Big Brother Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Anyone who is OK with their significant other screwing another person must have something broken in their brain.  This is an insulting, narrow minded point of view. Just because people have different values and opinions than you or the people around you, does not mean there's anything broken in their brain. If they're okay with it and it makes sense to them it's all fine and dandy. You should probably refrain from making judgments about people's brains simply because they have a different idea of what is "OK", unless you want to look like an ass. Edited February 9, 2016 by Big Brother 1 Quote   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I don't understand why people are so against it. Â If it's between consensual adults, what's it to you? Â Love (at least for me) is something that can multiply and possibly be endless. It's not like you have a set amount of love and divide it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Anyone who is OK with their significant other screwing another person must have something broken in their brain. Why? Because they are that secure in their relationship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonPie Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Anyone who is OK with their significant other screwing another person must have something broken in their brain. Guess my brain is broken since I do not fit into a stereotypical relationship that society and religion believes I should be in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 It requires three to DP. 1 Quote  Beer. Damn Good Beer.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 It requires three to DP. Not if you use toys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Quill Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I don't understand why people are so against it. Â If it's between consensual adults, what's it to you? Â Love (at least for me) is something that can multiply and possibly be endless. It's not like you have a set amount of love and divide it up. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quote <&Partisan> EAT THE SHIT <blacklabel> lol @ ever caring about how much you matter in some dumbass nation simulation browser game. what a !@#$in pathetic waste of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Quill Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) People keep saying that the slippery slope argument is wrong, but it has happened. First it was allowing inter racial marriages, the conservatives said that after this, gays would be allowed to wed and society said that was just a slippery slope. Then the gays got married and now conservatives say that would lead to polygamy. Now people are talking about polygamous relationships and whats next? Pedophilia, beastiality, incest, marrying objects. The conservatives were right, so why should I not believe them? it may not happen now, but eventually it will. What happened to marriage along the way? what does it even me Well, we've learned 2 things from this post: that a), Moon Man is racist, and b. Moon Man is homophobic. Edited February 9, 2016 by Dylan Pascua 1 Quote <&Partisan> EAT THE SHIT <blacklabel> lol @ ever caring about how much you matter in some dumbass nation simulation browser game. what a !@#$in pathetic waste of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Well, we've learned 2 things from this post: that a), Moon Man is racist, and b. Moon Man is homophobic. TBF, those facts are so well know you could write a wikipedia article. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Because the stuff that is legal and we are asking to be made legal involves consenting adults, and the other stuff doesn't. I know being a troll is your whole shtick, but try to add some originality next time. Â People keep saying that the slippery slope argument is wrong, but it has happened. First it was allowing inter racial marriages, the conservatives said that after this, gays would be allowed to wed and society said that was just a slippery slope. Then the gays got married and now conservatives say that would lead to polygamy. Now people are talking about polygamous relationships and whats next? Pedophilia, beastiality, incest, marrying objects. The conservatives were right, so why should I not believe them? it may not happen now, but eventually it will. What happened to marriage along the way? what does it even mean anymore? check and m8. Just admit it, /pol/ is always right. from the way that you worded your comment, you must support incest right? after all liberal logic says that two consenting adults shouldnt be a problem. Â The denegrating of the institution of marriage will surely lead to the downfall of Western society. Marriage was never about 'love'. Love is a relatively modern concept. Marriages were many things throughout history: ways to show off your social status, a way to cement the relationship between two families as seen in arranged marriages especially in medieval europe, as a way to raise children efficiently, and as a precursor to social security. Once 'love' was added to the mix, the whole institution suffered. It no longer was used for the purposes that it was intended. It didnt really start weakening until the industrial revolution though. back then whole generations lived together and the bond between the extended family was quite high. Now people seldom see their grandparents anymore, backtalk their elders, and have no respect. There is a reason that marriages came with tax breaks, and that is to encourage people to have more kids who will then pay into social security. While IMO polygamy is a step above homosexual marriage in that the purpose of polygamy is to have as many heirs as possible, in this day and age it is difficult to support more than 4 kids in a western democracy. One man and one women is the ideal situation for a marriage, one ideally stays home and the other ideally financially supports the family unit. One is the father figure, and one is the mother figure. This is the way that biologically we are created, one man's sperm and one woman's egg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The denegrating of the institution of marriage will surely lead to the downfall of Western society.  Let me stop you right there. If anyone is degenerating Western society in a manner which will lead to its downfall, it's people like you, with your archaic opinions and outdated values, who threaten to rob us of our rights and freedoms. All you do in your post is sound like an old man, complaining about how things just aren't as good as they used to be, because society is progressing and abandoning the things that you mistakenly consider to be good and true. Marriage is an outdated institution by itself, but your notion that marriage is supposed to serve a particular purpose is completely archaic. Maybe people used to get married for very specific reasons, but now people get married for whatever reasons they desire, for whatever purpose suits them. It seems like you would have people engage in the institution of marriage only if it serves traditional purposes, purposes that have long since been fulfilled by other, more modern institutions. And it seems like you want everyone to be part of the perfect nuclear family, and that you think it would be right to force such a view on people, even though they don't possess your values and opinions.  Human beings and human acts aren't limited by biology or physiology. It doesn't matter how we were biologically created (we weren't actually created, but whatever) or what our biological mating situation is. With free will, we've moved beyond biological reasoning of our actions. Each and every human being has the right to pursue whatever form of relationship they desire, with as many or as few people as they want. You don't have the right to deny them that happiness and you definitely don't have the right to enforce your laughable conservative views on others. Deal with the fact that people have different values and opinions than you and accept that they have the freedom to live their own lives according to their own wishes. 2 Quote   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Let me stop you right there. If anyone is degenerating Western society in a manner which will lead to its downfall, it's people like you, with your archaic opinions and outdated values, who threaten to rob us of our rights and freedoms. All you do in your post is sound like an old man, complaining about how things just aren't as good as they used to be, because society is progressing and abandoning the things that you mistakenly consider to be good and true. Marriage is an outdated institution by itself, but your notion that marriage is supposed to serve a particular purpose is completely archaic. Maybe people used to get married for very specific reasons, but now people get married for whatever reasons they desire, for whatever purpose suits them. It seems like you would have people engage in the institution of marriage only if it serves traditional purposes, purposes that have long since been fulfilled by other, more modern institutions. And it seems like you want everyone to be part of the perfect nuclear family, and that you think it would be right to force such a view on people, even though they don't possess your values and opinions. Â Human beings and human acts aren't limited by biology or physiology. It doesn't matter how we were biologically created (we weren't actually created, but whatever) or what our biological mating situation is. With free will, we've moved beyond biological reasoning of our actions. Each and every human being has the right to pursue whatever form of relationship they desire, with as many or as few people as they want. You don't have the right to deny them that happiness and you definitely don't have the right to enforce your laughable conservative views on others. Deal with the fact that people have different values and opinions than you and accept that they have the freedom to live their own lives according to their own wishes. so lets get back to the first part of my last reply. Are two consenting brothers allowed to get married under your idea of the liberal marriage? Im fine with degenerates doing their own thing, but I reccomend that we find more words to describe it. I also have a big problem with forcing people to host marriage ceremonies or bake gay marriage cakes against their will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 so lets get back to the first part of my last reply. Are two consenting brothers allowed to get married under your idea of the liberal marriage? Im fine with degenerates doing their own thing, but I reccomend that we find more words to describe it. I also have a big problem with forcing people to host marriage ceremonies or bake gay marriage cakes against their will Well...it wouldn't hurt anyone if they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) so lets get back to the first part of my last reply. Are two consenting brothers allowed to get married under your idea of the liberal marriage? Im fine with degenerates doing their own thing, but I reccomend that we find more words to describe it. I also have a big problem with forcing people to host marriage ceremonies or bake gay marriage cakes against their will  Hey guy, you calling people degenerates is exactly like the pot calling the kettle black. It's pretty degenerated to call people degenerates just because they want different things than you. Under my idea of liberal marriage, if there's adult consent between everyone in the relationship and if there's no inherent damage caused by such a union and its results, go for it.  By the way, marriage cakes don't possess sexual orientation, they're just called marriage cakes.  Edit: Actually, I guess they're called wedding cakes. Your choice of words confused me for a minute there. Edited February 9, 2016 by Big Brother 1 Quote   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Hey guy, you calling people degenerates is exactly like the pot calling the kettle black. It's pretty degenerated to call people degenerates just because they want different things than you. Under my idea of liberal marriage, if there's adult consent between everyone in the relationship and if there's no inherent damage caused by such a union and its results, go for it. Â By the way, marriage cakes don't possess sexual orientation, they're just called marriage cakes. Â Edit: Actually, I guess they're called wedding cakes. Your choice of words confused me for a minute there. why should someone be forced to bake a cake that they do not want to bake though. A cake that goes against what they stand for. What about forcing someone to provide their land to host a gay marriage on it even though it goes against everything that the person believes. Â But under your rules, would you allow a brother and a sister to get married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 What is the big deal what other people do? If it doesn't harm anyome, why are you so bothered by it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 why should someone be forced to bake a cake that they do not want to bake though. A cake that goes against what they stand for. What about forcing someone to provide their land to host a gay marriage on it even though it goes against everything that the person believes.  But under your rules, would you allow a brother and a sister to get married?  I'm not going to discuss cakes with you, you seem to want to twist the discussion in the direction of talking about whether or not it's right to force people to make their lands available and bake cakes, which is silly and insignificant.  Under my rules, if that's really how you want to phrase it, I would not allow a brother and sister to get married, due to the inherent damage the results of such a union would produce (inbreeding is not the best). If it was to be legal, they should be required to legally commit to not having children, with each other. Quote   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016   check and m8. Just admit it, /pol/ is always right. from the way that you worded your comment, you must support incest right? after all liberal logic says that two consenting adults shouldnt be a problem.  The denegrating of the institution of marriage will surely lead to the downfall of Western society. Marriage was never about 'love'. Love is a relatively modern concept. Marriages were many things throughout history: ways to show off your social status, a way to cement the relationship between two families as seen in arranged marriages especially in medieval europe, as a way to raise children efficiently, and as a precursor to social security. Once 'love' was added to the mix, the whole institution suffered. It no longer was used for the purposes that it was intended. It didnt really start weakening until the industrial revolution though. back then whole generations lived together and the bond between the extended family was quite high. Now people seldom see their grandparents anymore, backtalk their elders, and have no respect. There is a reason that marriages came with tax breaks, and that is to encourage people to have more kids who will then pay into social security. While IMO polygamy is a step above homosexual marriage in that the purpose of polygamy is to have as many heirs as possible, in this day and age it is difficult to support more than 4 kids in a western democracy. One man and one women is the ideal situation for a marriage, one ideally stays home and the other ideally financially supports the family unit. One is the father figure, and one is the mother figure. This is the way that biologically we are created, one man's sperm and one woman's egg.  Moon Man, i never thought much of you, but I at least thought you could comprehend written word. Incest is, by and large, non-consensual because of the power dynamic. As much as Game of Thrones has brought sibling love into the forefront, the majority is parent child and impossible to be consensual. But since following you down a slippery slope is the intention of your trolling, lets address your core argument. Love ruined marriage. Really bro? This is how I know you're trolling because even the most regressive type still defend love, they just claim it's only possible in cishet monogamous relationships.Before you call checkmate, learn how to play the game. 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016      Moon Man, i never thought much of you, but I at least thought you could comprehend written word. Incest is, by and large, non-consensual because of the power dynamic. As much as Game of Thrones has brought sibling love into the forefront, the majority is parent child and impossible to be consensual. But since following you down a slippery slope is the intention of your trolling, lets address your core argument.  Love ruined marriage. Really bro? This is how I know you're trolling because even the most regressive type still defend love, they just claim it's only possible in cishet monogamous relationships.  Before you call checkmate, learn how to play the game. I never said un consentual incest. My scenario would involve a degenerate heterosexual brother and degenerate sister that want to get married and have a kid. Whats wrong with that by your logic? if a man can marry a man, a woman, or both at the same time, what is wrong with that if we are just going by pure consentual love? There is a surprising amount of consentual incest that goes on, and if we are going to destroy what marriage was actually created to do, than we may as well allow people to do what they want to do. It would be wrong to discriminate against heterosexual incest couples if we are to allow homosexual incest couples, just as it is wrong to disallow homosexuals the same marriage rights as straight folk. And the thing is, homosexual incest is already a thing, there is a gay adult movie star from South America who only does his deviant acts upon his brother. Its not that big of a leap. People said the same thing about gay people back in the day though, people thought homosexuality is deviant. Yes it has happened throughout history, but so has incest. Look at Egypt, consentual incest was common over there.  In my world, I would have none of it. IMO marriage's are for raising families with one masculine and one feminine figure. Multiple father and/or mother figures would confuse a child. If you want to have fun with other people, join a swingers club or do your thing, don't destroy what little is left of marriage as an institution. polygamy, polyandry, concubines and cuckubines are not what marriage in any western 1st world nation should be about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justakittywithabox Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Lol. Because kids get confused at having a step parent. Or just one parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Lol. Because kids get confused at having a step parent. Or just one parent. They do, having only one parent tends to have negative effects as compared to having two parents. My best friend had his mom die at an early age and he is antisocial as hell. My two cousin also had to deal with his parents seperating, and it caused them all kinds of issues. see http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdffor some of the problems with people in these situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPhx Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 My great great great grand father lived in a Mormon colony in Mexico with his two wives and their kids. Here in Utah I am friends with a man and his first wife who are polygamous (not sure if I've met any of his other wives) and a couple years ago I told them that I have no problem with consenting adults wanting to enter such a marriage. This doesn't carry over to situations like the FLDS cult in Colorado City where the children are not given any choice in who they marry and when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.