Indianapolis leaders take stand against gay marriage ban

Nov 11, 2013 Full story: The Indianapolis Star 120

Indianapolis city leaders tonight will officially add their voices to the debate over Indiana's proposed same-sex marriage ban.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#81 Nov 27, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
In the vein of moral relativism, the following major arguments can be made to support the legalization of plural marriage:
1. Polysexual/Polyamorous Orientation: According to the theory of Genetic Imperative, many men are biologically hardwired or oriented to feel attraction toward multiple women, yet social values and socialization pressures require men to repress expression of these innate impulses (this is true across all socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups). Since a predominant number of men have inborn sexual tendencies that are incompatible with a monogamous lifestyle, by no fault of their own, marriage ought to be progressively redefined as a socially approved relationship between an undefined number of consenting spouses.
2. Separation of Church and State: Many state marriage laws codify and uphold religious principles that unjustly and unconstitutionally force polysexuals to conform to non-secular tradition.
3. Consequential Neutrality: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists’ right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.
4. Consequentialism: Studies have shown that parental household income and parental involvement correlates positively with many lifelong success indicators. Since multiple-parent households have greater income potential and more parental time than monogamist parents, children raised by stable polygamist parents stand to be more educated, healthy, well-adjusted and productive as adults than their monogamist-raised counterparts. Considering the significant long-term social benefits of polygamous relationships, governments should not discriminatorily deny their citizens’ right to this equally valid lifestyle.
5. Anti-Christ Argument: Christians and biblical scholars acknowledge that the New Testament never explicitly condemns polygamy. Because Jesus never explicitly condemned polygamy, Christians are morally obliged to not pass judgment against their poloysexual brethren, and follow the Golden Rule by tolerating their imperative way of life just as Christians would want others to respect and tolerate their traditions and customs.
These five arguments are similar to the ones presently being used to redefine marriage, and with much proven success, they will undoubtedly be used to champion further alterations.
There is NO "moral relativism". Cultural Relativism, yes. Moral Relativism, no.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#82 Nov 27, 2013
It's not because I'm intelligent; it's because you're an idiot.

Still haven't proven your racism claims. Wonder why...
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, there are good writers and then there's you.
Why do you feel it's always necessary to explain the obvious to you and people like you? It can't be because you're intelligent.
Connie Lingus Bedsore

Indianapolis, IN

#83 Nov 27, 2013
It is silly to think about sexual relations when one is near death from disease or starving to death. Get your priorities right and make the world a better place.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#84 Nov 27, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Is Polygamy the next Frontier in the struggle for American “Equality”?
No.
Another x

Indianapolis, IN

#85 Nov 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
And racism is in no way related to homosexual marriage but you cling to it like moss to a rock.
Sure it is. Racism is just like sexism and homophobia, nothing but a form of bigotry. Bigotry is all the same, it just has different targets.
Another x

Indianapolis, IN

#86 Nov 29, 2013
DavidM wrote:
I personalty have known people living the polygamy lifestyle. It works for some and for some it doesn't. But if we are going to open the marriage laws up for gay couples, we have to open them up for all.
<quoted text>
No actually we don't. When you have literally millions of people who are living poly-amorous lifestyles, seen in all the publications, have television shows on all the networks containing poly-amorous groups, then we can talk about the lie that you're trying to push, the lie that claims a same-sex couple is different than an opposite sex couple and a legitimate legal reason to deny them marriage. Until then, you'll just have to keep trolling.

Since: Dec 06

Indianapolis

#87 Nov 29, 2013
Millions? I thought it was only one or two percent of the population.
I did not say that same sex couples are different then opposite sex couples. I said if you are going to support gay marriage, then you have to support all kinds of marriage.
Another x wrote:
<quoted text>No actually we don't. When you have literally millions of people who are living poly-amorous lifestyles, seen in all the publications, have television shows on all the networks containing poly-amorous groups, then we can talk about the lie that you're trying to push, the lie that claims a same-sex couple is different than an opposite sex couple and a legitimate legal reason to deny them marriage. Until then, you'll just have to keep trolling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#88 Nov 29, 2013
Another x wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it is. Racism is just like sexism and homophobia, nothing but a form of bigotry. Bigotry is all the same, it just has different targets.
Take it to the polygamy forum.

No wait. There isn't one.

Now why is that?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#89 Nov 29, 2013
Another x wrote:
<quoted text>No actually we don't. When you have literally millions of people who are living poly-amorous lifestyles, seen in all the publications, have television shows on all the networks containing poly-amorous groups, then we can talk about the lie that you're trying to push, the lie that claims a same-sex couple is different than an opposite sex couple and a legitimate legal reason to deny them marriage. Until then, you'll just have to keep trolling.
You need to take that to the Polyamoury forum.

No wait. There isn't one.

Why is that?
Another x

Indianapolis, IN

#90 Nov 29, 2013
DavidM wrote:
Millions? I thought it was only one or two percent of the population.
I did not say that same sex couples are different then opposite sex couples. I said if you are going to support gay marriage, then you have to support all kinds of marriage.
<quoted text>
Actually buckwheat, one percent of 360 million is 3.6 million, double that for 2 percent. No actually you don't have to support all types of marriage, see the outlawing of polygamy isn't because of the willingness of people to join in such an arrangement isn't there, it's because of the child abuse which goes on within the confines of the "institution", children of 8, 9, and 10 years old groomed to be brides of men 30 years their elder, and the lack of reciprocity in the arrangement, women having 10 husbands is unheard of and their "power" in such an arrangement is nil. Until the marriage laws are rewritten to include multiple spousal units, the laws about their relationship with the children from such a union and all the other billions of questions which arise from such an arrangement addressed it's simply not a likelihood. Do go back to explaining that you aren't bright enough to use actual reason so you attempt to try and make the most ridiculous statement ever to make some point which sounded better in your head than it did on the screen....
Another x

Indianapolis, IN

#91 Nov 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Take it to the polygamy forum.
No wait. There isn't one.
Now why is that?
Yeah, as soon as you show me your license to dictate what how and where I have to discuss things I'll pay attention, until then, maybe if you listen instead of trying to talk you might learn a thing or two.
Another x

Indianapolis, IN

#92 Nov 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to take that to the Polyamoury forum.
No wait. There isn't one.
Why is that?
Snyper, as in snyping? Must be, because the only one snyping about polyamourous discussions are the one that's trying to BUTT IN to a conversation he has not been asked into and has no idea what's actually being discussed or why. Don't you have a protest to join somewhere?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#93 Nov 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You're right. The ONLY way it will gain any recognition is for them to take it to the USSC and fight their cause. Good luck with that!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#94 Nov 29, 2013
DavidM wrote:
Millions? I thought it was only one or two percent of the population.
I did not say that same sex couples are different then opposite sex couples. I said if you are going to support gay marriage, then you have to support all kinds of marriage.
<quoted text>
First, let's not confuse polygamy/polyandry with polyamoury, none of which has anything to do with two committed gay people wanting marry.

The most conservative reliable estimates place gay people at 3-5% of the general population. Rounding down the last Census numbers to 300M for ease, gives between 9 and 15 million gay people in the US. That's greater than the total population of some States, and is larger than the total armed forces, active and reserve, of all the NATO cosignatories combined. And that is just in the US. Think about THAT for a bit.

Your last is just the "slippery slope" red herring fallacy.

There is nothing in fact or logic that requires support of "all kinds of marriage". It would be the same as suggesting that to support one form is to support all.

There also more than a touch of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness about the assertion.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#95 Nov 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
First, let's not confuse polygamy/polyandry with polyamoury, none of which has anything to do with two committed gay people wanting marry.
The most conservative reliable estimates place gay people at 3-5% of the general population. Rounding down the last Census numbers to 300M for ease, gives between 9 and 15 million gay people in the US. That's greater than the total population of some States, and is larger than the total armed forces, active and reserve, of all the NATO cosignatories combined. And that is just in the US. Think about THAT for a bit.
Your last is just the "slippery slope" red herring fallacy.
There is nothing in fact or logic that requires support of "all kinds of marriage". It would be the same as suggesting that to support one form is to support all.
There also more than a touch of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness about the assertion.
Precisely Bat Man.
Helper Monkey

Indianapolis, IN

#96 Nov 29, 2013
I have been married many times. I got more strange cooter then than I ever got as a single man.

I was thinking about getting married again just to bring some more spice and variety into my life.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#97 Nov 30, 2013
Another x wrote:
<quoted text>Snyper, as in snyping? Must be, because the only one snyping about polyamourous discussions are the one that's trying to BUTT IN to a conversation he has not been asked into and has no idea what's actually being discussed or why. Don't you have a protest to join somewhere?
This is a forum, not a chatroom. All posts are open for comment.

You want private conversation, register as a TOPIX member and use the Private Message function.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#98 Nov 30, 2013
Another x wrote:
<quoted text> Actually buckwheat, one percent of 360 million is 3.6 million, double that for 2 percent. No actually you don't have to support all types of marriage, see the outlawing of polygamy isn't because of the willingness of people to join in such an arrangement isn't there, it's because of the child abuse which goes on within the confines of the "institution", children of 8, 9, and 10 years old groomed to be brides of men 30 years their elder, and the lack of reciprocity in the arrangement, women having 10 husbands is unheard of and their "power" in such an arrangement is nil. Until the marriage laws are rewritten to include multiple spousal units, the laws about their relationship with the children from such a union and all the other billions of questions which arise from such an arrangement addressed it's simply not a likelihood. Do go back to explaining that you aren't bright enough to use actual reason so you attempt to try and make the most ridiculous statement ever to make some point which sounded better in your head than it did on the screen....
Still off thread topic.

What the hell.

You're conflating child marriage with polygamy/polyandry. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#99 Nov 30, 2013
Another x wrote:
<quoted text>Snyper, as in snyping? Must be, because the only one snyping about polyamourous discussions are the one that's trying to BUTT IN to a conversation he has not been asked into and has no idea what's actually being discussed or why. Don't you have a protest to join somewhere?
Stuff it, troll.
car mat

Lexington, KY

#100 Dec 21, 2013
why do queers like it in the azz and in leso s why does one of the its try to look like a man

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Time to boycott all black people now!!! (Jul '13) 18 min Call YBA Out 16
Obama The Great Racist 20 min Call YBA Out 2
Vote to outlaw whittieeee Christmas 2 hr Alonzo x 17
any strippers want to Skype? 2 hr hondaguy101 4
Madonna songs leak. She fights back. 8 hr Waldo Simmons 1
When Did Indy Become So Racist and Why? 14 hr Alonzo x 64
Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band coming to Ba... Sat Kelly 7
Indianapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indianapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:21 pm PST

ESPN12:21PM
Colts' Hilton (hamstring) out vs. Cowboys
Yahoo! Sports12:33 PM
Cowboys RB Murray active vs. Colts
Bleacher Report 1:57 PM
Perfect Fake Punt...Minus the Catch
NBC Sports 1:59 PM
Cowboys feasting on Colts' mistakes
Yahoo! Sports 2:08 PM
Colts safety Dewey McDonald drops easy pass on curious fake punt call