sixhundredsixtysix:misogyny101:sixhundredsixtysix:misogyny101:sixhundredsixtysix:misogyny1

sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: sixhundredsixtysix: misogyny101: shitmydadsaysonfacebook: Sexist bastard. Could someone explain to me how this is sexist? I literally don’t understand why this was tagged perv and sexist. It’s sexist because, he’s obviously being a pig. Why would someone, specifically males, want to marry more than one women? Is one not good enough? Also, the guy who posted that also happened to only want to fuck women and not commit to their feelings. That’s why that post is under those tags. Given the limited amount of material we have from this guy, I’m not sure it’s fair to make conjectures about his motivation for wanting plural marriage. Maybe he loves and would like to be with multiple women in a marriage setting. Excusing something as him just being a pig and only wanting to fuck women, not commit to them, sounds suspiciously similar to anti-gay marriage arguments. That they’re simply being given over to their sinful desires and its not about love. And even if that were true, who exactly are we to police people’s sex drives and sex lives. He’s my father. Therefore, I know how he thinks and his motives. He believes that he can run women and play them like these rappers he grew up listening to. He doesn’t support homosexuality, put can use the act of making it legal, as reason to have polygamist marriage. Which isn’t fair to anyone, but men like him. I guess my main question is why do you consider polygamist marriage such a social evil? If there’s no greater reason than that you just feel that it’s wrong and marriage should just be between two people because that’s the way it works traditionally and that’s what you’ve understood marriage to be your whole life, your opinion has no more legitimacy than the opinion of conservatives who oppose same sex marriage because they just feel that it’s wrong and marriage should just be between a man and a woman because that’s the way it works traditionally and that’s what they’ve understood marriage to be their whole lives. I’m not saying its a social evil, what I’m saying is that, homosexuals are fighting for an equal opportunity, when in all, polygamist just want the satisfaction. Also, I’m not saying that its the “traditional” thing to do, I’m saying that there’s no point of being in a polygamist marriage when you can just be single and be with anyone. I’m just saying that those two subjects have nothing to do with each other, and shouldn’t be in a comparison on any level. Lastly, in America we’re so “equal”, but some people can’t even marry the person who has they’re heart. Polygamist marriage is truly pointless. If someone wanted to be with multiple partners, they can do so, but making it a legal thing like marriage and law would serve no purpose. Again, you assume motivation. “Polygamists just want the satisfaction.” So do homosexuals. So does anyone who gets married. Or acts freely. We do everything we do for the satisfaction. “Homosexuals are fighting for an equal opportunity.” So are polygamists. They are fighting for the equal right of marriage, extended to multiple people. “…I’m saying that there’s no point of being in a polygamist marriage when you can just be single and be with anyone.” Similar to saying that there’s no point in gay marriage because you can just be in relationships with other people of your gender without getting married. And these subjects are both concerning being legally able to marry whomever you want to. I’d say they’re fairly related. When I satisfaction, I mean it in a greedy matter. They want the satisfaction of knowing they can be in a marriage with as many people as they want. So what you’re saying is that marriage should be limited only to people who have proper motivation for wanting to marry? They should have relationship examinations and personality tests as prerequisites to marriage? Telling people who they can and can not (or should and should not) marry isn’t any of our business. Noooo, what I’m saying that it shouldn’t be legal for polygamist marriages, because it’s a greedy act. What you’re saying is that we should legislate morality. Which causes a problem- whose morality do we accept for law making? If we accept some people’s moral code for a basis of legislation, gay marriage would never be legal. Polygamist aren’t going through the same thing as homosexuals. Polygamist would have the right away if they fought for their “rights” but, for homosexuals, it would be like asking for the world. Its just not the same. Homosexuality isn’t a choice, polygamy is. People aren’t being bullied because they’re polygamist. People aren’t committing suicide because they’re polygamist. Polygamy is a fantasy. And no, I’m not saying that because of those reasons, I’m saying that polygamy is a choice, homosexuality isn’t, and anything like homosexuality, that can’t be avoided, should be a legal. The reason that polygamy is a choice and homosexuality is not is that polygamy is an action and homosexuality is an attraction. It’s an unjust comparison. Homosexuality (an attraction) is the driving force of gay marriage (an action) in the same way that attraction to multiple mates (an attraction) is the driving force behind polygamy (an action). It makes more sense to compare attractions to attractions and actions to actions. One doesn’t choose who they are attracted to, whether they’re attracted to members of the same gender or multiple mates. However, gay marriage is a choice the same way that plural marriage is. -- source link

More pics about