Comments on: Every Marriage Should Be Gay!

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:56:38 +0000

I would just like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the co-founders of “Gay Marry An Illegal Immigrant Day!” My abuelito may be free once again.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:15:03 +0000

The polygamy question brings up some interesting problems RE benefits like insurance, right of survivorship and these kinds of things…but I think that could all be worked out in contract.

That is, until you have some polygamist suing for insurance coverage for his 10 wives and three husbands. But even there, the real issue isn’t that the dude wants coverage, it’s the legal threat of the company being forced to provide it.

By: wtf

wtf — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:09:59 +0000

mostly, i’m just pissed that people say “if we allow gay marriages, whats stopping polygamy?”. To which I would reply, who cares, we should allow polygamy as well.

By: wtf

wtf — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:05:58 +0000

I’m suggesting, by the statement of “of course it is”, that the main logic of arguing for gay marriage, is that its a private matter between two consenting adults that should have equal protection and rights for a partnership that a man and a women should have. Which I agree with. However, following the same logic, theres no reason not to include polygamy in that argument as well. In the case of animals or children. Theres obvious differences, most notably regarding the idea that even if there is “consent” the organism giving it, can’t really be regarded as capable of making a rational decision by our societal definition of rational.
But at least in one instance a congressman suggested that if gay marriages were allowed than that would open the door to bestiality or polygamy. To which at least one gay organization took offense to. Probably mostly for the animal thing, but also claiming that the argument doesn’t lead to a justification for polygamy, which I think the logic behind any sort of pro gay marriage argument is in fact entirely valid for polygamy as well.

After re-reading your question I think, that perhaps your under the impression that I’m suggesting gay people are more naturally polygamous. which isn’t what I was suggesting at all. Homosexuality and monogamy are definitely not exclusive, WELL actually I suppose I would say that they are a little, but no more so than heterosexuality and monogamy.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:54:48 +0000

The ATM in the EMU (next to Mangiano’s) has mistakenly been loaded with 20 dollar bills instead of 5s. this means if you withdraw $15, instead of giving you 3 5s it will give you 3 20s. that’s a profit of $45!

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:41:43 +0000

“Of course it is.”

How so? I mean, since when has a homosexual relationship and monogamy been mutually exclusive? Or are you speaking from your own experience(s)?

By: wtf

wtf — Mon, 19 May 2008 02:58:05 +0000

I love how polygamy is so often compared to bestiality, yet really, everyone I know at one point in their life probably had overlapping sexual partners. Polygamous marriages should be legal. And is not comparable to bestiality whatsoever, animals can’t give consent (in any human language at least).
I also get equally pissed when gay rights advocates argue that arguing for gay marriage isn’t the same as arguing for polygamous marriage. Of course it is.
Ultimately the government shouldn’t be the institution that defines what a family is.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:41:12 +0000

Duly noted.

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:36:43 +0000

Correction: passionate about Mrs. King.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:59:51 +0000

I’ve never seen anyone get so… passionate about “The Scarecrow & Mrs. King”.

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:01:44 +0000

Oh, annnnnnd, Mrs. King was also one of Charlie’s Angels. Soooo…yeah. Nuff’ said.

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:59:10 +0000

Of course I realize that. Kate Jackson was very cute in 1987, and she’s not too bad for an older woman who has twice fought down the scourge of breast cancer.

I’ll stand by my Mrs. King any day.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:01:51 +0000

You do realize that there is now a permanent record on the internet of you admitting to finding that lady who played “Mrs. King” in “The Scarecrow & Mrs. King” “strangely attractive”, right?

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sat, 17 May 2008 21:11:39 +0000

LOL. I found her strangely attractive at the time, but in retrospect I think it was just bottled up sexual angst that found a televisual outlet.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:41:54 +0000

Who’s the scarecrow?

The real question is: “Who’s Mrs. King”?

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:29:48 +0000

Sorry Marg, I was just making a thinly-veiled allusion to the category of argument that I thought yours fit into. : ) Of course, I could be wrong. I only read what you wrote twice.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:58:49 +0000

That would be you, Marg. Also, I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink again. Might want to have that checked.

By: Marg

Marg — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:03 +0000

Who’s the scarecrow?

By: Chris Holman

Chris Holman — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:10:25 +0000

““Marriage” Marriage is between a man and a woman. If the definition of “marriage” is changed, what will come next. The marriage of a man, man, and woman; woman and dog.”

So says the scarecrow.

By: Marg

Marg — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:01:21 +0000

First of all, the missions statement of this forum is stated as, “We believe that the University should be a forum for rational and informed debate.” Kicking someone in the genitals is not rational. I believe the State Supreme Court had no business making this call. The people voted on this once. Isn’t that what a democracy is. If people do their homework, they will find that the opposition of gay marriages has some to do with the terminology. “Marriage” Marriage is between a man and a woman. If the definition of “marriage” is changed, what will come next. The marriage of a man, man, and woman; woman and dog.

“Civil union” is a better term. I am not for telling people how to live their lives. If it is benefits they want, great. If gay people want to call their partner their husband or wife, great. But “marriage” is between a man and a woman.