Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    Just sounds like some douche whos blatantly guilty looking for any way out.
    And how is that any different from a couple of dildos who are guilty and looking to justify their degenerate relationship?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.
    Guess again. Gay marriage is the wedge that these groups are using to justify their own deviancy.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.
    That isn't the position of litigants around the world. The drive to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to two men or two women is very much being seen as an opportunity to enlarge definition more. There are pending cases in several countries to include group marriages or incestuous couples in the marriage definition.

    I would rather see domestic partnerships become legal. Leave marriage to the heterosexual couples but allow anybody to receive the same legal rights as married couples if they can demonstrate a common residential and financial interest.

    Domestic partnerships are much more inclusive than marriage since there is no need to recognize any sexual or romantic interests of the parties involved. If they are banging each other, fine, but if they are just interested in securing a certain financial and emotional stability, that's fine too. DPs could cover couples or groups of any composition. I would want the children of any of these couplings to only have the biological parents recognized as parents, however. The biological parents could designate a guardian from the group if the parents died, of course.

    This would also offer an opportunity to totally rethink the legal debts and obligations one party owes another party in a common living arrangement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Guess again. Gay marriage is the wedge that these groups are using to justify their own deviancy.
    What groups? This is one guy, actually.... who probably has a pretty slim-to-none chance here anyhow. I'm really thinking this board should be renamed to "Imagination Land".

    Maybe some will say that since gay marriage is allowed, they should be allowed too... it doesn't make it a good reason (it isn't), one that anyone has to listen too. Incest and polygamy themselves are unique from one another and also from gay marriage. They have unique consequences and unique arguments for/against.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    That isn't the position of litigants around the world. The drive to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to two men or two women is very much being seen as an opportunity to enlarge definition more. There are pending cases in several countries to include group marriages or incestuous couples in the marriage definition.
    This anything different than whats been going on for ages though?

    I would rather see domestic partnerships become legal. Leave marriage to the heterosexual couples but allow anybody to receive the same legal rights as married couples if they can demonstrate a common residential and financial interest.

    Domestic partnerships are much more inclusive than marriage since there is no need to recognize any sexual or romantic interests of the parties involved. If they are banging each other, fine, but if they are just interested in securing a certain financial and emotional stability, that's fine too. DPs could cover couples or groups of any composition. I would want the children of any of these couplings to only have the biological parents recognized as parents, however. The biological parents could designate a guardian from the group if the parents died, of course.

    This would also offer an opportunity to totally rethink the legal debts and obligations one party owes another party in a common living arrangement.
    I am fantasizing right there along with you on this part though Ginger;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    643
    When you change the definition of a word to suit your own personal needs, you can not prevent others from doing the same. Polygamy will become legal because marriage was changed to fit soneone else's idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I am fantasizing right there along with you on this part though Ginger;)
    It's not a fantasy. I voted for DPs in Colorado a couple of years ago. It lost and it didn't include a provision for more than two people but it offered the same legal benefits as marriage absent any recognition or interest in the sexual behavior of the parties involved. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by jediab View Post
    When you change the definition of a word to suit your own personal needs, you can not prevent others from doing the same. Polygamy will become legal because marriage was changed to fit soneone else's idea.
    The institution of marriage has hardly been the same thing for any length of time during its existence.

    Polygamy is interesting since it actually HAS been a part of the institution of marriage all throughout history. It is actively practised today, in MARRIAGE, just not here (legally anyhow)... removing polygamy from marriage was just as much of a radical idea at one time, as allowing gay marriage is today
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The institution of marriage has hardly been the same thing for any length of time during its existence.

    Polygamy is interesting since it actually HAS been a part of the institution of marriage all throughout history. It is actively practised today, in MARRIAGE, just not here (legally anyhow)... removing polygamy from marriage was just as much of a radical idea at one time, as allowing gay marriage is today
    Marriage, as legally defined in the West for a few hundred years has been between 1 man and 1 woman. It is now been legally changed in many countries, based on someone else's definition to include 2 men or 2 women. In places where ploygamy is illegal, but gay marriage is legal, it's only a matter of time before the definiation of marriage is changed again to suit soneone else's idea of what the word should mean. Like I said, if it was done for one, it has to be done for another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by jediab View Post
    Marriage, as legally defined in the West for a few hundred years has been between 1 man and 1 woman. It is now been legally changed in many countries, based on someone else's definition to include 2 men or 2 women. In places where ploygamy is illegal, but gay marriage is legal, it's only a matter of time before the definiation of marriage is changed again to suit soneone else's idea of what the word should mean. Like I said, if it was done for one, it has to be done for another.
    No, it absolutely does not. Are you saying the only good, solid reason holding back polygamy or incestuous marriage is simply the fact that we haven't changed marriage for a long time?

    When laws were devised against polygamy, do you think lawmakers were trying to justify them by saying "Well.... we don't let homosexuals marry, therefore polygamists can't have their way either."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •