Navy Pride said:I don't have a lot of gay friends but I have a few..........All they want is to live their life in peace and harmony and are embarrassed by the actions of a few militant gays and liberals that promote gay marriage at their expense.........They just want equal rights and believe the best way to do that is through civil unions..........They just wish the militant gays and the bleeding heart feel good liberals would just shut up..........
KCConservative said:I have a lot of gay friends. A lot. Many of them have life partners. None of them, however, are all that interested in being married. Who needs a piece of paper or a church service? No, what they want is a recognition of their civil union. They want to share benefits and enjoy the things married couples enjoy. Marriage isn;t the answer. Civil Unions are the key.
Oh, my bad. Here you go.Kelzie said:It's just a government study. Nothing about polygamists suing the government or anything. And the study said it should be decriminalized, not legalized.
jallman is one such person.Kelzie said:I highly doubt it. If a group of women were campaigning for a right that I didn't particularly care about, I would wish them the best of luck. I call some major bs that your "friends" wish people trying to gain recognition of their relationship would "shut up".
Busta said:jallman is one such person.
Gallenrox is another.
That's what it's going to become. It will take a while, but it is happening.hipsterdufus said:I agree with you KC.
If I had my druthers, I would make the term "marriage" a purely religious one.
Busta said:Oh, my bad. Here you go.
Sure, polygamy must be decriminalized before any headway can really be made......just as sodomy had to be decriminalized before same-sex 'marriage could make any headway.
The polygamy movement is still in it's infancy, I'll grant you that; but it is there, it has support, it has a stronger legal and philosophical argument than does same-sex 'marriage, and it's proponents are not going away.
I would wager a gentelman's dollar that, when the time comes and this issue heats up just as same-sex 'marriage is now, that polygamist supporters will use many of the same arguments that Pro. GM folks use now.
It is my 14th. Amend. "Slippery-Slope", and it is abominable, because you can not disallow polygamy with out using discrimination; and that miens that the 14th. protects polygamy and same-sex 'marriage *equally*.
Er, the militant ones, yes. jallman has told me that himself.Kelzie said:Neither of them are telling the gay people who are pushing for marriage to shut up.
Hey man, I want the gay bigots to shut up, I wholeheartedly support gay marriage though.Busta said:jallman is one such person.
Gallenrox is another.
Navy Pride said:Oh and I am postitive that Roberts and Alito will vote against legalizing gay marriage......
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1298&srch=SANTORUM BACKS BAN ON GAY WESTERNS
Golden Globes Win for ‘Brokeback Mountain’ Irks Pennsylvania SenatorThree days after the critically acclaimed film “Brokeback Mountain” won Golden Globe awards in four major categories, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay westerns.
“We cannot sit idly by and watch ‘Brokeback Mountain’ sashay into the mainstream of American culture,” Mr. Santorum said on the Senate floor today. “If allowed to flourish, gay westerns will destroy the sanctity of traditional westerns.”
He added that if the film continued to gain acceptance in the heartland, several western states might soon legalize marriage between gay cowboys.
The Pennsylvania senator explained that his proposal of a constitutional amendment banning gay westerns was not a rash decision on his part: “I only reached this decision after watching ‘Brokeback Mountain’ ten, maybe twelve times.”
Mr. Santorum added that it was “unconscionable” that the producers of the film had cast an actor as “hot and sexy” as Heath Ledger as one of the gay cowboys, since “he only makes the gay cowboy lifestyle seem more enticing.”
In a sign that Mr. Santorum may have more constitutional amendments to propose, he said that he was also “very concerned” that Hollywood might someday produce a remake of the film “Benji” featuring “man on dog sex.”
“I am going to be extra vigilant on this issue,” Mr. Santorum said. “If there is a remake of ‘Benji’ featuring man on dog sex, I will be waiting in line for a ticket on the very first day.”
Elsewhere, the Supreme Court voiced support for assisted suicide, and model Kate Moss voiced support for career suicide.
Busta said:Er, the militant ones, yes. jallman has told me that himself.
We should PM him here so that he can speak for himself, though.
Indeed. I could create a wonderfull pro. family argument for polygamy, including increased emotional support and financial stability.Kelzie said:Well I'm convinced. I've told you I want seven husbands right? One for each day of the week. Seriously, I doubt anyone can come up with a real reason of why polygamy is bad.
And there you have it, my fellow Jesus Freaks.galenrox said:Hey man, I want the gay bigots to shut up, I wholeheartedly support gay marriage though.
It's just I understand people finding homosexuality immoral, and I believe that in the same nature that I'm tolerant of homosexuality I'm tolerant of those who find it immoral.
I think that they should be treated equally though, regardless on one's stance on their homosexuality. Just as a lot of people thought the way I had a lot of promiscuous sex in high school was immoral, yet they still treated me as an equal.
Yeah, but that raises the question "so what?" It's odd to think about, since most people (myself included) are opposed to polygamy. But some people aren't, and considering that we are in no real way effected by polygamy practicioners, why not allow polygamy (although we'd probably have to rewrite the tax code and divorce laws)Busta said:Indeed. I could create a wonderfull pro. family argument for polygamy, including increased emotional support and financial stability.
Legally, one can not argue against polygamy.....once the definition of marriage is opened.
Kelzie said:I highly doubt it. If a group of women were campaigning for a right that I didn't particularly care about, I would wish them the best of luck. I call some major bs that your "friends" wish people trying to gain recognition of their relationship would "shut up".
Navy Pride said:Believe what you like..........Every gay person is not for the flambouyant life that militant gays want............And it just makes liberals feel so warm and fuzzy to champion the radical militants..............
Don't take my word for it.Ask jallman..He just want equal rights........
KCConservative said:I have a lot of gay friends. A lot. Many of them have life partners. None of them, however, are all that interested in being married. Who needs a piece of paper or a church service? No, what they want is a recognition of their civil union. They want to share benefits and enjoy the things married couples enjoy. Marriage isn;t the answer. Civil Unions are the key.
aps said:KC, are you telling us that your gay friends want the exact same benefits as a married male/female couple but want it to be called a civil union? What is the difference? The name of the their promises to each other? That doesn't even make sense.
It's like my saying that I want the Thrift Savings Plan from the government, but I want it to be called My Retirement Fun.
KCConservative said:It makes complete sense to them. They are not concerned with marriage. It's a religious ceremony, nothing more. They want a civil union and all it's benefits. It's much more than a walk down the aisle.
But that isn't the problem, is it? There are plenty of churches willing to give them a ceremony. It still leaves them crippled in terms of living as a couple. Civil Unions are the key.Engimo said:But many homosexuals are religious and want to get married. What do we do about them?
KCConservative said:But that isn't the problem, is it? There are plenty of churches willing to give them a ceremony. It still leaves them crippled in terms of living as a couple. Civil Unions are the key.
OK so how many states allow civil unions?Navy Pride said:Believe what you like..........Every gay person is not for the flambouyant life that militant gays want............And it just makes liberals feel so warm and fuzzy to champion the radical militants..............
Don't take my word for it.Ask jallman..He just want equal rights........
KCConservative said:It makes complete sense to them. They are not concerned with marriage. It's a religious ceremony, nothing more. They want a civil union and all it's benefits. It's much more than a walk down the aisle.
KCConservative said:It makes complete sense to them. They are not concerned with marriage. It's a religious ceremony, nothing more. They want a civil union and all it's benefits. It's much more than a walk down the aisle.
I can only imagine how polygamy might affect general society. Yes, there would need to be some reworking of tax-code, custody/parental rights, inheritance law, etc. I suppose that any legal counter argument to polygamy would need to be based in economics. A Nuclear Family is the most efficient family structure for an industrialized society. However, even if an economic guru could assemble a sollid economic counter argument, all that one would need to point out is that polygamists are a minority, and quote some relevant statistics, and that would be that.galenrox said:Yeah, but that raises the question "so what?" It's odd to think about, since most people (myself included) are opposed to polygamy. But some people aren't, and considering that we are in no real way effected by polygamy practicioners, why not allow polygamy (although we'd probably have to rewrite the tax code and divorce laws)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?