Why not just ban people you don't like/agree with outright?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Marley23

That’s a good stopping pont for the polygamy hijack. Please drop that tangential discussion or take it to another thread.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Incorrect. They are not a class. By definition, polygamists…

I respond…lengthy, but trying to steer it back to the point.

@CitizenPained

You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just is.

@CitizenPained

**
My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. **It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy?

Men marry women and have mistresses on the side all the time. Half of married couples have a cheater.
**
Marley, I am not trying to derail the thread. The thread has been derailed enough as we’re now talking about marriage and not the original Q. But if we’re talking about marriage, it’s only fair to talk about the reasoning behind it - and the reasoning behind legislating it.**

The same-sex marriage debate forces us to reexamine our views on marriage.

Arguments for same sex marriage have been:

[ol]
[li]You can’t punish someone for what is biologically natural (to them)[/li][li]Married couples get rights that non married couples don’t[/li][li]Gay people will have sex anyway, and legalizing same sex marriage discourages promiscuity (resulting in a decline of STDs and AIDS)[/li][li]Children that are raised by these unions need protection[/li][li]It doesn’t hurt anyone else’s marriage[/li][li]It’s unconstitutional to outlaw it[/li][li]Denying them is a violation of religious freedom[/li][li]Financial benefits[/li][li]Legal protections[/li][/ol]

So when tom argues about polygamy, it was fine, even though it was a hijack. But the thread had already been hijacked! Why ban one hijack and not another?

@Strassia

Rational basis is the level that Judge Walker used to reject Prop 8. I don’t want to bring up the polygamy thing again, but a rational basis for limiting marriage to one person is that adding multiple parties increases the complexity of marriage laws (divorce, inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin). That argument does not work for SSM. In fact the only way it really practically impacts governments is that they may have to change some pronouns on forms.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it?

You are conflating biological urges with some kind of higer “intention?” Cite that anything is “intended,” and specify who is the “intender.”

Three daughters.

Over my dead fucking body

The “norm” for human beings appears to be serial monagmy. Not just one partner throughout a lifetime, but generally one partner at a time.

This is horsehit. There’s nothing “anomalous” about them. It is a normal orientation. Calling it “abnormal” is like calling left-handed people abnormal. Homosexuality is ubiquitous not just among humans, but among mammals and other animals in general. It’s not anamolous in the slightest. Read some fucking literature.

There’s nothing biological about** polygamy. Polygamy** is a cultural practice, not a characteristic.

So your attempt to say that same-sex marriage bans don’t deprive gay people of rights is specious, fatuous sophistry. Just as with miscegenation laws, they deprive people of being able to marry the person of their choice, absent any rational basis for the government to do so.

there is no such thing as “meant for” in nature

What the fuck makes me a “militant atheist?” In what way am I “militant?”

Marriued gay people in South Dakota, in fact, do not exist and therefore cannot be a protected class. Unmarried gay people exist in South Dakota and are a “class,” but unmarried polygamists do not exist, by definition, and cannot eb a 'class."

I don’t give a fuck about polygamy one way or the other. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. The merits of polyygamy are not germane to the point that polygamy bans don’t discriminate because there is no class of people who are affected by it any more than any other class.
Why should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again?

I don’t care if you’re in favor of it or not. I’m just trying to explain that it’s discriminatory in a way that laws against** polygamy** are not.
[/QUOTE]

WHY was he not ‘warned’?! Dio can rail on my views and I can’t respond?

@Strassia

I guess I don’t understand your point about singles being discriminated against.

To avoid further hijacking(and the wrath of Tom) I started a thread on the polygamy issue.

So I don’t say the P word, but I do talk about biology, a little tongue in cheek, but I wasn’t going to say, Your dick is my cite.

@CitizenPained

Step 1: Open pants.
Step 2: Look down.
edit: Left-handed people are abnormal.

Medical anomaly

Dio, if reproduction weren’t an innate desire, then why the fuck to lesbians get sperm donors to have their own children? Duh.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is not an answer to the question. If you can’t cite your claim (and you can’t), just admit it. You asserted that biology has an “intention.” Cite?
Left-handedness is not a medical anomaly. Neither is homosexuality.

Your claim was not that people desire to reproduce, but that they are intended to? Intended to by who? You can’t have intention without an intender. Who is the intender?

@CitizenPained

Dio, I just cited what a medical anomaly was. Let me guess. Your post is your cite? When will you understand that you don’t get to redefine things because you feel like it?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Left-handedness is not an example of a medical anomaly. Citing the definition of an anomaly is not a cite. Left-handness does no meet the criteria. There is no anatomical difference between left-handed people and right-handed people.

Now, when are you going to explain who that “intender” is?

@CitizenPained

Dio, humans were built to reproduce. It’s not a new concept. Unless you’re under the age of 10, I can’t imagine why you don’t understand. This is backed up by both social and physiological factors.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite?

Built by who?

@boytyperanma

**I find questioning a judges ruling solely because he is homosexual to be homophobic behavior. **So I think it’s an appropriate description.

@YogSosoth

When you talk about **polygamy, **you are talking about ‘groups’. Polygamists are not an officially recognized Protected Class, so you can discriminate against them in marriage. Whatever you think of that situation, it stems from the fact that a gay person and a polygamist are fundamentally different in how they achieve their statuses. And that difference contributes to the reason that one is a Protected Class and one is not

You want to claim they are the same, or should be the same, based on the simple notion that both can be called ‘groups’. But you’re wrong. Just because they are both part of a group does not mean they both deserve to be a Protected Class. Polygamy is illegal and I have no real problems with that. But discriminate against gays and I have a huge problem with it. Any rational person would agree with me

YogSosoth was wrong re: class, but again, no Warning.

@Marley23

I did not say you were doing anything malicious, but frankly, you are leaving me with no choice here. I understand how the issue of polygamy came up in this thread. It’s tangential and was detracting from the main topic, so** I instructed you and the other posters were to drop it. **You might think this thread is already irredeemably off-topic, but that doesn’t entitle you to ignore what I said. (If you think I got it wrong, message me or post in ATMB.) Continuing to post about it here is a deliberate hijack and is ignoring my instructions. This is a formal warning not to do that again.

@CitizenPained

So does this mean no one in this thread can talk about marriage definitions, or is it just me that’s restricted from saying the word polygamy? The actual hijack of the thread had nothing to do with polygamy, but rather the moral and legal rights and wrongs of marriage.

@CitizenPained

I didn’t question Walker himself. I asked if naysayers actually had any precedent for something regarding this unusual minority.

Can I call you a liar for misrepresenting me on purpose? Probably not. So don’t pull that bullshit. It makes you look stupid.

@Marley23

It means exactly what I wrote: there will be no more discussion of polygamy in this thread. That goes for everyone. There are now two other threads about polygamy anyway, so I don’t think this will be a big inconvenience.

@tomndebb

You are not paying attention and you are not getting it.

He did not call you a homophobe.
He noted that your arguments appeared to fit into the pattern of a person who had an animus against homosexuals. *(Posters could argue to the end of days as to whether homosexuality or left-handedness exists in sufficient proportions of the population to be anomalous or “normal,” but specifying medical anomaly invokes the connotation of a defect (although your citation fails to note that point). So while your statement might have been intended innocently, it conveyed a sinister message.) *Then you complained about being identified as homophobic, at which point he had not actually said that.
Only then did he agree that your arguments lent a homophobic appearance to your posts.

It is not a violation of the rules to post something at which some other poster might take offense. (Otherwise, you would have been gone several weeks ago. )
It is a violation to call other posters names. You seem to have a serious problem recognizing the distinction–which is probably why you have already racked up four Warnings in your brief soujourn on the SDMB.

I was not particularly happy with YogSosoth echoing back your use of the word “homophobic,” but the important point was that he was simply replying to your statement in your own words–and he kept his comments focused on your actions, not your person.
If you do not begin to differentiate between personal insults/name-calling and challenges, (even harsh challenges), to the words posted, you are going to find your posting privileges removed.

[ /Moderating ]

But what I don’t understand is that I have been warned (at least twice) for saying that someone’s views were anti-Semitic! Tom has already said in PM that he agreed with someone else’s premise that I was a bigot (based on the jews/pass on racism thread), so of course I’ll see double standards.

Finally, it’s not my fault if someone gets offended at ‘medical anomaly’ or ‘biological anomaly’. I mean, such is life. Whop de do. ‘Homosexuality’ (feels weird to type it, cause it’s kind of become a bad word for conservatives) is something that is studied by scientists, both social and medical. It’s not bad.