Gay marriage: Should it be legal?

[Valley Oak]

Should gay marriage be legal?

Vote yes or no or write in your own option.

Edward

[ThePhiant]

a marriage should always be gay
the real question is why is polygamy outlawed?
can you make a poll out of that?


Should gay marriage be legal?

Vote yes or no or write in your own option.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Why don't you start doing a few polls of your own, Phiant? Polygamy, for example? How about polyamory, if you know the difference? Look it up in Wikipedia.

Edward


a marriage should always be gay
the real question is why is polygamy outlawed?
can you make a poll out of that?

[ThePhiant]

very cute diversion, roble
but polyamory is not a legal issue
polygamy is!!!

as far as doing my own polls, I am a FREE member,
I go where ever the wind blows


Why don't you start doing a few polls of your own, Phiant? Polygamy, for example? How about polyamory, if you know the difference? Look it up in Wikipedia.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Then I'll try to give you a different answer, perhaps one that will satisfy you:

I strongly support same sex marriage. If gays and lesbians wish to participate in an absurd heterosexual and christian institution then that's their problem and their right to do so.

I also strongly support polyamory, at least from a social and moral perspective (since it's not a legal issue, as you say). But you should also know that in more than one case in different areas in the U.S., there have been custody battles fought and won because one parent complained that the other is polyamorous. So there is a fine line, if any at all, regarding "legalities" and polyamory.

I don't morally support polygamy because it is grossly unfair, misogynistic, and debasing of women. I would not tolerate it like the U.S. government does (even though it is not legal it is still practiced today in certain parts of Utah, usually in the most rural areas).

Edward


very cute diversion, roble
but polyamory is not a legal issue
polygamy is!!!

as far as doing my own polls, I am a FREE member,
I go where ever the wind blows

[ThePhiant]

I also strongly support polyamory, at least from a social and moral perspective (since it's not a legal issue, as you say). But you should also know that in more than one case in different areas in the U.S., there have been custody battles fought and won because one parent complained that the other is polyamorous. So there is a fine line, if any at all, regarding "legalities" and polyamory.

I don't morally support polygamy because it is grossly unfair, misogynistic, and debasing of women. I would not tolerate it like the U.S. government does (even though it is not legal it is still practiced today in certain parts of Utah, usually in the most rural areas).

it would be hard to deny that you are opinionated.
unfortunately you don't seem to like to have your facts straight
first, polygamy is not just a man having more than 1 wife, it can also be the other way around
second, what is grossly unfair?????????
if you are polyamorous, you get to screw around with no responsibilities
if you are a legal polygamist, everybody has actually legal rights and responsibilities!!!!!!
I actually know a man here in Sebasto who has 2 wives, and they couldn't have been happier, the women that is.
so what are you talking about???
is this one of your projection to be PC
how is this debasing if they have legal protection???

[Valley Oak]

I have looked up some of the relevant information regarding the illegal status of polygamy.

The reference for the quote below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

Bigamy is when one individual is married to two people at the same time and at least one of the marriages is a legal marriage. Most western countries have laws making any secondary marriage a crime. For example, in the United States, because of a contract a bigamist makes with the government, he is under obligation not to marry a second wife; stipulations of the marriage license applying.

Legal situation

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all U.S. territories. Latter-day Saints believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the Constitution[citation needed]. However the 1879 unanimous Supreme Court Reynolds v. United States decision declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."[31]

Secular law in most western countries with large Jewish and Christian populations does not recognize polygamous marriages. However, few such countries have any laws against living a polygamous lifestyle: they simply refuse to give it any official recognition. Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced. Polygamists may find it harder to obtain legal immigrant status.
[edit]Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy

The practice of informal polygamy among Mormon fundamentalist groups presents itself with interesting legal issues. It has been considered difficult to prosecute polygamists for bigamy, in large part because they are rarely formally married under state laws. Without evidence that suspected offenders have multiple formal or common-law marriages, these groups are merely subject to the laws against adultery or unlawful cohabitation — laws which are not commonly enforced because they also criminalize other behavior that is otherwise socially sanctioned. However, some "Fundamentalist" polygamists marry women prior to the age of consent, or commit fraud to obtain welfare and other public assistance.
In 2001, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Thomas Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogamous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. His cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. That premise was subsequently affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Green, as applicable only in the State of Utah. Green was also convicted of child rape and criminal non-support.[41]
In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in polygamous communities.[42] Enforcement of crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud were emphasized over the enforcement of anti-polygamy and bigamy laws. The priorities of local prosecutors are not covered by this statement.

The Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.
Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is opposed to Utah's law against bigamy.[47]

The illegality of polygamy in certain areas creates, according to certain Bible passages, additional arguments against it.

At the present time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports enforcing laws against polygamy, although historically this denomination practiced polygamy which they considered to be a principle revealed by God, and fought vocally against those seeking to establish such laws. Today, the church will excommunicate any member found to be practicing polygamy.





it would be hard to deny that you are opinionated.
unfortunately you don't seem to like to have your facts straight
first, polygamy is not just a man having more than 1 wife, it can also be the other way around
second, what is grossly unfair?????????
if you are polyamorous, you get to screw around with no responsibilities
if you are a legal polygamist, everybody has actually legal rights and responsibilities!!!!!!
I actually know a man here in Sebasto who has 2 wives, and they couldn't have been happier, the women that is.
so what are you talking about???
is this one of your projection to be PC
how is this debasing if they have legal protection???

[ThePhiant]

thanks for the litany but what is your point???
you don't believe in God, but you want to use the churches word to pontificate about polygamy??????????????
:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

[Valley Oak]

The point was to provide information and a reference for it so people such as yourself can read more on it for themselves.

Furthermore, the fact that I'm an atheist is irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage. If you want to try to make a case that it is, go right ahead and knock yourself out. You do already with so many different subjects. Quite frankly, I don't know what it is that you are trying to accomplish with all of this trolling.

Finally, the legality of marriage is not up to the church. The US Constitution clearly states that there shall be an institutional separation between church and state. Therefore, no church can legaly authorize or disauthorize marriage. Indeed, people can get legally married without ever walking into a church. My wife and I had a strictyly civil marriage; we never set foot inside some stupid ass church.

Sorry that my excerpts from Wikipedia had so many citations about polygamy and bigamy. I guess that confused you. Please forgive me. Remember that you can always go to the links I provided or simply do a search in Wikipedia's or some other sources database.

Edward



thanks for the litany but what is your point???
you don't believe in God, but you want to use the churches word to pontificate about polygamy??????????????
:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

[Moon]

Personally, i'd rather see there be no such thing as government-approved marriage.
It's none of the government's business, people could always buy standard pre-nuptial
contracts and fill them in, and i think anyone with any knowledge of contract law would
agree that a one-size-fits-all, government-says-you-must-use-this-one contract is a bad idea in any context.

[ThePhiant]

Moon,

thanks for being creative
unfortunately, pre-nups and contracts still involve the courts, lawyers, legislators and therefore the government.............


Personally, i'd rather see there be no such thing as government-approved marriage.
It's none of the government's business, people could always buy standard pre-nuptial
contracts and fill them in, and i think anyone with any knowledge of contract law would
agree that a one-size-fits-all, government-says-you-must-use-this-one contract is a bad idea in any context.

[Looksgood]

I have to agree with Moon. I have long thought that the solution to the gay marriage issue was for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Certainly the government belongs in the enforcement of contract business, but what contract people want to make with each other is entirely up to them. I should be able to decide for myself who has the rights presently accorded to a spouse without regard to whether I live with that person, sleep with them, share a bank account with them or any other consideration.

If people feel that they have to go through some ritual in order to feel comfortable sleeping together (odd expression that, since the defining feature of what we understand by it involves a variety of possible activities none of which includes sleep!), and want to promise to stay together for the rest of their lives, then they are free to do so, but why should society as a whole care? Marriage is essentially a religious concept, and should carry no civil privileges whatever.

As for ThePhiant's response, of course enforcement of civil contracts involves courts and lawyers; that is one of the primary functions of those institutions. Government in some form is involved in most aspects of our lives, and generally it is just as well. The question here is what rights and privileges should be accorded to what people and for what reasons.

It is important to distinguish between the idea of government, which is essential to any kind of organized society, and the actions of those who are entrusted with the power of government. In other words it is not government that is the problem, but the Government. Those who would persuade us that government itself is the problem are usually those who wish to be unfettered in their actions, usually to the detriment of others. I am sure that rapists and bank robbers would also like to "get government off their backs," but in those cases the need for that form of government is obvious. The money interests, on the other hand, which we have just as much need to be protected against, have a whole political party devoted to supporting their desire to be free of restraint.

Patrick





Moon,

thanks for being creative
unfortunately, pre-nups and contracts still involve the courts, lawyers, legislators and therefore the government.............

[mykil]

here is an article I wrote a few years back that was published in a local newspaper! though it was not quite finished it was still published the way I felt at the time and still do! peace!


Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage;
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
There’s been a lot said lately about Gay Marriage, I don’t think anyone’s really seeing the whole picture here. We have the Democrats’ view, and the republicans’ view, at this point the churches view doesn’t even apply. Now if think ole George is sitting in the white house losing sleep cause Two men are sleeping in the same bed I think you need to buy a vowel. Once again this all boils down to the finances of our nation.
<o:p></o:p>
I haven’t seen something so financially strong like this since DOT COM. This one issue could send us spiraling upward so fast. Lets do some calculations here. Ten Percent of our country is Gay. Thirty Million peoples. Or “A LOT”!!! Lets say Ten Million Couples. Ten Percent get married. One million wedding in the first few years alone. Now a lot of cash usually are spent on weddings. Gifts, Flowers. Clothing……… This itself can bring this nation out of the slump its in. It’s HUGE HUGE HUGE!!!!! I’ll say it again almost as huge as “DOT COM”.
<o:p></o:p>
The republicans’ point of view, well it going to cost us money, we’ll have to pay health insurance for all those peoples. All the Benefits that a man and women get will now be given to man and man or women and women. We can’t let them get away with that.

oh wow the rest of the article is missing, this must have been the draft! oh well you get the jest of the whole!
<o:p></o:p>

[Valley Oak]

So a smart Republican candidate would want to help stimulate this pathetic economy with gay marriage. But none of the Republican candidates have the balls to do it.

Edward



here is an article I wrote a few years back that was published in a local newspaper! though it was not quite finished it was still published the way I felt at the time and still do! peace!


Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage;
<o:p></o:p>
There’s been a lot said lately about Gay Marriage, I don’t think anyone’s really seeing the whole picture here. We have the Democrats’ view, and the republicans’ view, at this point the churches view doesn’t even apply. Now if think ole George is sitting in the white house losing sleep cause Two men are sleeping in the same bed I think you need to buy a vowel. Once again this all boils down to the finances of our nation.
<o:p></o:p>
I haven’t seen something so financially strong like this since DOT COM. This one issue could send us spiraling upward so fast. Lets do some calculations here. Ten Percent of our country is Gay. Thirty Million peoples. Or “A LOT”!!! Lets say Ten Million Couples. Ten Percent get married. One million wedding in the first few years alone. Now a lot of cash usually are spent on weddings. Gifts, Flowers. Clothing……… This itself can bring this nation out of the slump its in. It’s HUGE HUGE HUGE!!!!! I’ll say it again almost as huge as “DOT COM”.
<o:p></o:p>
The republicans’ point of view, well it going to cost us money, we’ll have to pay health insurance for all those peoples. All the Benefits that a man and women get will now be given to man and man or women and women. We can’t let them get away with that.

oh wow the rest of the article is missing, this must have been the draft! oh well you get the jest of the whole!
<o:p></o:p>