|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
Robinson apparently doesn’t see the Supreme Court ruling as a positive, and took to Twitter to say so. And once the attention starts to hit and he eventually deletes it, here’s what it says: “Love is love? So what will we say when the 30yr old loves YOUR 10 year old. When the dad loves HIS 6 year old? It’s different?? Yea okay!” |
I was think Frank? Brooks? David? Adrian?
But Josh? Who gives a split what this guy writes on twit?
Be a dumbass in public, get called out for it in public.
Not sure where the problem in that lies.
Not all opinions should be respected, especially one so devoid of understanding of the greater issue that he is attacking. If he wants to play the idiot, it's the public's prerogative to make him into a laughing stock. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Actually I would like to know why polygamy isn't similar as long as all parties are of concenting age. I assume it's easier to say an animal or a toaster to support your argument especially considering the ambiguous wording by the court.
Funny you mention Loving. It seems to me that all of the arguments made before Loving was handed down, and statements made after the ruling, are identical to those that have been proffered in the instant matter.
It always the same old bullshit arguments repackaged to address new issues.
You've been choosing some really strange people to go all white knight for lately, dude.
Quote:
let's get the Twitter pitchforks out and ruin his career!
You've been choosing some really strange people to go all white knight for lately, dude.
I'm not particularly interested in defending the guy, who seems like an ignorant schmuck, I just don't see what's so admirable about piling on an idiot.
Was anyone asking for admiration?
Obviously there's a lot of dumb shit said everyday that goes unnoticed. Someone here happened to notice this particular instance of dumb shit, and people are simply mocking it's ignorance and intolerance. Seems odd to take issue with that.
Robinson didn't come up with that analogy himself. If you want to root out that particular brand of idiocy, you need go after the origin, while also equipping your populace to think for themselves instead of mindlessly parroting what they are told.
Quote:
"Well if you allow THIS what's to stop people from marrying cats and toasters! It's chinatown!"
Actually I would like to know why polygamy isn't similar as long as all parties are of concenting age. I assume it's easier to say an animal or a toaster to support your argument especially considering the ambiguous wording by the court.
Imho, I agree. If the issue is allowing consenting adults doing what they do, than polygamy should be fine. It's got a hell of a historical pedigree too.
Quote:
In comment 12345791 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
let's get the Twitter pitchforks out and ruin his career!
You've been choosing some really strange people to go all white knight for lately, dude.
I'm not particularly interested in defending the guy, who seems like an ignorant schmuck, I just don't see what's so admirable about piling on an idiot.
Quote:
In comment 12344580 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
"Well if you allow THIS what's to stop people from marrying cats and toasters! It's chinatown!"
Actually I would like to know why polygamy isn't similar as long as all parties are of concenting age. I assume it's easier to say an animal or a toaster to support your argument especially considering the ambiguous wording by the court.
Imho, I agree. If the issue is allowing consenting adults doing what they do, than polygamy should be fine. It's got a hell of a historical pedigree too.
Eh...because there is historic pedigree doesn't make it legit. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about people marrying multiple people (why should I object to people putting themselves into a world of long term pain?), but isn't there some kind of a legal (tax or inheritance/estate related) issues with the whole polygamy thing?
It's one thing for government to mandate that certain kinds of contract must be exclusive. A supporter of polygamy might assert that such a restriction is unwarranted in the case of marriage; but as long as the restriction applies equally to everyone, I don't think there's a very strong equal-protection argument in favor of polygamy. And the legitimacy of the state's interest in such a restriction is clear, largely because of the tax and estate issues you mentioned above.
Where bans on polygamy enforce exclusivity on everyone, restrictions on same-sex marriage void the rights of certain parties to contract with each other at all. That's a huge difference. Now, government can and does void contracts that would be valid between other counterparties - e.g. antitrust law, certain aspects of racketeering law, etc. It seems to me, though, that those laws have passed constitutional tests (in some cases, barely and controversially) that bans on same-sex marriage would never survive.
Personally, I think #lovewins is more than a slogan. It seems to sum up nicely where the compelling societal interest on this subject should steer us: a society that embraces and nurtures loving nuclear families will be stronger and more just than one that doesn't. I understand that a lot of people think I'm completely wrong - that a society that puts gay couples on an equal footing with straight ones is on a slippery slope to Hell that leads through polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality. That belief is as valid as mine. It just doesn't qualify as a sound legal basis for voiding the equal rights of our fellow citizens.
So when did Chris r change his name to Dunedin?
Well, he has a right to make stupid statements, as much as we have a right to criticize them. Somehow, I doubt this will ruin his career.
restrictions on same-sex marriage prevented anyone from marrying a partner of the same sex. Restrictions on polygamy prevent anyone from entering polyamorous marriage. The only obvious difference is that the first spouse is not (usually) a party to the second marriage.
Well, that's a pretty huge difference. And it's not the only obvious difference. One ban is a restriction on the type on contract I can enter; the other is a restriction on the counterparty with whom I can enter an otherwise valid contract. That's an enormous and - I think - obvious difference. Now, our constitutional experts might argue that it's not a relevant difference, but it's both obvious and huge.
I think the stronger argument from analogy is the one regarding consanguinity. That's a tough question, especially with the advent of genetic testing that allows effective mitigation of the specific risks posed by allowing adult cousins to marry. Closer relatives obviously pose bigger genetic and social problems, but I'm not sure where you draw the line, or how you legally justify drawing it at all.
Quote:
"Well if you allow THIS what's to stop people from marrying cats and toasters! It's chinatown!"
Actually I would like to know why polygamy isn't similar as long as all parties are of concenting age. I assume it's easier to say an animal or a toaster to support your argument especially considering the ambiguous wording by the court.
Not sure how polygamy found it's way into this. I was more referencing the player trying to connect the dots with pedophilia and incest.
Quote:
In comment 12344580 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
"Well if you allow THIS what's to stop people from marrying cats and toasters! It's chinatown!"
Actually I would like to know why polygamy isn't similar as long as all parties are of concenting age. I assume it's easier to say an animal or a toaster to support your argument especially considering the ambiguous wording by the court.
Not sure how polygamy found it's way into this. I was more referencing the player trying to connect the dots with pedophilia and incest.
I guess I millered the thread but your comment brought to mind an discussion I had about not traditional marriage. I understand your hyperbole. And his reaction wasn't rational so I get your point