Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:20 pm
See?
Google.
Of course, Google isn't evil.
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:37 am
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:39 am
The other day Obama was quoted as saying the secret to a successful marriage is to just "Do what she says."
What if it is a M/M marriage, Obama? Homophobe.
What if it is a M/M marriage, Obama? Homophobe.
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:04 pm
Call it whatever you wish. Civil union, life partnership whatever. Then it fine.
But why should other people be forced to follow your religious code, Unk?
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:13 pm
I didn't think I was forcing anyone. What they have isn't the same. So why do I have to be dragged down by someone else?TPRJones wrote:But why should other people be forced to follow your religious code, Unk?Call it whatever you wish. Civil union, life partnership whatever. Then it fine.
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:31 pm
How does two men being married drag you down? Is the legality issue the only thing keeping you married to a woman instead of a man?
Snide comments aside, I just don't understand. Either it's a religious issue and you are trying to force others to follow your beliefs through rule of law or ... or what? Is it not a religious issue? I have yet to hear any valid reasons given against gay marriage that don't boil down to "my God says you can't do that". And one of the founding principles of our nation is that your God doesn't get to tell other people no without darn good reason.
Well, I do hear arguments about history, but most of those are wrong. They assume history means "Adam & Eve" which is really a religious argument. The actual history of marriage is all over the place depending on when and where you are looking at.
Edited By TPRJones on 1341891206
Snide comments aside, I just don't understand. Either it's a religious issue and you are trying to force others to follow your beliefs through rule of law or ... or what? Is it not a religious issue? I have yet to hear any valid reasons given against gay marriage that don't boil down to "my God says you can't do that". And one of the founding principles of our nation is that your God doesn't get to tell other people no without darn good reason.
Well, I do hear arguments about history, but most of those are wrong. They assume history means "Adam & Eve" which is really a religious argument. The actual history of marriage is all over the place depending on when and where you are looking at.
Edited By TPRJones on 1341891206
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:25 pm
K you can confirm this with Gordo. If you wish. I am not a religious person. And I think you asked so here is my reasoning. I do hold my marriage sacrid. I really find it funny that I had to get married three time to finally meet the requirement that governments made to say I WAS MARRIED. My marriage is between me, My wife,God and in fact her father I promised to take care of her for the rest of her life.
So anyhow I think calling what they have or want dimishes what I call my marriage. The sanctity of what I think I have. Call it something else. I think you take something away from me by calling it a marriage. I don't feel like giving in on this one. Have them give something up. Don't tread on me.
Well you asked. My opionion. Hope I didn't make to many people unhappy.
So anyhow I think calling what they have or want dimishes what I call my marriage. The sanctity of what I think I have. Call it something else. I think you take something away from me by calling it a marriage. I don't feel like giving in on this one. Have them give something up. Don't tread on me.
Well you asked. My opionion. Hope I didn't make to many people unhappy.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:53 am
Really? That's your argument? Thousands of gay couples can't get married so that you don't feel slighted? They have to sacrifice their freedom so that you don't have your delicate little feelings hurt? That's the most selfish thing I have heard in a long time. At least the religious kooks think it's because of some imaginary higher power rather than their own selfish pettiness.
I thought you were a better person than that, Unk.
I thought you were a better person than that, Unk.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:26 pm
Just FYI: I stopped reading this thread days ago when I saw it going nowhere good. If y'all are starting holy wars with each other, I aint part of it.
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:38 am
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:09 am
Good for them!
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:25 pm
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:15 pm
thibodeaux wrote:polygamy: the push begins
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:15 pm
Christ that was a large image.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:15 pm
Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice
I recall the constitution saying nothing about marriage. Sex-positive because ... more wives = more sex? The author appears to be mistaking marriage for sex. Then there's the last bit which blows my mind ... feminist? What? How?
As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.
And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.
Emphasis not mine. Note how the equality-minded female author here only thinks of polygamy in a "one man with many wives" sort of thing.
It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others.
The author is apparently totally cool with anything done to women in the name of tradition or "lifestyles."
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:03 am
The general assumption seems to be that polyamory = 1 man + X women where X > 1. But that's really not the most common case. Most common is X men + Y women where both X and Y > 1.
And in that case, it really is better from a feminist's viewpoint. More parents in the home means better chances for women to have their own career's and lives without the children suffering from neglect.
The idea of two adults raising their children alone is new to the 20th century. And many argue it's the cause of much parental neglect (because they are spread too thin) and the source of most of our societal problems. This would just let people move back to the extended-family model of child rearing, but with a chosen extended family instead of being forced to let grandmother move into the house.
Edited By TPRJones on 1366121168
And in that case, it really is better from a feminist's viewpoint. More parents in the home means better chances for women to have their own career's and lives without the children suffering from neglect.
The idea of two adults raising their children alone is new to the 20th century. And many argue it's the cause of much parental neglect (because they are spread too thin) and the source of most of our societal problems. This would just let people move back to the extended-family model of child rearing, but with a chosen extended family instead of being forced to let grandmother move into the house.
Edited By TPRJones on 1366121168
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:56 pm
What will be next?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:51 pm
You just know this one's going to SCOTUS.
I think employment benefits are where this will get tricky.
I think employment benefits are where this will get tricky.
What will be next?
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2022 12:03 am
"Your dependents get X amount of benefits. Have as many spouses as you want, they're splitting it."