patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Lazy people quote Wikipedia because they erroneously believe doing so makes them look smart.

curious2 says

Wikipedia is not a source, and doesn't even claim to be a source.

no Wiki not a source.. but certainly a start... and many dont like it because it does give information many dont want disclosed. it certainly is disliked by fraudsters.

Who is John Boswell.. JB was gay who died of AIDS... not a good independent source since he already had an axe to grind.

"Except that gays aren't protesting against polygamous marriages."

The "gay marriage" activists don't see the irony of pushing for adding their idea of family to the state and federal code while not promoting other "alternative lifestyles" like polygamy. Their actions speak louder than their words when people like curious2 advocates for same sex "marriage" but not for polygamy. The question is how can you seek to redefine marriage and skew the definition towards your own agenda at the expense of yet another fringe minority. If you want the state to sanction you union and deny it to other consenting adults, you are perpetuating the very same " discrimination" you are protesting against.

This is why government should not sanction ANY marriage.

Vaticanus says

Their actions speak louder than their words when people like curious2 advocates for same sex "marriage" but not for polygamy. The question is how can you seek to redefine marriage and skew the definition towards your own agenda at the expense of yet another fringe minority.

Equal protection of the same laws pertaining to marriage, for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, has no effect on polygamy one way or the other, so it isn't particularly "at the expense of" an unrelated group such as polygamists.

BTW, Vaticanus, when you put "marriage" in quotation marks, but only in the context of same-sex marriage, are you trying to say that you don't think same-sex marriages are really marriages? Why would that be? Is it because the child molesters in the Vatican told you that only they can define "marriage", and that public laws pertaining to marriage must not apply to any marriage that doesn't fit Vatican rules? Would it become a real marriage if the spouses buy a Papal dispensation, as happens with uncles marrying nieces?

Vaticanus, can you cite any example in which you have ever supported polygamy or said "government should not sanction any marriage," prior to the context of same-sex marriage? I want really to understand, is this an issue that you have cared about independently of same-sex marriage, or is it your reaction to same-sex marriage? I don't want to accuse you of dishonesty without evidence, but it's been a common red herring to conflate these two different issues, as a way of attacking those who support the equal protection of the laws. For example, Chan has gone berserk in his accusations against marriage equality supporters, without ever throwing similar bile in the direction of marriage equality opponents (the "one man one woman" crowd symbolized by your newly selected toilet sign avatar). Dan pointed out that the real hypocrites in the room are those who have demanded special protection for the marriages you seem to symbolize with your toilet sign. Did you switch your avatar to a toilet sign because you happened to be feeling constipated, or was it your response to other people switching their avatars to an equality sign? Can you point to any comment you have ever made, ever, saying "government should not sanction any marriage," prior to the likelihood of government recognizing the legal equality of opposite-sex and same-sex couples?

How many of the members of the Supreme Court are gay or bisexual? Odds are at least two.

Maybe Mormons, too, since they all wear black prairie dresses.

Chan, your endless protestations feigning incomprehension are becoming tedious. Can you point to any example of where you've championed polygamy etc., and called "one man one woman" marriage supporters hypocrites, prior to to the context of same-sex marriage, or is it simply your silly effort to disguise your opposition to the equal protection of the laws?

thomaswong.1986 says

no Wiki not a source.. but certainly a start.

Only if you want misinformation to start. Even the "references" will point you in one particular direction, whichever the article controllers want, and away from everything else.