hhehehehehhe..you gots something there gonzo..me thinks they does protest to much :lol: Hows it going gonzo? Hows the art work going?
Gay Marrage Debate
- Thread starter Hank C Cheyenne
- Start date
Gonzo said:
Why is that? Why do we let gay folks marry, but not the polygamists? Why the negative attitude towards the polygamist community but not the gay community? That is discrimination and it is illegal.
No one still answered my question though. Since they are both strong communities, why the double standard? Why legalize gay marriage but not polygamy? Why single out one community over another. Why play favorites?
The Netherlands has legalized polygamy after it legalized gay marriage. Now that Gay marriage is legal in Canada, mark my words, it won't be long before the polygamist community comes knocking on the door. The government will have to give in otherwise they risk looking like a bunch of hypocrits. They could change the definition of marriage for the gay community, but not for the polygamist community? Won't work. I give it 5 years before polygamy is legalized in Canada. Society as we know it is definitely going from bad to worst. You folks will be looking back then trying to see who to blame for legalizing polygamy ... and the answer is ... the Liberal Party of Canada.
Last time I looked it was the religious folk doing the polygamy two step...but I guess thats alright with you :roll: :roll:
Hank C Cheyenne said:
..are you serious?...cause if that is true then this horrible
Yep. Afraid so, Hank. Canada's next. I had predicted this way before Canada legalized gay marriage. It all started by opening up that can of worms and legalizing gay marriage. Here's a link ...
Netherlands gives nod to Polygamy
Legalised polygamy... sure why not.
Who's it harming other than the poor bastard that get's stuck meeting the needs of multiple wives. Personally... polygamy equates to masochism... which, while somewhat deviant, is not against the law.
Who's it harming other than the poor bastard that get's stuck meeting the needs of multiple wives. Personally... polygamy equates to masochism... which, while somewhat deviant, is not against the law.
Well I kinda disgree with you canuck on that one, most of those girls are childern. But the fact that the neocons try to equate it with gay people is beyond sickening. I am sick and tired of these wack jobs dumping on gays...most of them are really attracted to men, some kind of warped thinking...blah! wack jobs!
The only real problem with polygamy as it stands today is because it is under the radar people get away with all sorts of abuse of woman and children. If it were legal, and out in the open then it might relieve the suffering of the woman and children in communities like Bountifold because it would be monitered by the government.
I have no philisophical abjection to polygamy just as long as it's fully consentual among al parties and nobody is being mistreated.
All activity that doesn't hurt anybody and takes plavce between 2 or more freely consenting adults is fine by me. I wouldn't personally want to engage in such relationships but if others want to whatever floats your boat. As the Wiccans say "if it doesn't harm anybody do whatever the heck you want" Or at least that's my paraphrasing of it.
I have no philisophical abjection to polygamy just as long as it's fully consentual among al parties and nobody is being mistreated.
All activity that doesn't hurt anybody and takes plavce between 2 or more freely consenting adults is fine by me. I wouldn't personally want to engage in such relationships but if others want to whatever floats your boat. As the Wiccans say "if it doesn't harm anybody do whatever the heck you want" Or at least that's my paraphrasing of it.
Ahhh but Pea, you are equating this to a small segment of a cultist community. Think in broader terms (errr no pun intended). Legalise it and if people don't mind getting involved with a 3 or 4 way marriage then all the more power to them. Being forced to marry someone, whether through cult-ish or religious pressure is dead wrong. If they are underage, well we have laws and punishments to take care of that as well.
Bountiful is a total anomoly. If the cops wanted to go in and bag them a few pervs for marrying underage kids then they could...and should i might add.
Bountiful is a total anomoly. If the cops wanted to go in and bag them a few pervs for marrying underage kids then they could...and should i might add.
absolutely!
The girls in Bountifold are being forced into those stituations against thir will, they are NOT freely consenting. The people who are forcing them to marry should be rounded up and chucked in jail, not for polygamy but for abuse.
But of course we have the stupid misinterpatation of equality and freedom of religion that ties the governments hands.
You can believe whatever you want in my book but the moment you start acting out your beliefs in ways that harm others that's where freedom of religion stops.
The girls in Bountifold are being forced into those stituations against thir will, they are NOT freely consenting. The people who are forcing them to marry should be rounded up and chucked in jail, not for polygamy but for abuse.
But of course we have the stupid misinterpatation of equality and freedom of religion that ties the governments hands.
You can believe whatever you want in my book but the moment you start acting out your beliefs in ways that harm others that's where freedom of religion stops.
Can anyone argue against gay marriage without playing the polygamy card? Because when you do you sound like a broken record. If thats your only argument then it's pretty weak and you've lost.
I could, and do a much more effective job than these bigots do. I won't though.
On a note that has, I must make clear, abso-feckin'-lutely nothing to do with gay marriage....
Legalising polygamy would give those in polygamous relationships rights and help them to fight back against the kind of inhuman bullshit that goes on in places like Bountiful.
At the same time, I just asked Mrs. Rev if she'd want ten or twelve husbands and she gave me that steely glare that means I should quit asking stupid questions. She's been grumpy ever since she stepped on that nail...suppose she's got lock-jaw or something?
I'm all for legalizing polygamy, personally I can't even begin to comprehend it but I think that if three people wan't to marry eachother they should be able to (haha, see how long that marriage lasts). What is funny to me is the conservative retort of "what's next, some guy marrying a horse?", any marriage thats between consenting adults is fine in my book. The horse does not consent to the marriage and that is the difference. Get another argument that doesn't sound like it was made up by a four year old.
Same-sex partners win right to benefits
The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday ruled it is unconstitutional to bar benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay-rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Overturning a lower-court ruling, the state high court said barring benefits for state and city employees' same-sex partners violates the Alaska Constitution's equal-protection clause.
Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to find a way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.
Well they should of legalized marriage between same sex couples but this is a good start. I see though the governor is still in the dark ages.
Click link for rest of article.
I agree with much of what the Religious Right say about the devaluation of marriage in our society and I think they should get on board with my programme at once and make the institution more 'Family-centered".
First, no state-sanctioned union of cohabitants which does not have the raising of children --adopted is fine, of course-- as one of its responsibilities will be referred to as a "marriage", but rather as a "civil union".
Any person who attempts to find another state-sanctioned cohabitant after their second divorce will no longer be eligible to enter the sacred institution of "marriage", as they will have demonstrated that they are agents for its destruction. "Civil unions" will be permitted them.
Polyandry will be the only permissible form of polygamy, since it is far less likely to leave children in dire financial straits for a whole mess of fairly obvious reasons.
Interspecies civil unions only will be permitted until technology permits otherwise (see first rule) ON THE CONDITION that both parties are adults and have written and signed a declaration, WITH THEIR OWN FORELIMBS, in the presence of a HUMAN notary public or legal professional, to the effect that they consent to the terms of the civil union as established by the relevant municipal, provincial or federal authority.
The sex, race and/or religion of the partners in marriages or civil unions will have no influence on the legal status of these unions as long as they conform to the principles listed above.
First, no state-sanctioned union of cohabitants which does not have the raising of children --adopted is fine, of course-- as one of its responsibilities will be referred to as a "marriage", but rather as a "civil union".
Any person who attempts to find another state-sanctioned cohabitant after their second divorce will no longer be eligible to enter the sacred institution of "marriage", as they will have demonstrated that they are agents for its destruction. "Civil unions" will be permitted them.
Polyandry will be the only permissible form of polygamy, since it is far less likely to leave children in dire financial straits for a whole mess of fairly obvious reasons.
Interspecies civil unions only will be permitted until technology permits otherwise (see first rule) ON THE CONDITION that both parties are adults and have written and signed a declaration, WITH THEIR OWN FORELIMBS, in the presence of a HUMAN notary public or legal professional, to the effect that they consent to the terms of the civil union as established by the relevant municipal, provincial or federal authority.
The sex, race and/or religion of the partners in marriages or civil unions will have no influence on the legal status of these unions as long as they conform to the principles listed above.
South Africa court clears path for same-sex marriages
teaser:
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — South Africa's highest court ruled Thursday that gays and lesbians have a right to marry, a landmark decision that clears the way for the country to become the first to legalize same-sex unions on a continent where homosexuality remains largely taboo.
Under the ruling, which was greeted with jubilation by gays and lesbians and frustration by some church leaders, South Africa will become the fifth country in the world to extend full marital rights to same-sex couples. [/teaser]
So country number 5, South Africa of all places. neocons must be getting worried.
teaser:
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — South Africa's highest court ruled Thursday that gays and lesbians have a right to marry, a landmark decision that clears the way for the country to become the first to legalize same-sex unions on a continent where homosexuality remains largely taboo.
Under the ruling, which was greeted with jubilation by gays and lesbians and frustration by some church leaders, South Africa will become the fifth country in the world to extend full marital rights to same-sex couples. [/teaser]
So country number 5, South Africa of all places. neocons must be getting worried.
Well, as a gay teen, I'd like to throw my opinion out there into this debate. I think that, personally, a lot of the "issues" arising with the Government's alleged intrusion into religious affairs could be remedied by amending all federal legislation regarding marriage, and instead referring to any such recognition as a "civil union." Couples, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, could be guaranteed access to civil unions, and if they wanted to be "married," they could pursue a willing religious institution. This would mean, though, that a heterosexual couple's "union" before a Justice of the Peace or similar civil servant, would not automatically be deemed a "marriage," but rather a civil union.
How does that sound? If all persons were guaranteed access to civil unions, on one licensing scheme under the control of the Government, and if "marriages," specifically, were entirely the dominion of religious institutions, sort of a "parallel" licensing scheme, where one not need necessarily be recognized by the other?
How does that sound? If all persons were guaranteed access to civil unions, on one licensing scheme under the control of the Government, and if "marriages," specifically, were entirely the dominion of religious institutions, sort of a "parallel" licensing scheme, where one not need necessarily be recognized by the other?
Re: RE: Gay Marrage Debate
You're pretty smart for a young 'un! I agree fully with this, and I suspect the vast majority of Conservative supporters would as well. The more militant on this board would still insist this was a gross human rights violation. :?
I personally could care less. It's been how long that gays have been getting 'married', and my marriage hasn't been affected. Some people have a fetish-like attachment to the word "marriage", and I think the compromise you have put forward above respects their opinion while giving gays equal treatment under the law.
FiveParadox said:
You're pretty smart for a young 'un! I agree fully with this, and I suspect the vast majority of Conservative supporters would as well. The more militant on this board would still insist this was a gross human rights violation. :?
I personally could care less. It's been how long that gays have been getting 'married', and my marriage hasn't been affected. Some people have a fetish-like attachment to the word "marriage", and I think the compromise you have put forward above respects their opinion while giving gays equal treatment under the law.