Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

OK. Here's an easy one for you.
Are there are any relationships that should not be called marriage if the parties want to call it that?

"called" marriage what the hell does that mean?

If by your odd question you mean is there any reason for the state(s) to restrict allowance of marriage licenses... then the answer is yes. For example, anyone under the age of consent for that state. Anyone under the influence of mind altering drugs. There's two. Marriage licenses are no different than any other contract in the eyes of the law. And as such they should be treated like any other contract. Governments should not be promoting religion or morality with their contracts management other than ensuring a crime is not being committed.

Thanks for proving my point.
You're dismissed.

Your welcome. I'll dismiss myself when I feel like leaving.

 

[RKMBrown]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".

Bla blah blah.
The end is nigh.

 

[Seawytch]

The point was that some Indian tribes allowed crazy people to do all sorts of things that, to a biased observer, might appear to be something else. That does not mean they actually treated it that way themselves.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. [...]

European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

A History of Gay Marriage

To refute my claim that someone might view something other than it actually is because of their bias you resort to a sight that is clearly biased to see exactly what they want?

Wikipedia seems to imply that there was no such thing as same sex marraige before 2003.

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the story of one Indian to get same sex marraige recognized in her tribe.

Among Indian tribes, a division over gay marriage - Washington Post

Unlike you and NYC I do not see this as proof that I am right, I just see it as evidence that, if homosexuality was accepted the way some people claim, it isn't now.

By the way, the fact that someone manifested two spirits would not mean that they were also homosexuals anymore than someone who is cross dresser is today.

Modern recognition does not negate the existence of recognized same sex unions in indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. [...]

European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

A History of Gay Marriage

To refute my claim that someone might view something other than it actually is because of their bias you resort to a sight that is clearly biased to see exactly what they want?

Wikipedia seems to imply that there was no such thing as same sex marraige before 2003.

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the story of one Indian to get same sex marraige recognized in her tribe.

Among Indian tribes, a division over gay marriage - Washington Post

Unlike you and NYC I do not see this as proof that I am right, I just see it as evidence that, if homosexuality was accepted the way some people claim, it isn't now.

By the way, the fact that someone manifested two spirits would not mean that they were also homosexuals anymore than someone who is cross dresser is today.

Modern recognition does not negate the existence of recognized same sex unions in indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas.

What?

 

[Seawytch]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".

You're attitude is no longer in the majority...it's dying off quickly too. Faster if the GOP is ever in charge of Health Care.

 

[Seawytch]

To refute my claim that someone might view something other than it actually is because of their bias you resort to a sight that is clearly biased to see exactly what they want?

Wikipedia seems to imply that there was no such thing as same sex marraige before 2003.

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the story of one Indian to get same sex marraige recognized in her tribe.

Among Indian tribes, a division over gay marriage - Washington Post

Unlike you and NYC I do not see this as proof that I am right, I just see it as evidence that, if homosexuality was accepted the way some people claim, it isn't now.

By the way, the fact that someone manifested two spirits would not mean that they were also homosexuals anymore than someone who is cross dresser is today.

Modern recognition does not negate the existence of recognized same seix unions in indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas.

What?

The case you quoted was talking about modern recognition. Same sex unions were performed by indigenous peoples throughout Europe and the Americas. You might have noted the references at the end of the link I provided?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Anyway, back to the slippery slope ---

If I am right that all the extremely antinatalist and unprecedented changes now occurring are a sort of inchoate effort of people moving as a social organism to try (unsuccessfully so far) to curb dangerous population growth before a crash --- then most of these measures would lessen births, not be pronatalist.

So birth control and abortion and homosexual marriages and seducing little boys and all that would of course tend to reduce population growth. So would incest that results in deformed births, as is common in incest. Coupling with animals, the same, if people start "marrying" their pets, which will surely be next in line.

But what about polygamy? Polygamy, at least Mormon polygamy, results in huge families of offspring. However, I think the general trend is antinatalist. They have to throw the boys away, for one thing: they can't have seven wives for one man if his sons are competing with him for the daughters of his brother. This does not matter demographically if all males who actually do polygamy are fertile because males can always be counted on, normally, to do what they do and beget children on the women. It doesn't matter if there are only 1/7th as many males if those males are fertile. But there is a problem getting enough females --- that's why all polygamy systems always use very young girls and lock them into marriages with relatives early. Polygamy is a bad situation for females and they quickly learn this and if old enough, they try to get out. It's crucial in both Muslim and fundamentalist and pioneer Mormons to lock them in between the ages of 12 and 14, or they lose too many. But that being the case, they HAVE to use incest: all polygamous systems are incestuous for a very obvious reason: not enough females! All nature provides is a one to one ratio, so unless they can kill out the adults of a wagon train and take all the girl children, as the Mormons did once, they have to use nieces, half-sisters, first cousins, etc., and the inbreeding results in a lot of genetic defects and some very strange looking families, very sad. Incest is antinatalist, because incest victims usually can't breed. The restriction in the gene pool by reducing so drastically the number of breeding males of course much increases the incest burden of genetic deformities.

If I'm right, I would expect to see a quick slide down this slippery slope, with all sorts of dire "marriages" starting to occur that are unproductive of normal children: incest, polygamy, animal, as well as homosexual "marriages." More divorces, abortions (especially of female fetuses in many areas of the world: this has a multiplier effect against future births), birth control. The one thing that won't happen is large, healthy families. That only happens when new areas open up, like the large families of colonial America, and there aren't any of those areas at this time.

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".

You're attitude is no longer in the majority...it's dying off quickly too. Faster if the GOP is ever in charge of Health Care.

My "attitude"? My "attitude" is the norm. Yes, you are right. In another 30-40 years (after I am long gone, thank God!) Homosexuals may, indeed, be the "norm".

But for right now - right here and now - and, until us baby boomers die out, they are freaks. They are play acting. So, no matter how you want to frame your argument, you come at it as a pretender. Equal to me? Of course. But NEVER in marriage. NEVER. Women will ALWAYS need a man and men will ALWAYS need a woman. It's called "life".

See? No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are "normal"......it just ain't so.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would American societies use a French word? Is it possible you are being stupid again?

Definition of SO-CALLED
1: commonly named : popularly so termed <the so&#8211;called pocket veto>
2: falsely or improperly so named <deceived by a so&#8211;called friend>

Since 'berdache' is both the common, popular term used, and since 'berdache' is also considered by some to be inappropriate or improper,

by describing the term as 'so-called' I modified it precisely.

Don't disrespect my efforts to properly use the language.

You used the wrong word even though you knew it was wrong? I guess that you are just stupid.

It is not wrong, your infantile grasp of English usage notwithstanding.

You try too hard to be an asshole. Given your already well established natural propensity to display that quality, you'd be better served to just let it flow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would American societies use a French word? Is it possible you are being stupid again?

There was a reason I used the term 'so-called'.

You do know that, traditionally, Indians regarded schizophrenics and homosexuals as being touched by the gods, don't you? In other words, they just thought crazy people were special, which probably explains why you aren't smart enough to understand how you are insulting homosexuals with your arguments.

Yeah, like the midget in 'Black Robe'.

Christianity is based on the deification of some guy named Jesus because he went around telling people he was the son of God, which nowadays would simply be dismissed as 'crazy'.

Why are you insulting Christians?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should do it yourself. The tribes actually gave the same status to people that walked backwards, or that saw people that weren't there. In other words, they thought crazy people were touched by the gods, and avoided offending said crazy people to avoid offending the gods.

That is not relevant. The fact is that Circe out of ignorance claimed there was never ever such a thing as same sex marriage in all the history of the human race, until just lately,

and I corrected her. Let it go.

Umm, just because you call it marraige now does not mean that it was marriage.

All marriages are just 'called' marriage. There is no supernatural source of the definitions of words.

Are you prepared to argue that there was no such thing as 'marriage' among the native people of North America? Are you prepared to argue that they just did something some people call marriage,

but because you hold the key to the special Big Book of What Words Really Mean, and since that somehow makes you the ultimate authority on definitions,

you have the power to decide whether or not it was really 'marriage'?

Go ahead. Make those arguments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would American societies use a French word? Is it possible you are being stupid again?

Definition of SO-CALLED
1: commonly named : popularly so termed <the so–called pocket veto>
2: falsely or improperly so named <deceived by a so–called friend>

Since 'berdache' is both the common, popular term used, and since 'berdache' is also considered by some to be inappropriate or improper,

by describing the term as 'so-called' I modified it precisely.

Don't disrespect my efforts to properly use the language.

You used the wrong word even though you knew it was wrong? I guess that you are just stupid.

Would that be like your habit of calling native Americans 'Indians'?

lol.

 

[kaz]

Definition of SO-CALLED
1: commonly named : popularly so termed <the so&#8211;called pocket veto>
2: falsely or improperly so named <deceived by a so&#8211;called friend>

Since 'berdache' is both the common, popular term used, and since 'berdache' is also considered by some to be inappropriate or improper,

by describing the term as 'so-called' I modified it precisely.

Don't disrespect my efforts to properly use the language.

You used the wrong word even though you knew it was wrong? I guess that you are just stupid.

Would that be like your habit of calling native Americans 'Indians'?

lol.

The term "native American" is clearly racist. "America" refers to the Europeans who came here and slaughtered them and stole their land. They are native to and the true owners of this land. By defining them as owned by Europeans, you're justifying murder and slavery. You should be defining us in terms of them, not them in terms of us.

 

[G.T.]

You used the wrong word even though you knew it was wrong? I guess that you are just stupid.

Would that be like your habit of calling native Americans 'Indians'?

lol.

The term "native American" is clearly racist. "America" refers to the Europeans who came here and slaughtered them and stole their land. They are native to and the true owners of this land. By defining them as owned by Europeans, you're justifying murder and slavery. You should be defining us in terms of them, not them in terms of us.

Yea, bro. Roll with that. Calling people "Americans" clearly infers "owned by Europeans."

You try WAY too hard.

 

[kaz]

Would that be like your habit of calling native Americans 'Indians'?

lol.

The term "native American" is clearly racist. "America" refers to the Europeans who came here and slaughtered them and stole their land. They are native to and the true owners of this land. By defining them as owned by Europeans, you're justifying murder and slavery. You should be defining us in terms of them, not them in terms of us.

Yea, bro. Roll with that. Calling people "Americans" clearly infers "owned by Europeans."

You try WAY too hard.

Dude, your sarcasm detector is busted. Try clicking it with your finger to see if you can get the needle loose.

 

[RKMBrown]

[/B]

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".

You're attitude is no longer in the majority...it's dying off quickly too. Faster if the GOP is ever in charge of Health Care.

My "attitude"? My "attitude" is the norm. Yes, you are right. In another 30-40 years (after I am long gone, thank God!) Homosexuals may, indeed, be the "norm".

But for right now - right here and now - and, until us baby boomers die out, they are freaks. They are play acting. So, no matter how you want to frame your argument, you come at it as a pretender. Equal to me? Of course. But NEVER in marriage. NEVER. Women will ALWAYS need a man and men will ALWAYS need a woman. It's called "life".

See? No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are "normal"......it just ain't so.....

Bull shirt. Homophobes are not the norm and never were the norm. I think you protest to much. Why don't you just come out of the closet?

 

[The Rabbi]

"called" marriage what the hell does that mean?

If by your odd question you mean is there any reason for the state(s) to restrict allowance of marriage licenses... then the answer is yes. For example, anyone under the age of consent for that state. Anyone under the influence of mind altering drugs. There's two. Marriage licenses are no different than any other contract in the eyes of the law. And as such they should be treated like any other contract. Governments should not be promoting religion or morality with their contracts management other than ensuring a crime is not being committed.

Thanks for proving my point.
You're dismissed.

Your welcome. I'll dismiss myself when I feel like leaving.

You're already irrelevant to a discussion where you add nothing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for proving my point.
You're dismissed.

Your welcome. I'll dismiss myself when I feel like leaving.

You're already irrelevant to a discussion where you add nothing.

Wow, really? That's deep.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You're attitude is no longer in the majority...it's dying off quickly too. Faster if the GOP is ever in charge of Health Care.

My "attitude"? My "attitude" is the norm. Yes, you are right. In another 30-40 years (after I am long gone, thank God!) Homosexuals may, indeed, be the "norm".

But for right now - right here and now - and, until us baby boomers die out, they are freaks. They are play acting. So, no matter how you want to frame your argument, you come at it as a pretender. Equal to me? Of course. But NEVER in marriage. NEVER. Women will ALWAYS need a man and men will ALWAYS need a woman. It's called "life".

See? No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are "normal"......it just ain't so.....

Bull shirt. Homophobes are not the norm and never were the norm. I think you protest to much. Why don't you just come out of the closet?

Let me guess..you're a fudge packer? Why doesn't that surprise me? I stand by my statement.

 

[Seawytch]

[/B]

Contrary to those who support this farce, you are right. Once opened - Pandora's box simply can not be closed. I laugh at the proposition that somehow, now "gays are equal" as though they haven't been. Homosexuals have taken this as some sort of validation - and, in a nation that has lost its' moral compass - I take it as the beginning of a long slide of Caligua- like actions taken on by Rome (our government).

Homosexuals "pretend" at being normal. They tell themselves that they ARE normal - they are not. Homosexuals "play" house - they "play" at being like the nuclear family. They are not. They are not capable of procreation and they will always be looked at as "freaks" in a system that "protects" them. From what?

The logical "next step" in the "crashing of the system" is polygamy. How can it be denied? If it's "legal" for two men to marry, how the hell can the "justice system" (that farce) deny 4 or 5 people the right to "polyamorous" marriages?? I read recently where Boulder Colorado is one of the leading cities for "polyamorous" relationships. Why should THEY be denied?? Aren't THEY "equal" as well?? And it goes on and on....

Oh yeah....we've started down that "slippery slope". I am anxiously awaiting the "new" Norman Rockwell - who will paint the two Mother's at Thanksgiving, sitting around a table with 5 other "couples", giving thanks to the Government for making them "equal". I am waiting for that painting that shows two limp-wristed men loading up the car with the little African baby they have adopted and heading off to the Christmas celebration at Mom's. I am waiting to see the painting of the 4 women and 1 man holding each other on the 4th of July watching fireworks as their 32 children run around at their feet. And, I especially look forward to the painting of 9 couples sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" and toking up on Mary Jane celebrating their anniversary and praising "Uncle Sam" for FINALLY "making them equal".

It's a farce folks. It's nothing more than play acting at being "real".

You're attitude is no longer in the majority...it's dying off quickly too. Faster if the GOP is ever in charge of Health Care.

My "attitude"? My "attitude" is the norm. Yes, you are right. In another 30-40 years (after I am long gone, thank God!) Homosexuals may, indeed, be the "norm".

But for right now - right here and now - and, until us baby boomers die out, they are freaks. They are play acting. So, no matter how you want to frame your argument, you come at it as a pretender. Equal to me? Of course. But NEVER in marriage. NEVER. Women will ALWAYS need a man and men will ALWAYS need a woman. It's called "life".

See? No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are "normal"......it just ain't so.....

No, it isn't. You should really pull your head out of the sand every so often and see what's going on around you.

Gallup poll: Same-sex relationships moral

Poll: Support for gay marriage hits high after ruling

Gays are as "normal" (or not) as left handed and red haired people.

But you're right...my marriage isn't quite equal yet. Your marriage license is valid in all 50 states, mine in about a quarter of the states, but it will be equal when the SCOTUS strikes down Section II of DOMA.

 

[Gadawg73]

You see sports fans, there is this dude out there, a very conservative Constitutional scholar. Someone that is a Reagan man, a close legal adviser to him, a lifetime Constitutional lawyer, a man that argues dozens of cases before SCOTUS and was also a top legal Constitutional legal adviser to George W. Bush during his term.
A man that is on the Board of Directors of the conservative journal The American Spectator and was extremely critical of Bill Clinton and his administration.
"The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society, any status short of that is inferior, unjust and unconstitutional"
"Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way does allowing same sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples?

Pretty much the statements and question I have been asking all you old mother hen gossiping, rumor spreading busy body bats here.
And to date have not received any credible explanations or answers.
Who is this man that said those things above?