toaster, your dog, or a 10 year kid?
Same-sex marriage has jack and shit to do with polygamy, and Jack left town. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read up on lost boys and get back to us with a relevant comparison.
If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.
The United States runs two major (and who knows how many minor) gulags: Gitmo and Bagram Prison. How many does Spain have?
The United States has tortured at least 100 people to death in it's War Of Terror. How does that compare to say, Italy?
Then there's the trifling matter that the United States has the largest prison population in the world, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of it's population. More than China, more than Russia, more than Turkey, and most are locked up for victimless drug offenses.
So he leaked sources and methods. That is exactly what shouldn't have been leaked.
When the administration claims about "terrorism" have been shown to be bunk, and we're just pulling this crap to be the biggest dicks on the block, it sounds like you have that exactly backwards.
29yo SWM seeking girl for serious relationship no high school diploma walked away from a job with one of the world's premier consulting companies
He's intelligent, has an average to low body fat percentage, cares about others, and oh yeah has gigantic brass balls to take on the NSA. So yeah, unless you're a rock star who's gone platinum, Snowden is going to be far more desired than you will ever be.
But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalà Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (RosalÃa Arteaga / FabiÃn AlarcÃn).
Certainly possible. But there's also the recent trend of Central and South American countries getting sick and tired of America's bullshit. Even if a CIA stooge takes power in Ecuador, Snowden might have enough time to move to move to Venezuela or Brazil.
Or if he really wants to thumb his nose at the American empire: Cuba.
No shortage of subsidies when it comes to wind and solar.
Compared to nuclear power? Uh, yeah. There is. Then there's the trifling matter that nuclear power simply would not exist without massive government subsidies - which is not the case for wind or solar.
Which are rather poor methods of generating electricity.
Having zero comparable safety risks while giving you more power for you dollar is "poor"? And that's before you get to storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years.
Why would any company in their right mind research new reactor designs in countries where the government won't let them be built?
Why would anyone in their right mind accept that premise as valid when multinational business interests have been around for thousands of years? As if Halliburton et all gives a rat's ass about American regulations when they can make a buck somewhere else.
Do note that the executed citizens were promoting terrorist activities against the USA from countries unable to arrest them. Had these people surrendered themselves they would have been brought to trial. As an American I have no problem with the outcome.
Do note that with our "signature strikes" that we don't even know who we're killing.
Do note that we kill 49 civilians for every alleged terrorist.
How many people were terrorists at the weddings and funerals we've bombed?
You are your fellow authoritarians are every bit as depraved as the "terrorists" you are killing, but you have a lot more blood on your hands.
Bradley Manning on the other hand I have nothing but contempt for and whatever sentence he gets will not be sufficient to satisfy me that he's been punished for what he did.
Funny how you don't care about the lawbreaking revealed by Manning.
Not a single prisoner has been sent to Guantanamo since 2008
Right. New prisoners have been sent to Bagram Prison, some black site, or a friendly dictatorship for some TLC. Same shit different place.
and every single detainee was an islamic fundamentalist.
Or.....turned into American forces for a bounty. Maybe that's why almost 100 people have been cleared for release, for years.
If the U.S. takes him, he will face criminal charges by the DOJ and will see a lengthy and arguably fair trial.
For what? How could he violate American laws when he wasn't on American soil?
Assange is being excessively paranoid. He would be no less safe in Sweden.
Your ignorance is showing again. The Swedish government has knowingly handed people over to the United States to be tortured. And while they might have nice hippie socialisicy health care and retirement benefits, their "justice system" is straight out of a third world dictatorship. Suspects are held incommunicado, without lawyers, and can be sentenced in a regular Star Chamber.
Oh look, another Assange supporter who hasn't bothered to read the Court rulings...
Oh look, another authoritarian sheep mindlessly repeating talking points that were debunked in the very post he was replying to.
Swedish authorities have traveled to ask questions of "suspects" without having them extradited, it's that simple. Any thing else is hand waving BS. As is your ignoring of of the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to extradite him to a third country.
Stop ignoring the facts. This is a witch hunt, and obviously so.
You're more likely to be killed by you fucking living room couch falling on you than from a terrorist attack. The "right answer" is to stop cowering under your bed any time a corrupt authoritarian yells "Boo", whichever party he's from.
He's a hardcore winger authoritarian. And when he's not, he's busy making excuses for immigrants from Russia in 1990 having a greater right to land in the West Bank than the families that have been living their since 1390.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're sticking your head in the....sand since I just explained how they aren't remotely comparable. Lost Boys: not a problem when two women marry. Devaluation of a person when they're 10% of a relationship instead of 50%: not a problem when two men marry. No amount of avoidance or faux reasonableness on your part is going to change that.
Look, we already went over all this crap in the 60's with inter-racial marriage. 50 years ago, people were making the same arguments you are right now, only with the variables switched around. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
Project much? You're describing your motivations here, pal, not mine.
Possible, and beyond rare for quite some time even if anti-polygamy laws disappeared tomorrow. Everyone knows the people to first jump on that bandwagon would be Mormons, who have never had multiple "brother husbands" for their women. Far behind them would be Muslims, for whom polygamy is also a one-way street.
So, my statement holds true: legalized polygamy would inherently devalue women.
Shouldn't you be free to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude if you are desperate enough? Just because you have free will doesn't make it a legal contract, and that's before you get to the fact that "a necessitous man is not a free man", or women in this case. Don't bother trying to bring that back to same-sex marriage until you deal with the problems of devaluation and Lost Boys rather than ignore them.
So when did you chose to stop loving the cock and focus on boxes instead, since sexuality is a choice? When you were 13? 16? 30?
So is the 14th. You should Google it sometime...
That ship sailed a long time ago.
Scalia isn't an origionalist, he's a hack that makes up his mind before hearings even begin, and then proceeds to find a justification for his pre-made decisions. Over and over again.
That's exactly what it means. You should Google the term sometime - you wont even have to try hard.
The MSNBC that has Joe "dead intern" Scarborough on for three hours every morning, or the CNN who's star "reporter" just asked Greenwald why he shouldn't be locked up for espionage? Both networks are water carriers for right wing policies and right wing politicians. Yes, that includes Democrats, who today on most issues are to the right of Reagan in the 80's.
Ron Paul is a hack. He voted against a resolution calling for the end of genocide in Darfur not because he's supporting the genocide, but because he says (purely symbolic) resolutions are outside of Congress's delegated powers.
Okay, fair enough. But then what part of the Constitution supports Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception?
Not remotely the same logic. See my other replies in this thread.
Again with the moranic comparisons. Consensual same-sex relationships have what to do with the genetic dangers posed by incest and the increased risk of sexual abuse, how again?
Too bad.
No. They can't. Not even close.
Polygamy inherently devalues women, because instead of being half the relationship, now they are 25%, 15%, 5% of the relationship while the husband always remains at 50%. It also prevents (poor) young men from having families of their own, because the richest people in town have already bought all the eligible young women. Sometimes those young men are even excommunicated or driven out of town, as I already cited with a link that three people have now skipped over.
None of those problems exist with same-sex marriage. None. So, again, this is comparing apples to irrelevant oranges and you are on the wrong side of history and basic human decency.
Everything. Again, see the link.
More unnatural than getting it on with your son? A table condiment? "Marrying" the girl you just raped who's land you've invaded? Knocking up your sister-in-law because your brother died before they had kids? With your 700 wives and 300 concubines?
The argument is asinine. None of the problems of polygamy - see again the lost boys - have anything to do with what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Polygamy inherently devalues women and prevents poor men from having families of their own. And homosexuals wont be free to engage in polygamy either, so WYFP again?
Oh, it certainly does - with you. Long term homosexual relationships have been observed in everything from penguins to flamingos.
This is the same bigotry that banned inter-racial marriage. Same bigoted BS, different pile.
Just take up a case of a gay married couple that moves to a state that has banned it, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Great, but where's the equally idiotic comparisons to marrying your toaster, your dog, or a 10 year kid?
Same-sex marriage has jack and shit to do with polygamy, and Jack left town. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read up on lost boys and get back to us with a relevant comparison.
The United States runs two major (and who knows how many minor) gulags: Gitmo and Bagram Prison. How many does Spain have?
The United States has tortured at least 100 people to death in it's War Of Terror. How does that compare to say, Italy?
Then there's the trifling matter that the United States has the largest prison population in the world, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of it's population. More than China, more than Russia, more than Turkey, and most are locked up for victimless drug offenses.
When the administration claims about "terrorism" have been shown to be bunk, and we're just pulling this crap to be the biggest dicks on the block, it sounds like you have that exactly backwards.
He's intelligent, has an average to low body fat percentage, cares about others, and oh yeah has gigantic brass balls to take on the NSA. So yeah, unless you're a rock star who's gone platinum, Snowden is going to be far more desired than you will ever be.
Certainly possible. But there's also the recent trend of Central and South American countries getting sick and tired of America's bullshit. Even if a CIA stooge takes power in Ecuador, Snowden might have enough time to move to move to Venezuela or Brazil.
Or if he really wants to thumb his nose at the American empire: Cuba.
Compared to nuclear power? Uh, yeah. There is. Then there's the trifling matter that nuclear power simply would not exist without massive government subsidies - which is not the case for wind or solar.
Having zero comparable safety risks while giving you more power for you dollar is "poor"? And that's before you get to storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years.
Why would anyone in their right mind accept that premise as valid when multinational business interests have been around for thousands of years? As if Halliburton et all gives a rat's ass about American regulations when they can make a buck somewhere else.
Oooo, another mindless authoritarian tool.
Do note that with our "signature strikes" that we don't even know who we're killing.
Do note that we kill 49 civilians for every alleged terrorist.
How many people were terrorists at the weddings and funerals we've bombed?
You are your fellow authoritarians are every bit as depraved as the "terrorists" you are killing, but you have a lot more blood on your hands.
Funny how you don't care about the lawbreaking revealed by Manning.
Right. New prisoners have been sent to Bagram Prison, some black site, or a friendly dictatorship for some TLC. Same shit different place.
Or.....turned into American forces for a bounty. Maybe that's why almost 100 people have been cleared for release, for years.
For what? How could he violate American laws when he wasn't on American soil?
Your ignorance is showing again. The Swedish government has knowingly handed people over to the United States to be tortured. And while they might have nice hippie socialisicy health care and retirement benefits, their "justice system" is straight out of a third world dictatorship. Suspects are held incommunicado, without lawyers, and can be sentenced in a regular Star Chamber.
Oh look, another authoritarian sheep mindlessly repeating talking points that were debunked in the very post he was replying to.
Swedish authorities have traveled to ask questions of "suspects" without having them extradited, it's that simple. Any thing else is hand waving BS. As is your ignoring of of the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to extradite him to a third country.
Stop ignoring the facts. This is a witch hunt, and obviously so.
Unless you always wear full body armor, all he needs is a .22 and good aim.
Sweetie.
No True Libertarian would put up with such nonsense, either.
You're more likely to be killed by you fucking living room couch falling on you than from a terrorist attack. The "right answer" is to stop cowering under your bed any time a corrupt authoritarian yells "Boo", whichever party he's from.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/
He's a hardcore winger authoritarian. And when he's not, he's busy making excuses for immigrants from Russia in 1990 having a greater right to land in the West Bank than the families that have been living their since 1390.