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

[mybackpages 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.

Can someone explain why it took 539 posts in this thread before this light bulb went off? Tigretigre where have you been?

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

::wipes sweat off brow::

Pfffffffffew I finally finished reading. Now everyone stop posting until tomorrow afternoon so I can keep up, k? K.

[Cristy 4]

::wipes sweat off brow::

Pfffffffffew I finally finished reading. Now everyone stop posting until tomorrow afternoon so I can keep up, k? K.

You did not read this whole thing in one sitting did you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Which of course comes back to the separation of church and state. The church lost its monopoly on marriage when people started having purely secular ceremonies. They seem to have no problem with a heterosexual marriage in the absence of God, but a huge problem in granting equivalent secular rights to homosexual couples.

So I say again - if you give homosexual couples all of the legal rights pertaining to heterosexual marriage, calling it something different is merely a euphemism to disguise the fact that it is the exact same thing.

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

::runs and hides::

[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.

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

That was....errrr....enlightening. Stop putting words into my mouth, I don't know where they have been.

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

::runs and hides::

I'll get right on that.

[tigretigre 0]

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

Was it Steve's gay cat, or my sexy cat?

[Cristy 4]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to anyone who was offended by me saying that teaching a child to hate is abuse. Of course it is perfectly acceptable and maybe even model parenting to corrupt a young child with prejudice. It is preferable to teaching a child to love and accept all people who are different (as long as they are law abiding). My bad. How's that?

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

Was it Steve's gay cat, or my sexy cat?

OMG how did I forget to mention the best part of this thread.

BTW, I think ours is gay too

Should I keep him away from the neighbour's cat lest it's contagious?

Edited November 13, 2006 by RaspberrySwirl

[Cristy 4]

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

Was it Steve's gay cat, or my sexy cat?

OMG how did I forget to mention the best part of this thread.

BTW, I think ours is gay too

Should I keep him away from the neighbour's cat lest it's contagious?

No gay up the neighbourhood.

[aussiewench 9]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

Was it Steve's gay cat, or my sexy cat?

I think it's my gay cat fantasizing about your sexy cat while rubbing against my bedsheets.

[vocalize 0]

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.

This has nothing to do with pedophilia! A pedophile has sex with children and children are not able to consent. This is totally different. I don't see how you can compare polygamy to pedophilia unless the polygamist was marrying underage girls. In most cases all parties are consenting adults and the government shouldn't have a say in it. There has also been a lot of talk about polygamists being a drain on the economy and this isn't the case at all. When the government refuses to recognize those marriages then it is left open to abuse. Men start sending their wives to collect welfare and foodstamps and they are able to because they're not legally married. this also leaves the door open to abuse towards the women because those women are less likely to seek help in the event of domestic violence. They also end up on welfare if something happens to the husband because they're not elligible for his benifits.

The polygamist struggle is closely tied in to the gay marriage thing because if one gets legalized/recognized the other's most likely going to follow suit. Most polygamists don't really care if the government recognized their marriages or not but it would be helpful if it was at least decriminalized. At least gay people don't have to worry about going to prison for who they love.

Honestly, if the bill in AZ didn't read like the bills throughout the rest of the country and limit the number of spouses to two it would have most likely passed. AZ is a pretty conservative state.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Too many disparate conversations going on here - I give up. What was that about gay and oversexed cats?

[aussiewench 9]

Too many disparate conversations going on here - I give up. What was that about gay and oversexed cats?

hahahaha You gave it your best darlin'