How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]

What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.[/quote]

So…Olee and her mom?[/quote]

I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. In any event, incest is a no fly zone as there is too much potential for preadulthood influence, and sexual interference. There are laws against incest, and there are laws against sexual interference, but there are no laws against homosexuality. There are however laws which exclude homosexuals.[/quote]

Sorry. I can shoot this one down with both eyes closed.

Using the logic of those espousing homosexual marriage there is NO reason to deny Olee and her mom the “right” to marry.[/quote]

Except for the afformentioned protection of minors.[/quote]

OLEE AND HER MOM ARE NOT MINORS. They’re not even close.

C’mon, people, many of you are too frickin thick in the head to play in this sandbox. Good grief, wake the fuck up.[/quote]

PREADULTHOOD INFLUENCE AND SEXUAL INTERFERENCE. Olena was at one point a child, in her mother’s care, and allowing her mother mould her into her ideal spouse while raising her and waiting for her “consent” is forbidden. To ensure this doesn’t take place, they are not allowed to marry.[/quote]

But…but…but…now they’re two mature consenting adults. Who do you think you are placing arbitrary restrictions on them? Like Sloth said, you’re just a bigot.[/quote]

Actually, according to the closest thing we have in this thread to a definition of the purpose of marriage, I shouldn’t be able to enter into a marriage contract with my mother unless I gave up all of my rights as her daughter because the positions of wife and daughter confer overlapping rights, which would probably prove confusing to a court. But if I could/was to give up my rights as a daughter, I see no reason according to law why I COULDN’T enter into a marriage with my own mother. Do you?

222

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Human rights based on sexual preferences which are considered to be anomaly… You cannot even talk about rights of pedophiles, necrophiles… why it should be an exception made for homosexuals??? [/quote]

Because neither children nor corpses are capable of entering into a contract?

That is also true for lampposts and dogs, I kid you not. [/quote]

I kid you not… Now you discriminate children because from the certain age they do have their sexual senses and they do enter into sexual contact with adults indeed, and they are probably more curious about sex than you and me. Moreover, in the Middle East and in some other continents girls are still getting married from the age of 11…

You know very little about sex’s specifics with corpses either… while I guess most people know that dogs do enter into sexual contact with human beings, besides that, they initiate that contact… nowadays, in the US and other west countries, most dogs are fixed that’s why you have no clue about the sexual senses of dogs… these things are beyond your own norms, that’s why you don’t even want to accept them… sex with a corps, dog, lamppost is the same unproductive as sex between two men or women…

while our society has its own norms and homosexuality is obviously beyond them, as well as sex with dogs etc… the next step would be a girl getting married with a dog, some dedicated necrophiles then may find their own reasons and ways how to get married with a corps… rights rights rights… and toleration…

223

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Human rights based on sexual preferences which are considered to be anomaly… You cannot even talk about rights of pedophiles, necrophiles… why it should be an exception made for homosexuals??? [/quote]

Because neither children nor corpses are capable of entering into a contract?

That is also true for lampposts and dogs, I kid you not. [/quote]

I kid you not… Now you discriminate children because from the certain age they do have their sexual senses and they do enter into sexual contact with adults indeed, and they are probably more curious about sex than you and me. Moreover, in the Middle East and in some other continents girls are still getting married from the age of 11…

You know very little about sex’s specifics with corpses either… while I guess most people know that dogs do enter into sexual contact with human beings, besides that, they initiate that contact… nowadays, in the US and other west countries, most dogs are fixed that’s why you have no clue about the sexual senses of dogs… these things are beyond your own norms, that’s why you don’t even want to accept them… sex with a corps, dog, lamppost is the same unproductive as sex between two men or women…

while our society has its own norms and homosexuality is obviously beyond them, as well as sex with dogs etc… the next step would be a girl getting married with a dog, some dedicated necrophiles then may find their own reasons and ways how to get married with a corps… rights rights rights… and toleration…
[/quote]

224

The meaning of marriage is already not the same as it used to be… and if the government officially allows homosexuals to get married, the meaning of marriage will automatically divolve into debauchery…

225

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.

That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.

The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:

[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]

I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.
[/quote]

This is the only part of that which addressed what I was talking about: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” Everything else was superfluous.

It’s too bad that the only thing you could find wasn’t an actual part of the US law. If it was, this entire argument might be worthwhile. However, it’s impossible to argue that gays or polygamous situations don’t qualify for marriage unless we have a working definition of what marriage is supposed to DO. Also, it may be that many of the people who are married today aren’t involved with the purpose of marriage and therefore shouldn’t be married either.

Once again, we need a real purpose of marriage according to law in order to say anything about marriage.[/quote]You actually ARE this clueless huh?

226

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.

That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.

The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:

[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]

I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.
[/quote]

This is the only part of that which addressed what I was talking about: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” Everything else was superfluous.

It’s too bad that the only thing you could find wasn’t an actual part of the US law. If it was, this entire argument might be worthwhile. However, it’s impossible to argue that gays or polygamous situations don’t qualify for marriage unless we have a working definition of what marriage is supposed to DO. Also, it may be that many of the people who are married today aren’t involved with the purpose of marriage and therefore shouldn’t be married either.

Once again, we need a real purpose of marriage according to law in order to say anything about marriage.[/quote]You actually ARE this clueless huh?
[/quote]

I hate to break it to you, T-Cat, but your religion’s definition of marriage isn’t considered law in America. If you want it to be, you need to move to a country where there’s no such thing as separation of church and state.

227

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage[/quote]

I have Orion down for C. Could the other proponents of state recognized homosexual marriage choose their position.

228

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage[/quote]

I have Orion down for C. Could the other proponents of state recognized homosexual marriage choose their position.[/quote]

Ja, you have me under c because d, government is not your own private bully does not suit you.

229

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage[/quote]

I have Orion down for C. Could the other proponents of state recognized homosexual marriage choose their position.[/quote]

Ja, you have me under c because d, government is not your own private bully does not suit you. [/quote]

Right, so C. Ultimately, you’d want an end to state recognized marriage. Now, the others?

230

It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.

231

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.

232

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.
[/quote]

No, he is trying to save marriage by shifting it into an area where evildoers cannot touch it.

This is by and large the best deal you will get longterm.

233

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage[/quote]

I have Orion down for C. Could the other proponents of state recognized homosexual marriage choose their position.[/quote]

Ja, you have me under c because d, government is not your own private bully does not suit you. [/quote]

Right, so C. Ultimately, you’d want an end to state recognized marriage. Now, the others?[/quote]

That would be swell, but for the sake OF this argument I want d, c might or might happen but would merely be collateral damage anyways.

You have to understand that how other people live their lifes really does not concern me that much - which is downright awesome if you are a libertarian, otherwise the sheer cognitive dissonance might kill me.

234

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.
[/quote]

No, he is trying to save marriage by shifting it into an area where evildoers cannot touch it.

This is by and large the best deal you will get longterm. [/quote]

He changed the name…

235

Also, purely for my own entertainment:

Lets say that Sloth was right and that opening up marriage to homosexual couples would destroy marriage.

To insinuate that this would in any way, shape or form be my responsibility because I just so happened to pursue other goals that kind of inevitably led to it is a vile mis-characterization of the highest order and only someone utterly depraved would make such an argument.

236

[quote]orion wrote:

You have to understand that how other people live their lifes really does not concern me that much
[/quote]

That’s because you’re naive, and have little to no thought to the type of society that will follow after your death. Your philosophy only worries about yourself, in the now.

237

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.
[/quote]

Change the name an let any arrangement of consenting adults form a monogamous relationship.

So let’s see, that would be…

MM

MF

FF

Huh. Sorry if I don’t fit into your special categories, but it really doesn’t work that way. Perhaps you should read my entire posts. Polygamy still has the inherent flaw of human jealousy.

238

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.
[/quote]

No, he is trying to save marriage by shifting it into an area where evildoers cannot touch it.

This is by and large the best deal you will get longterm. [/quote]

He changed the name…
[/quote]

No.

He shifts it into religious territory where it will be reasonably safe from government and where you can define with likeminded people what marriage actually is.

The government will simply offer a contract that two, or hell, 27 people can enter into that more or less covers the tax and inheritance angle of the institute that is called marriage now.

People could enter into one arrangement, or both, or neither.

Marriage would be freed from mundane considerations and government intrusion, civil unions can be micromanaged by the government till every last bureaucrat on this planet oversees his very own civil union and we will all coexist happily forever after.

239

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It is in the interest of the state to promote monogamous romantic couplings. Monogamy allows for sexual coupling, which takes single people off the market (along with tendencies for male aggression, jealousy, and unsafe sexual behaviour). You can argue until you’re blue in the face about how gays won’t honour such a commitment, but unless you can prove that heterosexual couples don’t cheat within the confines of marriage, that point is moot.

It comes down to the “over inclusiveness” that you all love to trot out. Not all will stay faithful to their spouse. Some will. Just like heterosexual marriage.

See, it’s dealing in generalities, but we already do this for heterosexual pairings.

I’m flying out in a couple of hours, so I doubt between now and then I’ll post much, but I’ll echo an earlier sentiment. If marriage per se is so sacred, then make it a church only thing. Church doesn’t want to marry gays? Oh well, that’s their choice. For government purposes, let couples get a civil union. It’s not ending state recognized marriage, it’s renaming it. You can keep marriage for the religious, everyone else gets civil unions, and suddenly the actual issues like hospital visitation and child custody are on the way to being solved.[/quote]

So, c and b. Change the name, and then let any arrangement of consenting adults be recognized under the new name. Thanks.
[/quote]

Change the name an let any arrangement of consenting adults form a monogamous relationship.

So let’s see, that would be…

MM

MF

FF

Huh. Sorry if I don’t fit into your special categories, but it really doesn’t work that way. Perhaps you should read my entire posts. Polygamy still has the [/quote]

Oh, so you’re not fighting ‘bigotry,’ just adding your pet project to marriage. Bigot.

240

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

You have to understand that how other people live their lifes really does not concern me that much
[/quote]

That’s because you’re naive, and have little to no thought to the type of society that will follow after your death. Your philosophy only worries about yourself, in the now. Which also happens to be fertile soil of the nanny state. I pretty much look at libertarianism as the dumb, useful, younger brother to welfare state progressivism. [/quote]

Swell, but I am not on welfare nor do I intend to be.

Will I take every last dime that I am allegedly entitled to?

Yes, but just because I want my money back.