narcimund 0 #51 July 30, 2003 QuoteIf same sex marriage is OK, then why not marriage of 3 or more persons? Marriage is composed of the following elements (in no particular order): [OL][LI]Interpersonal agreements between willing participants to act and feel in certain ways to each other [LI]Agreements between willing participants to treat certain property rights jointly. [LI]Enforceable obligations among willing participants to pay money to each other under certain conditions [LI]Freedom from certain legal proscriptions against acting like married people, for instance by having sex (rapidly diminishing in modern times) [LI]Possibly a bond with God which sanctifies (4) [LI]Use of the word "married"[/OL] (1) and (2) are entirely personal and under nobody's control except the participants. (3), and (4) appear to be government roles. (3) is simply a mutual support obligation however, and (4) is all but obsolete. (5) appears to be under the control of churches or of God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government. (6) is linguistic, so it's nothing more than how the word gets used by the masses. Except in France, government has no role in setting linguistic usage. Which parts should government dissallow for gay people? Which parts should government dissallow for threesomes? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #52 July 31, 2003 So that ultimately brings us to divorces... What would that mean in the divorce...who would get the house? If a couple from Arkansas Moved to California and got a divorce there... Would they still be Brother and Sister?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #53 July 31, 2003 QuoteWhat would that mean in the divorce...who would get the house? This is trivial. Item (2) is a contract between the partners to have joint ownership. Joint ownership of property is well established in law, both in and out of marriage. The mechanisms for splitting jointly owned property are not dependent on marriage. One negotiates either with or without mediation. When that fails, one goes to court for a judgement. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #54 July 31, 2003 Maybe, but... In a divorce the woman gets the house and the car and all the bank accounts and then to add further insult to injury, you have to pay her alimony. So...i ask Again...Who get's the house?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #55 July 31, 2003 QuoteWhat would that mean in the divorce...who would get the house? Thats simple. You cannot get a divorce in some churches. In some you can do it with an SMS message. But the property ownership and so forth is governed by the state in the civil union (by my theory) and the divorce process would be the same as it is now. So if you were Catholic it might suck, because you might be divorced by the state, but the church might not let you. That way you may never be able to get remarried... but be stuck with only the option of a different church or a civil union. Unless you can bribe someone to give you an annulment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #56 July 31, 2003 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If same sex marriage is OK, then why not marriage of 3 or more persons? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marriage is composed of the following elements (in no particular order): Interpersonal agreements between willing participants to act and feel in certain ways to each other Agreements between willing participants to treat certain property rights jointly. Enforceable obligations among willing participants to pay money to each other under certain conditions Freedom from certain legal proscriptions against acting like married people, for instance by having sex (rapidly diminishing in modern times) Possibly a bond with God which sanctifies (4) Use of the word "married" (1) and (2) are entirely personal and under nobody's control except the participants. (3), and (4) appear to be government roles. (3) is simply a mutual support obligation however, and (4) is all but obsolete. (5) appears to be under the control of churches or of God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government. (6) is linguistic, so it's nothing more than how the word gets used by the masses. Except in France, government has no role in setting linguistic usage. Which parts should government dissallow for gay people? Which parts should government dissallow for threesomes? -- OK, so at least you are consistent, but I think that advocates of same sex marriage will not want to admit that acceptance of polygamy should be included as a necessary part of the new deal. They know that support for same sex marriage will not be there if it is acknowledged what should also come with it, to be consistent. The general public will not support it. The general public may not know why they don't support it, but I think rejection of polygamy is a certainty-it may be an emotional reaction, but it is a powerful reaction.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudOnMyTongue 0 #57 July 31, 2003 QuoteThis is just me but, who gives a flying frig who other people sleep with. I agree! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #58 July 31, 2003 QuoteQuoteThis is just me but, who gives a flying frig who other people sleep with. I agree! Meee to. But its fun to bi*ch about--makes for some great P'wing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #59 July 31, 2003 Note: I didn't read a single post in this thread. I saw the word "locked" and decided to add: "In before" It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #60 July 31, 2003 Just to add my opinion in the matter, for a change of pace here. Not that i'm holier than thou, but, well. . . I for one do not support gay marriage. I think what people do in privacy is one thing, but personally, Mr & Mr so-n-so, or such and such, husband and husband, or wife and wife. That is not a marriage. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family. I didn't even know that gay marriage was legal here. A co-worker of mine went to China or something for their ceremony.?. I am not trying to put anyone down, I personally just don't support the idea of gay marriage. jmo. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeedToJump 0 #61 July 31, 2003 QuoteI for one do not support gay marriage. Would you support the idea of a gay civic union that would constitute the same binding agreement of marriage and that the government would recognize? Just wondering if it is a matter of semantics or the idea in general...Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #62 July 31, 2003 That's it. I'm divorcing my wife, giving her the house and kids, and moving to Florida. You available? It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #63 July 31, 2003 IN before the lock. NEWS FLASH Bush is an idiot. Want proof? just wait. I just read this yesterday, the latest twist on fag marriage. It seem that because of a treaty with Canada, marriages legal in Canada are also legal by treaty in the US. Gay marrage is legal in Canada. So it looks like duba wants to plug holes. (no pun intended) blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #64 July 31, 2003 Why not just have a parallel civil union for homosexuals that is called something other than marriage. Then grant that union all the same rights as marriage. Then declare victory for all and go home DAMN GOOD POINT!!!!......... You should become an elected official hmmmm... wait a minute......never mind, you have too much common sense, wouldnt work....... It boggles my admittedly small mind that anyone cares what two consenting adults, regardless of gender do in their bedrooms....... RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #65 July 31, 2003 If same sex marriage is OK, then why not marriage of 3 or more persons? --> I would wholeheartedly endorse this.....if it was with Heather locklear and Skymama RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut 0 #66 July 31, 2003 QuoteIf same sex marriage is OK, then why not marriage of 3 or more persons actually i skydive with a guy that his father is a polygamist.. his father had up to 3 wives at a time.. he has 29 brother s and sister......... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #67 July 31, 2003 his father had up to 3 wives at a time.. ---> I now have a new hero RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #68 July 31, 2003 Quotehis father had up to 3 wives at a time.. ---> I now have a new hero Really? 3X the nagging? 3X the PMS (Probably all happens at once too)? Ha ha ha Give you 3 wives, and I bet you would not last 3 months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #69 July 31, 2003 QuoteQuotehis father had up to 3 wives at a time.. ---> I now have a new hero Really? 3X the nagging? 3X the PMS (Probably all happens at once too)? Ha ha ha Give you 3 wives, and I bet you would not last 3 months. probably not.......but when its good....its REALLY GOOD!!!! RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #70 July 31, 2003 QuoteThis is just me but, who gives a flying frig who other people sleep with. Harro.... I think all the guys who are so blatantly homophobic.. are really worried about.... why.... who the hell knows.. maybe they are not comfortable with thier own sexuality and have something in their past or their future they wish to hide from.... I for one.... prefer guys who are comfortable with themselves .. in thier own skin...and have confidence in their own sexuality. Amazon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #71 July 31, 2003 QuoteI would wholeheartedly endorse this.....if it was with Heather locklear and Skymama I'm with ya on this one Roy. I've been in love with Heather Locklear since her TJ Hooker days. She is hot, hot, hot!!! And skymama...I wouldn't know, she couldn't take time from her busy schedule while I was in Orlando for me to have the chance to check her out. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #72 July 31, 2003 QuoteOK, so at least you are consistent, but I think that advocates of same sex marriage will not want to admit that acceptance of polygamy should be included as a necessary part of the new deal. They know that support for same sex marriage will not be there if it is acknowledged what should also come with it, to be consistent. The general public will not support it. The general public may not know why they don't support it, but I think rejection of polygamy is a certainty-it may be an emotional reaction, but it is a powerful reaction. I'm not quite on board with your argument that advocating same-sex marriages also necessitates advocating polygamy. Why would this be inconsistent? Please explain further. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #73 July 31, 2003 Crap, he'll be suggesting a crusade to free the holy land from the yolk of the infadel's oppression next... oh wait............!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #74 July 31, 2003 QuoteI'm not quite on board with your argument that advocating same-sex marriages also necessitates advocating polygamy. Why would this be inconsistent? Please explain further. I understand him. The logic is, take religion out of the legal aspect of marriage. Make it a contractual agreement, not a religious bond. (If you still want that, fine, go to church and do it). So, if from a legal aspect, there are no religious influences on the contractual stipulations, what legal (non-religious) reason would there be to limit the agreement to only 2 parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DYEVOUT 0 #75 July 31, 2003 I have a curiosity question for this gay related thread. I don't hang around any fruits (that I'm aware of), so forgive my ignorance. I've noticed that most pairs of lezzies have at least one member that looks "butch" (sometimes borderline evil) - I'm thinking that one likely wears any "appliances", and acts as the "male" member of the pair. Do queer guy pairs have one more masculine, and one more feminine person? A good friend of mine has a seldom seen brother that's a fag, but both he and his "partner" act like regular guys (no prancing, etc...). Just curious. (15 year married hetero). ----------------=8^)---------------------- "I think that was the wrong tennis court." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
