Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Polygamy is alive and well in the same sex marriage paradise of canada, and neither the provincial nor the federal govt can do a damn thing to stop the fundamentalist mormons from subjugating young girls as objects of their possession
I stillhave no idea what point you're trying to make. How are Canada's polygamy laws any different than the US laws? Perhaps you should elaborate, as opposed to getting snarky about libs.
I don't get the uproar. If you are against same sex marriages, don't be in one or go to one. Why do uptight people feel the need to inflict their close-minded Puritanical nonsense onto others? No law is forcing you to be in a same sex union
For the record, if someone wants to marry Rover or Fluffy, could i please be invited? The sight of the two sides of the church will be fun to watch. The Best Man speech? I really want to see that.
Seriously, if Rover and Fluffy are your best line of defense, I think it's time for you to waive the white flag, and just let same sex marriage be. It's pretty clear you're losing the battle.
Can someone please explain how removing the gender restriction removes the number restriction, or the blood relation restriction, or the consent restriction, or the age restriction, or the species restriction?
Did removing the race restriction remove any of those?
OK jjrose, even though the question has been asked of you and your same-sex friends many times only to be ignored, we'll give you another crack at it...
By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?
FTR, interracial marriage is still within nature's plan as a man of one race can create a child with a woman of another race, this is not true of same-sex couples even if they are young and otherwise fertile, but we are pretending that marriage has nothing to do with nature's design or normal sex so let's focus on the question above.
OK jjrose, even though the question has been asked of you and your same-sex friends many times only to be ignored, we'll give you another crack at it...
By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?
FTR, interracial marriage is still within nature's plan as a man of one race can create a child with a woman of another race, this is not true of same-sex couples even if they are young and otherwise fertile, but we are pretending that marriage has nothing to do with nature's design or normal sex so let's focus on the question above.
non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage should also be accepted as long as it involves consenting adults, though multiple married partners do create new complications that would require a lawyer to work out.
I am curious why you think producing a child has anything to do with marriage? One does not have to be married to produce a child nor does one who marries need to produce a child because they are married.
You still have yet to give a valid reason for not allowing same-sex marriage.
OK jjrose, even though the question has been asked of you and your same-sex friends many times only to be ignored, we'll give you another crack at it...
By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?
FTR, interracial marriage is still within nature's plan as a man of one race can create a child with a woman of another race, this is not true of same-sex couples even if they are young and otherwise fertile, but we are pretending that marriage has nothing to do with nature's design or normal sex so let's focus on the question above.
Who cares? There you go again with your nature's design. And again, everything from polio vaccines to heart transplants to insulin is against nature's design. Why aren't you howling about that? If you get sick, will you eschew medical intervention because it's not part of nature's design?
So young gay and fertile couples can't have kids. Big deal. They'll adopt. They'll get artificially inseminated. They'll grit their teeth and take one for the team.
The bottom line is that these children will be wanted and very, very loved. That's the most important thing.
OK jjrose, even though the question has been asked of you and your same-sex friends many times only to be ignored, we'll give you another crack at it...
By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?
FTR, interracial marriage is still within nature's plan as a man of one race can create a child with a woman of another race, this is not true of same-sex couples even if they are young and otherwise fertile, but we are pretending that marriage has nothing to do with nature's design or normal sex so let's focus on the question above.
Natures plan has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with reproduction and that is not required of for marriage and is not part of the rights of marriage, nor is marriage required for reproduction. It is not gays asking for polygamy or beastiality and such or even suggesting it, it is straight people suggesting it. Why must straight people be obssessed with all kinds of sex?
Can someone please explain how removing the gender restriction removes the number restriction, or the blood relation restriction, or the consent restriction, or the age restriction, or the species restriction?
Did removing the race restriction remove any of those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
OK jjrose, even though the question has been asked of you and your same-sex friends many times only to be ignored, we'll give you another crack at it...
By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?
FTR, interracial marriage is still within nature's plan as a man of one race can create a child with a woman of another race, this is not true of same-sex couples even if they are young and otherwise fertile, but we are pretending that marriage has nothing to do with nature's design or normal sex so let's focus on the question above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage should also be accepted as long as it involves consenting adults, though multiple married partners do create new complications that would require a lawyer to work out.
I am curious why you think producing a child has anything to do with marriage? One does not have to be married to produce a child nor does one who marries need to produce a child because they are married.
You still have yet to give a valid reason for not allowing same-sex marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Who cares? There you go again with your nature's design. And again, everything from polio vaccines to heart transplants to insulin is against nature's design. Why aren't you howling about that? If you get sick, will you eschew medical intervention because it's not part of nature's design?
So young gay and fertile couples can't have kids. Big deal. They'll adopt. They'll get artificially inseminated. They'll grit their teeth and take one for the team.
The bottom line is that these children will be wanted and very, very loved. That's the most important thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Natures plan has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with reproduction and that is not required of for marriage and is not part of the rights of marriage, nor is marriage required for reproduction. It is not gays asking for polygamy or beastiality and such or even suggesting it, it is straight people suggesting it. Why must straight people be obssessed with all kinds of sex?
Here's the question again...
"By what specific, consistent and objective criteria do we include same-sex marriage while excluding other non-traditional or less-accepted forms of marriage?"
Thank you urbanlife78 for at least attempting a partial answer to what should be a very simple question for anyone who supports same-sex marriage to answer directly and succinctly.
"Who cares?"...is that you Hilary Clinton?
"It is not gays asking for polygamy or beastiality and such or even suggesting it, it is straight people suggesting it."
No, but supporters of same-sex marriage wish to change the definition of marriage from one consenting adult man and woman to include consenting adults of the same sex.
I am simply asking what specific, consistent and objective reasoning requires us to include same-sex marriage while excluding other forms of marriage.
For anyone who supports same-sex marriage, this should be a no-brainer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
