Oh theres no reason to get crochity. I'm trying to come to the point of what constitutes marriage in your mind.

because "its a bond" isn't its actual definition, and saying that is only responding to the *** marriage issue. I didn't know you'd need to do research for your own definitions.

I agree with that, but I don't think thats what conservatives are going to say, except for the child rearing point.

Alejo being a conservative, I'm looking for his definition.

Loving the Big3 /adidasss exchange. :laughing:

Are we ready for another showdown thread for you two guys?


LETS GET READY TOOOOO...RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLE.

The best thing about it is I think they're basically on the same side of the debate but still finding things to argue about. That's craftsmanship!

What the hells the point of beat him again? He's not literate enough to know he's getting demolished.

I'm failing to see what a personal definition of "marriage" has anything to do with equality under the law.

Jesus christ.

Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy.

I mean, you do think if we allow *** marriage, we're going to have to let the morons be morons again...right?

You really need to proofread some of the **** you type.

Why the **** do I need to figure out what marriage is? It's already defined by law. The big decision is whether or not we need to change the law and redefine marriage under the law.

The reasoning for redefining it would be to provide homosexuals equal protection under the law. What I'm stating is that if we are going to redefine to provide this protection/right to homosexuals, why are polygamists excluded from being equally protected as well?

no but it's certainly biological in nature to desire to have relationships with multiple people.

monogamy isn't for everyone. people blame rising divorce rates on everything from cohabitation to illiteracy, but the sad fact is that we're living in a world self-deceived by notions of monogamy and love everlasting. the role of a polygamist (in the non-mysoginistic sense) is just searching for the justification of these natural evolutionary inhibitions.

so yes, i would consider it an apt analogy.

You sounds like adidasss now, if you can't read it say so. But I'm inclined to think it isn't my spelling when you write things like "why do I need to think? the law tells me what it is."

The law is relativly new. So someone elses definition was just made "the law." which removes all historical steep, as well as well debated policy. It was voter mandate. Saying we're going to redefine the law makes it sound like we're going against nature. We're not.

What i want to know is why you're making a case of polygamy. Do you want them to have rights?

When someone says, why can't people choose who they want to marry, your response is "why can't we marry multiple people?"

Quit dodging the god damned bullet and eat it like a man. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

For christ's sake has this place gone mad? Are you suggesting people who sleep around want to make those people their wives or husbands?

no, and i clearly never said that. my point was merely that yes, it is biological in nature.

but we're talking about Marriage, not ****ing around. It was completly off topic.

listen you cantankerous vag, i was responding to Ethan's comment about the relevance of an analogy to polygamy.

lol, fair play.

wow, just... wow.

I actually laughed at that line.

:rofl:
Golden.

Sounds sort of green to me.

And moist in all the wrong ways.

Polygamists obviously do.

It doesn't MATTER if I want polygamists to have rights, it's whether they DESERVE rights UNDER THE LAW. That's the whole question to this. There are certainly people that don't want homosexuals to have rights, it's a matter of whether they deserve these rights under the law.

If someone asked me, "Why can't people choose who they want to marry?", I'd probably answer "It's not legal to do so."

You are bringing your personal opinions into a legal discussion.

And since you mentioned it....

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

I have no idea what this means. It uses horrible English, horrible sentence structure, horrible grammar, and makes little to no sense. I'd love to hear what college you graduated from and what you studied, I don't believe it for a second.

Ultimately I think every motivation out there feels it deserves rights, and at some point the rest of the people feel those rights would be at odds with their own moral codes, but who's the authority that decides which perspectives are correct?
It's easy to look at everything in a law book perspective, but I think the whole jumblefuck behind it all is a matter of all of society trying to assert their ideals and everyone not agreeing.
If you think that's going to change any time soon, then you may as well start thinking everyone involved in this debate on MB will suddenly come to a unified understanding and we'll run out of shit to disagree about.

Anyway, I didn't mean that to be an argumentative point.
Just making a statement and retiring from this debate, because it obviously won't go anywhere.

I didn't find that sentence hard to understand at all, and as far as I can tell the only thing that would need to be done to it to make it more grammatically correct would be to replace the first and third commas with em-dashes.

That's the point I've been trying to show Big3 through the example but it's flying over his head. Where we draw the line of who gets rights and who doesn't is not an easy decision.

That's why we're having these discussions and why there's a debate on the issue, but I think what big3 was trying to say (and which I understood oddly enough, but I'm high so maybe that's it) is that regarding homosexuality, there already is or should be a reasonable (not-religion based) consensus that gay people should be allowed to marry. The problem with polygamy is similar because there's a moral objection to the marriages, but excluding that, there's only the practical matter to be addressed (I only assume that people who are for gay rights would be supportive of all people's rights and thus reach a similar consensus regarding polygamy), whether or not such relationships could be admitted into the institution of marriage without completely dismantling it.

Hope some of that will make sense in the morning...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...wer/dreamy.gif

i don't know what conservative white people are so afraid of but i hope it happens

Yeah I guess I did miss the point because I assumed you had an actual argument rooted in reality here as opposed to a fictitious point which doesn't really go anywhere beyond it's own stating.

Right, or maybe some parentheticals. So for example...

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is (and by the by, let me know when you do) you'll agree that there's a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

My comma's were admittedly incorrect. Though I can't imagine that a VT alumn such as yourself couldn't read comma's as a break.

As I read adidasss's comment, I think Alejo and I are arguing two different points. I could be wrong, but I believe he's talking about the court and their decision to uphold Proposition 8. As I stated earlier, I think the court made the correct decision in upholding the voter mandate. I also mentioned that if there was to be any animosity toward the outcome of Proposition 8, it ought to be toward the lack of voter participation in California. That outrage should be not just for California, but for the nation because of the far reaching ramifications it would have.

I think Alejo and I are on the same page with at least the court ruling.

What I've been arguing is the rationale behind the Proposition. Every time I've heard a conservative define it, they've said something like (as I said earlier) "Marriage is defined between a man and a woman."

This was said constantly at the first Republican Presidential Candidate debate. What I'm asking for clarification on is this; it seems as if their using the word marriage to define marriage.

I guess i'm having a hard time getting my point across, but the reason I was asking you (alejo) for a definition is because I don't know what the position of conservatives is.

If someone were to ask me what marriage was in a general sense, I'd say most people would think its "The unity of two people in the eyes of God". I have no issue with that definition on its own, but I don't believe that should be the legal precedent on the books to restrict *** marriage.

I want to know if that's your definition, conservatives definition, if theres another one. That's what I've been trying to get at.

I honestly don't believe the government should play any role in regulating what the definition of "marriage" is and who should be allowed to get married.

Definition: The bond between a man and a woman recognized by their respective church in which these two people acknowledge their commitment to one another in order to form a family and to create a household environment to have and rear a child

The problem exists [imo] in those for *** marriage want it as a form of social acceptance which has often been fought for by this community. Those against want to protect a "sacred" ritual that has long been done by the church. I don't believe the government should play in choosing the sides of this argument. I find it particularly funny from both sides. I'm not *** so maybe I can't fully understand that side, and I believe the church should pay much less attention to what happens in secular law.

Yeah you completely missed it again.

Yeah then I'm not getting your point. You said we're all equal under the law because no one can have same-sex marriage. I said that I disagree with that logic because it makes the assumption that heterosexual marriage is for some reason more moral. You told me I missed the point. I then thought "well that is fair since I was attacking the morality behind the law as opposed to the reality." I then pointed out that the reality is not all United States citizens are equal under the law because you can have same-sex marriage in 1/10 of the United States. Meaning that 1/10 of the United States (state wise not population wise) is more equal (to put it in Orwellian terms) than the rest. You again said I missed the point...so enlighten me. What is your point? I thought it was that we're all equal in the eyes of the law because no one can have same-sex marriage and if that's the case I don't see how I've missed that point at all seeing as it was what I was responded to from two different aspects.

I thought the whole idea of putting *** marriage up to a vote was ludicrous, as ludicrous as putting the civil rights of any other minority group up to a popular vote. I find it even more absurd that they would require a constitutional ammendment to deny full legal equality to certain groups.

What it boils down to is that two consenting adults should be able to do what the hell they please. The whole "tradition, nature, and pro-creation" arguments are a lark.

I noticed that *** is a dirty word , I guess there's a lot of 13-year old dudes who think things are *** on this forum.

Who's (politically) asking for a Constitutional *** marriage ban?

I'm talking about the constitutional ammendment that bush and several others sought to clearly define marriage as "between one man and one woman".Up here in canada stephen harper sought something like that.

....the point of proposition 8 was to change californias state constitution to more clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

....I'm not sure where obama stands on it now, I heard he'd accept civil unions but might have been in favour of the same ammendment that bush was.

Yeah that's what I thought you were talking about. Rove probably suggested he ask for a federal amendment, which people inherently resist. It squashed the issue. Bush wanted it "very badly" but people didn't want to go that far.

Hot.

:laughing:
You so nasty.

California ain't dead yet
 

As soon as I can find it, I'll post it but last night on Hardball they had the two lawyers from the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court battle on the show. They are working together this time to defeat Prop 8 on the grounds that it runs in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (Equal protection under the law.)

As you can imagine, these guys are very good, and they handled every question as if it came with an obvious solution. if you can find it, its a very solid argument and I'd be very suprised if they don't ultimatly overturn Prop 8 and return *** Marriage to a legal status in California.

The split ruling helps their case as well, and I can't help but think that the court dangled it out there like a challenge to bring the case back up again.

There's also a very good article on advocate.com which explains why most LGBTQ organizations are opposed to filing a federal law suite at this moment. Here's the crux of it:

Methinks these people are in it only for the fame...:\