Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Why don't you explore a marriage contract in California and a business contract to form a partnership in the state? I'm not going to do all the searching for you, if you are wondering the difference search it for yourself.

The restrictions aren't the same under the law because the current law states as such. Your metaphors are mind blowingly stupid.

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.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by adidasss

The civil institution of marriage is regulated by the state because it has specific social benefits, namely promoting stability in the relationship which has positive effects on the partners and society as a whole, not the least of which is creating a stable environment for child rearing.

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.

[right-track]

Loving the Big3 /adidasss exchange.

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


LETS GET READY TOOOOO...RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLE.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by right-track

Loving the Big3 /adidasss exchange.

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!

[TheBig3]

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

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

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

[TheBig3]

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?

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

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?

[lucifer_sam]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.

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.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

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?

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?