We can have equality in marriage by simply doing away with gov’t sanctioned marriage altogether. No straight marriage, no gay marriage, no polygamous marriage, everyone is free to live in whatever relationship they choose and set up whatever survivor rights they want through contract law. The gay marriage movement is not about equal rights, it’s about forcing people to accept homosexuality as normal. If it were about equal rights, then the movement would be about opening up marriage to everyone. How can we say gay marriage should be legalized, but polygamous marriage is not allowed? Why does one have to be 18 to be married, clearly that is ageism? That the gay marriage movement only seeks to address “equal rights” for gays suggests that it’s not about rights at all, it’s about culture.

My prediction of Suga’s response:

You’re just a hatemongering, anti-gay, racist. Society cannot discriminate against anyone’s right to marry whomever they please, except for polygamists, because I can’t stand those f*cking Mormons. Equal right for all…except the Mormons.

No reply yet… :(

Legalize polygamy!

“I think Charles Darwin would shit himself if he knew this is what his theory is amounting to these days.”

Science and ideology are different. While Darwin’s postulates may not all have been proven, they were based on the concept of natural selection which was seen and thus is reality. The fit survive, the unfit get wiped out.

“…the increased contraction rate among homosexuals cannot be likened to natural selection but rather as a result of how the virus spread when people didn’t know how to protect themselves.”

Really? These numbers are from 2007, not 1984. If you’re an American and you haven’t been educated about condom use, then you’re either under the age of 10 or you’ve had your head in the sand for 20 years. Everyone in America knows about “safe sex”. The significantly higher contraction rates for homosexuals are indicative of either a) an inherently riskier lifestyle choice, b) a homosexual culture that accepts significantly higher risk sexually, or some combination of the two. You can’t say we as society have been purposely trying to not educate gays preferentially vs. straights and yet gays have a way higher contraction rate even given all the sexual education society has had. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that even with protective measures, some activities are dangerous? Whenever people parachute, they accept high risk, even though they of course use a parachute. Jumping out of planes is inherently riskier than staying on the ground regardless of how much we educate people about parachutes.

“If you don’t think its okay to be gay, then fine, don’t “be gay”.

Understood, and contrary to your preconceptions, I don’t want to make it illegal for people to be gay. I don’t care what someone else chooses to do; that’s their business. However, I refuse to accept the consequences for someone else’s choice. I also resist bestowing gov’t benefits on bad choices. People should feel free to be themselves and if that be gay, I’m not stopping anyone, I just don’t think they he/she deserves gov’t benefits for it and I don’t want to pick up the hospital tab if he/she is bedridden by an STD. You live your life, I live mine. Your live with your consequences, I’ll live with mine.

There are 2 rebuttals to this argument that are worth considering, so rather than wait for them, I’ll put them out and adequately rebut. The first rebuttal will undoubtedly be that not all straight couples are capable of having children. It’s absolutely true, being straight does not guarantee one will be able to have kids, it’s merely a prerequisite. However, the question comes down to return on investment again. It costs money to sanction marriage, so if your reason for spending the money is to further society through reproduction, then you have to take homosexuals out of the equation because barring a medical miracle, they’re not going to have kids. We could also try and drill down within heterosexuals to try and eliminate those who are infertile; however, is it worth the time and effort to save the money that would otherwise be spent on that small percentage of the population? The benefit to eliminating the infertile is saving tax money, etc, but the cost is pretty high and you’ve got to come up with some type of mechanism to invalidate people. It’s just not cost effective, so the easiest way to get the most bang for the buck is allowing everyone to marry one person of the opposite sex.

The second rebuttal is around polygamy. One could ask what prevents polygamous couples from bearing children. If there’s at least one man and one woman, then of course the polygamous union can bear children. In fact, with multiple women, the union would be even more “fruitful” than couples. The answer here lies in raising the children. For society to succeed, we must reproduce and raise productive members of society. We as society tend to believe that polygamous relationships are not healthy, particularly for children, given the complications of multiple mothers and/or fathers. As such, while polygamous relationships do bear children, the relationships are not deemed suited to raising the children properly, hence no polygamous marriage.

I’m curious to hear if there are any other rebuttals.