Where is possible the gay marriage?

[B_spiker067]

Theoretically, I don't mind about polygamy in concept. In reality, there have been a lot of problems which include incest, and a cult-like methodology of forcing women into it, in some cases. If all ADULTS involved are consenting, why should I care? I actually belong to another board where this subject is the topic. It's no longer active, but it was very interesting to learn about it from those who practise.

Maybe these problems are due to it having been driven underground. Legalizing polygamy does not mean that these problems could not be addressed appropriately. It would also be like saying gay people are child molesters they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. This just wouldn't be true.

And from someone who understands the ToS exceptionally well, trolling does NOT require profanity, nor is profanity in and of itself trolling. Fuck you very much.

Of course not. Read what I said. BTW, I don't consider 'fuck you' a profanity just a vulgarity.

 

[B_spiker067]

I didn't say that. You can do whatever you want.

Well what did you mean by saying if I continued it would be 'trollish'?

 

[Lex]

Your own self labeled sexuality belies the trught of this statement. I believe sexuality is a gradient. At either extreme (i.e. 100%) those people are born that way and don't have a choice who they are attracted to. Anyone 80%-20%, 60%-40%, unless they are extremely conflicted and discovering who they are, are practicing choice. I have no problem with that. I'm just not going to believe the lie that they are not practicing choice.

That is not true. I stand before you as a gay male. I have 2 children. I have my sexuality listed as 80-20 as I say "10% for each child." I may never fuck another woman as long as I live-- no desire to and I get to determine how gay I am, not you.

Your insinuation that attraction and orientation are choice flies in the face of everything that thinking people know about sexuality.

We are as we are born to be. Some of us come to the realization of our true selves earlier than others. Some never come to this realization. They just troll cock sites emphasizing how straight they are while drolling over dick. Go figure. It takes ALL kinds.

 

[B_spiker067]

Why would you refer to me as "you all", then?

I meant "you all" in the sense of all the posters who share your sensibilities on this subject. Whats hard to understand about that?

 

[B_spiker067]

And if they split the proceeds, would one of them be taxed on their share?

The point is that it would have to be split. If it was a monogamous marriage it would not be split. Of course the tax or lack of tax would be the same in either case. The government wouldn't get more or less taxes in either case.

How would you propose splitting, say, spousal immunity when one of them is at trial?

What does that mean splitting spousal immunity? How would it be unfair if both spouses to the third (on trial) weren't compelled to testify?

Would you get to take family leave time from work when either spouse is sick, or would they both have to be sick for this to apply?

Well in a polygamous marriage there would be more people to take of the sick spouse. In general employers would find greater flexibility. Child care expenses would be less all around probably too.

How about car insurance -- would you get the special rates available to married people if only one of them has a good driving record?

What is the difference if two parents have a child(ren) and one of the them has a bad driving record?

Would the amount of credit extended to you be computed based on the combined income of three people?

Why wouldn't more credit be extended to a family unit that made more money than another family unit? Income is income after all.

Since you're the one who thinks that same-sex marriage is so frickin' comparable to group marriage,...

I don't see any unfairness here. I understand now from this thread and another that you really are a sensitive person and I am sorry that my opinion on this has hurt.

 

[madame_zora]

I meant "you all" in the sense of all the posters who share your sensibilities on this subject. Whats hard to understand about that?

Because you admonished me for answering a post to "you all". Stupid.

As I said, you'd get more respect if you presented and fought for your opinions, if indeed you have any.

 

[GoneA]

Well what did you mean by saying if I continued it would be 'trollish'?

When did I ever say you "don't get to answer" (not like I could personally stop you one way or the other)? Just because I feel your responses may be "trollish" doesn't mean you can't give them.

I meant "you all" in the sense of all the posters who share your sensibilities on this subject. Whats hard to understand about that?

Okay, nice to know. Still doesn't answer the question.

You were referring to everyone that doesn't agree with you ... mainly because you're melodramatic as MMZ pointed out.

If you were actually trying to learn something, instead of unremittingly pursing this dubious, cockamamie argument you've fashioned (the one in which you’re trying to juxtapose same-sex marriage with polygamy and/or under-age marriage in an effort to [covertly] denounce the former), then more people would perhaps take you seriously.

 

[B_spiker067]

Because you are everyone!:biggrin1:

As I said before, spiker's just not as smart as he wishes he was.

You know what bothers you. I'm smarter than you care to admit and it bothers you that despite that fact I don't think like you.

 

[mindseye]

I'm smarter than you care to admit

When are you going to start showing it?

 

[B_spiker067]

Because you admonished me for answering a post to "you all". Stupid.

As I said, you'd get more respect if you presented and fought for your opinions, if indeed you have any.

I didn't admonish you. I just wondered how you could read the mind of the poster I asked the question of?

You would give me no more respect unless I shared your same held beliefs. Go lie to someone else.

 

[GoneA]

It just happens to bother you that I don't think at this time that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

Ugh, yes it is, champion. Denying two people the right enter a legally recognized union in the sight of the law (so as to enjoy the benefits provided therein) sounds like an infringement on "civil rights" to me.

Why should their sex matter? Really.

 

[B_spiker067]

When did I ever say you "don't get to answer" (not like I could personally stop you one way or the other)? Just because I feel your responses may be "trollish" doesn't mean you can't give them.

It was a subtle form at attempted censorship than in of itself means nothing unless I consider the 'black eye' you'd give me. Really, I'm not as dumb as MZ would have you believe.

If you were actually trying to learn something, instead of unremittingly pursing this dubious, cockamamie argument you've fashioned (the one in which you’re trying to juxtapose same-sex marriage with polygamy and/or under-age marriage in an effort to [covertly] denounce the former), then more people would perhaps take you seriously.

I am on a predominantly gay forum asking why should I support (or not) gay marriage (In a thread I did not start). I come with an inkling that it is not a civil rights issue. Your attitude (among others) and weak arguments have left me with that impression. Congrats. Because you are really so damn smart as is MZ. Your are both the most brilliant thinkers that have ever graced my life.

I can't believe that my 'cockamamie argument' has not clarified to the point where what I'm trying to ask would actually be answered. This board and many of its members are almost as myopic and closed minded as some neocon crap site. They and you have nothing on each other. You are two sides of the same coin with both your good and evil. And your dumber than dumb.

 

[B_spiker067]

Ugh, yes it is, champion. Denying two people the right enter a legally recognized union in the sight of the law (so as to enjoy the benefits provided therein) sounds like an infringement on "civil rights" to me.

Why should their sex matter? Really.

Why can't three people do it then?

 

[B_spiker067]

Do you believe the government should then have legislation over that "choice"?

If its choice then it becomes less a civil rights issue.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

It was a subtle form at attempted censorship than in of itself means nothing unless I consider the 'black eye' you'd give me. Really, I'm not as dumb as MZ would have you believe.



I am on a predominantly gay forum asking why should I support (or not) gay marriage (In a thread I did not start). I come with an inkling that it is not a civil rights issue. Your attitude (among others) and weak arguments have left me with that impression. Congrats. Because you are really so damn smart as is MZ. Your are both the most brilliant thinkers that have ever graced my life.

I can't believe that my 'cockamamie argument' has not clarified to the point where what I'm trying to ask would actually be answered. This board and many of its members are almost as myopic and closed minded as some neocon crap site. They and you have nothing on each other. You are two sides of the same coin with both your good and evil. And your dumber than dumb.

It was your choice to join the predominantly gay forum... purely your choice... And why are you asking... it's clear that you are the only one posting in this thread that has a problem with gay marriage.. MZ is so smart.. just look at her posts.. I look for her replys to idiots like you that come in here thinking you have something to prove... Lex's quote really stands out to me here.. because marriage is really about two people of any sex trying to make it in life, and showing their love for each other... and who are you as one person in the minority of this thread to say that they shouldn't be allowed... it's time for you to collect your stuff and pack it in for the night... this is a war you wont win...

 

[B_spiker067]

It was your choice to join the predominantly gay forum... purely your choice... And why are you asking... it's clear that you are the only one posting in this thread that has a problem with gay marriage.. MZ is so smart.. just look at her posts.. I look for her replys to idiots like you that come in here thinking you have something to prove... Lex's quote really stands out to me here.. because marriage is really about two people of any sex trying to make it in life, and showing their love for each other... and who are you as one person in the minority of this thread to say that they shouldn't be allowed... it's time for you to collect your stuff and pack it in for the night... this is a war you wont win...

I made my points. They are less nonsensical than you think...Kink. I pack it up here with you.

 

[GoneA]

It was a subtle form at attempted censorship than in of itself means nothing unless I consider the 'black eye' you'd give me. Really, I'm not as dumb as MZ would have you believe.

First, I said I was tricky to "punch you in the mouth" ... that shouldn't give you a "black eye", I don't think. Secondly, yes, I would like very much to censor you ... still doesn't stop you from posting. I have a feeling you're really not getting it.

Congrats. Because you are really so damn smart as is MZ. Your are both the most brilliant thinkers that have ever graced my life.

I can't imagine YOU being facetious on this point, so I'm going to say: thank you.

I can't believe that my 'cockamamie argument' has not clarified to the point where what I'm trying to ask would actually be answered.

That's because it's cockamamie. Duh.

This board and many of its members are almost as myopic and closed minded as some neocon crap site.

Hmm, I was wondering what took you so long to get to the "everybody's so mean to mean" point.

And your dumber than dumb.

Ahh, there's goes that "more clever and entertaining" wit you promised. *gasp*

Why can't three people do it then?

People [Mindseye, mainly] have already posted pages on this point. If you haven't gotten it by now, there's little I can say that will help you out in that regard. Try here.

 

[B_spiker067]

I can't imagine YOU being facetious on this point, so I'm going to say: thank you.

Look! You learned a new word. Good girl! Sit! Roll over! Good girl!

My you are a tick and flea infested bitch aren't you?

Would have been funnier but I've never read any of your posts till this thread. So I know you not. In case you didn't understand the last part in my previous post was a variant of an ad hominem attack on the board as a whole not on you or MZ. I've read my posts on this thread from beginning to end and I'm pissed off at how you guys treated me. What I think can affect and has affected how a lot of other people think and I'm not talking about LPSG here. Oh btw, please look for a double entendre in the black text.

 

[dannymawg]

Why can't three people do it then?

Maybe they could had Mormons been in charge...

I still think the issue here is the one only alex8 and I touched on - the separation of church and state. Again, if Mormons were to have replaced Christians back when marriage was an issue for the state to be concerned with and make laws to govern (and in later days profit from) it, would we be here now with this argument? That has degenerated so badly?

Really spiker - I was on the fence about you back during the religion thing - but watching you gloat over your logic skills is watching you getting boorish. If we're all as myopic as you say, aren't there more challenging forums for you to exercise whatever is compelling you to do what you do here?

 

[NCbear]

If we can have same sex marriage recognized, why shouldn't a man be able to marry four women; or four men marry one woman; or four men marry four women? I mean why does the marriage rationale get to stop at same sex couple? Or why is age of consent 18 and not 16 or 15 when it comes to marriage?

I mean aren't we religiously descriminating against moslems, mormons and some christians when we tell them how many people they can marry?

I completely agree. In fact, I would like to see Mormon polygamy still practiced.

NCbear (who thinks the only complication would be the length of marriage licenses and related documents)