Defeat of constitutional amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

LadyThorne -> Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/14/2004 1:14:43 PM)

Just wanted to say I'm glad this was defeated, and hopefully we can keep the senators in the USA apprised of the fact that more than half their voters are not straight.

Glad to be an American

Thorne



Estring -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/14/2004 2:19:40 PM)

More than half their voters not straight? Being a bit liberal with those numbers aren't we?
I wasn't in favor of this amendment, but neither am I happy with changes in our laws being shoved down our throats by activist judges where we have no say at all.



MizSuz -> YESSSSSSSSSSSSS (7/14/2004 4:23:07 PM)

I was quite pleased to read this today.

It's not over, though. And if the moral majority continues it's trend towards a strong hold we may not win it next time.

VOTE, people!



anthrosub -> RE: YESSSSSSSSSSSSS (7/14/2004 4:30:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MizSuz

It's not over, though. And if the moral majority continues it's trend towards a strong hold we may not win it next time.



i agree MizSuz but just wanted to add that the "moral majority" is neither. [;)]

anthrosub



MizSuz -> RE: YESSSSSSSSSSSSS (7/14/2004 5:18:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub


i agree MizSuz but just wanted to add that the "moral majority" is neither. [;)]

anthrosub



HA! Yer preachin' to the choir, my man.



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/14/2004 6:22:02 PM)

A lot depends on definitions, but the highest number I heard for homosexuals is 10%.

(Like I said alot depends on the definition: If I get married again am I divorced or married? It depends on what box you put me in.)



Leonidas -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 8:06:30 AM)

I've been amused at this whole issue since it started. There is a great deal of disingenuousness on both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, this is an argument about stuff. Gays and lesbians want to get married, because there are goodies that you only get when you're married. Sorry, but you cannot tell me that these folks actually give a whit whether any institution recognizes their union. Marriage is a traditional, establishment kind of institution that, truth be known, these folks don't really want any part of. They want stuff.

The other side of the argument spouts on and on about protecting precious institutions, the nuclear family, blah blah blah. They don't want to give the gays and lesbians stuff, because they don't like them. Of course, they can't say that, but that's really what's going on.

The government has a legitimate interest in seeing that successive generations of Americans are raised in stable households that impart some version of our shared values, so that we don't create a generation of sociopaths and bring our civilization to some ignominious end. They also have an interest in the orderly accumulation and allocation of wealth, so that capital can form in an orderly way and our capitalist economy can keep chugging along. Those are about their only vested interests in the question of marriage. Beyond that, how people choose to couple is none of the government's business.

Rather than focusing on the issue of "marriage", we really should just be focused on the issue of stuff. What stuff do gay couples (and other couples who have no intention of raising children) really need, and what stuff do men and women who are procreating and rasing children need (which includes, of course, those folks, gay or straight who adopt and raise someone else's child). We are arguing over an institution, the relevance of which is on the decline. It's silly and divisive, and we really should just stop.

Take care of yourselves.

Leonidas



Voltare -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 8:52:43 AM)

Leonidas,

You've put in words what I've never managed to. It's not about 'values' it's about being paid for those values by employers, etc.

I firmly believe that Gay couples should be permitted civil unions if they wish. I don't believe the civil union should be restricted to homosexuals. Should I choose to remain a bachelor the rest of my life, and decide to move in with - say - my sister, or a roommate - male or female - on a long term basis, I should similarly be permitted this civil union. Civil union - in my mind - has nothing to do with love, marriage, or family, but about the stability that comes from a committment to join a household.

The primary issue here, is essentially health care and death benifits - both systems being horribly broken with convoluted laws. We expect our employers to provide us with health benifits, and we expect insurance companies to pay survivors with death benifits. Everything else can be arranged with a power of attorny (special or general) including decisions regarding living wills or other emergancy decisions, the ability to have a joint bank account, utilities, guardianship of children, etc.

Instead of trying to backdoor the health care system by using marriage, fixing the broken system in the first place is probably in order. In a country with the most advanced medical techniques, we have a disparaging number of people without any access to even the most basic health care. If you have health insurance through your company now - ask yourself what you would do, if you lost your job tomorrow and had a heart attack, stroke, or even just a broken limb a week later? Where would you go? How would you pay for it? Essentially, the people who need health insurance the most (those without jobs to pay for the medical bills which cost more then a house) have least access to it. Those in our country most able to pay for medical procedures through their earning power, need 'insurance' the very least.

I'm not a socialist, mind you. I believe that we should earn the things we have, and that there is no such thing as a 'right to live at any price.' I don't believe in million dollar insurance claims because of rare genetic conditions or cosmetic surgery for small flaws. I believe that every person has the right to basic health care prevention and treatment - and that everything else should be paid for out of pocket. I believe reason is necessary - inexpensive generic drugs to prevent heart attacks should be covered, as this reduces the overall number and severity of the actual heart attacks. We have advanced computer systems capable of monitoring health, and trends of patients - but there's no interest in reducing the waste and inefficiancy, because of the block grants and lack of oversight. Most doctors I know in my life are terrible with computers (go figure) so making these tools easy to use should be on the shoulders of engineers and programmers.

I know this is a tangent - but essentially I agree that the real problem has nothing to do with the institution of marriage under the eyes of their chosen diety (as it's not that difficult to have a marriage) but rather a demand for the ill conceived social privileges afforded to married people. I believe in the rights of Gays to be married. I don't believe that the choice to live an alternate lifestyle necessarily affords the same exact privileges in terms of interaction with society, however. Like iwillserveu, the percentage of gays is about 10% by my reckoning (supported by medical evidence that 10% of most primates are innately homosexual.) I believe they should have the right to live as they wish - just as if I wish to live in a reaaaallly small apartment my whole life, I should be able to do so. This doesn't mean I should have the right to buy a horse and keep it in that apartment with me - it's not fair to the horse. Issues regarding adoption of children and child custody laws (the other hotspot here) are similar in my mind. I'm not suggesting that gay's shouldn't be permitted the right to have or raise children - certainly not! I'm saying they shouldn't recieve preferential or even equal treatment to straight people in terms of the rights to adopt or assert custody, as the lifestyle choice of homosexuality (note choice, not the latent tendency towards) is simply not currently palatable in our society. It's palatable to be a vegetarian. It's palatable to be an islamist (believe it or not.) In fifty years, it might be palatable to live with a same sex partner in a romantic relationship. Currently, it's not - and thus social custom (which defines legal principals) should be adhered to. There's nothing new about this - social custom in the early 1800s dictated that slaves could be owned. While I am not advocating that slavery was 'right' I will positively state that if this is what is -expected- by the common people (in a democracy) then that is precisely what the laws should reflect. Instead of demanding law change to suit the tastes of a minority, it should be on the minority's shoulders to advocate to the majority to change their ideals (as abolitionists did in the mid 1800s and the civil rights movement did in the 1960s.) When such a time comes when children can go to school, and explain they have two mommys and not be ridiculed or harrassed to the point they cannot attend school, I will change my (personal) position on this particular point.

Having rambled enough (and probably stabbed enough sticks in the hornets nest) I'll leave this as it is.

Stephan



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 1:29:47 PM)

Leonidas,

quote:

give a whit whether any institution recognizes their un


It depends on the definition of institution. Is the institution giving out the "goodies"?



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 1:33:46 PM)

Another poster got me thinking. I've heard many arguments for and against it. (In Massachusetts we debated it quite a bit.) Most the ones for it are flawed. All of the ones against it are flawed. If anyone has an arguement against gay marriage I'll be glad to poke holes it for you.[:)] I can't gaurantee success in poking holes in arguments for it.



Leonidas -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 3:05:55 PM)

quote:

It depends on the definition of institution. Is the institution giving out the "goodies"?


Well, that was kind of my point. They don't really care that the institution recognizes them as married, they care that they can demand and get the goodies. Marriage is the means to that end.

quote:

If anyone has an arguement against gay marriage I'll be glad to poke holes it for you.


Alright. Marriage always has been a sacrement (a kind of privledge, as opposed to a right). First, it was bestowed by the church, and later, also, by the state. It is an institution bestowing a certain status upon you as recognized by that institution. For some time now, people of all stripes have cohabitated wihtout getting married, but that's not a marriage. They didn't go to the institution and ask for that particular sacrement. As the bestower of the status, the institution, not the people asking, has the right to decide the definition of that status. Since the institutions in this country are democratic, and every poll out there says that a wide majority of the people in the united states, while they support the right of gays to be together, don't support calling it a marriage, the institution excludes that kind of union under the definition "marriage". Yes, yes, I know, states like Mass don't have it written down anywhere that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, but really, can you argue that the folks who created the statute meant to include gays, or did they just assume (silly them) that it would be men and women applying for a marriage license?

The inalienable civil right here, is freedom of association. You should have the right to couple with whomever you choose. You shouldn't, and you don't, have to ask the leave of any institution to do that. If the institution defines a status that doesn't include you, hey, don't ask for that status. If you think it's unfair that it doesn't include you, all the more reason not to ask the sonsabitches for it. There are a great many catholics that are in the same boat. Been divorced? Can't get married in the church. One of you hasn't been and won't be baptized as a catholic? Can't get married in the church. Church says it won't bestow that status on you if those things are true. So what do they do? They don't get married in the church.

You could argue that there is also an inalienable right to equal protection, but that speaks to the "stuff" that I was talking about earlier. There can be a meaningful redress in the inequity of the stuff, without redefining marriage against the will of the electorate.

Finally, the only other possible motivation is to insist on being recognized as married as a kind of "in your face" proclaimation of one's sexual orientation. What fun to introduce your gay partner as your "husband" or "wife" (I'm not quite sure how that would work, now that I think of it, what would you call your gay married partner?) at your family reunion or office party, hmmm? Get all those straight assholes squirming in their chair and covering the kids ears. I can only see this as counterproductive in a society that is saying fairly loudly that they aren't ready for it. The wiser course is probably to work to redress the issue of "stuff" and let marriage the institution continue to become less relevant, as it has in recent decades, until it doesn't really matter whether the institution recognizes you are not.

There you go, iwill. Poke away.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

P.S. I am not particularly attached to the arguments made above. Sometimes I just like a good debate.



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 5:30:50 PM)

First off lets limit the institution to the state. A JP represents me whereas a priest, minister, mullah, rabbi, etc. represent something else. (Let me revise that, the JP represents me in a representative republic.[:)])
Next we got to identify the goodies only married people have people (hetero people) living together in 'sin' don't. (Aside: "living in sin" may not be the best term, but it sure will upset some politically correct folks.[:)]

Does a common law wife get covered under her live in boyfriend's health insurance? It varries from state to state but depending on the time they are a couple if yes, then that is one thing people living in sin who just happen to be of the same sex can't get.

The other thing is legal status when a spouse or long time liver in sin with dies without a will. Does the wife (or husband) have more rights than a "long time living in sin with"-er. Again that answer will vary from state to state, but if yes we've got another reason that people living in sin that just happen to be of the same sex can't get.

Other things are silly like gym membership family discounts. In a private organization if they never take my tax money they should be free to discriminate as they wish. (Aside: I use "discriminate" to inflame the politically correct. Personally I discriminate against Vanilla ice cream whenever I get chocolate.[:)]) If they take my tax money (like say the YMCA) they must take my rules. If my rules determine who gets a family discount is allowed to some living in sin-ers, why are my rules not allowing living in sin-ers who happen to be of the same sex.

quote:

Yes, yes, I know, states like Mass don't have it written down anywhere that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, but really, can you argue that the folks who created the statute meant to include gays, or did they just assume (silly them) that it would be men and women applying for a marriage license?


That is the problem. If we go back to the framers and ask "is this a valid marriage" we'd get some startling results. For instance I bet a black man and a white women could not be married. An Anglican man and a Jew woman might not pass muster. An Irishman and a woman who can trace her line to the Mayflour probably would not pass muster either. An Indian (excuse me, Native American) man and a Buddhist women... wait a minute I doubt that possibly crossed their minds at all. Silly them? I don't know lets ask a Black, an Anglican, and an Irishman what they think. (We may have to wait for the Irishman to sober up. [:)] [Note: I'm Irish, it's OK.])

If we are talking about "goodies" that we give heterosexual living in sin-ers how do we justify not giving the to gay living in sin-ers too.. Keep in mind we are not talking of guys who represent a religious authority, we are talking about JP's that represent you and me.

Oh, I agree this was a lousy tactic to take unless you are a gay divorce attorney.[:)]



Leonidas -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 6:01:16 PM)

Well, you just said the same thing that I said; give them the same stuff. That's not a reason for gay marriage, that is an argument for equal protection, with which I agree.

While it's true that certain kinds of cross racial or cross-religious marriages might have been frowned upon or downright banned in the past, they had one thing in common; when people said "marriage" they were still talking about the institution of marriage that has existed for at least as long as people have been writing things down; the union of a man and a woman. Extending that term to homo couples would be a radical redefinition of the status that, again, the institution granting the status (namely our body politic in a democratic society) is disinclined to do at this point in time.

Through clever legal wrangling, the gay community may succeed (temporarily) in imposing its will on the general population, but my argument is that it is probably unwise to do so. Their victory in the short run could inflame those who are already complaining about moral decay in the country, and ultimately result in things like constitutional amendments that could be a millstone around their necks for a very long time. And so, to sum up again, my argument against gay marriage is that it's a smarter course of action for the gay community to go after the stuff that they want, rather than try to force something on an unwilling public that may, in the end, amout to a pyrrhic victory. Especially when the institution that they are weedling so fervantly to try to insinuate themselves into is declining in social importance anyway.

Again, poke away if you can.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas



CuriousPuppy -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 9:40:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Voltare
The primary issue here, is essentially health care and death benifits - both systems being horribly broken with convoluted laws. We expect our employers to provide us with health benifits, and we expect insurance companies to pay survivors with death benifits. Everything else can be arranged with a power of attorny (special or general) including decisions regarding living wills or other emergancy decisions, the ability to have a joint bank account, utilities, guardianship of children, etc.


It doesn't quite work that way. Power of attorney can be challenged by family members, doctors, and a few others depending on the state in court if for no reason other than to get revenge on the 'sinners'... it can be months or years along with a boatload of cash before it's finally over. Wills can be contested... Contracts? That's actually a nice thought, but out of all the possible communities to understand how binding a 'contract' can be, I would think that it would be one where people frequently are signing 'contracts' that they know would be thrown out by just about any court as unconstitutional more often than not... But even still, you are right, we should assume that certain biggots won't try to stop them by spreading their hate with laws that have sections like oh...


quote:

CHAPTER 983
An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 20-45.3, relating to the Affirmation of Marriage Act for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[H 751]
Approved April 21, 2004

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 20-45.3 as follows:

§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.


want more than just things fresh in memory from more than the last couple months? And you people dare to question why same sex couples are unhappy with trying to cut through the hostility and discrimination? Don't take my word for it though... do some google-fu on your own and follow the links... come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Look up Sharon Kowalski and come tell me that it was deserved for her perversion of nature.

It's not like religious nutballs like Pat Robertson haven't issued what amounts to public requests for murder. When Muslim clerics call for the death of those that they don't like people call them savages that need to modernize or die off... "good Christians" do it and those very same people give a smile... a nod... and often consider the argument.

quote:

"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court. ... One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in their minds that the time has come to retire?"


And then we have things like DOMA... Defense of Marriage Act... it defines marrige as a legal union between a man and a woman, should a state legalize samesex marriage then DOMA 'kindly' exempts other states from a few lines in a certain constitution where other states are required to recognize it. But hey, lets not call it Defense of Mean-spiritited Bigots Act... after all, that would be naming it with it's true purpose.

Even in this very thread, people cry about "activist judges" forcing others to be burdened with "their views". Happily oblivious to the fact that those "activist judges" were doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing... interpreting the laws as they are written. That whole checks and balances thing goes out the window when it comes to a biggot being denied a chance to, well... be a biggot.

We have people sobbing about how freedom of association should not apply... after all, a document that quite clearly spells out that whole seperation of church and state, should obviously only only apply that freedom of association bit when that association is approved of by a certain two thousand year old book of myths.

We even have a complaint about how the whole fight for same sex marriage might just be about allowing gay/lesbian couples to indulge in the shock factor of being able to call each other husband and wife with a nice little "think of the children" whine attached... We all know that it's easier to explain things like "life partner" "mate" "signifigant other" and other fun terms than it is to explain things like oh... "husband" or "wife".

I'm sure that just as we heard about all those other things, we will hear about how the fight for same sex marriage is infringing on the rights of a certain religion, how it's simply intolerance towards christian values and an attempt to erradicate them, or even how it's little more than yet one more way of trying to destroy or kill their God. Maybe we will even have someone drag out tired quotes from a certain book that talks about reasons why you should slay the people next door or what should happen when a child is aborted accidentally during a fight between two men... but every single person who uses one of those arguments is wiping their ass with that whole seperation of church and state line when it gets employed. Add to that, the complete lack of understanding what the meaning of tolerance is, a sad and pathetic thought given how central it is to a certain book that talks about not judging others. I tolerate your right to worship how you choose in your home. I tolerate your right to worship on a street corner, at the entrance to a store, even on television should you choose. I tolerate your right to worship nothing at all, your right to worship a person, a rock, or anything else you choose to worship or not worship. I tolerate your right to handle snakes in your religious cerimonies, your right to dance in church, your right to speak in tongues. I tolerate the right of your religion to marry or not marry as you choose in your churches... And even if I don't, that whole seperation of church and state line makes damn sure that I must. Every single one of these examples is tolerated because it does not impinge on MY rights, liberties, and freedoms.

Nobody is asking those "good christians" to do anything other than be tolerant and accept that those rights and freedoms that they keep preaching about themselves, to apply equally... to everyone. They ask that those rights apply equally to everyone regardless of if they agree with them or not, if for no reason other than the simple fact that everyone else tolerates certain things they do.



Thanatosian -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 9:43:13 PM)

quote:

(excuse me, Native American)


Main Entry: [2]native
Function: noun
Date: 1535
1 : one born or reared in a particular place
2 a : an original or indigenous inhabitant b : something indigenous to a particular locality
3 : a local resident; especially : a person who has always lived in a place as distinguished from a visitor or a temporary resident

Main Entry: [1]Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
Function: noun
Date: 1578
1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
3 : a citizen of the U.S.
4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

(emphasis added)

just to further piss off the PC crowd - as I was born in the U.S.A., that automatically makes me a citizen of the U.S.A. - therefore, I could legally define myself as a Native (born in and long time inhabitant of) American (inhabitant of No. America and citizen of the U.S.A.)

if 'we' really want to be more accurate, 'we' should use the phrase Indigenous American - even though that still has problems

Main Entry: in·dig·e·nous
Pronunciation: in-'di-j&-n&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena, n., native, from Old Latin indu, endo in, within + Latin gignere to beget —more at END-, KIN
Date: 1646
1 : having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment
2 : INNATE, INBORN
synonym see NATIVE

still quite similar to Native American, but, I think, clearer in the 'having originated in' sense

like I said, made this post mainly to tick off the PC crowd

Apply usual caveats here



Leonidas -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 10:59:33 PM)

Nice rant, but you didn't make one plausable argument for same-sex marriage. One more time, you argued, though in an inflammatory and hysterical kind of way, for getting equal stuff (i.e. equal protection). I don't see anyone arguing that you aren't entitled to equal protection. The question is about marriages.

Here is a question for you: Why stop at gay marriages? When the poly family down the way marches up to the county clerk's office and says "We five people want to get married." What then? Just how far does the institution of marriage stretch? Does it cover you, but not them? If you say yes me, but not them, are you a biggot too? Does the state have any interest in regulating marriage at all, as long as it is between consenting adults? If so, where do you draw the line?

Personally, I could care less if gays get married. If they have some inexplicable affinity for that dusty old institution that is the bane of many hetero existance, all the power in the world to them. I just think that the gay community, at this point in time, is being a bit too clever for its own good, and is about to shoot itself in the foot. Focus on the things that you really need (the things that you outlined in your post). Leave the question of marriage for some future time when the general populace accepts you more, or just as likely, cares about marriage less.

Just a thought.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas



perverseangelic -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/15/2004 11:35:22 PM)

I am opposed to government saction marriage of -any- type.

As someone else said, marriage itself is a religious sacrament. I want the goverment out of that buisness all together.

I am all for civil unions for ANY consenting adults, in any number. I think that M/F unions, under the goverment, should be deemed civil unions as well, and that an individuals relgion or lack thereof should take care of the marriage bit.

~sigh~



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/16/2004 3:12:14 AM)

quote:

Through clever legal wrangling, the gay community may succeed (temporarily) in imposing its will on the general population, but my argument is that it is probably unwise to do so.


Leonidas,

I agree that equal protection is more important than messing with a hot button issue, however, is there a way to it that does not include marriage? (I, frankly, am not gay and have not researched it. My heterosexist view point does not care. Oh Lady Angelika, post here![:)])

I have a couple questions. How do you feel about Mormons with more than one wife? How do you feel about Gorean families (disclaimer: I know nothing of Gorean families, but they seem to be poly in nature)?

Here is a non-hypothetical. Assuming it becomes defined as between one man and one woman, what happens to the gays that got married? Are they grandfathered or automatically divorced?



iwillserveu -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/16/2004 3:15:34 AM)

quote:

I am opposed to government saction marriage of -any- type.

As someone else said, marriage itself is a religious sacrament. I want the goverment out of that buisness all together.

I am all for civil unions for ANY consenting adults, in any number. I think that M/F unions, under the goverment, should be deemed civil unions as well, and that an individuals relgion or lack thereof should take care of the marriage bit. I am opposed to government saction marriage of -any- type.

As someone else said, marriage itself is a religious sacrament. I want the goverment out of that buisness all together.

I am all for civil unions for ANY consenting adults, in any number. I think that M/F unions, under the goverment, should be deemed civil unions as well, and that an individuals relgion or lack thereof should take care of the marriage bit.


perverse,

Great post. Why is the government in the morality business in the first place?



Leonidas -> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment (7/16/2004 7:32:39 AM)

Hi iwill,

I think that there is a way to do it through civil union. What perverse was saying about the government getting out of the marriage business is probably the course that things will take over time. If people want a "marriage" let them get that sacrament from the church.

How do I feel about mormon polygamists? They only recognize their marriages among themselves. Some of them have tried (and been charged for) attempting to legally marry more than one woman, but by in large they just keep to themselves. I think that what they are doing is fine, as long as nobody is being coerced into that kind of relationship. A funny story about this: Several years ago NOW targeted these folks and made fervant pleas to the Governer of Utah at the time to crack down on them, saying that polygamy degrades women and irreparably harms the children of such marriages. The governer was understandably unmoved by the argument that children of such marriages would be scarred for life, having been raised in a poly family himself. If they want to form a splinter church that recognizes these marriages within the church fine, but they shouldn't expect any standing with either the state or the mormon church as a whole. Those institutions, and the people that they represent, have different ideas about what a marriage is. Most folks don't know it, but there are also polygamist jews. They are from Yemen. Jews in general recognize their marriages, but if you aren't from the Yeminite tradition, your rabbi won't marry you to multiple women.

Being Gorean myself, and having maintained a "poly" household for many years, I'm probably in a pretty good position to tell you about them. We don't marry our slaves, and we only have one free companion (if any) at a time. It would have been nice if I could have covered my slaves on my medical insurance. I paid some pretty hefty medical bills from time to time. Sucks to be an owner sometimes. I think that poly households work just fine, and in may cases better than monogamous housholds. Humans aren't naturally monogamous. Swans are. Wolves are. Gibbon apes are. Those species find one mate, keep them for life, and never really think about anyone else. Some humans aspire to monogamy, which creates lots of "serial monogamists" in our society (and lots of pissed off, bitter people), but they aren't really monogamous. Once you get past the notion that you have to fuck up one relationship before you can have another, things get rather tranquil, actually.

So, there you go.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.797363E-02