Same-sex "marriage"

[Captain America]

Just be ready to be called every thing from traitor to homo-lover amongst a plethra of other colorful insulting names by many of our esteemed rightwing collegues here on the site.

To them there is no moderate or independant. Anything other than facist-neo-conservatism is considered by many of them to be liberal socialist slime.....:rofl There is no in-between.

Wear it like a badge of honor!

 

[Kelzie]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your support, and it feels damn good to step away from the norm, and actually think for myself. I feel I am an intelligent person, and knowing this, these folks must be worthy of my vote, or I can't in good conscience give it otherwise.

I am now an independent, and I honestly feel good about this decision.

I had the same conversation with my econ prof. There's nothing quite as liberating as getting rid on an old stagnant belief.

Nice stars hun.

 

[Deegan]

Thanks again folks, I actually teared up reading this, it must mean I have made the right choice, as I rarely do that, is this a common side effect?:lol: :doh

 

[jallman]

Thanks again folks, I actually teared up reading this, it must mean I have made the right choice, as I rarely do that, is this a common side effect?:lol: :doh

Hey deegan, I consider myself an independent also...in Alaska, I vote republican because of how moderate our republicans are here. When I go back to the lower 48 this fall, I will be just as confused as you are now.

 

[Kelzie]

Thanks again folks, I actually teared up reading this, it must mean I have made the right choice, as I rarely do that, is this a common side effect?:lol: :doh

Awww, we love you too Deegan. Big group hug everybody. :2grouphug

 

[Deegan]

I love you guys, honestly I do, I love this forum, it's changed my life in a way, that says something about this place, it's very special.:2wave:

 

[doughgirl]

Deegan……..”.Damn liberals have gotten to me again, I have now found no reason to not allow same sex marriage. I find when I consider all the options, and I honestly ask myself why they should not, I can no longer lie to myself, I find they have ever right, and should be allowed. I think marriage will survive in the traditional sense, and that this may even make the union stronger.”

You’re like McCain…… really a liberal….Pro same sex marriage, pro abortion…….probably against vouchers……Better change your profile. Then you could be included in the say whatever is politically correct group.

Captain America says, “The "polygamy/beastiality" is the simply argument of fools.”

No argument. I asked legitimate questions that none of you want to answer? You say youre so damn tolerant……but really you are not. You pick and choose like the rest of us. The more depraved soemthing is the more you champion it.

If you think polygamy won’t happen then you have your so called patriotic head in the sand. They are now coming out with a television program that is about polygamy. There have been law suits about polygamy as well, they want their marriages recognized.

So Captain put your money where your mouth is…….are you for polygamy too?

“Those people will soon be gone and a much smarter and wiser generation will replace ours much like we replaced the generation before us.’

Smarter and wiser?………….Boy I don’t think statistics don’t back ya up on that one……..Why do you think the generation before you wasn’t wiser? They had less STD's, less crime. You think thsoe are a good thing?

Deegan said, “I am now an independent, and I honestly feel good about this decision.”

You’re a chameleon.

 

[Captain America]

Polygamy? Don't go there. I already told you how irrevelent and foolish that argument fits threads such as these. At least try to be original. Please?

Besides, polygamy is cruel and unusual punishment. There's some kind of law that s'posed to protect us from that. Two wives? No way. :shock: I'd jump off a cliff first. But you go right ahead if that's what your church tells you to do. No skin off my nose.

You need to lighten up. Nobody likes to exchange ideas with rude people. Is that what Jesus taught you?

Reminds me of a joke.

A guy takes his wife to visit the holy lands and she suddenly dies of a heart attack.

The Isreali funeral director told him he could bury her in the holy lands for 450.00 or spend 7000.00 to ship her back to the states.

The man opted to ship his wife back to the US for burial. The director questioned his logic. "Why spend seven grand to ship her back to the US when you can bury her here, in the Holy Lands, for less than 500 bucks?"

The husband answered, "I heard once that they buried someone here and they came back to life after three days. I cannot risk that." :rofl

 

[Deegan]

You’re like McCain…… really a liberal….Pro same sex marriage, pro abortion…….probably against vouchers……Better change your profile. Then you could be included in the say whatever is politically correct group.



No argument. I asked legitimate questions that none of you want to answer? You say youre so damn tolerant……but really you are not. You pick and choose like the rest of us. The more depraved soemthing is the more you champion it.

If you think polygamy won’t happen then you have your so called patriotic head in the sand. They are now coming out with a television program that is about polygamy. There have been law suits about polygamy as well, they want their marriages recognized.

So Captain put your money where your mouth is…….are you for polygamy too?



Smarter and wiser?………….Boy I don’t think statistics don’t back ya up on that one……..Why do you think the generation before you wasn’t wiser? They had less STD's, less crime. You think thsoe are a good thing?



You’re a chameleon.

It was indeed folks like yourself that forced me to disassociate myself from the party, as people can change their views, and or opinions, it's called growth! Labels are indeed another reason I have left, and your label "chameleon" is probably correct, as I do intend to blend in with my environment, or I could end up as lonely, and as miserable as you obviously are, good luck with that.

 

[Gardener]

It was indeed folks like yourself that forced me to disassociate myself from the party, as people can change their views, and or opinions, it's called growth! Labels are indeed another reason I have left, and your label "chameleon" is probably correct, as I do intend to blend in with my environment, or I could end up as lonely, and as miserable as you obviously are, good luck with that.

"Labels? I don't need no stinking labels!"

D -- you sure seem like a nice guy to me. Seems to me that the more extreme you go in either direction, the less nice people become and they just become more and more war-like. Their mission is their ideology and their ideology demands conformity. Gets pretty tiring, don't it?

I'm something of a refugee from a left slanting board, and for the same reason -- the relentless purity tests the uberleftists place on others. This sort of thing certainly works on both sides of the aisle, except with the more intolerant leftists, the litmus test is to hate Jews instead of Gay people.

 

[Deegan]

"Labels? I don't need no stinking labels!"

D -- you sure seem like a nice guy to me. Seems to me that the more extreme you go in either direction, the less nice people become and they just become more and more war-like. Their mission is their ideology and their ideology demands conformity. Gets pretty tiring, don't it?

I'm something of a refugee from a left slanting board, and for the same reason -- the relentless purity tests the uberleftists place on others. This sort of thing certainly works on both sides of the aisle, except with the more intolerant leftists, the litmus test is to hate Jews instead of Gay people.

Thank you sir, and I certainly respect your opinion, as I have read a few of your posts, and you really seem as rational as you are intelligent, something I am trying to learn to do more of. You are correct, it has gotten quite tiring, and I am no longer going to allow myself to just walk the party line, I want to stand out as, who I am, not the party I belong to, or in this case, belonged to.

 

[doughgirl]

“Polygamy? Don't go there. I already told you how irrevelent and foolish that argument fits threads such as these. At least try to be original. Please?

Besides, polygamy is cruel and unusual punishment. There's some kind of law that s'posed to protect us from that. Two wives? No way. I'd jump off a cliff first. But you go right ahead if that's what your church tells you to do. No skin off my nose.”

You won’t answer it will you? Why do you bring church into it? Hey youre tolerant aren’t you? Openminded? Liberal? Why on earth would you deny someone their rights? You say same sex marriage is ok, then why isn’t group marriage ok? Can’t think of a clever answer? If you say you’re against polygamy then you label yourself as closeminded and hey your tryin to be liberal right?

‘It was indeed folks like yourself that forced me to disassociate myself from the party, as people can change their views, and or opinions, it's called growth!”

Hey Deegan I am not a Republican…….I wasn’t sucked into the party like you obviously were. :lol: I never gave them a red cent. Growth? Lmao Ok yea right.

Honey I am not miserable. I hate to dissapoint you but I have a great life. Life is grand.

Gardner says, “Their mission is their ideology and their ideology demands conformity. Gets pretty tiring, don't it?”

You know, I haven’t brought religion into this discussion at all…….you are the ones who bring it up. I never quoted one verse from the Bible about bestiality or homosexual marriage or polygamy or abortion……..in THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION on this thread. I do not need too. We simply were talking about "choice" and the freedom to enter into contracts if parties agree. Groups of people can enter into contracts can they not? ARE you all saying you would deny them their RIGHTS?


As I said you need not be religious to know that abortion is MURDER.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Damn liberals have gotten to me again, I have now found no reason to not allow same sex marriage. I find when I consider all the options, and I honestly ask myself why they should not, I can no longer lie to myself, I find they have ever right, and should be allowed. I think marriage will survive in the traditional sense, and that this may even make the union stronger.

Damn you liberals for converting me, you're going to get me kicked out of the GOP you know!:doh

Treason, blasphemy, sedition!!!! You're out of the circle! :mrgreen:

J/K I actually consider myself to be a very tolerant person, f@gs can do what ever the hell they want. :lol:


The terminology choice was a joke by the way.

 

[Deegan]

Hey Deegan I am not a Republican…….I wasn’t sucked into the party like you obviously were. :lol: I never gave them a red cent. Growth? Lmao Ok yea right.

Honey I am not miserable. I hate to dissapoint you but I have a great life. Life is grand.



QUOTE]


You certainly seem miserable, and I don't know why you choose to stalk me, and presume to know anything about me. You have labeled me, and now you question my new decision to join the Independents, what is your agenda here?

 

[Willoughby]

You say same sex marriage is ok, then why isn’t group marriage ok? Can’t think of a clever answer?

surely there is a common sense difference. it is hard to give a clever answer to a completly stupid question!

 

[Captain America]

surely there is a common sense difference. it is hard to give a clever answer to a completly stupid question!

Completely stupid people need love too!

 

[Gardener]

surely there is a common sense difference. it is hard to give a clever answer to a completly stupid question!

Not to mention that the more clever the answer, the less it will be recognized as such by whoever posed the question.


I dunno, though. I'm starting to rethink my attitudes about his whole shebaz due to these slippery slope arguments. I mean, like, it should be obvious that if you give heterosexuals the right to marry, first thing you know they'll want to have license for their depraved cluster, umm.......activities.

I don't even want to think about the barnyard, either, since it invariably involves a male human with a female sheep, goat or free range gerbil.

 

[doughgirl]

Deegan says, “what is your agenda here?”

Stalk you, oh pa-leeeze. Ahhhh I am here to discuss the issues just like you or anyone else is, and nothing more.

Willoughby said, “surely there is a common sense difference. it is hard to give a clever answer to a completly stupid question!”

This is not a stupid question at all. A new series due to air in the fall 2006 is about a polygamist (Bill Paxton) and his relationship with his three wives, all he is married to. The series is in production as we speak.

'Big Love' Brings Polygamy to HBO
Category: Television News
Posted by Mark Runyon | December 20, 2005 | 10:20 AM
And you thought a television series focused on a family of undertakers was weird. HBO is gearing up to bring us the Tom Hanks produced drama Big Love about a polygamist family in Utah. Bill Paxton will play Bill Henrickson, a home-improvement businessman juggling three wives: Jeanne Tripplehorn, Chloe Sevingny and Ginnfer Goodwin. Bill's a Viagra popping fool, getting his daily dose as he works through the batting order each night. The series is said to avoid the sizable ick factor and instead focus on just how their day-to-day lives would work. Though on first glance they appear to be Mormons, the Henrickson family is actually an unlabeled offshoot of the religion. The Mormon Church abandoned the practice of polygamy among its members in 1890."

Come on wake up……….even…Dr. Phil devoted a whole show about polygamy.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131784,00.html

Americas Most Wanted has done segments about polygamists communities.

The question you say is so so stupid……..its been up before the Supreme Court in the past few years. There are right now legal challenges. Read these.

“As the nation’s courts continue their attempt to redefine the family, polygamists Tom Green and Rodney Holm are petitioning Utah’s courts to legalize polygamy.”

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/news.aspx?story=1491

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/media plyg 101 trib.htm

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said.

Why is Santorum wrong here?

If you say gays have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then don’t others have a right to enter into one who have the polygamist lifestyle in mind?

If polygamists are consenting adults, who are you to make a judgement that polygamists should not have a right to get married? It's very hypocritical if you say no. You are then denying them their civil rights the same rights you think I am doing by opposing gay marriage. :doh


What do they always say, “"A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open."

It really surprises me that you who champion gay marriage are so close minded on this issue. It might not be a mainstream issue today….but give it time. You don't think that shows like Will and Grace did not pave the road for acceptance of gays in America?
You don't the show ''Commander in Chief" starring Geena Davis isn't getting America used to the idea of a woman president?

Once this television program comes out…it will introduce this subject to America and get the ball rolling.

So my question to any of you who are for gay marriage would be this. If you think gays getting married is no threat to the institution of marriage or family, then what is so dangerous about polygamy and why should that not be accepted and made legal?

I thought you all said that morality was different for many people that we should not ram our views down peoples throats, you say gay marriage is ok yet you say polygamist marriage would be WRONG………how so?

Banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, why is it banning group marriage constitutional?

Aren’t polygamists merely trying to gain the same legal rights that traditional married couples have?

And you want to deny then………very hypocritical if you ask me.

So Willougby what is the common sense difference?

 

[Willoughby]

Banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, why is it banning group marriage constitutional?

i just don't like the idea of group marriage, but if tehy want to get married fine by me...but lets start with gay-marriages...its a much bigger issue

 

[doughgirl]

Willoughby said, "I just don't like the idea of group marriage, but if tehy want to get married fine by me...but lets start with gay-marriages...its a much bigger issue"

I agree I do not like the idea of group marriage either, but its around the corner, not far away.

When making laws don't you think you have to look down the road to what the new law will affect?

Can you even comprehend what group marriage would do to health insurance costs and benefits?

 

[Willoughby]

i do have reservations have group marriage but that is for another discussion because i don't believe that gay marriage will lead to group marriage..although as you have said it may be logical in terms of civil righst etc i don't think it is the political conclusion of having gay marriages

 

[Kandahar]

Group marriage is a separate issue entirely. No one is being discriminated against if everyone has the right to have ONE marriage at a time recognized by the government (churches can recognize whatever marriages they want).

The same cannot be said of gay marriage. It's blatant discrimination because one group of people (women) has the right to marry a man and another group (men) does not have that right. One group of people (men) has the right to marry a woman, and another group (women) does not have that right.

 

[Jerry]

Oh look, a wounded mouse........

Group marriage is a separate issue entirely. No one is being discriminated against if everyone has the right to have ONE marriage at a time recognized by the government (churches can recognize whatever marriages they want).

With polygamy, there will still only be one marriage to be recognized. So you're OK with polygamy then, right?

The same cannot be said of gay marriage. It's blatant discrimination because one group of people (women) has the right to marry a man and another group (men) does not have that right. One group of people (men) has the right to marry a woman, and another group (women) does not have that right.

The same could be said for family relation, seeing as how the gay-marriage argument has detached reproduction from the equation. It's blatant discrimination because one group of people (unrelated) has the right to marry, and another group (related) does not have that right.

Besides, should 2 gay brothers or first cousins wish to marry eachother, you would deni them? You would either have to allow them to marry, thus establishing insestrial marriage, and per the 14th. you could not then deni opposite-gender related couples from marrying; or you would have to deni them, thus establishing a gender restriction, and by proxy banning gay-marriage.

If you don't want more than one spouse, don't marry more than one. If you don't want to marry a relative, don't. How would polygamy, line marriage, group marriage or insestrial marriage effect your marriage? It wouldn't, that's how. Why are you trying to push your beliefs onto others? The government has no right legislating how many people we can love! The government has no business in the bedroom!

 

[jallman]

I agree I do not like the idea of group marriage either, but its around the corner, not far away.

Unsupported sophistry and paranoid opining. Nothing more.

When making laws don't you think you have to look down the road to what the new law will affect?

I'm with you on this one...

Can you even comprehend what group marriage would do to health insurance costs and benefits?

So what does group marriage have to do with gay marriage again? I just ask because we know your penchant for red herrings, smoke screens, and unsupported opinion.

 

[Kandahar]

With polygamy, there will still only be one marriage to be recognized. So you're OK with polygamy then, right?

As long as the government is only recognizing one of the marriages, I couldn't care less. What business is it of mine?

The same could be said for family relation, seeing as how the gay-marriage argument has detached reproduction from the equation. It's blatant discrimination because one group of people (unrelated) has the right to marry, and another group (related) does not have that right.

Gender discrimination (such as an anti-gay marriage law) is illegal. Discrimination based on family relations is legal.

Besides, should 2 gay brothers or first cousins wish to marry eachother, you would deni them?

I really wouldn't care, but that's just me.

You would either have to allow them to marry, thus establishing insestrial marriage, and per the 14th. you could not then deni opposite-gender related couples from marrying; or you would have to deni them, thus establishing a gender restriction, and by proxy banning gay-marriage.

That doesn't make sense. Anti-gay marriage laws are gender discrimination, and therefore illegal. Family relations are not protected, and are frequently discriminated against (and rightly so) in a wide variety of laws besides marriage.

If you don't want more than one spouse, don't marry more than one. If you don't want to marry a relative, don't. How would polygamy, line marriage, group marriage or insestrial marriage effect your marriage? It wouldn't, that's how. Why are you trying to push your beliefs onto others? The government has no right legislating how many people we can love! The government has no business in the bedroom!

Like I said, I have no problem with any of those things. In my opinion the government should move toward recognizing a marriage between any two consenting adults, since all it really is is a contract. Polygamy would be more difficult to legalize, because it would be a legal nightmare. But morally I don't have a problem with it.


If recognizing same-sex marriages would lead to increased demand for polygamous marriage, why hasn't recognizing heterosexual marriage led to increased demand for polygamous marriage? What's the distinction that I'm missing here?