Shotgun

How would that be done? Create some kind of Federal marriage certificate? I'm not sure. But I think that it may end up being something like the Loving v. Virginia SC case. Though it doesn't sound like the time is yet right for that. Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act would be a good start though, and is something that Obama has expressed support for. That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have.

The typical arguments apply to both, such as what goes on behind closed doors...it doesn't affect anyone else's marriage... OK, and those arguments apply to "regular" heterosexual marriages too. My marriage doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, and what goes on behind our closed doors is no one else's business. If polygamists want to use those arguments to sue for marriage rights, then they can, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal.

Perhaps, but I think that is rarely the case. Why? What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage? Aside from the marriage part, which polygamy also has in common with opposite-sex marriage. There is nothing right now to prevent polygamists from seeking marriage rights, and some probably are. However, it's a separate issue, and in the same-sex marriage debate, I think it only serves to cloud the argument.

I'm pretty sure I don't bring up slippery slopes when debating any issues. It's a stupid and useless argument technique that only prevents people from focusing on the actual issue at hand. (And if I do ever go off on the slippery slope thing, I hope that someone will point out my mistake to me, because it probably means that I am being irrational without realizing it. That does happen sometimes. )

One of the best movies ever made! I had never even heard of it, but I just added it to my Netflix queue.

If we allow opposite-sex couples to marry, do we next allow fathers to marry their daughters? It's a slippery slope, you know.

Fair enough. I used to feel that way too. And I guess I still don't think that marriage is all that important (as far as making a commitment to another person). But since it is a legal thing that is available to heterosexual couples, then I feel that it should be available to same-sex couples too.

Yep. A majority of Texans wanted discrimination to be written into the Texas Constitution. (With the exception of people in Travis County, of course - the only county that voted against it.) Do you think marriage in general is not important? Or do you just think it's not important for same-sex couples to be able to get married?

There was a vote on it in the 2005 Constitutional Amendment Election, along with eight other (unrelated) propositions. I believe it banned both same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions in Texas. Passed by a landslide.

Have you had the opportunity to vote for or against same-sex marriage? It looks like you're in Texas; did you vote on the amendment there that banned it? (Just curious.)

It's a sad song. But it's pretty.

I think that same-sex marriage and polygamy ARE separate issues and should be considered separately. They are similar issues, but one is dealing with two consenting adults (which makes it fairly easy to apply the current laws regarding opposite-sex marriage), and the other is dealing with more than two people (which adds some additional complications). As for the bigot/phobe label, I wouldn't personally apply that to anyone unless their reasons for being against same-sex marriage or polygamy seemed to stem from bigotry or phobia. I'm not really sure what to think of Obama's position on same-sex marriage. I get the impression that he thinks it should be legal but that he doesn't want to come out and say that since a large percentage of the country is still against it (typical politician), but I don't know. He definitely seemed more likely to move the country in (what I feel is) the right direction on this issue than McCain did, but I would prefer that he advocate making same-sex marriage legal at the federal level.

Hmm.... Well, I'd be so completely surprised that Rich actually had a diary/journal (totally out of character for him), that I'd be questioning whether I really knew him at all.... So I'd probably read at least a little bit of it. But I leave my journal out on my nightstand all the time, and I'll bet he's never even peeked inside. And now you've got me singing Bread.... "I found her diary underneath a tree . . ."

How would they have special rights? If same-sex marriage is legal, then it's legal for everyone - even heterosexuals. Because you have apparently made the choice to not get married.

OK, but that is a separate issue and one that the majority does not seem to be questioning. As it is right now, married people do have benefits that single people don't have (though single people can get married if they want those benefits - and the responsibilities that go along with them). So it is discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples to get married. (And I believe there is more to marriage than just legal benefits. I think the establishment of a family unit is a fundamental aspect of marriage.) But if your main issue is that married people receive benefits that single people don't get, voting against same-sex marriage will of course do nothing to change that.

Just curious... If the majority eventually decides that same-sex marriage should be allowed, will you be OK with it then?

Perhaps. But the odd thing is that I don't see much of an effort being made to do away with those benefits; I just see a huge effort being made to keep same-sex couples from having those benefits.

Wow. So you voted just to spite the San Francisco mayor, with no regard to the people who would actually be affected by your vote. Wow.

Hmm, I think I'm going to become a pastor.

I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional. I agree. And hopefully it will be repealed soon.

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Thanks to Bill Clinton for signing that one. Good thing that we've got people like him to protect the sanctity of marriage.

It is? I am an athiest. I got married by a man who was not affiliated with a religious group in any way at a casino in Las Vegas. Am I not married? Well, you're certainly a gambler where the house has the overwhelming odds. So, yes. I'm an atheist too. My marriage certainly has nothing to do with religion.

Hmm, your neighbors must not be too bright if they really thought that. That was one of the simplest propositions I've ever seen, and if someone couldn't understand what they were voting for on that one, then I shudder to think how they interpret some of the propositions that require actually reading multiple pages. I tried having discussions with people who were for Prop 8, but I could never get a logical answer. Lots of BS stuff about gay marriage being taught in schools, or about it ruining the sanctity of marriage (as if heterosexuals haven't already done that), but never an answer that actually made sense. And I'm usually pretty good about understanding all sides of an issue (whether I agree with them or not), but not this one.

Well go for the personal experience and report back to us..... Meow Here are some more pictures of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/toestubber/sets/72157594296440276/ (Interesting vending machine.) I don't think Hello Kitty is really my thing, but I do love the pink piano. Would have to take my favorite piano-playing sadist with me.

I just came across this one and had to share: The Hello Kitty Bondage Room I'm not really sure what to think about it.