Now That We Have Gay Marriage Behind Us, What About Polygamy?

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

You won't be happy until we devolve back into Neanderthals, will you?

Will it help Iowa win a national championship in football?....

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Would you prefer to have been raised by 4 fathers or one?............

Whoops, sorry fellas. I should've put " /discussion " after this post so that you would know the thread has been ended by what I posted. My bad.........

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Phantom:

What are the bases for government sanctioning of "old marriage"?

Why don't you read what I've written in previous posts. I don't have a secretary and get a little tired retyping the same things 100 times. I'll let you search.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

But what about their "Natural Rights"?

Why don't you tell us? I don't believe animals have natural rights.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why don't you tell us? I don't believe animals have natural rights.

Neither do I, that should have been clear in the many many posts regarding "Natural Rights"...in which you seemed to be arguing for. If Natural Rights are granted by a creator for one species, it would seem odd that it wouldn't do the same for others.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why don't you read what I've written in previous posts. I don't have a secretary and get a little tired retyping the same things 100 times. I'll let you search.

Because you have never, not once, posted them.

Not once. You've posted the article that claims that the new definition throws out the old and is now meaningless....but it doesn't provide any of the actual "old" bases.

If you can show where you have actually posted those specific bases for government sanctioning of "old marriage"...I will happily cease posting for the remainder of the week.

 

[mstp1992]

Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm correct? Also, it's odd you are answering a question that was addressed to someone else. Are you the same person going by two different handles?

BTW, yawn on the reading material. It doesn't contradict a thing I said. In fact, it substantiates what I said. In the future, I'd recommend you use quotation marks when you are trying to make a clever point (Your title of the link makes it much clearer). Italics aren't always easy to differentiate from regular font, especially if you are using smaller font.

I'm just one person (I think). Just thought I'd pipe in with my own response.
You obviously didn't read the articles I linked, or didn't understand them. That's okay; I get the distinct impression you're not a scientist.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I'm just one person (I think). Just thought I'd pipe in with my own response.
You obviously didn't read the articles I linked, or didn't understand them. That's okay; I get the distinct impression you're not a scientist.

Nope, I'm not. So what? That's a nice misdirection though on your part. Strange you would answer a question not addressed to you. Why would one need to be a scientist to address an issue dealing with legality? Are you a lawyer? Are you trying to make a legal argument that animals should have the same rights as people? This should be fascinating. Are you still smarting because of my crack about using quotes instead of italics. Is that the reason for all your posts? Come on, it wasn't that big of a deal.