interesting

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 1, 2003, 11:47 pm

hmm, I wonder what will be legal 30 years from now.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » December 2, 2003, 9:55 am

one count of criminal nonsupport of his 30 children in August 2001.

Wow, My dad had 9 brothers and sisters and I thought that was a big family.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 2, 2003, 1:02 pm

I don't really understand polygamy. If you want to live with, and bang, a bunch of chicks that's totally your call, but where is the need to bring marriage into it? I can't imagine that you can file joint taxes with 6 people or get (legal) healthcare for all of the spouses, and it's obviously frowned on by all or most religions, so where is the need for the ceremony?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 2, 2003, 1:14 pm

Sylvus wrote:I don't really understand polygamy. If you want to live with, and bang, a bunch of chicks that's totally your call, but where is the need to bring marriage into it? I can't imagine that you can file joint taxes with 6 people or get (legal) healthcare for all of the spouses, and it's obviously frowned on by all or most religions, so where is the need for the ceremony?

Why shouldn't they legally be able to? Aren't you one of the people who supports gay marriage? Why the hypocrisy?

Post by **Sylvus** » December 2, 2003, 1:33 pm

I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to, I was asking why they wanted to. In the case of gay marriages, I can see the motivation for wanting to be legally married for spousal healthcare and financial reasons.

But those things are set up for a partnership, and bringing 40 people into the mix between 5 spouses and 30 children seems to be stretching that a bit.

I have no real moral objections to either type of marriage. For that matter, no real moral objections to any decisions that any group of people willingly make concerning their own bodies/lives.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 2, 2003, 1:57 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Why shouldn't they legally be able to? Aren't you one of the people who supports gay marriage? Why the hypocrisy?

There are legal and financial issues involved with marrying multiple spouses that don't exist with gay marraige. there's also a ton of problems when the state ends up paying massive amounts of welfare for multiple spouses (most polygamists can't afford to pay for their wives and collect pogey to support it). It's an entirely different issue than gay marraige and comparing the two is like comparing child molestation to gay marraige because you're doing it in your own home. Of course a lot of bible beating baptist retards will be quick to compare homosexuality to pedophelia anyway, but whatever. They're all a bunch of stupid morons that need to be euthanized.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 2, 2003, 4:17 pm

Polygamy is so gay!

---------------

One difference between polygamy and gay marriage is that many times the females entering a polygamous marriage are hella young and don't have a clue what's going on. I suppose if a woman, 18 or older and of her own freewill, wants to shack up with a guy and his harem then more power to her.

Gays on the other hand, don't have an age/maturity issue. Their only issue is dealing with bible beating freaks. As with any marriage, age is a factor and is one of the few things that I believe an age limit is valuable in controlling the horrible divorce rate. People are idiots and will still make poor decisions but young individuals are much more prone to fucking a marriage decision up because of complete ignorance.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 2, 2003, 4:33 pm

The harmfulness of both polygamy and gay unions is that they're both an attack on the traditional model of a family unit.

I belive that the traditional model of a family with a male and female heading it produces the best citizens for any country.

It provides a social foundation.

Anytime we depart from that model, we embrace something less effective and ultimately harmful to the development of well rounded, and productive members of society.

On that secular ground I support laws that give traditional heterosexual marriage special tax breaks etc, as well as laws that discourage divorce, polygamy and gay unions.

I know that you guys would have to see some pretty good evidence to even consider this viewpoint. I'm not in a position to provide you that evidence other than to remind you of the hurt and problems caused by broken marriages.

We should protect the marriage model. It superglues nations together.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » December 2, 2003, 4:43 pm

I have no objections to it. If a guy can put up with all that extra PMSing, nagging, etc etc then by all means. I certainly wouldn't want to.

And to play to a steriotype even further...It probably takes that many wives to supply the same amount of sex as a girlfriend.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » December 2, 2003, 5:22 pm

how do gay marriage and polygamy directly correlate to the disgusting rate of divorce in this country?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » December 2, 2003, 5:41 pm

You know, this is an interesting thread, and someone please give Kyoukan a dictionary.

If we allow gay marriage then there is no reason not to allow polygamous marriage between consenting adults. The only reason to define a marriage as consisting of two people was that religion defined it as the standard, nothing else.

In terms of economics it would make a good deal of sense for a marriage to be 3 people now anyways, since it takes two incomes to have the standard of living our parents had in the 50's, and you then need a third person to act as homemaker and provide childcare.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » December 2, 2003, 5:46 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The harmfulness of both polygamy and gay unions is that they're both an attack on the traditional model of a family unit.

I belive that the traditional model of a family with a male and female heading it produces the best citizens for any country.

It provides a social foundation.

Anytime we depart from that model, we embrace something less effective and ultimately harmful to the development of well rounded, and productive members of society.

On that secular ground I support laws that give traditional heterosexual marriage special tax breaks etc, as well as laws that discourage divorce, polygamy and gay unions.

I know that you guys would have to see some pretty good evidence to even consider this viewpoint. I'm not in a position to provide you that evidence other than to remind you of the hurt and problems caused by broken marriages.

We should protect the marriage model. It superglues nations together.

I agree, but would add that the head of the househould should be the husband/father. If you go into a marriage with roles clearly defined, there will be less friction. I'm not saying that the wife/mother shouldn't have any say in the relationship, or that she should be "seen and not heard", I'm just saying that I agree that the traditional model works best.

Say what you want about religion, but it's the radicals who are screaming about their personal freedoms who "feel free" to do whatever they want without fear of retribution. It is that fear that keeps that average Joe from doing whatever the hell he wants, like stealing a car and mowing down a bunch of people in a park.

The farther society gets from religion, the worse off society is. So Kyoukan tries to call attention to herself by calling them "stupid morons that need to be euthanized", but in reality, she HAS to know that religion = structure, and without structure, there is nothing to prevent someone from just walking up and punching her in the face.

Of course when it is put that way, I'm tempted to argue against religion myself.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 2, 2003, 6:02 pm

Shaerra wrote:[The farther society gets from religion, the worse off society is. So Kyoukan tries to call attention to herself by calling them "stupid morons that need to be euthanized", but in reality, she HAS to know that religion = structure, and without structure, there is nothing to prevent someone from just walking up and punching her in the face.

Yes because I clearly stated in my post that I was referring to every person in the world that follows a religion and not the exact specific group that I mentioned, you stupid fucking waste of DNA. Flush yourself down the fucking toilet already you unfunny, trolling attention whore, because your gimmick is so fucking old now that I can hardly put it into words. DURR DURR BRACE YOURSELVES FOR BARELY COHERENT UNFUNNY REPLY THAT MAKES NO SENSE IN ACTUAL REALITY.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 2, 2003, 6:06 pm

Shaerra wrote:Say what you want about religion, but it's the radicals who are screaming about their personal freedoms who "feel free" to do whatever they want without fear of retribution. It is that fear that keeps that average Joe from doing whatever the hell he wants, like stealing a car and mowing down a bunch of people in a park.

The farther society gets from religion, the worse off society is.

That's preposterous. There is order and law without religion, and it's a fact that more people have died at the hands of someone who is screaming about allah, yaweh, zeus, odin, vishnu or l. ron hubbard than for any other reason.

Morality can exist independent of religion. Hell, it can thrive, as it doesn't have the politics of thousands of years ago still weighing it down like most religions do.

Religion does have its place though, it is a good way for authorities to subjugate the free will of the people. The opiate of masses, and such.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 2, 2003, 6:14 pm

The farther society gets from a STANDARD, the worse off it becomes.

Don't confuse religion with acceptable behavior.

And homosexual marriage and polygamy have nothing at all to do with one another.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 2, 2003, 6:14 pm

Adex: I understand that you addressed this in your post, but you were absolutely right. You cannot make the statement that you made without evidence. As it is, I (and anyone else, at least in a legal sense) am forced to say that I respect your views, but since they are provided with absolutely no argument, I am forced to consider them irrelevant.

You go on to discuss broken families, and the hurt caused by broken homes. My parents are divorced. It certainly hurt. I understand it.

Perhaps if I had been adopted by a loving gay couple, I would have had a healthy two-parent household, and I could have seen a loving relationship to serve as a model for my own.

I'm not saying that I'd rather have any parents besides my own (I love them), but the fact that they're both heterosexual certainly didn't help me grow up in a traditional family.

I fail to see how "broken homes" and "gay marriage" are related at all. Can you come up with statistics showing me that homosexual unions end in divorce more often than heterosexual unions?

Shaerra: Why exactly do you think that a family is better if a man is in charge? In what ways is it better? How do you define better?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 2, 2003, 6:30 pm

Religion has nothing to do with order. Laws keep the masses under control not because they are based on religion but because society as a whole decided that killing someone isn't very cool or taking someone else's stuff sucks.

Religion is an outdated method or shell for teaching a set of morals. Unfortunately, with religion comes a whole pile of extra crap that's unecessary.

You could just as easily have a menu selection:

1 Religion A
2. Moral Package A
3. Moral Package B
4. Moral Package C

I'm on the Plan B moral package. (sodomy is ok in that one)

With my new revised method of providing morals, you can easily meet people with the same ideas as yourself without all the religious hoopla.

A/S/F/Morals-B Come and get me!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » December 2, 2003, 7:07 pm

I find little weight in the traditional family marriage structure argument.

Think if we never changed the traditional husband/wife relationship.

Think about all that bullshit like a woman's job is in the kitchen, or at home with the kids, etc. etc. Women in this country didn't have rights, and we broke tradition to change that.

Now, I'm not saying Polygamy is great, and everyone should go out and get one. I'm saying that tradition can either be very beneficial, or very oppressive...don't get into the brainwashed mindset that any tradition is sacred and must be protected at all costs.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » December 2, 2003, 7:28 pm

It's funny. I've read the last few replies where the posters are acting as if laws were not made from religious fundementals.

Religion > simple "standards". You can have a huge group of people who have been told that swimming is forbidden, but unless they believe in their hearts that it is wrong, there is nothing to stop them from running into the ocean. There's no REASON to not swim. They will rationalize it as "Well, I know the rule is "No Swimming", but:
1. *I* don't think there's any good reason for that rule.
2. Swimming feels good. If it feels good, *I* do it.
3. They aren't the boss of *ME*

Society has become ME ME ME. I know what's best. I'm smarter than you. You can't tell me what to do! I'm my own person! Structure is boring. I don't like it. Etc...

Religion provides stability. (Period)

And before I hear it repeated ad nausiem, people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc... do not count, because they were freaks who used weak minded people to "do what they want" under PRETENSE of religion. They had no fundemental belief structure, they were radicals...they have more in common with some of the posters here than with a true religious leader.

As for why I believe that the male should be the head of the houshould, well. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. We're wired differently. We process things differently, and in my opinion, men are better equipped mentally to take the leadership role of the family. Traditionally, the male has been the dominant of the species...in almost every species, save black widows and I'm sure a few that I'm not aware of.

Call it a personal belief, the only thing I have to back it up is history.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 2, 2003, 7:32 pm

Religion co-opts societal standards and enforces them, yes. It does so through peer pressure and fear, both very effective.

The mistake you are making is assuming religion is a necessity to develop or enforce a standard of behavior. It most definitely is not.

Now we can discuss all the morals that modern religion has stolen from other sources....

but unless they believe in their hearts that it is wrong, there is nothing to stop them from running into the ocean

wrong, wrong, wrong

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2003, 7:33 pm

Shaerra wrote:As for why I believe that the male should be the head of the houshould, well. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. We're wired differently. We process things differently, and in my opinion, men are better equipped mentally to take the leadership role of the family. Traditionally, the male has been the dominant of the species...in almost every species, save black widows and I'm sure a few that I'm not aware of.

It's nice to see you take whatever is fed to you by the mass-media and accept it as reality. The most readily available evidence I have to refute this dribble is... every post Pilsburry has ever made.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » December 2, 2003, 7:39 pm

Truant wrote:Women in this country didn't have rights, and we broke tradition to change that.

See, this is where I get confused. Tradition was changed, and women now have rights out the ass.

Explain to me how society has become better because of it.

So I traded an increase in muggings, rapes and murder for the right to vote? Rah!

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2003, 7:47 pm

Shaerra wrote:See, this is where I get confused. Tradition was changed, and women now have rights out the ass.

Explain to me how society has become better because of it.

So I traded an increase in muggings, rapes and murder for the right to vote? Rah!

Even you, I expect far less myopic viewpoints from. I'm not TRYING to pick on you right now, but do you honestly hear yourself?

I firmly believe that society is a better place because women and men have equal rights under the law (except for in some rare circumstaces where stupid laws still exist). Traditional gender roles are stupid, and if still in place would have stopped many, many women from realizing their full potential. The notion that womens suffrage, and the legislature that's come from it is in some manner detrimental to our society is laughable at best.

Edit: Clarity.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » December 2, 2003, 7:58 pm

Shaerra wrote:Explain to me how society has become better because of it.

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Do you really think that the only thing that came out of the women's rights movement was the right to vote?

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » December 2, 2003, 8:01 pm

Ok, pull out the Shatner-like over-acting.

Fall on the floor, clutching your chest saying "Lamont, it's the big one!"

Go on national tv, and talk about shock and awe.

You talk about believing everything that's spoon-fed to you by the media. Tell me how hard women of the 40's, 50's had it. Tell me about how they felt oppressed. How they felt stiffled. How they yearned for equal rights. How their life felt incomplete, pre-women's lib.

Then go talk to your grandmother and find out the truth. That things WEREN'T bad. That life WAS good for young women of the time. Society is changing, and NOT for the better. Say what you will about how you "firmly believe" this or that, but the truth is, society is getting worse and worse, and it is BECAUSE of radical change. As I said, society has become all about ME ME ME. "I WANT" is what is causing society to break down. And it's across ALL religions, and ALL countries. Society is declining globally. Change ISN'T always good.

If it feels good, do it, right? That makes it ok. I'm calling bullshiton that mentality.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » December 2, 2003, 8:17 pm

never mind

Shaerra, goddamn though

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » December 2, 2003, 8:22 pm

I blame MTV for the decline of american youth & society!

seriously. sorta

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2003, 8:39 pm

Shaerra wrote:Ok, pull out the Shatner-like over-acting.

Fall on the floor, clutching your chest saying "Lamont, it's the big one!"

Go on national tv, and talk about shock and awe.

You talk about believing everything that's spoon-fed to you by the media. Tell me how hard women of the 40's, 50's had it. Tell me about how they felt oppressed. How they felt stiffled. How they yearned for equal rights. How their life felt incomplete, pre-women's lib.

Then go talk to your grandmother and find out the truth. That things WEREN'T bad. That life WAS good for young women of the time. Society is changing, and NOT for the better. Say what you will about how you "firmly believe" this or that, but the truth is, society is getting worse and worse, and it is BECAUSE of radical change. As I said, society has become all about ME ME ME. "I WANT" is what is causing society to break down. And it's across ALL religions, and ALL countries. Society is declining globally. Change ISN'T always good.

If it feels good, do it, right? That makes it ok. I'm calling bullshiton that mentality.

I'm not overreacting. Your view IS myopic whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you're about as wrong as you've ever been on these boards. I can also honestly say that I'm shocked to see this viewpoint come from you of all people.

I'll address what you're trying to say as succinctly and with as much respect for your viewpoint as possible.

1. You say society is getting worse - Agreed.

2. You say society is all about Me, Me, Me - Agreed.

3. You say that pre women's lib, women didn't have it so bad - I see your point and will concede that a lot of women probably didn't, but enough did that they felt womens rights, suffrage, etc. were worth fighting for. Last I checked, you and I weren't alive then, so I personally don't really feel like I'm in a position to comment. For the record, MY grandmother was working back then as a substitute teacher.

4. You attempt to reason that points 1 and 2 are somehow directly related to point 3 - I disagree vehemently that the freedoms given to women during the womens are a contributing factor to your preceding arguments. The stifling of the individuality, and expression of women in general was not what was holding society together. Saying that it is, or even alluding to it is preposterous.

I personally believe that the problems with todays society have more to do with overcrowding and bad parenting which is largely due to an errosion in the value systems of people nationwide. It's about haves and have nots, it's about a lack of ethics, and integrity in people in general. It's about doing the easy thing instead of the right thing. It's a long assed discussion.

We could list reasons why society is declining for days. The breakdown of the family unit is certainly the most likely one. We live in a society of excuses, attention deficit disorders (more excuses), and the constant need for instant gratification. It's a sad state of affairs, and I certainly don't have the answers for how to fix all the problems there are.

Religion is fine for some people, but I know plenty of people who are in no way religious, but have a ton of integrity, honor, respect, morality, and are law-abiding, hardworking citizens. If religion can keep the masses in line than so be it, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Edit: Typing > Me

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 2, 2003, 8:48 pm

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their opinions.

I understand that from a secular viewpoint that you want empirical
evidence.

Unfortunately, research done to support a hypothesis such as mine carries a strong taboo in today's society. Socialoligists fear being ostracized by their peers.

Given that scarecity of academic work to draw from I'm left to draw from my personal experience.

I've seen divorce. I've seen society cheapen the commitment of marriage down to the level of steady dating. It seems nowadays that if "you" aren't happy, you have full licence to get a divorce regardless of the people you hurt in the process.

The biographies of our nation's worst members are laced with the sad display of broken homes, due to selfish parents.

Divorce has scarred my family. Divorce has scarred my friends.

Marriage needs to be treated more seriously.

Single parents and gay folks I'm sure do an admirable job, but it is not the best situation for raising a kid.

A kid needs a mom and a dad.

As far as polygamy, No man and his four wives can form a bond as tight, as that of one man and one woman, tenaciously committed to each other.

I support freedom that allows people live as they choose,... right up until it starts damaging marriage. From that point on, other people suffer for the sake of unrestrained freedom.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 2, 2003, 8:57 pm

Un fucking believable.

I mean the leaps between cause and effect on this thread are astonishing.
Gay marriages cause divorce!
Radicals destroyed God!
Abnormality is eroding society!
Our new understanding of the differences between the sexes means we must turn back the clock to 1950!
Sufragettes resposible for increase in rape!

Fuck me sideways. I'm stoned off my gourd and YOU lot are the fucking weirdos.

But everyone has something different to blame for the "downfall of society" yet the symptoms vary depending on who you ask. Rose tinted nostalgia can fuck off. Yeah people were more polite 40 years ago but there were less of them cos they died of TB and stomach ulcers. Women were just as abused but there was more suffering in silence and "family problems".
If you want my list of shit to blame here it is:
1) The moral bankruptcy of a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
2) Fucked education. THIS is the cornerstone of "society" IMO (there is no society btw. Margaret Thatcher said so. We're all just individual economic units so watch TV, pay your taxes and stfu k?)

That's about it. Sorry I can't blame them radicals or the couple of hundred gay marriages likely to happen. I'll keep my fingers crossed the birth rate doesn't plunge in this new permissive age though.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » December 2, 2003, 8:59 pm

1. You say society is getting worse - Agreed.

2. You say society is all about Me, Me, Me - Agreed.

Actually I wonder how people can draw this conclusion? As a whole, we live longer, healthier lives than at any other point in recorded history. The average citizen has more freedom to choose how they want to live their lives. Are there negative influences in society? Sure there are, but greed, disease and aberrant behaviours (such as murders and robbery) have existed since the dawn of recorded history (even in the bible there are stories of events such as when Joseph was beaten and discarded by his jealous brothers).

I personally believe that the problems with todays society have more to do with overcrowding and bad parenting which is largely due to an errosion in the value systems of people nationwide. It's about haves and have nots, it's about a lack of ethics, and integrity in people in general. It's about doing the easy thing instead of the right thing. It's a long assed discussion.

I agree with some of this. In the end it IS a long assed discussion because its a complex issue/series of issues. Too complex IMO to be solved by saying something like an absence of religion is the problem.

Edit reading comp > my skimming skilz

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 2, 2003, 9:03 pm

Tanc you're assuming things of me that I've not said.

I do not belive that we today are worse than we were 50 years ago.

I think the amount of evil in the world has been constant throughout the years.

There's always been good folks and bad folks.

I hear you say prove it. I already recognise that there is nothing I could provide you to change your mind. Strong opinions are seldom swayed.

Rather than performing the theatrics of flabbergasting let us just look at each other and say, "perspective noted."

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 2, 2003, 9:09 pm

Nah I'll just call you all weird one more time and call it a night

To be fair I think several of the things said by you and Shaerra hold water but the conclusions you then jump to just beggar belief.
Not that I believe

miir · Post by **miir** » December 2, 2003, 9:40 pm

If we allow gay marriage then there is no reason not to allow polygamous marriage between consenting adults.

I don't quite see the correlation between homosexuality and polygamy.
Elaborate.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 2, 2003, 10:14 pm

Holy shit. I'm amazed by what has gone on in this thread.

Shaerra, how can you honestly state that society is declining? Look through history. While war still exists and occurs, it is both less violent and less frequent than in the past.

Civil Rights are at an all time high. More people throughout the word have the freedom to speak as they please, practice religion as they please, gather in public as they please, and so on. You seem to view this as a negative, which I think is mindboggling.

Poverty also still exists, but more and more people are being fed. More and more people are being educated.

Dramatic advances in medicine enable us to live longer, healthier lives. Democracy has spread throughout the world at greater rates than ever before.

Sure, divorce rates are rising. But on the plus side, there are fewer couples staying together in a miserable union because of some outdated social convention. While I agree that marriage should be entered and exited very seriously, I can't help but think of a woman divorcing her abusive husband, or a husband divorcing his cheating wife as anything but a positive.

You astutely point out that people are greedy. This is correct. People have always been greedy. People have always been disrespectful of the law and authority. What about the hippies? What about the zoot-suiters? The examples are endless. If anything, better law enforcement techniques have improved compliance with the law.

What evidence do you prevent to show that society is in a stage of decline? Why were we better off during the Great Depression? Why were we better off when the Nazi's were trying to take over the world?

You claim that you cannot see a way that society has improved because of the women's rights movement. Can you see any way that society has improved because of the civil rights movement? Are we better off now that minorities have achieved equal rights under the law? If so, how are the two situations different?

Does any of this make sense?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 2, 2003, 10:23 pm

you forgot about massive leaps forward taken in education, travel, economic health and cultural understanding.

but the world is going to shit because women are a little more equal now than they were in the 50s.

no, wait:

I'm almost done.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » December 2, 2003, 11:59 pm

I guess you like the title i gave you

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » December 3, 2003, 12:23 am

Where did the commonly held notion that the world is in a state of decline come from? Is it the whole Christian Millennial business, where things get worse and worse until Jebus comes back to set things straight?

Folks, there is no decline. There is simply change.

There is no halcyon past. There's only an ever-changing stream of events.

Humany has overrun this planet in large part because we learned to adapt to change. When I hear Bob the Baptist yelling: "The sky is falling!" I only hear an inability to adapt and thank the power(s) that be that natural selection is not on his side.

Mippy

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » December 3, 2003, 1:33 am

I'm not going to take any big leaps here or say anything stupid like Gay marriage causes divorce... that's just some homophobe moron speaking who can't understand why his wife left him. It probably has nothing to do with the fact that he never was at home, never helped and slept around... go figure.

What I will say though is that whether anyone "likes" it or not men and women ARE different. That dose not mean that a "women's place is in the home" necessarily and that a man's place is at work. Just like my arguements about Homosexuality I belive everything is a continum. Based on my life expereince, which includes counseling, psychological research, religion, business experience and parenthood all funnelled through my own world view - it's those differences that make us strong.

It's funny that in the 60s and 70s many girls grew up hearing they could do everything a man could do, and possibly better. As these girls became women they got jobs, had very successful careers and proved those arguements right. The problem is that now many of those same women are beginning to realize they missed out on something while trying to conqure the opposite. Something uniquely female and some would say the most rewarding thing in the world... motherhood.

Do I think women need to stay home with the kids? I think that should be their decision and not some jerk-off shrinks (whether that be a male or female jerk-off).

I do think men need to lead the household. Why? Not necessarily because they are stronger but because in some ways we are weaker. While some men, remember I'm talking about a continum or range, seem to have some of the same instincts as women in regards to childern, in my expereince many do not. Leading the household, helping to make the decision may be the way to keep some men's frgile ego in check and keep them more a part of the family they created. This could be the reason the Bible says what it does, who knows... I do know that our patricial society has twisted those words for almost a thousand years to help keep themselves in power... wouldn't it be ironic if the true reason was one of weakness and not power.

Of course many "Christians" probably wouldn't agree with me on that... they probably, like the Southern Baptist Convention, belive the Bible says women are in some ways inferior. That's crock, in the early Church it was the women who ran many of the local churches because they were less suspicious than men in authorities view.

As Voronwe has pointed out many times before... I can ramble. If anyone cares I can provide verses to prove my point but many won't and it's late so I won't go there...

Where I will end though is that men and women are different but equil. That is what everything in my life has taught me. I think we should glorify those difference rather than shun them or make anyone feel like that have to fit a certain mold to be a "good person." The idiot who with the court case in the original post falls into the same sue happy category as those fat morons suing McDonalds... don't have time to deal with him.

Marb

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 3, 2003, 9:42 am

Something I quote to my wife (and get slapped for everytime) is King Solomon was blessed with over 200 wives, and King David was blessed with over 50. If polygamy was a bad thing, why would the bible use the word *blessed*. ANSWER ME ADEX! I really would like to know where in history it became such a crime because back then, marriages were like children, you had as many as you could afford, should be the same way now.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 3, 2003, 10:05 am

miir wrote:
If we allow gay marriage then there is no reason not to allow polygamous marriage between consenting adults.
I don't quite see the correlation between homosexuality and polygamy.
Elaborate.

Think they were just quoting or brainwashed by some of Bill O'Reilly's shows. He was also asking about what about if a person wanted to marry a plant. We couldn't deny them that right either!

It's 1 person and 1 person. That I can agree with gay or straight. Personally I don't know enough about the history of the anti-Polygamy laws to know what sparked it being originally banned in the US.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 3, 2003, 10:05 am

miir wrote:
If we allow gay marriage then there is no reason not to allow polygamous marriage between consenting adults.
I don't quite see the correlation between homosexuality and polygamy.
Elaborate.

You have managed to correlate homosexuality and gay marriage in this quote. Homosexuality and polygamy have nothing to do with one another on the surface. Gay marriage and polygamy do as they are both non-traditional marriages. Personally, I don't believe either should be valid. There are a hell of a lot more instances of polygamy throughout religions and historical references than gay marriages though, so why not allow polygamy? Is one more wrong or right than the other? If it is just about money then why are you arguing against it? I can go back and show each of your own responses that are entirely hypocritical.

I hate to say I told you so, but I said this would happen when the Supreme Court made it's decision initially. You don't have to be Nostradamus to have seen this coming and it will not be the last non-traditional marriage argument to be made. When the Supreme Court sticks their nose into something it should not be involved in, the ramifications will grow way out of control. Any good lawyer is going to be able to use that Supreme Court decision as a basis to allow their client to marry whoever or whatever they want.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 3, 2003, 10:46 am

I hate to say I told you so, but I said this would happen when the Supreme Court made it's decision initially

And I still say "so fucking what?".
If gays want to "marry" then let them. Doesn't hurt anyone or anything. Gay couples that want to marry are as much a "threat to the fabric of society" married or not. How many gay marrieges will there be compared to hetero? The proportion will be tiny.
Polygamy? Same deal. Who gives a shit? How many people will want to practice polygamy? A tiny percentage. And they'll still be breeding (unless it's Gaymalygomy or wtf ever) so society's "fabric" will be unmolested.
If a few hundred dickheads want to marry plants then let them. I will laugh and pay no more attention.

All you Christians (and it IS all christians here who are complaining) just seem to have a bug up your arses about the word "marriage". If it was agreed that the rights, benefits and the WORD "Marriage" was reserved for committed hetero couples only, and we use something like "Morriage", or "Permenant nonreligious lifebond" (lol) to cover everything else would you be happier? Cos it really seems like it's just the "holy matrimony" thing that has you all bent out of shape.
Or do you really just want rigid definitions and an "if it isn't forbidden it's compulsory and vice versa" situation?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 3, 2003, 11:19 am

I'm Jay, and this is my hetero lifemate, Silent Bob.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 3, 2003, 11:38 am

Heh I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist that quote

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 3, 2003, 11:48 am

Sueven wrote: Sure, divorce rates are rising. But on the plus side, there are fewer couples staying together in a miserable union because of some outdated social convention. While I agree that marriage should be entered and exited very seriously, I can't help but think of a woman divorcing her abusive husband, or a husband divorcing his cheating wife as anything but a positive.

This is so on the money, it hurts that people don't see it. People have been trashing the "sanctity" of marriage long before divorces were occuring on a regular basis.

Shae, seriously, this whole, "woman's place is in the home" thing, is humorous at times, but ignorant as hell when you're serious. I'm really sorry that your employment ambitions aren't set very high, but you are, rapidly, becoming the anomaly, not the other way around. This isn't because they never wanted it, it was because they couldn't do it. And what the fuck does any of this have to do with women who get raped or whatever it was you rambled out?

On the topic, gay marriage doesn't effect you, so get over it. Poligamy doesn't effect you, however, it's more easily abused from a fiscal perspective.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 3, 2003, 12:05 pm

Shaerra - How old are you? Do you know anything about the real world? Because your views look like those of a teenager who has never been laid. Saying women were better off when they were being put down and oppressed is just flabbergasting. I just don't know how to respond to such a stupid comment. My wife would kick your ass halfway around the block and then some and she is a very non-violent person. If I told my wife that I am the boss now and I should lead the family, she would kick my ass again and she would be totally within her rights to do so. Marriage isn't the bible version anymore. It is a partnership and vow to love one another and SHARE life together. Not be a slave.

As for the woman staying home with the kids, that is a decision the couple has to make. In many cases it is more convenient for the wife to stay home because of breastfeeding but I would love to stay home full time with my future children. Unfortunately it probably won't happen because I make more money than my wife and her job as a nurse is much more flexible.

As for gay marriage and polygamy. I don't think it is any of the government's business what people want to do in their own private homes. Obviously there will be freaks with 6 wives all sitting on welfare but chances are those women would be on welfare anyway. The guy in prison for polygamy should not be in prison for polygamy. He SHOULD be in prison for raping a 13 year old girl though. There has never been any proof that gay marriages will cause the downfall of society like the bible-thumpers are all claiming. Most gays I have known are really not that different from average heterosexuals. If a heterosexual can't stay married then how the fuck can we tell gays that they can't.

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » December 3, 2003, 1:01 pm

Then go talk to your grandmother and find out the truth. That things WEREN'T bad. That life WAS good for young women of the time. Society is changing, and NOT for the better.

MY grandmother divorced her husband when my dad and his sister were very young because my grandfather was an abusive alcoholic. They had to live below the poverty line while she worked multiple jobs to raise them.

If she were alive today I highly doubt she would have anything bad to say about all the rights woman have now.

Yes society might be a little worse off today than it was 50 years ago, but don't act like everything used to be perfect in the "good ol' days". We have also made a lot of advancements in society, I can list examples if you have trouble grasping that concept.

I think its wonderful that women can get a good education, become any profession they want, vote, and aren't pressured to marry at 18 so they can have a man "take care" of them (unless you are mormon

).

Just because you are 25-30, not married and have to work for a living doesn't mean its societys fault.

What about the civil rights that were going around the same time for African Americans? I suppose that made society worse as well?

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » December 3, 2003, 1:02 pm

Sylvus wrote:It's a fact that more people have died at the hands of someone who is screaming about allah, yaweh, zeus, odin, vishnu or l. ron hubbard than for any other reason.

If you take the time to include the tens of millions butchered by prominent atheist Josef Stalin, and the tens of millions butchered by prominent atheist Mao, it turns out that atheists are responsible for so much more wholesale slaughter in the world's history that it's not even worth comparing to anything or anyone else, if your talking about outright killing people. The truth is that people with black hearts do what they want to do and use whatever means that brought them to power to see their will done. They don't really care.

I would still say famine and disease are bigger contributor's to the death rate.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 3, 2003, 1:54 pm

I'll admit that I don't really know the impetus behind Stalin or Mao killing so many people, did their atheism come into play? Were they killing any people because of those peoples' religious beliefs? If so, I'd chalk some of those up to religion being the motivation.

While I have no numbers to back me up, I still feel like religious beliefs were the major factor in much of the killing in history. Biblical wars, the conquest of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, suicide bombers, abortion doctor murders, the list goes on and on... At any rate, I think the point was well enough established that religion is not, in fact, the greatest deterrent to murder.