is paul hiding in the closet?

In all honesty I haven't given much thought to whether polygamy always hurts people. I have seen documentaries and read stories about specific families in Utah, and in those situations it sure seemed like the women had a pretty raw deal - especially the younger ones. Maybe it doesn't always have to be that way, and maybe you're right that my knee-jerk opposition to it is just a personal value. And what about one woman/many men! I don't really know how I'd react if polygamy became an issue.

But the only reason we're talking about polygamy is that it's an example of something you - and other people, of course - think is (or could be, or would have to be?) supported by the same arguments or precedence that justify gay marriage. For openers that's just not politically real. Next to no one supports that happening, any more than they support intrafamily marriage or any of the other things that have been mentioned.

For another, the two are totally different. It's *not* only a matter of a different set of values (although it is that too). One is a fringe custom (in our society), the other is the way millions of people *are* and always will be. These people are already walking through life together. It's perfectly legal for them to do that. Whether or not anyone thinks someone is getting hurt by gay marriage, it's completely groundless to say that they are. On the contrary, would you rather have gay people hanging around the bushes at the park spreading AIDS?

Im just ****ing tired of listening to all that US morale crap.
The war against muslims continues. The war for oil. And now against gay marriages. I couldnet care less if it wasn´t for the fact that GWB has biggest guns in the worls and loves to use them on anything that moves.
Come on free country? Can you say ****? All that Janet fuzz about the the superbowl. Come on. She didn´t even show her nibble. And now the oscars was send out with delay to prevent such things to happen. And to stop the critism of US government on live tv. To stop free thinking. Democracy.
America you don´t know what democracy is.
(This goes not to free thinkers and spirits in US)

Nick said:
It took a lot of posts, Kelly, but I finally won. Not only does Knife agree with me 100% now, but every one of the religious right nuts on this board does too.

I thought back on page one we all agreed that God made man a free will being, that He meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman and that gays were living in sin. I thought we continued for five more pages because we enjoy healthy discourse. That's my take! I thought it was God -1, Nick - 0
ceb

The voice of God himself (herself) on this message board?? Jeez, I have to check back here more often!

For God's sake, END this thread. Ad Nauseum.

OHHHHH my! I skipped it several days ago with a chuckle (I saw that Nick had started it, so I knew it was in good hands)...but after reading 5 pages of all this, this...this...blasted free speech (ick!), I guess I should say something. Won't be much, though, I broke my wrist on the slopes two weeks ago, so will be pecking childishly like a hen.

If I want to marry someone who is neuter, how does that work out for all you naysayers (lets forget why they might marry me, certainly not for money or sex, as I'm poor and they're sexless)? I should darn well be able to marry whomever I wish, not because the goverment of the U.S. says so (being the united states, or those states who come under the protection of that sigular document our constitution, whose intent was to outline those rights which man would always have privelage to govern over HIMSELF), but because it was explicitely designed to NOT say so. The other rights necessary to enjoy this privelage are embodied in that fine document. Individual states rights have in the past stood in the way of gay marriages, but there was (and should be) no ammendation to define something which is not a function of government in primus.

Some talk about "other consequences"....besides that these are so far from the point, I think if you want to go down that path of reasoning, you should consider your rogue presidents plan as a sure way to bring about mandatory arranged marriages. O.K., thats silly, admitted, but putting control of these details of our lives in the hands of our government is not only careless, it is irresponsible.

A marriage is not a business (no comments, please, on how its like a business, etc). It is a promise of partnership. That partnership is based upon Love, and nothing else. Money, children, property, health, these are all the matters that are governed by our laws. But the inception is love, and the only prerequisite for this is consciousness (some would say selfconsciousness - I won't posit this for love, but definitely for marriage).

Marriage between different types of poeple isn't what needs ammendation, it is only an agreement. You can do it before God, Darwin, Bush, Elvis or your mirror. My question is why is there only one available contract? It obviously means so many different things to so many different people (especially between those exchanging vows), evidenced by so high a divorce instance. So we should be making custom vows, to suit race, gender, sexuality, species, religion, favorite color, etc. to try to keep people together if they are really willing to put up with one another for their entire lives (conditional time periods?), not telling everyone "you can only do it one way!" That is so unamerican. I mean, you can get your whopper however you want, right? The goverment will be happy you have that, provided your vested with medical insurance...

Unfortunately, I fear this is just another way to dupe voters. It's a nonissue for me, as its the very least of our problems - its something Bush wants to do, get him out. If the other guy does the same, we haven't lost - we will send him out the next time (I'm being optimistic, I know).

One good thing though, John, if they are as clever a syndicate, and as large and wide of stature,as you survey for us, you can do nothing to affect the outcome. This tide was let loose far far out to sea, and you're best to spend less time squawking and more time climbing up onto the drapes

Aaaah, It's just not as fun when I can"t type as fast as I think....it makes the whole 'frothing' thing seem not quite so real...

Alas, someone else said it far better than I, I can only repeat it, ad nauseum:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Love is the law, love under will.

Excellent.

A cogent, and honest answer that actually deals with your prior statement and my response thereto.

I LOVE civil, mature discourse - even when the two sides seem diametrically and passionately opposed.

This is ALSO a fairly good argument (except for an aspect of the "numbers" part - see below). I alluded to this above, in response to GlenR01. Sometimes, you just have to put the slipery slope argument away by recognizing that, while two types of behavior may be in the same GENERAL class or on the same END of the spectrum, one is so drastically different than the other that, the distinction is SO stark that it is a difference of degree that really AMOUNTS TO a difference of kind. A difference everyone can see.

I'm not 100% sure that the distinction between gay marriage and polygamy is THAT clear. It seems to me they are closer than many of us might want to think, especially when you look at the grounds that have been announced in favor of gay marriage.

If you are going to support gay marriage with anything like the argument "Marriage, as an institution, is and should be a private matter, between consenting adults," I think you run into serious trouble with polygamy VERY shortly after that.

Its a tough one, I think.

As I pointed out pages ago, I wouldn't trot out numbers to make the arguments here. Civil rights are SPECIFICALLY about protecting minorities - whether it is race or sexual preference or marital status or whatever.

To say that polygamists are "just a fringe" is inviting ALL SORTS of trouble.

Think about it. Numbering in the millions or not, GAYS are a minority that could be handily supressed by the "majority."

I wouldn't EVER make an argument in favor of a particular minority interest which argument includes the idea that they are not the SMALLEST minorty and other, smaller minorities DON'T deserve the same protections.

That's just hypocrisy.

Either we are protecting minority interests - ALL OF THEM - or we are only protecting OUR particular interests (i.e putting forth a subjective agenda).

Again, how do you square this idea here with trying to stop polygamy, in the future?

I understand you Nick, to now acknowledge that YOU personally might be on the fence re: polygamy - but how do you answer those critics of gay marriage who contend that it will LEAD to polygamy, something THEY do not want?

How do you assuage the fears of those folks and let them be comfortable and secure in the knowledge that there is a difference between allowing gays to marry and allowing polygamy. And that you can enforce a line between the two - allowing gay marriage but effectively banning polygamy?


Or, do you just throw up your hands and say "I don't know. All I know is, marriage is a private matter between consenting adults. Maybe polygamy isn't such a bad thing either. We better get used to it."

Is that the "better" or more intellectually honest way to deal with the perceived "threat of polygamy?"


Again, I'm just asking questions that I think are real and come to bear. Just trying to point out that maybe the resistance to gay marriage shouldn't only be met with a summary "It's a private matter and don't try to enforce YOUR individual morals on others" argument.

Not a chance! :p

Mainly by what I wrote in my last post, which is that it's an irrational fear and a silly comparison. One more way would be by pointing to Canada, all of Scandinavia, France, Belgium...places where gay marriages are legal. Has that happened there?

By the way I'm not really on the fence re: polygamy. It bothers me, at least as practiced in the former Mormon style.