• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Bill'O argues for polygamous marriages

A

Aught3

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>


Seems to boil down to: if we allow two people to get married shouldn't we allow three people to get married?

Ok Bill, I accept your reasoning; let's allow polygamous marriages.
 
arg-fallbackName="Otokogoroshi"/>
UGGG I hate the slippery slope argument. I'm all for whoever wants to marry whoever. Marry as many men or women you want I don't care. As long as all parties are WILLING and legally able to marry (IE adults)

I stopped watching the moment the blond bint said 'slippery slop'

The argument of upholding 'traditional marriage' is moronic. Who's tradition? When? In the history of the world there has been countless multiple partner marriages (sadly mostly between one man and many women, I'm for one woman many man :p). There is no such thing as the traditional marriage that people promote.



Oh a quick look at 'traditional marriage'

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=I-Now-Denounce-You-Chuck-&-Larry



Someone embed it... I don't know how.
 
arg-fallbackName="IBSpify"/>
Bill O's arguement is you have to explain why 2 and not three.

Simply, because the social-economic structure is built around 2 people. This is why the equating gay marraige to polygamy is a bad argument, is because in the grand scheme of things allowing gay marriage only changes one thing, it removes the words one man / one woman. For polygamy due to custody and proporty laws which are tied into marriage it would entail a rewriting of nearly all the laws tied to it.

For example, hospital decision rights, the wife is sick can't make the decision for her self, her two husbands are in disagreement over whether should should receive a dangerous, but helpful surgery. which of the 2 really gets the final say?
 
arg-fallbackName="irmerk"/>
Once again, as always, every further episode of the O'Reilly Factor proves more and more that no matter what, every second of the show is complete and utter bullshit.

Equating an adult human to a turtle? Equating two people to three people? Just like IBSpify said... Either way, he is the one trying to equate a legal adult with an animal which cannot sign a contract as well as two people in union being the same as three people. Guess what that means? The onus of proof is on him.

As for the taking of 'Christian' out of the business title, I would like to direct you to this thread if you have yet to see it. I would dare say having 'Christian' in the title would turn more people away than to not have it. That dumb bitch on the left, Gretchen Carlson, as you would know if you ever watch the show, Fox & Friends, that she regularly hosts, is a dumb fucking cunt.

Oh, and the opposition of a free and civil rights activist getting his own holiday? What the fuck? So, were they opposed to Martin Luther King Jr. day?
 
arg-fallbackName="darthrender2010"/>
GoodKat said:
You're gonna have to find some special guys for that one to work out.
Click to expand...

how is it any different for it to be more than one woman? why wouldn't you need to find some special women for it to work out as well?
 
arg-fallbackName="GoodKat"/>
^It seems to work in some Nepalese villages.
Click to expand...
darthrender2010 said:
how is it any different for it to be more than one woman? why wouldn't you need to find some special women for it to work out as well?
Click to expand...
I was of course speaking in context of western culture.
 
arg-fallbackName="Gnomesmusher"/>
I still have yet to hear a valid argument that allowing gays to marry will somehow change the number of partners allowed in a marriage. Buncha retards.
 
arg-fallbackName="orpiment99"/>
I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why the government should be able to tell anyone who they can or can't marry, under any circumstance (which includes polygamy). Marriage is a religious concept. If they country wants to keep it, then it shouldn't be "marriage". Call it all civil unions, let people marry in a religious ceremony in addition if they wish, then draft up the laws governing it that they think they can get away with.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Let's talk about what this is really about: religious idiots know that every time people are allowed to do something they don't approve of, it makes it easier to be allowed to do other things that make Jeebus angry. So, really... fuck them, those fucking fuckers! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top