Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[mybackpages 0]

Posting in a legendary thread.

Or am I?

Can someone give me a quick recap, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. >.>

I think a quick recap might go something like this;

and a lot of this

Did I leave something out?

[aussiewench 9]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Posting in a legendary thread.

Or am I?

Can someone give me a quick recap, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. >.>

I think a quick recap might go something like this;

and a lot of this

Did I leave something out?

It seems to come down to "homosexuality is immoral, and they should not be rewarded for their immorality". Though I'm having a hard time trying to interpret that view into firstly - marriage as a social institution (not specifically a religious one) and secondly, the legal differences of marriages vs. civil unions.

If the difference is purely semantic - seems to me that there isn't much of a debate.

I'll buy it

[Cristy 4]

Recap.....lot of people with closed minds who are wrong keep posing stuff but have no real reason....some of them use the bible to try to back up their bigotry. One of them told me to apologize but she is not the boss of me so I am not.

Lots of people trying to get answers or their point across but keep running into brick walls.

Someone has a gay cat, male swans are fashion experts, Martin Luther Kings widow supports gay rights, NAMBLA keeps coming up and one person is totally fixated on polygamy.

[vocalize 0]

do you want to be a polygamist?

i'm petitioning for wife #3 right now and yes it would be better for us if all of them could be recognized as legal wives.

[aussiewench 9]

do you want to be a polygamist?

i'm petitioning for wife #3 right now and yes it would be better for us if all of them could be recognized as legal wives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Polygamy is hardly widespread - nor would it likely become so if homosexuals were given the right to marry. As I see it, the 'equality' of marriage relegates polygamists into the ranks of the sexually dominant and the emotionally unstable.

[dalegg 143]

Recap.....lot of people with closed minds who are wrong keep posing stuff but have no real reason....some of them use the bible to try to back up their bigotry. One of them told me to apologize but she is not the boss of me so I am not.

Lots of people trying to get answers or their point across but keep running into brick walls.

Someone has a gay cat, male swans are fashion experts, Martin Luther Kings widow supports gay rights, NAMBLA keeps coming up and one person is totally fixated on polygamy.

This thread HAS outlasted two men-with-Philippino women threads though. That's got to be worth something!

[garya505 2]

I suspect that if the laws prohibiting polygamy were tested again (not likely),

Why is it not likely? There are many advocacy groups pushing for this cause today. It is likely that it will be challenged and found to be unconstitutional in the near future. AZ voted down this marriage ban, I suspect because there are a large number of polygamists here.

do you want to be a polygamist?

Really? I wasn't aware that AZ voted down the that marriage ban. Interesting.

No, I don't want to be a polygamist. I'm just saying that the purely legal arguments against polygamy are no stronger than the purely legal arguments against same-sex marriage (i.e. that the state has a compeling interest ...).

[Fandango 1,439]

Recap.....lot of people with closed minds who are wrong keep posing stuff but have no real reason....some of them use the bible to try to back up their bigotry. One of them told me to apologize but she is not the boss of me so I am not.

Lots of people trying to get answers or their point across but keep running into brick walls.

Someone has a gay cat, male swans are fashion experts, Martin Luther Kings widow supports gay rights, NAMBLA keeps coming up and one person is totally fixated on polygamy.

I said you should apologise...I didn't demand it. And I did so because you called people here child abusers. But if you feel fine with being as 'close minded and bigoted' as you point your finger to others...well that just shows people the caliber of person you are

I also pointed out that I am torn on this issue, as there are valid points to each side...yet you're too close minded to see that someone who has deep roots in religion is basing beliefs not in hate, but in the belief of their Holy Book...whatever that may be. You just discount why some people feel as they do...which will always lead you to be chastizing those who don't agree. No one here is an idiot...and instead of being mocked when a parallel is drawn, you could actually listen and try to see someone's point.

Also, you alienate those who may even be prepared to listen...making it practically impossible to open a real adult dialogue on the matter. You're too busy screaming how everyone's wrong and you're right. So you've in effect, wasted countless minutes/hours/days whatever acting like a petulant child, yet getting nowhere in terms of real dialogue.

Even your beligerance at bringing me back into the fray when I left pages ago, by saying 'oooh, someone told me to apologise and I didn't cos she aint the boss of me' erm, ok...feel better now? <sarcasm>Wow, you're so tough! </sarcasm>

'when someone shows you who they are...believe them'

Only when you illustrate to others that you're actually interested in listening will we ever be able to reach a understanding. It's not always about who yells the loudest

[garya505 2]

Why does this thread keep going to polygamy and pedophilia? We are talking about the rights of 2 consenting adults to make their relationship legal.

WRT why polygamy keeps coming up, I will pose this question for discussion:

Given that a marriage is currently defined as a legal union of one woman and one man, if we are going to open up this legal definition to include same-sex couples, than what would be the legal argument to maintain the restriction of only 2 consenting adults? This question is from a purely legal standpoint, not social or political.

IMO pedophilia doesn't belong in this discussion. Pedophiles can be heterosexual, homosexual, male, or female.

Polygamy is hardly widespread - nor would it likely become so if homosexuals were given the right to marry. As I see it, the 'equality' of marriage relegates polygamists into the ranks of the sexually dominant and the emotionally unstable.

Hmmm, but equality uder the law doesn't require something to be widespread, does it? If that was the case, we could argue that a group of people could be legally discriminated against if they were simply a minority of the population.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

WRT why polygamy keeps coming up, I will pose this question for discussion:

Given that a marriage is currently defined as a legal union of one woman and one man, if we are going to open up this legal definition to include same-sex couples, than what would be the legal argument to maintain the restriction of only 2 consenting adults? This question is from a purely legal standpoint, not social or political.

Quite simply, because 'gay marriage' still involves a union of two people...

Hmmm, but equality uder the law doesn't require something to be widespread, does it? If that was the case, we could argue that a group of people could be legally discriminated against if they were simply a minority of the population.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to understand what relevance polygamy has to this discussion - other than as a way of suggesting that if you 'redefine marriage' to include homosexuals it creates some sort of legal precedent for 'opening the door' for members of other lifestyles considered deviant. I don't see that argument as being particularly convincing.

In case you missed it - marriage has already been redefined - its not only the religious union that it traditionally was, but is a secular institution as well. I don't see anyone complaining about the validity of secular marriages that completely omit God and the church.

That's not to say of course that homosexuals are secularists, or would necessarily desire a purely secular union. The church does not hold the monopoly on marriage, and it seems a bit late to be trying to copyright it to exclude people whose lifestyles it disapproves of.

Incidentally you might notice perhaps that the polygamist movement, if there is such a thing is something that is peculiar to the US (as a developed country), but has been going on for many years in many African nations and some parts of Asia.

In any case - you need only look at countries which have ALREADY legalised same sex marriage (which are actually different to those endorse polygamy) who to see that those countries are not even having a national debate about whether or not it should be legal.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely....

Edited November 12, 2006 by erekose

[Cristy 4]

Recap.....lot of people with closed minds who are wrong keep posing stuff but have no real reason....some of them use the bible to try to back up their bigotry. One of them told me to apologize but she is not the boss of me so I am not.

Lots of people trying to get answers or their point across but keep running into brick walls.

Someone has a gay cat, male swans are fashion experts, Martin Luther Kings widow supports gay rights, NAMBLA keeps coming up and one person is totally fixated on polygamy.

I said you should apologise...I didn't demand it. And I did so because you called people here child abusers. But if you feel fine with being as 'close minded and bigoted' as you point your finger to others...well that just shows people the caliber of person you are

I also pointed out that I am torn on this issue, as there are valid points to each side...yet you're too close minded to see that someone who has deep roots in religion is basing beliefs not in hate, but in the belief of their Holy Book...whatever that may be. You just discount why some people feel as they do...which will always lead you to be chastizing those who don't agree. No one here is an idiot...and instead of being mocked when a parallel is drawn, you could actually listen and try to see someone's point.

Also, you alienate those who may even be prepared to listen...making it practically impossible to open a real adult dialogue on the matter. You're too busy screaming how everyone's wrong and you're right. So you've in effect, wasted countless minutes/hours/days whatever acting like a petulant child, yet getting nowhere in terms of real dialogue.

Even your beligerance at bringing me back into the fray when I left pages ago, by saying 'oooh, someone told me to apologise and I didn't cos she aint the boss of me' erm, ok...feel better now? <sarcasm>Wow, you're so tough! </sarcasm>

'when someone shows you who they are...believe them'

Only when you illustrate to others that you're actually interested in listening will we ever be able to reach a understanding. It's not always about who yells the loudest

Did I say demand wordsmith? Did I call anyone a child abuser? Ummm no.

[Fandango 1,439]

Recap.....lot of people with closed minds who are wrong keep posing stuff but have no real reason....some of them use the bible to try to back up their bigotry. One of them told me to apologize but she is not the boss of me so I am not.

Lots of people trying to get answers or their point across but keep running into brick walls.

Someone has a gay cat, male swans are fashion experts, Martin Luther Kings widow supports gay rights, NAMBLA keeps coming up and one person is totally fixated on polygamy.

I said you should apologise...I didn't demand it. And I did so because you called people here child abusers. But if you feel fine with being as 'close minded and bigoted' as you point your finger to others...well that just shows people the caliber of person you are

I also pointed out that I am torn on this issue, as there are valid points to each side...yet you're too close minded to see that someone who has deep roots in religion is basing beliefs not in hate, but in the belief of their Holy Book...whatever that may be. You just discount why some people feel as they do...which will always lead you to be chastizing those who don't agree. No one here is an idiot...and instead of being mocked when a parallel is drawn, you could actually listen and try to see someone's point.

Also, you alienate those who may even be prepared to listen...making it practically impossible to open a real adult dialogue on the matter. You're too busy screaming how everyone's wrong and you're right. So you've in effect, wasted countless minutes/hours/days whatever acting like a petulant child, yet getting nowhere in terms of real dialogue.

Even your beligerance at bringing me back into the fray when I left pages ago, by saying 'oooh, someone told me to apologise and I didn't cos she aint the boss of me' erm, ok...feel better now? <sarcasm>Wow, you're so tough! </sarcasm>

'when someone shows you who they are...believe them'

Only when you illustrate to others that you're actually interested in listening will we ever be able to reach a understanding. It's not always about who yells the loudest

Did I say demand wordsmith? Did I call anyone a child abuser? Ummm no.

Keep comin with the insults, cristy....you prove me right with each and every post

[tigretigre 0]

Point of clarification, because I think certain people would bring polygamy up a lot less if they actually knew what it was:

Polygamy is one person entering into multiple marriages. Each marriage is the union of two people--the polygamist, and someone else. Let's say Morgan the Polygamist marries Lee the Spouse, and then marries Pat the Spouse and then Terry the Spouse. Lee and Pat and Terry are all married to Morgan, but not to each other. Legalizing polygamy wouldn't redefine marriage to include more than two people--it would just make it legal to be party to more than one marriage at the same time.

Given the nature of the marital agreement, which includes a mutual duty of support, it's quite apparent to me why the government might have policy concerns about polygamy that have nothing to do with "lifestyle issues." Puh-lease don't tell me you can't imagine why the government would possibly be concerned about potential state expense associated with tapped-out polygamists, not to mention the enormous potential for fraud. In essence, the government is characterizing the civil marital agreement as an exclusive one. That's much different from the government saying that, because of their respective genders, certain people are not allowed to enter into the marital agreement at all.

I also pointed out that I am torn on this issue, as there are valid points to each side...yet you're too close minded to see that someone who has deep roots in religion is basing beliefs not in hate, but in the belief of their Holy Book...whatever that may be.

I can respect that someone's religious principles mandate a disapproval of gay marriage, or even a refusal to recognize it as a proper marriage. I have no problem with that, as this person is entitled to adhere to his or her religious beliefs. I have an enormous problem with the idea that this person is also entitled to have his or her religious views enforced throughout the country by way of government action.

Edited November 13, 2006 by tigretigre