So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked people who have overtly spammed a thr...
Comments
Again, I ask, where do I sign??!
#dearsantaiwouldlikeautah
Whether or not you're personally a fan of polygamy, the living and sexual arrangements of consenting adults is not your business. If you've got a problem with child brides, then discuss the age of consent in your state. If you've got a problem with manipulative relationships, I'm afraid there's no sensible way to make that illegal without infringing on the rights of innocent people. Rape is still a crime, even between legally married or cohabiting people, so there's always that.
I really don't think you're getting the bigger picture here.
In some ways you're both right. Both anti-polygamy laws and anti-homosexuality laws are attempting to legislate the private doings between consenting adults. Arguing that the fighting for gay rights is completely different from the fight for polygamist rights seems to me an attempt to distance the gay community from polygamists... an impulse I can understand.
Still, logically both conflicts are dealing with the same two issues: First, to what degree can the government prosecute people simply for their private consensual sexual behavior. Second, to what degree should the government legally recognize and give special status to a certain type of relationship.
This verdict was equivalent to the overturning of anti-sodomy laws: it's not the gov'ts business who you want to have sex with or cohabitate with as long as it's consensual (age of consent issues notwithstanding). If polygamists want to fight for legal recognition of their relationships and benefits, that's a different story.
I think what Gord is arguing is that people are born gay or straight or bi or what have you. They are not born polygamists. I don't think I agree with you. Some people are born inherently wanting to be in relationships with many people at once... in fact I'd argue an awfully large number of people have at least considered this idea in their teenage or young adult years. Most people think better of it, but many more get legally sanctioned marriages, then proceed to cheat on their spouse.
So long story short, the two debates are similar, but that doesn't imply a slippery slope between them. It's a short step from allowing straight relationships to allowing gay ones. Genitalia aside, they're identical. Legally recognizing polygamy is a huge logical leap, and would require us to finally come up with a unified answer to the question "Why does the state even care about marriage?".