Shotgun

I bet if we spent some time seriously considering making marriage the sole domain of the churches, we'd discover all sorts of problems with that. For one thing, assuming a couple got married in the church but didn't get the legal civil union, what happens if they split up? I'm guessing that the law might get involved at that point, especially if the couple had children. I don't know. And I don't think there is a large number of people who even want to get the government out of the business of marriage. No one seemed to be complaining about the government being involved in marriage until same-sex marriage became a high-profile issue. If it was such a sacred thing to these religious folks, why haven't they been trying to get the government out of it all along?

I don't talk on the phone much at all. But I did recently get a headset for my cell phone, which encourages me to use it a little bit more, since I can actually DO something while talking.

You should see the shirts that La Raza members are wearing now! (pic attached)

The customer images for that shirt are great too: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000NZW3IY/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

While this might be a good idea, I don't see it happening any time soon, especially since there seems to be no major efforts to get government out of the business of marriage. So as long as we continue to have legal marriages, I believe that they should be available to same-sex couples too. And I don't think that the government is denying anyone freedom to their religious beliefs by allowing _legal_ same-sex marriages. People are still free to believe that (religious) marriage is between a man and a woman, and they will never be forced to marry someone of the same sex. It's sort of like alcohol. Some religions do not permit the consumption of alcohol, yet our government has decided it should be legal. Does the fact that the government has gotten into the business of alcohol (taxing it and making it legal with certain restrictions) mean that they are infringing on the rights of people whose religions do not permit alcohol? I don't think so, since those people still have a personal choice in the matter.

That's pretty funny. I think I may have to get one of those shirts for Rich.

Thanks, Chuck. Five pages into the thread, and finally someone is explaining _why_ he thinks she is a racist (other than that one quote, which I think is open to interpretation).

Oh. I didn't understand that from the original post. If this is the case, then my guess is that - as a couple - they are not good candidates for the 3-way thing (either way). Well, unless the "two women" thing is also a fantasy of hers, but it doesn't sound like it is.

OK, she said this one thing that might be racist. Reading it in context, I'm not sure exactly what she meant, so I'm not sure whether it is racist or not. But let's just assume that it is. So now we've got one piece of evidence to back up the title of this thread. What else have we got?

Funny, when I saw the title of this thread, I wondered if it was going to be about Jackson Pollock. But when I clicked on the picture, I had no idea who the artist was. And I'll agree that it's art that I'm not interested in.

I'll bet that is the same speech you give to couples considering doing a tandem, isn't it? Hmm, no..... My speech I give to couples considering doing a tandem is, "Hell no! Stay away from those freaks! They will ruin your marriage and drink all of your beer!"

I love the irony of this. Hmm, yeah, I guess I'll give up on trying to have a conversation there. It doesn't seem to be working.

Well, I think that the couples who bring 3rd parties into their beds are exceptions to begin with. And I think we're all more likely to hear about the ones that don't work out than the ones that do - drama and all that. I don't know. It certainly has the potential to go horribly wrong, but it also has the potential to make them closer - if it's something that they are both truly interested in and OK with. Personally, most of my experiences with jealousy have had little or nothing to do with actual sex.

Sounds reasonable to me, if it's something that they both really want to do - not just one agreeing to do it because the other really wants to. I'm sure they both realize that there are risks involved, so I guess they just have to decide if they think it will be worth it.

So you think that same-sex marriage should be legal, and you would vote that way?

From what I've been reading in this thread, Mike said his only problem with same-sex marriage was use of the word "marriage," and he claimed that millions of people agree with him. This would imply that they are all assuming ownership of a word, and I believe this is what jakee is referring to as petty. (I don't personally agree with Mike - that millions of people are against same-sex marriage just because of the word, but that was my understanding of what he said.) And I'm curious.... What is your actual position on same-sex marriage? Do you think it should be legal or not? (I understand that you don't think they are being discriminated against, but that's not what I'm asking here.)

Regarding the visitation rights, I admittedly have very little experience with hospitals (thankfully!), but from what I have seen, it appears that spouses do have more extensive visitation rights than non-family. When my husband was injured, I was pretty much allowed to be with him in the hospital wherever he was, at any time (short of going into surgery with him). I was able to sleep in the same room with him every night while he was there, and I was able to make decisions for him and sign papers, etc. when necessary. But when a friend of mine was in a very similar situation with her boyfriend (not married), she was only allowed to see him during the hospital's "visiting hours." And of course she was not allowed to make any decisions for him or anything like that. Anyhow, I don't know if that is representative of the system in general, but it makes me think that a non-married same-sex partner would likely have less visitation rights in a hospital setting than a legally-married same-sex partner would.

I agree. Yet, thirteen years later, and there it still is. And same-sex couples who are legally married in any of the states that allow it still don't have their marriages recognized by the federal government or by most other states. (At least, not that I'm aware of.)

You know, this always comes up in these debates. And there seems to be a lot of people who believe homosexuality is a choice, but I've yet to get any of these people to explain to me how they themselves chose their own sexual orientation.

slide by without a single howl of outrage ??? You mean there are no currently 'big-boned' ex-'popular cheerleaders' out there in the diving community (small as it is) ... I'll register my outrage for you .... consider it registered.... I was a cheerleader for a couple of years, but now I'm 37 and about 110 lbs. I must have been freakin' tiny back then though, because I tried to put on my old cheerleading skirt a while back and couldn't even get it over my hips. As for the reunion thing, I ended up quitting school and getting my GED, so I don't know if I'm welcome at the class reunions. (I guess my 20th would have been this year!) It's sort of been on my mind lately though, since I've been talking to old school friends on facebook who I had lost touch with. It would be sort of funny to meet up with them all again. You should go, Lisa!

What is your reason for calling her a racist? Is it that one quote that JohnRich posted, or is there more to it?

ABSOLUTELY no special benefits should accrue to anyone in a 'special' arrangement of any kind. Treat all individuals.....individually It might be a good idea, but I think the reality is that it's just not going to happen. I don't see any serious effort or proposition to do away with legal marriages. So, as long as we do have government in the business of marriage, I think it needs to be as fair as possible.

Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions. Perhaps, if the DOMA was repealed.

Hey, I never saw any naked people while playing spin the bottle. Was I playing it wrong???

I disagree. I don't think that allowing same sex marriage will create any more of a precedent regarding polygamy than the current marriage laws do. But it sounds like we're just going to have to disagree about that. OK, I'd probably agree with that (assuming we're just talking about polygamy here). But I think each issue needs to be considered separately. As I mentioned before, same-sex marriage would be pretty easy to incorporate into our current marriage laws. Allowing polygamy would introduce new complications (taxes, inheritance, etc.) that would need to be settled.