Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[Peikko 1,575]

All I meant to suggest was that 'society' didn't move down the communal living path, either due to hippy activity or religious sects. There have only ever been small isolated communities, therefore their influence on the legal aspects of marital life are none existent. It has no relevance to the question of whether a polygamous society has been tried and tested and can be said to have succeeded or not and it certainly does nothing to allay the assertion that polygamy would require an entirely new set of rules to govern society and the legal ramifications of these kinds of relationships being entirely different to those that govern coupledom.

[fozzie 41]

Its funny how many anti-gay people in the world change their opinion once their son or daughter turns out to be gay.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

All I meant to suggest was that 'society' didn't move down the communal living path, either due to hippy activity or religious sects. There have only ever been small isolated communities, therefore their influence on the legal aspects of marital life are none existent. It has no relevance to the question of whether a polygamous society has been tried and tested and can be said to have succeeded or not and it certainly does nothing to allay the assertion that polygamy would require an entirely new set of rules to govern society and the legal ramifications of these kinds of relationships being entirely different to those that govern coupledom.

Sure. Especially when counterculture movements are anti-establishment. But they also set up their own sets of rules, and have their own "hang-ups". If you want to live in general society, you either accept those rules, or as we see here, adapt thoe rules to meet your goals. Once you grow past the rebellious stage, you want to reinsert yourself back into society as a full standing member. Culture has continued to evolve in the US from one dominated by white men of property to something more diverse. I would suggest that counterculture movements have always played a role, by experimenting around the edges of acceptable behaviour, to show what is possible. If a change does not work, then society can always regress, and choose another direction.

[Peikko 1,575]

All I meant to suggest was that 'society' didn't move down the communal living path, either due to hippy activity or religious sects. There have only ever been small isolated communities, therefore their influence on the legal aspects of marital life are none existent. It has no relevance to the question of whether a polygamous society has been tried and tested and can be said to have succeeded or not and it certainly does nothing to allay the assertion that polygamy would require an entirely new set of rules to govern society and the legal ramifications of these kinds of relationships being entirely different to those that govern coupledom.

Sure. Especially when counterculture movements are anti-establishment. But they also set up their own sets of rules, and have their own "hang-ups". If you want to live in general society, you either accept those rules, or as we see here, adapt thoe rules to meet your goals. Once you grow past the rebellious stage, you want to reinsert yourself back into society as a full standing member. Culture has continued to evolve in the US from one dominated by white men of property to something more diverse. I would suggest that counterculture movements have always played a role, by experimenting around the edges of acceptable behaviour, to show what is possible. If a change does not work, then society can always regress, and choose another direction.

Stop talking sensibly, that's against VJ rules!!!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

All I meant to suggest was that 'society' didn't move down the communal living path, either due to hippy activity or religious sects. There have only ever been small isolated communities, therefore their influence on the legal aspects of marital life are none existent. It has no relevance to the question of whether a polygamous society has been tried and tested and can be said to have succeeded or not and it certainly does nothing to allay the assertion that polygamy would require an entirely new set of rules to govern society and the legal ramifications of these kinds of relationships being entirely different to those that govern coupledom.

Sure. Especially when counterculture movements are anti-establishment. But they also set up their own sets of rules, and have their own "hang-ups". If you want to live in general society, you either accept those rules, or as we see here, adapt thoe rules to meet your goals. Once you grow past the rebellious stage, you want to reinsert yourself back into society as a full standing member. Culture has continued to evolve in the US from one dominated by white men of property to something more diverse. I would suggest that counterculture movements have always played a role, by experimenting around the edges of acceptable behaviour, to show what is possible. If a change does not work, then society can always regress, and choose another direction.

Stop talking sensibly, that's against VJ rules!!!!

I hear mariachi static on my radio

And the tubes they glow in the dark

And I'm there with you in Ensenada

And I'm here in echo park

Carmelita, hold me tighter

I think I'm sinking down

And I'm all strung out on heroin

On the outskirts of town

Well, I pawned my Smith and Wesson

And I went to meet my man

He hangs out down on ElDorado Street

At the Pioneer Chicken stand

Carmelita, hold me tighter

I think I'm sinking down

And I'm all strung out on heroin

On the outskirts of town

Well I'm sitting here playing solitaire

With my pearle handled deck

The county won't give me no more Methadone

And they cut off your welfare check

Carmelita, hold me tighter

I think I'm sinking down

And I'm all strung out on heroin

On the outskirts of town

Carmelita, hold me tighter

I think I'm sinking down

And I'm all strung out on heroin

On the outskirts of town

Is that better?

[mawilson 2,133]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The same reasons hetero couples get married - tax breaks, insurance benefits, inheritance, immigration benefits, etc.

Edited April 6, 2009 by mawilson

[fozzie 41]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The same reasons hetero couples get married - tax breaks, insurance benefits, inheritance, immigration benefits, etc.

...love and commitment!

[mawilson 2,133]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The same reasons hetero couples get married - tax breaks, insurance benefits, inheritance, immigration benefits, etc.

...love and commitment!

Yes, that too.

[almaty 19]

right thinking as always

[mawilson 2,133]

How has your life changed since Same sex marriage was legalized? I especially like the answer of the old lady at 4:25

####### were those Muslims saying?

They weren't Muslim....they are Sikhs. You live in NY and have never seen a Sikh?

And in the context of my question, the distinction is important how?

[Troy W 0]

What saddens me is that the opposition to gay rights only puts their religious views towards gay rights. But no one ever wants to look at the financial and legal aspect of gay rights.

If a gay couple can not get married, in most states they can not file taxes under married filing joint. For a couple with an income of 60 thousand dollars that comes to about an extra 8 thousand dollars they have to pay the government between them.

If a gay couple decides that one of the couple will stay home and raise the kids and the working spouse can not get domestic partner insurance, then the medical insurance costs per month for the non working spouse would cost close to $600 a month

It all boils down to $$$$, and quite frankly my view is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so let them have the same rights as the rest of us.

Keep in mind this; a lot of states still have laws on the books that make cunnilingus, ####### and sodomy illegal. As far as I am concerned the government has no right to say what is allowed sexually between consenting adults, period end of story. And unfortunately our religious right winged nuts make so much noise that stupid elected official’s bow to their wants.

I have to say I am a republican, but I am very disenchanted with the republican parties’ stance on embryonic stem cell research, abortion, sexual education, gay rights and religion in government. Hopefully the pounding they got in the last election will teach them that they need to change their views to be more in line with the rest of the majority. I kind of look at republican views on these subjects, like I look at the catholic churches view on birth control, what is the greater sin, use birth control or have 15 babies that you cant take care of and feed.

[fozzie 41]

What saddens me is that the opposition to gay rights only puts their religious views towards gay rights. But no one ever wants to look at the financial and legal aspect of gay rights.

If a gay couple can not get married, in most states they can not file taxes under married filing joint. For a couple with an income of 60 thousand dollars that comes to about an extra 8 thousand dollars they have to pay the government between them.

If a gay couple decides that one of the couple will stay home and raise the kids and the working spouse can not get domestic partner insurance, then the medical insurance costs per month for the non working spouse would cost close to $600 a month

It all boils down to $$$$, and quite frankly my view is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so let them have the same rights as the rest of us.

Keep in mind this; a lot of states still have laws on the books that make cunnilingus, ####### and sodomy illegal. As far as I am concerned the government has no right to say what is allowed sexually between consenting adults, period end of story. And unfortunately our religious right winged nuts make so much noise that stupid elected official’s bow to their wants.

I have to say I am a republican, but I am very disenchanted with the republican parties’ stance on embryonic stem cell research, abortion, sexual education, gay rights and religion in government. Hopefully the pounding they got in the last election will teach them that they need to change their views to be more in line with the rest of the majority. I kind of look at republican views on these subjects, like I look at the catholic churches view on birth control, what is the greater sin, use birth control or have 15 babies that you cant take care of and feed.

[Danno 1,228]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

[Danno 1,228]

Its funny how many anti-gay people in the world change their opinion once their son or daughter turns out to be gay.

Share those facts with us so we may know the numbers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Pull the other one Danno. When called on one red herring, all you can do is say "look behind you!" while you pull a brace of mackeral from behind your back.

But OK... which groups specifically are you talking about - and who specifically is asking for this recognition?

Is there some sort of national lobby or other mainstream trying to advance the rights of polygamists or man/animal love?

Where in the public consciousness does the debate to recognise these things exist?

Edited April 6, 2009 by Private Pike