Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&utm_content=buffer94671&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Hit the nail right on the head here. Those who argue for tradition are of course trying to use several fallacies to prop up a completely broken argument.

Marriage for the majority of history has been polygamous or a contract between ruling families to seal alliances or to sell off a daughter to ensure social standing. "Traditional marriage" in no way resembles marriage as we view it today. This is a fallacy by tradition argument and an appeal to authority fallacy as well.

Not to mention I have still never seen a single person be able to concretely and specifically show how gay marriage in anyway harms or negatively effects anyone.

 

No shes wrong.

The state of Utah was not allowed to become a state until they outlawed polygamy.

Its basis for Utahs court case.

 

I believe critics of gay marriage are referring to the Western Christian view of marriage when they speak of traditional marriage.

And I'm certain this sophist judge knows it. Leftist apologists are disingenuous by nature and twist the truth even when it's unnecessary.

 

Yes, but for the majority of recorded history polygamy has been the most widely used form of marriage.

Can't escape that fact.

 

And I believe that he western Christians have always attempted to swap their religious view of marriage for the governmentally recognized sexual marriage which gays are fighting for.

Keep your religion, no one is trying to take that from you. What we are fighting for is equal rights as recognized by the law of e land, which is entirely secular.

 

I disagree.

 

and why should Christian tradition regarding marriage have any bearing on law?

 

Moses was given permission to rape his servant when his wife was unable to conceive. Jesus views on marriage are useless.

 

Not in this nation it wasn't the Mod edit,,flounder

 

Doesn't change the fact that its true.

 

Are you talking about "tradition" all over the world, since the beginning of time? Then yes, that would probably be the case. But I'm pretty sure they were talking about here in OUR country.....since it's founding. And yes, here.....the norm has been "one man/one woman." And even leaders like Barack Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton and others backed that up until just here recently.

 

Right here in our own country polygamy was practiced. Not to mention children of twelve and thirteen would marry.

So again, tradition isn't what we currently practice, and the attempt of the religious to claim ownership of marriage is a farce.

 

This ruling make you wonder how many brain damaged radical left wing judges this country has.

 

Well, that should make the fundamental Latter Day Saints happy and justified.

 

I think the Judge is referring to Muslim and African history, not American history or even Western history. Go figure.

 

You may have a point there. "Traditional" marriage in the US didn't allow white folks to marry Africans.

 

Not to mention that Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy and not an argument for anything, ever. Using that stupid argument nothing would ever change. Let's just leave everything the exact same as it was when the Puritans arrived.

Appeal to Authority is yet another logical fallacy. And since those are the only two arguments the anti-gay marriage crowd has, it stands to reason they have no shot of winning out in the long run.

 

NOT LEGALLY. Make up some more nonsense, to try to cover for the SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS gays seek for themselves.

 

Hahahaha........

Can't just flip history off on a whim. You're correct.

 

Polygamy was NEVER LEGAL, or ACCEPTED , in the US. Why do you think the Mormons got ran out of everywhere they went before UTAH? Keep making up bullcrap.

 

That's true, we should protect minorities - but the smallest minority is the individual. What tax breaks and special privileges do unmarried individuals receive? None. Hence, government should get the heck out of the marriage business altogether. Leave it to private citizens.

 

Actually, it did but it was again it was government that passed laws against it. It was later that the Southern States had to abide by Federal law in 67.

 

"Traditional" is only applicable in US law as it pertains to American tradition. No one cares whether polygamy, worldwide and throughout all time, has been traditionally more prevalent than a union between a man and a woman. At no time in American history has polygamy been acceptable in law, with a couple of exceptions in the Mormon religion, which nearly got them exterminated by the US government.

Sorry, judge, but your idea of tradition, spanning thousands of cultures from thousands of miles away, is ludicrous.

 

Nice try, but it doesn't matter that marriage has usually been polygamous (if that's even true). What matters is that it's been between a female and a male.

And you're not LOOKING for a proof of the counter-productivity of homosexuality.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen concrete proof that the belief in gremlins is harmful either, but I am going to assume that it is psychologically unhealthy even if (in your words) " I have still never seen a single person be able to concretely and specifically show how " the belief in gremlins "in anyway harms or negatively effects anyone."

Homosexuality is the most damaging to the individual. You can see it by thinking about how unhealthy it probably is to be confused about your gender. Homosexuality is only a step away from that.

And being damaging to the individual, it is consequently damaging to society as a whole, since society is made up of individuals.

 

Judges should not be able to so easily rule against the will of the people. Sure, the will of the people (in some locations anyway), was that slavery was ok. But this is a different situation.

It's not even established that homosexuals ARE a group covered AS A GROUP, by the Constitution. The group called 'tennis players' don't have protected rights AS A GROUP. Gays don't either until an Amendment is passed. Currently the amendments speak of 'sex', not 'sexual preference'.

And I have no doubt that if the people had a non-influenced choice about gay marriage, they'd vote against it 75% to 25% or more.
Too many people who are talking to the pollsters, or voting, are influenced by things that convince them counter to what is really in the voter's heart.