Niagara Falls Celebrates Marriage Equality

[UNHWildCats]

[clenz]

Water makes prisms. That's all I'm seeing.

[JohnStOnge]

Obvioulsy, "marriage equality" does not exist since polygamy is still not legal in New York.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh, and people marrying cows isn't legal there either.

[BlueHen86]

Obvioulsy, "marriage equality" does not exist since polygamy is still not legal in New York.

You're just angry that NY didn't legalize pedophelia.

And, obviously, since nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy; everyone is being treated equally. So your example is flawed, obvioulsy.

Same as the one about marrying cows, obviously.

[BlueHen86]

Oh, and people marrying cows isn't legal there either.

Only because "I moo" is not an acceptable wedding vow.

[Skjellyfetti]

JSO will never rest until him and NAMBLA have full equality.

[JohnStOnge]

And, obviously, since nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy; everyone is being treated equally. So your example is flawed, obvioulsy.

Uhh...since nobody was allowed to marry a member of their own sex before this homosexual marriage thing started, everyone was being treated equally all along. Everybody was allowed the same opportunity: Find one member of the oppostie sex willing to marry you and you can get married.

If you define marriage at all you are excluding some arrangements as being "marriage."

As I've written before, there was no "unequal treatment" of anybody associated with the definition of marriage as it existed. Anyone who wanted to get married to a member of the opposite sex could. The fact that we have perverts who would prefer to be married to members of their own sex does not change that.

And people would would prefer to be married to two members of the opposite sex are not allowed to do that.

My argument is not flawed at all. What's flawed is the idea that defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman was "unequal treatment" of anyone. It's not. But if you're going to define it as such you need to accept the premise that definining it at all is unequal treatment. And you are not treating people who want to engage in polygamy equally.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO will never rest until him and NAMBLA have full equality.

I fail to see what NAMBLA has to do with the proposition that it is normal for a sexually mature member of one sex of a given species to be attracted to a sexually mature member of the opposite sex of the same species.

[Skjellyfetti]

I fail to see what NAMBLA has to do with the proposition that it is normal for a sexually mature member of one sex of a given species to be attracted to a sexually mature member of the opposite sex of the same species.

A cow can't give consent when you assrape it.

[∞∞∞]

I wouldn't mind legalizing polygamy, but I honestly don't think it'd matter much. Polygamists, specifically the women, often use their status as a "single" mother to gain government benefits. I doubt legalizing it will actually get them to marry, especially since they'll lose those benefits. Still, I say legalize it; if it doesn't really effect the lives of other people, why shouldn't polygamists be able to live and be equally recognized for their beliefs?

[ODUsmitty]

While polygamy would have some obvious benefits like rotation of your women to make it seem like you are scoring some "strange" regularly; its hard enough to keep up with one bat-ass crazy woman, much less more.

[BlueHen86]

And, obviously, since nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy; everyone is being treated equally. So your example is flawed, obvioulsy.

Uhh...since nobody was allowed to marry a member of their own sex before this homosexual marriage thing started, everyone was being treated equally all along. Everybody was allowed the same opportunity: Find one member of the oppostie sex willing to marry you and you can get married.

If you define marriage at all you are excluding some arrangements as being "marriage."

As I've written before, there was no "unequal treatment" of anybody associated with the definition of marriage as it existed. Anyone who wanted to get married to a member of the opposite sex could. The fact that we have perverts who would prefer to be married to members of their own sex does not change that.

And people would would prefer to be married to two members of the opposite sex are not allowed to do that.

My argument is not flawed at all. What's flawed is the idea that defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman was "unequal treatment" of anyone. It's not. But if you're going to define it as such you need to accept the premise that definining it at all is unequal treatment. And you are not treating people who want to engage in polygamy equally.

If nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy, then everyone is being treated equally. Obviously.

Your example is flawed, obviously.

[BDKJMU]

Obvioulsy, "marriage equality" does not exist since polygamy is still not legal in New York.

You're just angry that NY didn't legalize pedophelia.

And, obviously, since nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy; everyone is being treated equally. So your example is flawed, obvioulsy.

Same as the one about marrying cows, obviously.

And prior to the latter half of the 20th century, sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, often targeted toward sexual acts between persons of the same sex, were historically universal.

50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been considered as ludicrous as polygamy is now. And if you think 50 years from now polygamy won't be more accepted, even legal in some states, your kidding yourself.

So no, JSO's example isn't flawed. Slippery slope.

[BlueHen86]

You're just angry that NY didn't legalize pedophelia.

And, obviously, since nobody is allowed to engage in polygamy; everyone is being treated equally. So your example is flawed, obvioulsy.

Same as the one about marrying cows, obviously.

And prior to the latter half of the 20th century, sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, often targeted toward sexual acts between persons of the same sex, were historically universal.

50 years ago the notion of gay marriage would have been considered as ludicrous as polygamy is now. And if you think 50 years from now polygamy won't be more accepted, even legal in some states, your kidding yourself.

So no, JSO's example isn't flawed. Slippery slope.

So might marijuana use and prostitution. The fact that they might someday be accepted or legal has nothing to do with "equality".

Prohibition had nothing to do with equality either.

[kalm]

JSO will never rest until him and NAMBLA have full equality.

I fail to see what NAMBLA has to do with the proposition that it is normal for a sexually mature member of one sex of a given species to be attracted to a sexually mature member of the opposite sex of the same species.

Nor is it normal for an otherwise seemingly intelligent person to be so hung up by normality. Abnormality occurrs in nature all of the time, and some of the outcomes are beneficial.