You may be aware, but there's a battle going on in California at the moment over the ruling on Gay Marriage, Prop 8. This is an excerpt from the trial.
In short, the head of the American Institute for Family Values basically says that [hetero]Polygamy is ok(because it's not really polygamy?), but gay-marriage is not.
'Boies' is the attorney for the No on 8 folk, 'DB' is David Blankenhorn, the head of the American Institute for Family Values:
-Boies: What percentage of marriages over the last 300 years have been limited to two people, in your judgment?
-DB: The way that I and many other scholars have looked at this, almost all marriage is limited to two people. If I may cut to the chase, I believe that perhaps…I’m sorry I thought you wanted me to pause. If you want me to cut to chase and talk about polygamy and polyamorie.
-Boies: You are aware that there have been far more polygamous marriages than marriages of two people?
-DB: 83% of societies permit polygamy. Very different issues as to how many marriages are polygamous. Still have marriages between two people.
-Boies. Is it your judgment that prior to the last 100 years in China and India there were many polygamous marriages?
-DB: Yes, but I need to answer with another statement.
-Boies: Keep it short.
-DB: In those societies, men would still marry one woman at a time. A rich man would then marry other women, but each woman is a separate marriage, so it’s still one man and one woman.
-Boies: Are you aware of any marriages that take place with one man and more than one woman at the same time?
-DB: No.
-Boies: Is it your testimony that the only instances where woman marries more than one man is when woman marries two brothers?
-DB: I can’t answer yes or no.
Boies: I’m just asking you if that is your testimony?
-DB: If you’d let me answer instead of arguing, we’d be done. I just need 15 seconds.
-DBoies: Go! (Looks at watch)
(Everyone laughs)
(Thirty seconds later)
-DB: How’d I do?
-Boies: Not bad!
-Boies: If you have a man who marries five wives…
-DB: He marries them one at a time. If he marries one wife, he has one. If he marries two he has two.
-Boies: And if he marries five and all of his wives live, he has five.
-DB: Yes.
-Boies: Is that consistent with your rule of two?
-DB: Based on the studies of the finest anthropologists, this fits the rule of two.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
So, they are trying to say that because of polygamy in the past, that the current ruling of one man one woman is invalid? The problem with that argument is that homosexuality was a death sentence in the past. If the view on homosexuality can chanced for the better, then the definition of marriage can also change for the better.
It's being legalized as we speak, sir. Matter of time before you can stop fearing being thrown in a Federal pound-you-up-the-ass prison over your degenerate addiction.
There's something called The Constitution, maybe you've heard of it; if a law is elected that goes against that, it can/should be overturned. Not saying this is indeed the case here as undeniable fact, but it's being argued.
Would you feel the same if slavery was voted on and it passed? How about rape on Asians? Death to retards? Second-class status to women?
It depends on how you look at it. I do not put the gay marriage issue on the same level as any of those. I've already made my views on the issue clear. In my view NOBODY, not just gays, should be able to legally marry. Using your argument voter approved bans on things like smoking in public places should be overturned. Illegal immigrants would no longer be illegal. Voters basically should have no voice. We should only do what government and corporations tell us to.
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
No, see above with your agreement, The Constitution is there to serve as "the supreme law of the land"; when it doubt if a law is legal or not, refer to it. That goes for everything you've said, from banning smoking(which can be harmful to others, I believe this is the reason) to illegal aliens.
Those against Prop-8 have a right to appeal, if it fails, then it fails. But looking into the case here and there, they're making a better case than those who support Prop-8.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2010 11:34 PM
