Yep. It'll stop with gay marriage. Honest!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why should my tax dollars pay for privileges extended only to those that you agree? What about my dissagreement? Why can't my tax dollars be used to give benefits to those who I agree we should give them to?

It gets worse, because married people are ripping off America. They say they want to promote good society by rewarding marriages, but then 40% of these marriages end in divorce... often with children. And we all know that children from divorces have it tough... which isn't making society better.

So if you get divorced, you should owe the government all the money you saved because you were married. Darn heterosexuals and their rampant rate of divorce. Darn the southern states and their higher rates of divorce. Must be alot of liberals living in those southern states, bastardizing marriage!

[Bagger_Vance]

The legal aspects of marriage have always been priviledges. No one has ever disallowed homosexuals from finding a priest and saying vows together. That's the only element that is a right.

And equal protection under the law just doesn't fly eh?

You just did.

There is a difference b/w saying you disagree with something and attempting to enforce laws. Christians whine and complain and call for hellfire judgment on people for being gay and supporting gay rights. It is ridiculous and childish.

Actually, it has to do with the quality and perserverence of the society we live in, and it has little to do with Christianity, since there are Christians and non-Christians on both sides of this issue.

Personally, I think that the traditional family is the backbone of any society, and marriage (one man, one wwoman) is the core of that family. Anything that tries to expand that definition to include arrangements that cannot pass on the social structures that hold our society together (like gay unions) is bad for our society as a whole.

Polygamy in our culture's setting is nothing more than the exploitation of women, but the expansion of "marriage" to be something other than the traditional definition is only going to result in any number of groupings being called "marriage", as TLM pointed out.

Michael

Michael

The traditional marriage is the backbone of society? I think the american worker is the backbone of our society. How can you prove either one of those statements? You can't. How can you legislate based on what you think is the backbone of our society. You shouldn't be able to but somehow you've been convinced that your baseless opinion actually should be enforced on the whole of humanity.

If someone wants to marry 5 wives and all 5 agree to be in a union of that sort what do you care? It isn't blocking the traditional marriage. No one is going to make you marry multiple wives. What if polygamists said that since polygamy goes back to biblical times that you are tarnishing traditional marriage and that your kind of marriage should be outlawed? Neither one of you can prove that you are right. There is no right answer to the question of what the proper definition of marriage is.

[Darth Executor]

And equal protection under the law just doesn't fly eh?

Alright, I wanna start getting a pension, I wanna start getting money for being disabled even if I'm not, I want to be able to park in handicapped people's spots. I wanna qualify for "affirmative action" even though I'm a white male "elite".

[Piebald]

I think the american worker is the backbone of our society. How can you prove either one of those statements? You can't.

Well, moving away from cliches that don't tell the whole story ("backbone of our society," etc.) our society needs healthy, well brought up people. The healthiest and happiest way seems to be one in which the child's mother and father are together and they all love eachother.

Personally, I think that "gay marriage" is only one tiny aspect to the malfunctioning American family. Adultery is everywhere and so is divorce. Frankly a kid would be better off in a loving family with two men or two women who are 'married' then with a man and a woman who are irresponsible and unstable.

I type psychiatric reports which tell a patient's life story. 1 out of every 10 patients came from a home that they would describe as intact and loving, and that 1/10 person most likely had some biological origin for their present illness.

Our terrible attitudes about sex and marriage are populating our country with unstable people who are deeply hurt. Unless they work hard to resolve their issues, they go on to have children in the same situation.

These children tend not to be able to work. That's not their fault. They are actually sick. They actually need assistance. But where is that assistance going to come from? Most likely from the government through things like social security. So we have more and more neighbors that we have to take care of. It's not an issue of who are they hurting? -- being in a sexual relationship means you have the potential to hurt dozens of people for generations.

In school, I don't recall any classes about how to rear children, or to be a good husband or wife. However, there were 8 hours a week geared towards teaching people about how to stick part A into part B without ending up with warts, and to enjoy it as a biological process as serious as eating or going to the bathroom.

[Duder]

Next up, marriage between men and girls, men and boys, and people and animals. Thanks, liberals. You're doing a fantastic job at fragging up the world.

Funny you should bring this up. I was just thinking about a song for you - and here it is, with apologies to Kermit the Frog.

_________________________________________________


It's not that easy being straight
Having to spend each day the orintation of Jerry Falwell
When I think it could be nicer being bi, or queer,
Or something much more colorful like that

It's not easy being straight
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over
'Cause you're not standing out
Like the Fab Five on Queer Eye
Or a gay-pride parade

But straight's the way of procreation
And straight can be normal and comfy-like
And straight can be big like a majority
Or important like Karl Rove
Or tall like a flagpole

When straight is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why
But why wonder why wonder
I am straight, and it'll do fine
It's beautiful, and I think it's what I want to be

[Conductor42]

Its about time polygamy was made legal again. (Oh yeah, Jinx, you might want to keep in mind that polygamy was originally a conservative thing, which the liberals outlawed... its biblical, ya know... and most polygamists are very very very conservative)

[Conductor42]

Polygamy in our culture's setting is nothing more than the exploitation of women,

Have you actually known any polygamists before? I doubt it, because you'll find most to be very good, moral people with strong family ties. I'd daresay they have less moral problems than in most "monogamous" marraiges.

but the expansion of "marriage" to be something other than the traditional definition is only going to result in any number of groupings being called "marriage", as TLM pointed out.

So let's get the government out of marriage, period. It wasn't involved in it until the southerners tried to prevent white-black marriages anywho.

[Zeluvia]

Have you actually known any polygamists before? I doubt it, because you'll find most to be very good, moral people with strong family ties. I'd daresay they have less moral problems than in most "monogamous" marraiges.



So let's get the government out of marriage, period. It wasn't involved in it until the southerners tried to prevent white-black marriages anywho.

Sic em hobbit !!

There would be alot of Biblical support for allowing polygamy.

I don't see a slippery slope.

What I see is an ECONOMIC issue. You can talk morals and values all you want, but the real fact is in the US marriage is about money. Saving money on taxes, inheritance, rights of surviorship, alimony, insurance benefits.

Why do I think this? Because I am common-law married now for 18 years.
Why do I consider myself common-law married? Because its necessary for insurance, taxes, and other money saving things. Otherwise, we would still be happily living in sin.

A new anti-gay admendment to the Texas Constitution could make my relationship with the guy I live with illegal. I am not too happy about this.
However, I think we might be able to get similar benefits if we formed a non-profit partnership.

And if you want to know, we both think the idea of "marriage", or a relationship between people being the business of either the church or the state is intrusive and unnecessary. The relationship between parent and child IS the business of the state when the state is expected to provide care for that child, that is a different issue of responsiblity to me.

[Teallaura]

Sic em hobbit !!

There would be alot of Biblical support for allowing polygamy.

I don't see a slippery slope.

Sheesh - does anyone ever read the Book first? I'd love to see someone try to make this case - there aren't many (if any - I can't think of one off hand) accounts of polygamy turning out well in the Bible - and a whole bunch of accounts where things went horribly wrong. The inferential case for polygamy based on the OT has holes you can drive a truck through. The empirical case is non-existent. And OT Scripture itself refutes the case (stay with the wife of your youth...).

The Bible also has accounts of murder - but you'd have to be nuts to think you could make a decent Scriptural case for allowing murder.

Final note: Slippery slope may be a logical fallacy, but it is also very much a political reality. Who said politics are (ever) logical? Whoever it was needs to visit that little hospital with all the fun rubber rooms....

[bandecoot]

I have only one thing to say about this.

The penalty for more than one spouse is multiple in laws.

[Rubia Warren]

Women could be exploited but they will prolly also be havin' more than one dude spouse if multiple marriages are allowed. I hope that whatever happens with marriage, if the gov't remains involved, that it is well thought out. As I joked earlier about marrying my mother, in a way, things like that could happen, although I'm not necessarily referring to incest, but people already marry (or not) for financial reasons. If multiple marriage is allowed someday, won't that make everything go screwy as to who gets what when someone dies and they wanna fight about it, insurance, social security, etc?? Public assistance would have to revamp itself as well, I would think, because that would make more members in a household and more qualifying for benefits.

[Conductor42]

Sheesh - does anyone ever read the Book first?

Good question - have you?

I'd love to see someone try to make this case - there aren't many (if any - I can't think of one off hand) accounts of polygamy turning out well in the Bible - and a whole bunch of accounts where things went horribly wrong.

The same can be said of marriages, period. Remember, it is better to dwell in the wilderness...

The empirical case is non-existent.

For allowing it, or for mandating it? It is very clearly allowed - but regulated - in the Tanach. Requiring everyone to be polygamists is not.

And OT Scripture itself refutes the case (stay with the wife of your youth...).

That doesn't refute it. That simply says to be faithful to your wife. (Though i wouldn't mind the source reference, for context purposes). On the other hand, the Tanach never condemns polygamy, per se, nor does it condemn marriage in general, per se. But when those marriages are not done properly (for example: hating your spouse, adultery, etc.) then they are condemned.

[themuzicman]

And equal protection under the law just doesn't fly eh?

Equal protection is for rights, not priviledged.

There is a difference b/w saying you disagree with something and attempting to enforce laws. Christians whine and complain and call for hellfire judgment on people for being gay and supporting gay rights. It is ridiculous and childish.

You're the one who wants to change the law, not me. You should be saying this to yourself.

The traditional marriage is the backbone of society? I think the american worker is the backbone of our society. How can you prove either one of those statements? You can't. How can you legislate based on what you think is the backbone of our society. You shouldn't be able to but somehow you've been convinced that your baseless opinion actually should be enforced on the whole of humanity.

The American Worker is the backbone of the economy. Apparantly you can't tell the difference.

If someone wants to marry 5 wives and all 5 agree to be in a union of that sort what do you care? It isn't blocking the traditional marriage. No one is going to make you marry multiple wives. What if polygamists said that since polygamy goes back to biblical times that you are tarnishing traditional marriage and that your kind of marriage should be outlawed? Neither one of you can prove that you are right. There is no right answer to the question of what the proper definition of marriage is.

Maybe you should study the history of polygamy and it's impact on women.

Michael

[Conductor42]

I have only one thing to say about this.

The penalty for more than one spouse is multiple in laws.

That's just the beggining of it. Two Wives = Triple the PMS.

[Conductor42]

Maybe you should study the history of polygamy and it's impact on women.

No, let's do more than that - let's study the history of marriage, period.

Remember, until modern times married women were generally considered property of their husband, could be beaten or raped without legal punishment, etc.

The rate of polygamous bad marriages is about the same as bad monogamous marriages