'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Enough!

Back to changing the laws to allow polygamists to marry...

I'm sure that glass dildos could be worked in there somewhere. :jest:

[Peikko 1,575]

Plural marriages really are quite a different dynamic than a couple. There are a lot of legal/emotional issues that are totally different and unique and very much more complicated. It's not really anything to do with the ability to have sex with multiple partners - an open marriage works for that.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I agree- it is complicated. I don't think it is about sex only though, and I still would not have an issue if it was made legal.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

[Peikko 1,575]

I wonder if you could fairly lay grounds for divorce on the fact that post plural marriage legalisation one partner in a couple wants a plural marriage and the other does not...

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I wonder if you could fairly lay grounds for divorce on the fact that post plural marriage legalisation one partner in a couple wants a plural marriage and the other does not...

Talk about messy !!!!

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

OH SNAP!

Edited June 8, 2009 by *Len*

[Peikko 1,575]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

That's not the basis for the objection though. I was just throwing that in because I very much doubt very many people have considered the emotional reality of such a complex arrangement when 'throwing it out there' as a possibility. Wanting sex with multiple partners necessarily means that you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is and why all we've heard so far on that score is some relativistic BS that "if you allow 'this', you MUST allow 'that'" and that no discussion of gay marriage is permitted without bringing in everything under the sun.

Its quite deliberately evasive.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

You're applying a traditional definition of marriage to a rapidly changing world.

Kind of like what anti-gay marriage people do, when they say 'the reality of what marriage means' is between one man and one woman.

If we're going to throw out traditional marriage, I suggest we do so entirely.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

That's not the basis for the objection though. I was just throwing that in because I very much doubt very many people have considered the emotional reality of such a complex arrangement when 'throwing it out there' as a possibility. Wanting sex with multiple partners necessarily means that you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

sister, that would be taking a very set idea of what marriage is. Marriage is a contract. Relationships that lead to commitment are -hopefully- based on love and respect. Sex is frosting (pun intended)

...you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

You're applying a traditional definition of marriage to a rapidly changing world.

Kind of like what anti-gay marriage people do, when they say 'the reality of what marriage means' is between one man and one woman.

If we're going to throw out traditional marriage, I suggest we do so entirely.

WORD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

That's not the basis for the objection though. I was just throwing that in because I very much doubt very many people have considered the emotional reality of such a complex arrangement when 'throwing it out there' as a possibility. Wanting sex with multiple partners necessarily means that you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

Well as I said its no coincidence that the only working examples of plural marriage that exist arise from repressive religions - where the woman is almost always seen as a possession, and be married to X number of women carries similar prestige to the owning of X thousand head of cattle.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Speaking of frosty, if any ladies have chapped lips, holla at yo boy!

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

That's not the basis for the objection though. I was just throwing that in because I very much doubt very many people have considered the emotional reality of such a complex arrangement when 'throwing it out there' as a possibility. Wanting sex with multiple partners necessarily means that you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

Well as I said its no coincidence that the only working examples of plural marriage that exist arise from repressive religions - where the woman is almost always seen as a possession, and be married to X number of women carries similar prestige to the owning of X thousand head of cattle.

Hey - but what if Jane chose to marry Joe + David + Johnny?

I agree with what AJ said: being for only ONE definition of marriage is dangerously close to what anti-gay marriage proponents espouse as an idea of what marriage is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

I'll sign that petition although one woman is way more than I can handle so I'll choose to not partake