Poll: Since gay marriage is legal in a few states, when do you think group marriage will become legal?

[FlyLice]

Do you guys not understand the definition of marriage? "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." How are you going to try to change the definition of a word? It's like saying Red is now Blue and Blue is now White, etc.

If you want it for same sex people make up your own damn word.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Married + no kids = Higher tax bracket.

Ever heard of the "Marriage penalty"?

Nope, haven't, care to go back on topic though? No gay marriage proponents are suggesting that gay couples with no kids should pay less taxes than heterosexual couples with no kids.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: flamingelephant
what does gay marriage have to do with group marriage? I see absolutely no connection

:disgust: umm maybe because until very recently one was illegal and the other is.

fvck you, troll. Go to P&N.

look in the mirror before you start calling people trolls.

Sorry, try again.

www.urbandictionary.com

1. troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Do you guys not understand the definition of marriage? "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." How are you going to try to change the definition of a word? It's like saying Red is now Blue and Blue is now White, etc.

If you want it for same sex people make up your own damn word.

Gee, I wonder why people think the anti-gay marriage folks are bigoted? :roll:

BTW, the definitions of words do, in fact, change over time. Why, it wasn't all that long ago "gay" meant "happy."

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: flamingelephant
what does gay marriage have to do with group marriage? I see absolutely no connection

:disgust: umm maybe because until very recently one was illegal and the other is.

fvck you, troll. Go to P&N.

look in the mirror before you start calling people trolls.

Sorry, try again.

www.urbandictionary.com

1. troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I asked a valid question. if you dont like it STOP POSTING IN MY THREAD! :|

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: flamingelephant
what does gay marriage have to do with group marriage? I see absolutely no connection

:disgust: umm maybe because until very recently one was illegal and the other is.

fvck you, troll. Go to P&N.

look in the mirror before you start calling people trolls.

Sorry, try again.

www.urbandictionary.com

1. troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I asked a valid question. if you dont like it STOP POSTING IN MY THREAD! :|

Sorry dude, but it's an asshole question and obvious flamebait. But you posted anyway.

 

[BeauJangles]

I like how people try to see gay marriage as a slippery slope of some sort. Think about it. Gay marriage is simply extending the rights of a married man and woman to a man and man or woman and woman. To institute 'group marriage' you would have to change the concept of marriage - that it is between two people.

I also think that the OP asked a very leading question which isnt the best way to start a conversation.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: flamingelephant
what does gay marriage have to do with group marriage? I see absolutely no connection

:disgust: umm maybe because until very recently one was illegal and the other is.

fvck you, troll. Go to P&N.

look in the mirror before you start calling people trolls.

Sorry, try again.

www.urbandictionary.com

1. troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I asked a valid question. if you dont like it STOP POSTING IN MY THREAD! :|

Sorry dude, but it's an asshole question and obvious flamebait. But you posted anyway.

No it was not an asshole question and not flamebait. This piece in the Denver Post yesterday go me thinking about it and decided to pose the question here. If you took it as flamebait that is your problem.



Link

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I like how people try to see gay marriage as a slippery slope of some sort. Think about it. Gay marriage is simply extending the rights of a married man and woman to a man and man or woman and woman. To institute 'group marriage' you would have to change the concept of marriage - that it is between two people.

I also think that the OP asked a very leading question which isnt the best way to start a conversation.

That is EXACTLLY the OPs point. Gay marriage DOES change the concept of marriage. Marriage never included man-man, or woman-woman.

A commonly accepted def. (lets not argue defs unless it's really necessary) for marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

If you change it once, what's stopping it from being changed again? Those are the questions he's asking. What would it take for the change to happen (again?).

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Citrix
No it was not an asshole question and not flamebait. This piece in the Denver Post yesterday go me thinking about it and decided to pose the question here. If you took it as flamebait that is your problem.

Link

Interesting article. I wonder if all the couples doing this are as HAWT as those pictured

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: flamingelephant
what does gay marriage have to do with group marriage? I see absolutely no connection

:disgust: umm maybe because until very recently one was illegal and the other is.

fvck you, troll. Go to P&N.

look in the mirror before you start calling people trolls.

Sorry, try again.

www.urbandictionary.com

1. troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I asked a valid question. if you dont like it STOP POSTING IN MY THREAD! :|

Sorry dude, but it's an asshole question and obvious flamebait. But you posted anyway.

No it was not an asshole question and not flamebait. This piece in the Denver Post yesterday go me thinking about it and decided to pose the question here. If you took it as flamebait that is your problem.



Link

Well, considering the amount of vituperation in this thread, I would consider it more than my problem. As for the article, a quick scan reveals no mention of legal prohibition (these people are "Polyamorists," meaning the "love" outside of marriage. It is not Polygamy). And it still does not address the problems raised by others in this thread i.e.
1). very little in the law has to be changed or reinterpreted to make gay marriage legal, while much has to be changed to allow for statutory polygamy.
2). Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.
etc.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Gay marriage DOES change the concept of marriage. Marriage never included man-man, or woman-woman.

A commonly accepted def. (lets not argue defs unless it's really necessary) for marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I see no possible reason anyone could have this opinion other than trying to control what others do; being bigoted against those whose actions/beliefs don't affect them in the least. I think the only reason people now harp on the definition is that it's socially acceptable (if very petty) to do so, while saying you don't like gays and have the right to control what others do isn't acceptable.

If you change it once, what's stopping it from being changed again?

Societal norms.

 

[shilala]

My official stance...
Marry whoever you want. It's none of my business anyways.
My abortion stance is much the same.
Get all the abortions you want. It's none of my business anyways.
My personal stance where I have a say and as it pertains to me...
I'm already married and I don't need an abortion.
If everybody minded their own fvckin business, what a wonderful world this would be.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Gay marriage DOES change the concept of marriage. Marriage never included man-man, or woman-woman.

A commonly accepted def. (lets not argue defs unless it's really necessary) for marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I see no possible reason anyone could have this opinion other than trying to control what others do; being bigoted against those whose actions/beliefs don't affect them in the least. I think the only reason people now harp on the definition is that it's socially acceptable (if very petty) to do so, while saying you don't like gays and have the right to control what others do isn't acceptable.

If you change it once, what's stopping it from being changed again?

Societal norms.

Laws are all about controlling others. Can you: murder, rape, perform incest, beastality? OK, but all of those affect other people, can you: drink and drive (that doesn't affect someone until you get in an accident and hurt them, which is also against the law), smoke pot, shoot up crack, until recently perform sodomy? The extent of the controll is a reflection of the society.

Norms change. 50 years ago it wasn't "normal" to talk about gay marriage. 500 year ago incest was "ok."

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: ifesfor
Now imagine three lesbians at their wedding kissing each other....

/DROOL!!

I think you've been watching a bit too much porn.

X + Y = HAWT! :heart:


:roll:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Laws are all about controlling others. Can you: murder, rape, perform incest, beastality? OK, but all of those affect other people, can you: drink and drive (that doesn't affect someone until you get in an accident and hurt them, which is also against the law), smoke pot, shoot up crack, until recently perform sodomy? The extent of the controll is a reflection of the society.

You answered your own question on murder, rape, etc. Drinking and driving is obviously putting others at extreme risk and so is rightfully outlawed. The main problem with drugs is the stigma associated with them, not the drugs themselves. Some, like marijuana, are more safe than hundreds of otc drugs, most notably alcohol and tobacco, and those abusing them (actually a minority, though the government wouldn't want you to think this) aren't affecting others and so need help more than punishment. This is getting a bit OT though, as I never said all current laws are just, though you certainly infer this.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Laws are all about controlling others. Can you: murder, rape, perform incest, beastality? OK, but all of those affect other people, can you: drink and drive (that doesn't affect someone until you get in an accident and hurt them, which is also against the law), smoke pot, shoot up crack, until recently perform sodomy? The extent of the controll is a reflection of the society.

You answered your own question on murder, rape, etc. Drinking and driving is obviously putting others at extreme risk and so is rightfully outlawed. The main problem with drugs is the stigma associated with them, not the drugs themselves. Some, like marijuana, are more safe than hundreds of otc drugs, most notably alcohol and tobacco, and those abusing them (actually a minority, though the government wouldn't want you to think this) aren't affecting others and so need help more than punishment. This is getting a bit OT though, as I never said all current laws are just, though you certainly infer this.

I wasn't asking questions (rhetorical), just pointing out how all laws are about controlling others. You said the only point could be making was to control others, and that's what every law does. A society w/o control is anarchy, and I think we can all agree that's not good. So control itself isn't bad, just how it's applied (as is evident with good and bad laws).