Skip to Next Poll »
2
Is Gay Marriage Akin to Incest, Polygamy? (Edited 04/15/10 04:43AM by Chief_aka_James)
Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use. Do you agree with his statement?
| Closed on 04/30/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
37 Fans 
19%a. yes
68%b. no
14%c. not sure

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#14 | 1616 days ago

Its all republican/religious right homophobia, the same kind of talk that all those people spout, no big surprise.. Fear of the "different" has always been a driving factor in society and in politics. Ask women and black people.  My favorite line of the article was:
"Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said."
But god fearing meth heads in his home state of Arkansas living well below the poverty line can have all the kids they want even though they have neither the means or the want to take care of them
no  
  
178 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1616 days ago

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/politics/main6392066.shtml?tag=dis
yes  
#2 | 1616 days ago

 in terms of legalizing it, i would say its on par with drugs and polygamy.

outside of that, there is really nothing in common.

and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation. 
not sure  
#3 | 1616 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 in terms of legalizing it, i would say its on par with drugs and polygamy.

outside of that, there is really nothing in common.

and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation. 
Can you elaborate on your first sentence, please?  I don't want to fly off the handle for no reason.
no  
#4 | 1616 days ago

(Edited by hskrdave)
 Three items that are socially or have been socially unacceptable.  It says there is an attempt  to legalize them.  In that way they are the same.  Should one be more debatable than the others?  I don't think so.

In fact the title of the poll and what is actually being asked is not really the same.  According to the title of the poll, I could rank the 3 (or 4) issues based on what is most important to the people.  But in terms of the question asked if it is comparable in legalizing, of course they are all comparable.
not sure  
#5 | 1616 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 in terms of legalizing it, i would say its on par with drugs and polygamy.

outside of that, there is really nothing in common.

and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation. 
"and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation." ....?
yes  
#6 | 1616 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation." ....?
 Incest should never be considered for legalizing, and was a poor choice of topic to use to compare.
not sure  
#7 | 1616 days ago

(Edited by janet011685)
hskrdave wrote:
 Three items that are socially or have been socially unacceptable.  It says there is an attempt  to legalize them.  In that way they are the same.  Should one be more debatable than the others?  I don't think so.

In fact the title of the poll and what is actually being asked is not really the same.  According to the title of the poll, I could rank the 3 (or 4) issues based on what is most important to the people.  But in terms of the question asked if it is comparable in legalizing, of course they are all comparable.
In THAT regard, yes they're similar.  But likening gay marriage to polygamy and/or drug use is a stretch.  
Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is akin to those who try to compare it to "marrying an animal or your cousin".    
And drugs are illegal because they can be physically harmful (yes, I know that's a whole other debate in which I'm not picking a side because, well, this isn't about that).  I don't think gay marriage will physically harm anyone (except for the poor homos that decide that marriage is a good idea ... suckers).
So, while you CAN compare apples and oranges, I don't think it makes for a fair, balanced argument all the time.
no  
#8 | 1616 days ago

 Not even remotely close.  Despite the fact that Governor Huckabee and I generally disagree on everything, I do respect him. He seems like a genuinely good person.  However, this is just ridiculous. Its a Constitutional issue. We grant everyone equal protection under the law. Its settled.  I know Huckabee is partly just posturing for a Presidential bid in 2012, but still this statement is irresponsible.
#9 | 1616 days ago

(Edited by hskrdave)
 but the question isn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy or drugs, it's about the process of legitimizing any of them.

i think we are on the same page.
not sure  
#10 | 1616 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
In THAT regard, yes they're similar.  But likening gay marriage to polygamy and/or drug use is a stretch.  
Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is akin to those who try to compare it to "marrying an animal or your cousin".    
And drugs are illegal because they can be physically harmful (yes, I know that's a whole other debate in which I'm not picking a side because, well, this isn't about that).  I don't think gay marriage will physically harm anyone (except for the poor homos that decide that marriage is a good idea ... suckers).
So, while you CAN compare apples and oranges, I don't think it makes for a fair, balanced argument all the time.
Janet while I do agree with you that not everybody is a good candidate for a spouse I don't think that those who do marry are "suckers"
yes  
#11 | 1616 days ago

As for myself, i consider them all to be wrong, so yes, they are comparable. I had rather they not be legalized in the world in which i live.
yes  
#12 | 1616 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 Incest should never be considered for legalizing, and was a poor choice of topic to use to compare.
Thank you for clarifying. 
yes  
#13 | 1616 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
kantwistaye wrote:
 Not even remotely close.  Despite the fact that Governor Huckabee and I generally disagree on everything, I do respect him. He seems like a genuinely good person.  However, this is just ridiculous. Its a Constitutional issue. We grant everyone equal protection under the law. Its settled.  I know Huckabee is partly just posturing for a Presidential bid in 2012, but still this statement is irresponsible.
How does "We grant everyone equal protection under the law" equate to same sex marriage?
yes  
#14 | 1616 days ago

Its all republican/religious right homophobia, the same kind of talk that all those people spout, no big surprise.. Fear of the "different" has always been a driving factor in society and in politics. Ask women and black people.  My favorite line of the article was:
"Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said."
But god fearing meth heads in his home state of Arkansas living well below the poverty line can have all the kids they want even though they have neither the means or the want to take care of them
no  
#15 | 1616 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
How does "We grant everyone equal protection under the law" equate to same sex marriage?
 Heterosexual people are allowed to marry, yet gays and lesbians can't. That's discrimination and the exact opposite of equal protection under the law.
#16 | 1615 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Not even remotely close.  Despite the fact that Governor Huckabee and I generally disagree on everything, I do respect him. He seems like a genuinely good person.  However, this is just ridiculous. Its a Constitutional issue. We grant everyone equal protection under the law. Its settled.  I know Huckabee is partly just posturing for a Presidential bid in 2012, but still this statement is irresponsible.
What he said.
no  
#17 | 1615 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Heterosexual people are allowed to marry, yet gays and lesbians can't. That's discrimination and the exact opposite of equal protection under the law.
So if I understand your position sexual preference should define marriage
yes  
#18 | 1615 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
So if I understand your position sexual preference should define marriage
No. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I'll have to go back and make sure to clarify my previous comments I guess.
#19 | 1615 days ago

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this comparison is one of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard for being against gay marriage.
no  
#20 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
kantwistaye wrote:
No. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I'll have to go back and make sure to clarify my previous comments I guess.
I understand what your saying I just wanted to me sure. I do believe eventually laws will be changed but do we stop at same sex marriage? What about polygamy? Incest? Honestly how do we determine what is acceptable and where the line is drawn regarding marriage? If same sex marriages are made legal then the right to equal protection under the law is being denied to polygamists and people related to each other who want to marry by your application of equal protection under the law.
yes  
#21 | 1615 days ago
vindog (+)

Mike Huckabee is a Bible Thumping IDIOTIC Religious Wacko (on the same lines as those Westboro tribesman) and is doing nothing but pandering to his base! In no way- shape or form- should a person (Especially a Former Presidential Candidate) compare incest , polygamy, and drug use to Gay Marriage- it's not even in the SAME class as those things!  I think we can ALL agree (whether you are a righty or lefty) that INCEST is a CRIME as is Polygamy, and "certain" types of drug use- but to lump two people who happen to be of the same sex and want to get married into that category is utterly STUPID!  THIS S%^T NEEDS TO STOP!  Religion is a "personal relationship" with God or whatever you may have faith (or not have faith) in-  NO A PUBLIC POLICY!  SEE the 1st Amendment for that one!
no  
#22 | 1615 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Once again the fact that gays have to fight for this right just amazes me. Is allowing 2 people to  join in a monogamous  union, where they vow to love honor and respect each other forsaking all others, the same as polygamy  or incest? Ummm NO!   
Now should polygamy be legal? I don't know? I cannot see why a man wants more than one wife in the first place. Now should incest be legal? Good God, who would even think that?  No, it should not be, first off on the argument alone of mixing the same bloodline. You know enough said on that. 
no  
#23 | 1615 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
Once again the fact that gays have to fight for this right just amazes me. Is allowing 2 people to  join in a monogamous  union, where they vow to love honor and respect each other forsaking all others, the same as polygamy  or incest? Ummm NO!   
Now should polygamy be legal? I don't know? I cannot see why a man wants more than one wife in the first place. Now should incest be legal? Good God, who would even think that?  No, it should not be, first off on the argument alone of mixing the same bloodline. You know enough said on that. 
I do not understand why your argument " Is allowing 2 people to  join in a monogamous  union, where they vow to love honor and respect each other forsaking all others" does not apply to two related people?
yes  
#24 | 1615 days ago

I did not include bestiality you did. "all of people's opposition to some of the "different" forms of marriage comes from what they heard in Church was deemed "unacceptable"--and they grew up believing it," Are you aware that polygamy is acceptable in certain religions, and was practiced in the U.S.A. at one time? Mormons go to Church too.
yes  
#25 | 1615 days ago

I am not disagreeing with you on the "we need to stop discriminating," but no matter how we change the law someone or some group is going to be left out of what is deemed the "norm" like same sex marriage is now. Agreed?
yes  
#26 | 1615 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 Three items that are socially or have been socially unacceptable.  It says there is an attempt  to legalize them.  In that way they are the same.  Should one be more debatable than the others?  I don't think so.

In fact the title of the poll and what is actually being asked is not really the same.  According to the title of the poll, I could rank the 3 (or 4) issues based on what is most important to the people.  But in terms of the question asked if it is comparable in legalizing, of course they are all comparable.
"In fact the title of the poll and what is actually being asked is not really the same." You are correct the title was a poor choice and seems to have created two separate issues. It was not my intent to create a debate over the legality of same sex marriage. however I do find the opinion of others on this subject interesting.
yes  
#27 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
So how do we decide what is going to be the "norm"? If not by majority vote?
yes  
#28 | 1615 days ago

Never been much of a fan of Olbermann, but he's spot on on that to me.
no  
#29 | 1615 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
No. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I'll have to go back and make sure to clarify my previous comments I guess.
Actually, under (most) current laws, gays and lesbians have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.   Currently, males can only marry females.  That is the same whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.   Nobody is being denied marriage.
#30 | 1615 days ago

I have seen this before. So it all boils down to a moral issue. But who's morals? And that is the problem. We do not all share the same moral standards. So how do we go about solving this issue without letting the pervs in. Wait what? First we have to define the pervs. Man this is going to take awhile. The same people who say polygamy is a perversion say same sex marriage is a perversion. Dude were screwed!
yes  
#31 | 1615 days ago

my friend you just called same sex marriage an evil. A freudian slip......perhaps
yes  
#32 | 1615 days ago

did you pay your poll tax
yes  
#33 | 1615 days ago

Oddfool wrote:
Actually, under (most) current laws, gays and lesbians have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.   Currently, males can only marry females.  That is the same whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.   Nobody is being denied marriage.
agree 100%
yes  
#34 | 1615 days ago

Oddfool wrote:
Actually, under (most) current laws, gays and lesbians have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.   Currently, males can only marry females.  That is the same whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.   Nobody is being denied marriage.
This is frustrating as hell because you are fully aware of what he meant, and instead of just continuing with the discussion and actually bringing up a real point, you're making one because of Mike's faulty English. It happens, it's a mistype, the point of a gay man not allowed to marry another gay man and a gay woman not allowed to marry another gay woman is still there - and that is all he made.
no  
#35 | 1615 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
How does "We grant everyone equal protection under the law" equate to same sex marriage?
Besides what Mike said, you can't forget all of the thousands (literally, there are thousands) of benefits that are awarded to married couples that are completely out of reach of gay couples because this nation is forbidding them from marrying.  That's inequality, and therefore, against our Constitutional rights that all men are created equal, not just the (in this case, straight) majority.  
no  
#36 | 1615 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

coyotedances wrote:
I do not understand why your argument " Is allowing 2 people to  join in a monogamous  union, where they vow to love honor and respect each other forsaking all others" does not apply to two related people?
 We know from history the results of familial breeding. It does cause retardation. More so than just a chance with any other couple. 
When the laws of royal family only could marry close relatives the results of the offspring were shocking. 
no  
#37 | 1615 days ago
adamace (+)

i disagree with homosexuality....it goes against my personal beliefs and what little morals i possess.

do i think being gay and married is in the same boat as incest or polygamy? my answer is no.  situations like these are better left to those who decide our fate and create laws to govern us. it's above my paygrade to make assumptions on social rights or wrongs, and in my politically incorrect manner of thought, i think all three categories are disgusting. we as citizens of this ever-changing society can only speculate on what we think is correct, and people who aren't gay should respect the views of gay people in America because they are taxpayers too and they are protected by our constitution.

we are a country that learns from our blunders (haha...sort of), and in doing so, it allows us to evolve as a better functioning society.
in my opinion, as long as you aren't breaking federal or state laws, who cares who you bump uglies with? live and let live.
#38 | 1615 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 Three items that are socially or have been socially unacceptable.  It says there is an attempt  to legalize them.  In that way they are the same.  Should one be more debatable than the others?  I don't think so.

In fact the title of the poll and what is actually being asked is not really the same.  According to the title of the poll, I could rank the 3 (or 4) issues based on what is most important to the people.  But in terms of the question asked if it is comparable in legalizing, of course they are all comparable.
#39 | 1615 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 but the question isn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy or drugs, it's about the process of legitimizing any of them.

i think we are on the same page.
#40 | 1615 days ago

Since biblical heroes practiced incest and polygamy, but not homosexual marriage, I would say they are not related.
no  
#41 | 1615 days ago
vindog (+)

Damn Sherman- I ran out of respects after your first two comments!  I think I  owe you like 6 or 7 more!   GREAT POSTS!
no  
#42 | 1615 days ago
vindog (+)

ApopCane wrote:
Since biblical heroes practiced incest and polygamy, but not homosexual marriage, I would say they are not related.
VERY TRUE and dead on accurate!   Incest and Polygamy WERE practiced in the Bible- the SAME Bible that people like Huckabee thump from!    As I said HYPOCRISY is the norm for EVERY religion!
no  
#43 | 1615 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 We know from history the results of familial breeding. It does cause retardation. More so than just a chance with any other couple. 
When the laws of royal family only could marry close relatives the results of the offspring were shocking. 
children are a completely different issue. I thought we were talking about the rights of two people wanting to marry
yes  
#44 | 1615 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

coyotedances wrote:
children are a completely different issue. I thought we were talking about the rights of two people wanting to marry
 mike, 




no it is not the same ok. 
no  
#45 | 1615 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 mike, 




no it is not the same ok. 
I think this poll gives insight as to why the issue of same sex marriages will continue to be debated for years before it becomes legally acceptable (if ever).
yes  
#46 | 1615 days ago

Sin is sin.  I'll leave it at that.
yes  
#47 | 1615 days ago

Chief_aka_James wrote:
This is frustrating as hell because you are fully aware of what he meant, and instead of just continuing with the discussion and actually bringing up a real point, you're making one because of Mike's faulty English. It happens, it's a mistype, the point of a gay man not allowed to marry another gay man and a gay woman not allowed to marry another gay woman is still there - and that is all he made.
Since I have read your statement this morning, I have been trying to formulate a response that would, hopefully, not be considered an attack on someone's beliefs.   Am I aware of what Mike meant?  Probably.  But I can only go by his words, not by trying to guess his intent.   I did not mean my comment as an attack on Mike, or his "faulty English".  I hear those exact words from many sources.  Just want to be clear on the subject.  Currently, gays can marry, just not to same-sex.  And would it have been any less frustrating if I had not made my statement as a response to his, but as it's own statement?

I believe marriage to be the union of a man and a woman.   Not for any religious beliefs, but mainly due to growing up seeing marriage between a man and a woman.  Does not mean that the definition won't change, but does not mean that I will help it change either.  (I'm not obstructing it either) 

I see many people state that with government trying to "fix" the mess by providing a "Civil Union" with all the benefits of "Marriage" for tax purposes, providing healthcare options and others, that it is not the same.  By "Marrying" someone you profess your undying love and commitment to one person, etc.   And by not allowing someone to commit to one person like that is discrimination.   Out of curiosity, how does NOT having that piece of paper actually stop someone from actually committing themselves?
#48 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
qtowndogg wrote:
Sin is sin.  I'll leave it at that.
That's pretty much how I feel about it. Now if gay marriage is legalized, even though I don't agree with it, as Adam said above, its beyond my pay grade, I don't make those decisions. Its true, the three mentioned above in this poll are 3 different categories, they don't mean the same thing. That said, its all about morals, and ppl are never going to agree on whats
right and whats wrong.
yes  
#49 | 1615 days ago

Oddfool wrote:
Since I have read your statement this morning, I have been trying to formulate a response that would, hopefully, not be considered an attack on someone's beliefs.   Am I aware of what Mike meant?  Probably.  But I can only go by his words, not by trying to guess his intent.   I did not mean my comment as an attack on Mike, or his "faulty English".  I hear those exact words from many sources.  Just want to be clear on the subject.  Currently, gays can marry, just not to same-sex.  And would it have been any less frustrating if I had not made my statement as a response to his, but as it's own statement?

I believe marriage to be the union of a man and a woman.   Not for any religious beliefs, but mainly due to growing up seeing marriage between a man and a woman.  Does not mean that the definition won't change, but does not mean that I will help it change either.  (I'm not obstructing it either) 

I see many people state that with government trying to "fix" the mess by providing a "Civil Union" with all the benefits of "Marriage" for tax purposes, providing healthcare options and others, that it is not the same.  By "Marrying" someone you profess your undying love and commitment to one person, etc.   And by not allowing someone to commit to one person like that is discrimination.   Out of curiosity, how does NOT having that piece of paper actually stop someone from actually committing themselves?
Wow.  I would have expected a little more from you, my friend.  So you'd rather see gay people marrying into heterosexual relationships (because I hear THAT always works out well  ) than to simply grant them the right to marry someone of the same sex?  What, exactly, is the harm in letting homosexuals marry someone of the same sex?  I've run it through my mind a hundred times and I see the clear benefits of it, but have yet to find one single con to gay marriage (other than giving a stroke to the uber-religious/uber-conservative folks who don't like it because their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs ... you know, the ones that should have NO bearing on our rights as American citizens as per the founding documents of our nation).  
Furthermore, the marriage/civil union/domestic partnership debate is NOT about commitment as much as it's about equality and rights.  Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not offer the same rights as marriage.  Period.  Hundreds (and in some states, thousands) or rights provided by marriage are not provided by civil unions or domestic partnerships.  That is inequality and discrimination ... I think, last I checked, those are bad 'round these parts (aka the United States of America).  
no  
#50 | 1615 days ago

I don't agree with gay marriage, but thats going a bit too far.
#51 | 1615 days ago

Part of why I see the debate over the years going sour is that gay individuals don't just want the rights that come with "marriage" they want the word "Marriage" to be redefined, or defined (however you look at it) to include same-sex "unions."

There is a strong religious base that will insist upon marriage being defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.  That isn't going to change.

Rather than fighting over a word that they can never fully have, why not have their own?  Union.  If the courtship, the documentation, and the end result all end with the same results, but simply defined with a different word choice, why the need to continue to press the issue?

***That said, I believe, for accuracy, it is best if we keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  Whether two men or women are able to 'marry' into a "UNION" ... I see as a moot point.

As with the issue on rights being stripped of homosexual couples "because they can't wed" ... I see that more as the fault of hospitals, and other institutions in our society that "protect spousal rights" with little or no thought on the impact of their choice of wording.  That fault remains with them, not the word "Marriage."  Allowing gay people to "marry" yes, could 'potentially' solve the problem, however, it's not the only solution.
#52 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)
The statement is ridiculous. Polygamy and gay marriage deviate from the "norm", but they are not akin to incest. That is like saying they are the same as rape. Idiocy! People/politicians cant have it every way they want it because it's impossible to please everyone which is why the gov't should stay out of certain things. Every one has their own opinion and is entitled  to it, but some things in a person's private life should never be anyone else's business. neither act hurts the next neighbor or a coworker, so these are decisions that should be made in the home. It's personal. Marriage should be a legal issue not a religious, BTW unless your religion is in favor of polygamy i guess. LOL

Also, I can think of a few things that were once upon a time (and still may be) considered deviant that most americans currently enjoy.
#53 | 1615 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Wow.  I would have expected a little more from you, my friend.  So you'd rather see gay people marrying into heterosexual relationships (because I hear THAT always works out well  ) than to simply grant them the right to marry someone of the same sex?  What, exactly, is the harm in letting homosexuals marry someone of the same sex?  I've run it through my mind a hundred times and I see the clear benefits of it, but have yet to find one single con to gay marriage (other than giving a stroke to the uber-religious/uber-conservative folks who don't like it because their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs ... you know, the ones that should have NO bearing on our rights as American citizens as per the founding documents of our nation).  
Furthermore, the marriage/civil union/domestic partnership debate is NOT about commitment as much as it's about equality and rights.  Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not offer the same rights as marriage.  Period.  Hundreds (and in some states, thousands) or rights provided by marriage are not provided by civil unions or domestic partnerships.  That is inequality and discrimination ... I think, last I checked, those are bad 'round these parts (aka the United States of America).  
I never stated that I would like to see gay people marrying into heterosexual relationships.   Heck, there are so many heterosexual people that never should have married either.  I simply stated that they were not "Denied" the state of marriage.    ("What..you're gay??  Nope, you are unable to marry.....Anybody.")

As per the commitment issue vs benefits issue,  I had to read up a bit on civil unions.   (You stated thousands of reasons, but did not give examples)  Yes, I see that a LOT of states do not recognize civil unions.  Very few will even recognize one from another state, since they do not have that category.   But there are also a lot of states that have refused to honor gay marriages from out of state as well.  It seems that a good portion of those benefits need to be provided by the Federal government as opposed to being decided on by the individual states.  Tax return filings and veteran benefits and such.     

On the commitment side, the video linked above with Olbermann speaking has nothing to do with providing benefits...just to be allowed to 'celebrate their love'.   That is why my end question was what it was.

As I have said, I am not against gay marriage, trying to block it.  But I am not pro-gay marriage either.    This is USA, where we are allowed to believe in what we wish.   I do believe that gay marriage is going to be allowed some day.  Marriage has evolved over the centuries, and is still evolving.
#54 | 1615 days ago

I have a hard time even dignifying Hukabee's comment with my opinion because his comparison is moronic.
no  
#55 | 1615 days ago
NMboyzfan (+)

"Also, I can think of a few things that were once upon a time (and still may be) considered deviant that most americans currently enjoy."

word!
#56 | 1615 days ago

I live in Pennsylvania, which, even though it leans Democratic (mostly because of Philadelphia and the surrounding 5-county area), is mostly a conservative state. We had a Senator, Rick Santorum, who said something equally as stupid as what Huckabee said...he is no longer a Senator. (I'm proud of ya, PA!)

I do not believe that morality should be legislated in this matter...who we fall in love with is not a subject for a man like Mike Huckabee to decide.  
no  
#57 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by janet011685)
RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
Part of why I see the debate over the years going sour is that gay individuals don't just want the rights that come with "marriage" they want the word "Marriage" to be redefined, or defined (however you look at it) to include same-sex "unions."

There is a strong religious base that will insist upon marriage being defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.  That isn't going to change.

Rather than fighting over a word that they can never fully have, why not have their own?  Union.  If the courtship, the documentation, and the end result all end with the same results, but simply defined with a different word choice, why the need to continue to press the issue?

***That said, I believe, for accuracy, it is best if we keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  Whether two men or women are able to 'marry' into a "UNION" ... I see as a moot point.

As with the issue on rights being stripped of homosexual couples "because they can't wed" ... I see that more as the fault of hospitals, and other institutions in our society that "protect spousal rights" with little or no thought on the impact of their choice of wording.  That fault remains with them, not the word "Marriage."  Allowing gay people to "marry" yes, could 'potentially' solve the problem, however, it's not the only solution.
Excerpt taken from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) website:

"Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:

- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. 
- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. 
- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. 
- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. 
- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. 
- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law."

So what's in a name, when it comes to "marriage"?  A lot, apparently.  Straight people don't own the term, either.  It's a legal term, and the sooner we see it as such (and stop attaching such a religious connotation to it), the sooner we can all remove our heads from our asses and allow homosexuals the SAME rights as everyone else in this country is afforded.


 

no  
#58 | 1615 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
The reasons I have heard against same-sex marriage have all been largely traditionalist, homophobic or fundamentalist religion induced, and I say this as objectively as possible. So let homosexuals enter marriage just as heterosexuals enter marriage. God will sort it out.
yes  
#59 | 1615 days ago

MIKELIN8 wrote:
I live in Pennsylvania, which, even though it leans Democratic (mostly because of Philadelphia and the surrounding 5-county area), is mostly a conservative state. We had a Senator, Rick Santorum, who said something equally as stupid as what Huckabee said...he is no longer a Senator. (I'm proud of ya, PA!)

I do not believe that morality should be legislated in this matter...who we fall in love with is not a subject for a man like Mike Huckabee to decide.  
The 4 corners of the state are mostly democratic.  It's interesting to see the state come up blue on election night, but if you look county by county, the major cities' counties are blue, as you said, the rest of the state is as red as a firetruck.
no  
#60 | 1614 days ago

I live in Canada and couldn't care less who Huckabee is or what he thinks, but I honestly can't believe anyone would compare homosexuality to incest or polygamy.  Take an entry level Psychology class discussing homosexuality and I promise you will never look at a gay person the same way again. 
no  
#61 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Excerpt taken from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) website:

"Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:

- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. 
- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. 
- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. 
- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. 
- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. 
- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law."

So what's in a name, when it comes to "marriage"?  A lot, apparently.  Straight people don't own the term, either.  It's a legal term, and the sooner we see it as such (and stop attaching such a religious connotation to it), the sooner we can all remove our heads from our asses and allow homosexuals the SAME rights as everyone else in this country is afforded.


 

You and I agree.

But, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "the name".  If "marriage" and "union" meant "equal protection," with the difference "only" being:

Union - Lawfully 'wedded' same-sex couple
Marriage - Lawfully 'wedded' heterosexual couple

Would this debate continue? 

I believe it would, even though it would answer the mail for both the heterosexuals and the gay-rights activists. Is there any reason to "not" refer to the marriage between "two men or two women" and the marriage between a "man and a woman" with differing words? 

Other than:  Equal Rights?  (We agree on the rights needing to be equal)
#62 | 1614 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
You and I agree.

But, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "the name".  If "marriage" and "union" meant "equal protection," with the difference "only" being:

Union - Lawfully 'wedded' same-sex couple
Marriage - Lawfully 'wedded' heterosexual couple

Would this debate continue? 

I believe it would, even though it would answer the mail for both the heterosexuals and the gay-rights activists. Is there any reason to "not" refer to the marriage between "two men or two women" and the marriage between a "man and a woman" with differing words? 

Other than:  Equal Rights?  (We agree on the rights needing to be equal)
You couldn't be more correct.

The thing is, that the greatest obstruction to the advancement of civil liberties is that all things (to be equal) need to fall under the same universal language in the body of the text.  The more 'distinctions' you have, the more confused the issue.  So, in order to respect those of faith who believe that "domestic unions" should describe life partnerships under the law, the term "domestic union" should be used for all that fall under such.  Now, as it pertains to the term "marriage", such distinctions could be made upon documents of the institution upon which a "domestic union" is established.  If from a Judeo-Christian institution, then the term marriage could be utilized.  From government endorsed facilities such as a justice of the peace, domestic union would be utilized; that too would facilitate agnostics and athiests that do not wish their "domestic union" to be recognized by Judeo-Christian institutions, but recognized only by the law.  Then, all persons would be recognized in the same language under the law, with distinctions of one's union to be defined by the institution that performs the rites.

Above, I saw the phrase "sin is sin".  Well, as that is that is a religious designation, and idealistically it has no place in the decision making process of law.  Even so, we all know there are those that like to push their theosophical beliefs upon others (ex. the Westboro Baptist Church, and organizations that claim to be Christian such as the Ku Klux Klan--though I don't think I'd get much of an argument by saying I don't think the KKK reflects the true nature of Christianity at all).
#63 | 1614 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
You and I agree.

But, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "the name".  If "marriage" and "union" meant "equal protection," with the difference "only" being:

Union - Lawfully 'wedded' same-sex couple
Marriage - Lawfully 'wedded' heterosexual couple

Would this debate continue? 

I believe it would, even though it would answer the mail for both the heterosexuals and the gay-rights activists. Is there any reason to "not" refer to the marriage between "two men or two women" and the marriage between a "man and a woman" with differing words? 

Other than:  Equal Rights?  (We agree on the rights needing to be equal)
Southpark episode comes to mind.   "Instead of husband and wife,  you'll be    - - - - buddies."
#64 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

marriage
Definition
mar·riage[ márrij ]Audio Player
mar·riages   Plural
NOUN 
1. 
legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2. 
specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
"They have a happy marriage."
3. 
joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people
4. 
marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock
5. 
union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
"Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation."
6. 
card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit

Hmmm, I see nothing in that definition about being between "a man and a woman"!
no  
#65 | 1614 days ago

 

All depends on which dictionary you look at, and when you look as well, as definitions evolve over time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

mar·riage

[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7.
a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8.
Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle.Compare royal marriage.
9.
a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10.
Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
#66 | 1614 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
You and I agree.

But, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "the name".  If "marriage" and "union" meant "equal protection," with the difference "only" being:

Union - Lawfully 'wedded' same-sex couple
Marriage - Lawfully 'wedded' heterosexual couple

Would this debate continue? 

I believe it would, even though it would answer the mail for both the heterosexuals and the gay-rights activists. Is there any reason to "not" refer to the marriage between "two men or two women" and the marriage between a "man and a woman" with differing words? 

Other than:  Equal Rights?  (We agree on the rights needing to be equal)
We agree AND disagree.  I don't think a distinction should be made in terminology either.  As history in this country has shown us, "separate but equal" never actually is.  This issue will never be resolved in my mind until there is equality across the board, including in terminology.  Using a different term (especially one as generic as "union") diminishes the relationship, in my opinion.  A second-rate term for what will be viewed as a second-rate relationship/couple.  The fact of the matter remains that homosexuals are equal in all the ways that benefit the nation (pay the same taxes, are subject to the same laws/rules/regulations, etc.) but are still seen as less-than in all the ways that would and should benefit them.  

The biggest issue, I think, is that once again this country is allowing religious beliefs to get in the way of our founding principals that are laid out in the Constitution.  This is only secondarily about terminology, really.  There is, lawfully, a distinct separation of church and state in our country, and yet it is not being viewed that way by most Americans and lawmakers.  Marriage, in the ways that matter most in this debate, is not a religious term.  It's a legal term, with legal paperwork and documentation to support it, and legal ramifications and benefits behind it.  If a person's church/temple/synagogue/etc. does not wish to acknowledge gay marriages, so be it.  That is their right, by law, under your freedom to practice your own religion and have all religions accessible to Americans (as long as they don't interfere with our state/local/federal laws).  However, for our government to refuse to acknowledge it is un-Constitutional and discriminatory.  

Would a federal law granting civil unions to any/all gay couples in every state, with equal benefits as heterosexual marriages, be a step in the right direction?  Absolutely.  However, it's not enough for ME to feel that justice is being served to the Americans it will affect.  
no  
#67 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. Is homosexuality an "unnatural act"? Until the majority of the population say NO our society (U.S.A.) is NOT going to redefine marriage.
yes  
#68 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. Is homosexuality an "unnatural act"? Until the majority of the population say NO our society (U.S.A.) is NOT going to redefine marriage.
Actually, if you're an American citizen and abide by the laws of the land, you deserve to be treated fairly and equally.  No one can take that away, period.  
And as for "unnatural acts" ... who defines THAT (besides you, obviously)?  Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Where would you like to draw the line?  Perhaps when 99% of ALL Americans, gay/straight/otherwise are committing "unnatural acts"?  Maybe instead of allowing gays to get married we should just outlaw marriage for everyone instead.  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway ... we ALL deserve to be discriminated against, I suppose.
no  
#69 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)
janet011685 wrote:
Actually, if you're an American citizen and abide by the laws of the land, you deserve to be treated fairly and equally.  No one can take that away, period.  
And as for "unnatural acts" ... who defines THAT (besides you, obviously)?  Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Where would you like to draw the line?  Perhaps when 99% of ALL Americans, gay/straight/otherwise are committing "unnatural acts"?  Maybe instead of allowing gays to get married we should just outlaw marriage for everyone instead.  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway ... we ALL deserve to be discriminated against, I suppose.
for the record, janet just listed a FEW of the things i was speaking of in post #62.
#70 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Actually, if you're an American citizen and abide by the laws of the land, you deserve to be treated fairly and equally.  No one can take that away, period.  
And as for "unnatural acts" ... who defines THAT (besides you, obviously)?  Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Where would you like to draw the line?  Perhaps when 99% of ALL Americans, gay/straight/otherwise are committing "unnatural acts"?  Maybe instead of allowing gays to get married we should just outlaw marriage for everyone instead.  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway ... we ALL deserve to be discriminated against, I suppose.
whoa girl where did I say I  thought homosexuality was an "unnatural act"?  I merely made and observation and stated my opinion.

" Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway"  You just made my point seems like redefining marriage is requires more than just recognizing same sex marriage.
yes  
#71 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Actually, if you're an American citizen and abide by the laws of the land, you deserve to be treated fairly and equally.  No one can take that away, period.  
And as for "unnatural acts" ... who defines THAT (besides you, obviously)?  Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Where would you like to draw the line?  Perhaps when 99% of ALL Americans, gay/straight/otherwise are committing "unnatural acts"?  Maybe instead of allowing gays to get married we should just outlaw marriage for everyone instead.  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway ... we ALL deserve to be discriminated against, I suppose.
I can't tell you anything can I?
no  
#72 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
whoa girl where did I say I  thought homosexuality was an "unnatural act"?  I merely made and observation and stated my opinion.

" Is sodomy natural?  Or only when it's done by straight people?  What about kinky fetishes?  Oral?  Threesomes?  Foursomes?  Masturbation?  Leather?  Watersports?  Sex toys?  Obviously we're a bunch of perverted unnatural freaks anyway"  You just made my point seems like redefining marriage is requires more than just recognizing same sex marriage.
Just the fact that you answered "yes" to this poll tells me all I need to know.  You obviously feel that homosexuality is wrong and/or unnatural (hide it under a hypothetical guise all you'd like) and liken it to polygamy/incest/drug use.  

And if I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that you feel homosexuality is a natural act and that gay people are being denied equal rights that they deserve.  

As for redefining marriage ... there's no need.  Most definitions I've seen don't specify anything about the sexes of those involved (except religious definitions, which have no bearing on this, since there is a separation of church and state, right?).  It's not about redefining anything, it's about legalizing something that Constitutionally (and technically already BY definition) should already BE legal.
no  
#73 | 1614 days ago

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
I can't tell you anything can I?
Shutup, YOU.
no  
#74 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Just the fact that you answered "yes" to this poll tells me all I need to know.  You obviously feel that homosexuality is wrong and/or unnatural (hide it under a hypothetical guise all you'd like) and liken it to polygamy/incest/drug use.  

And if I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that you feel homosexuality is a natural act and that gay people are being denied equal rights that they deserve.  

As for redefining marriage ... there's no need.  Most definitions I've seen don't specify anything about the sexes of those involved (except religious definitions, which have no bearing on this, since there is a separation of church and state, right?).  It's not about redefining anything, it's about legalizing something that Constitutionally (and technically already BY definition) should already BE legal.
You are very quick to judge if my "answered "yes" to this poll tells me all I need to know"  The truth is I made this poll to stimulate conversation on M Huckabee's statement, but the tide turned to same sex marriage. My answering yes was an error as I actually DO NOT agree with him. And you are wrong if you don't think the legal term for marriage does not have to be redefined. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society.

I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing when things as they are and things as they will be begin to rub up against each other and make heat.  Regardless of what I may think, however, it is the state of things in America from time to time, that an under-privileged and marginalized group of people will issue for and demand that their civil rights are seen to.  Its sort of the great thing about America for all the bad choices we’ve made over there years, there always has been the potential for everyone to be free and equal and well.
yes  
#75 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
You are very quick to judge if my "answered "yes" to this poll tells me all I need to know"  The truth is I made this poll to stimulate conversation on M Huckabee's statement, but the tide turned to same sex marriage. My answering yes was an error as I actually DO NOT agree with him. And you are wrong if you don't think the legal term for marriage does not have to be redefined. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society.

I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing when things as they are and things as they will be begin to rub up against each other and make heat.  Regardless of what I may think, however, it is the state of things in America from time to time, that an under-privileged and marginalized group of people will issue for and demand that their civil rights are seen to.  Its sort of the great thing about America for all the bad choices we’ve made over there years, there always has been the potential for everyone to be free and equal and well.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: mar·riage http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; cursor: pointer; height: 11px; vertical-align: bottom; width: 16px; background-position: 0% 50%; " />
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected;especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Dictionary.com definition:  see post #75

Wikipedia:
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the cultureor subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.







no  
#76 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: mar·riage 
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected;especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Dictionary.com definition:  see post #75

Wikipedia:
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the cultureor subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.







Legal Definition of Marriage

MARRIAGE

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marries a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person.When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question.

Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated:

The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.

Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute.Impotency, which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable.Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. And the same provision exists in the French code civil.The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Kentucky. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage.A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws.

Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country, describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive.

The civil effects of marriage are the following: It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.

It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicile and gains that of her husband.

One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.The children acquire the domicile of their father. It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin. It makes all the issue legitimate.

yes  
#77 | 1614 days ago

Webster is not the LAW
yes  
#78 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Legal Definition of Marriage

MARRIAGE

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marries a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person.When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question.

Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated:

The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.

Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute.Impotency, which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable.Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. And the same provision exists in the French code civil.The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Kentucky. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage.A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws.

Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country, describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive.

The civil effects of marriage are the following: It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.

It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicile and gains that of her husband.

One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.The children acquire the domicile of their father. It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin. It makes all the issue legitimate.

Substitutions:
- husband/wife for spouse
- free man and free woman for free people

Makes it even simpler and, since it OBVIOUSLY needs revision (if you actually read it ... "It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born." ), will make it more accurate.
no  
#79 | 1614 days ago

vindog wrote:
marriage
Definition
mar·riage[ márrij ]Audio Player
mar·riages   Plural
NOUN 
1. 
legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2. 
specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
"They have a happy marriage."
3. 
joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people
4. 
marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock
5. 
union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
"Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation."
6. 
card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit

Hmmm, I see nothing in that definition about being between "a man and a woman"!
That's because people have already begun redefining it.  (See Oddfool's post #75 for another definition.)
yes  
#80 | 1614 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Substitutions:
- husband/wife for spouse
- free man and free woman for free people

Makes it even simpler and, since it OBVIOUSLY needs revision (if you actually read it ... "It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born." ), will make it more accurate.
"(if you actually read it" why do you resort to insults? Is it so hard to admit you did not have all the facts? My position all along is that the term marriage needs to be redefined legally. this is where you say "excuse me"
yes  
#81 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"(if you actually read it" why do you resort to insults? Is it so hard to admit you did not have all the facts? My position all along is that the term marriage needs to be redefined legally. this is where you say "excuse me"
Wasn't an insult.  But I figured that you would have realized how antiquated it was after having read it and, being an intelligent person as you are, would have agreed that changing the definition is not only reasonable, but actually necessary.
no  
#82 | 1614 days ago

qtowndogg wrote:
That's because people have already begun redefining it.  (See Oddfool's post #75 for another definition.)
read my post #86. People who go off on a rant without even know what they are talking about should at least rant based on fact not their personal feelings.
yes  
#83 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
janet011685 wrote:
Wasn't an insult.  But I figured that you would have realized how antiquated it was after having read it and, being an intelligent person as you are, would have agreed that changing the definition is not only reasonable, but actually necessary.
how is it you missed the part of my post above "My position all along is that the term marriage needs to be redefined legally." humility is not your strong point huh?
yes  
#84 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
Are we going to get into the mind set of, those that said yes are bad ppl or not fair, and those that said no are fair and good ppl? I only see it as an opinion. I have nothing against anybody that said no. That's Their opinion. I don't agree with it, but, its their right to answer the way they feel. I don't actually agree with Huckabee, I don't think those three things have anything to do with each other. I said yes, because I think those 3 things are wrong. That's my opinion, maybe I should have answered, "not sure." I also think Huckabee was just over stretching this to make a point, I don't think he agrees that incest is the same, but, all three are against his grain. That's what I'm saying. If they legalize same sex marriage, then so be it. I leave that up to ppl who get paid to make those judgments. But, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
yes  
#85 | 1614 days ago

I have a compromise that likely neither side would be happy with but here it is all the same.

Take the State OUT of marriage.  Let marriage be determined by the individual's church, faith, personal belief's, whatever.  The State will only deal with the legal aspect and would never call it a "marriage".  Everyone would have a "civil union" in the eyes of the State.  But the State does not define what a "marriage" is.

No one really gets what they want with that.  But sometimes that is the best way to solve an issue.
no  
#86 | 1614 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I have a compromise that likely neither side would be happy with but here it is all the same.

Take the State OUT of marriage.  Let marriage be determined by the individual's church, faith, personal belief's, whatever.  The State will only deal with the legal aspect and would never call it a "marriage".  Everyone would have a "civil union" in the eyes of the State.  But the State does not define what a "marriage" is.

No one really gets what they want with that.  But sometimes that is the best way to solve an issue.
your right the state does not define marriage.
yes  
#87 | 1614 days ago

um hi people
not sure  
#88 | 1614 days ago

Drummer99 wrote:
Are we going to get into the mind set of, those that said yes are bad ppl or not fair, and those that said no are fair and good ppl? I only see it as an opinion. I have nothing against anybody that said no. That's Their opinion. I don't agree with it, but, its their right to answer the way they feel. I don't actually agree with Huckabee, I don't think those three things have anything to do with each other. I said yes, because I think those 3 things are wrong. That's my opinion, maybe I should have answered, "not sure." I also think Huckabee was just over stretching this to make a point, I don't think he agrees that incest is the same, but, all three are against his grain. That's what I'm saying. If they legalize same sex marriage, then so be it. I leave that up to ppl who get paid to make those judgments. But, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I don't agree with Huckabee either. I do agree with what you have just said though 100%
yes  
#89 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
coyotedances wrote:
I don't agree with Huckabee either. I do agree with what you have just said though 100%
As I agree with you Mike. I'll will say, I don't know the law on this very well, and I'm not going to dig out a dictionary. I will say, a lot of this seems to be like splitting hairs, its a word.. ..... And yes, it seems each state has their own laws on civil unions, but, if it gets the benefits of a heterosexual married couple, whats the point? if its just over a word, then that's just being spiteful.
yes  
#90 | 1614 days ago

sexy_kamke wrote:
um hi people
hello
yes  
#91 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
coyotedances wrote:
your right the state does not define marriage.
I know why this is a hot topic, because of its religious connection. It never fails to get ppls dander up.
yes  
#92 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
Drummer99 wrote:
As I agree with you Mike. I'll will say, I don't know the law on this very well, and I'm not going to dig out a dictionary. I will say, a lot of this seems to be like splitting hairs, its a word.. ..... And yes, it seems each state has their own laws on civil unions, but, if it gets the benefits of a heterosexual married couple, whats the point? if its just over a word, then that's just being spiteful.
"but, if it gets the benefits of a heterosexual married couple" It is so complex. example: let's say state A recognizes civil union and state B doesn't. If a person of same sex "union" is in an accident and enters a hospital in state B his/her partner is not recognized as spouse, therefore not legally qualified to make a life saving decision. There are hundreds of things a heterosexual spouse can due that a same sex partner can't do legally.
yes  
#93 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
coyotedances wrote:
"but, if it gets the benefits of a heterosexual married couple" It is so complex. example: let's say state A recognizes civil union and state B doesn't. If a person of same sex "union" is in an accident and enters a hospital in state B his/her partner is not recognized as spouse, therefore not legally qualified to make a life saving decision. There are hundreds of things a heterosexual spouse can due that a same sex partner can't do legally.
Pretty much the same thing for a hetero couple that isn't married, or g/f and b/f, same sitution, and I assume thats where blood related family would come into the matter. But, yes, I do understand your point, all states would have to recognize this.
yes  
#94 | 1614 days ago

Drummer99 wrote:
Pretty much the same thing for a hetero couple that isn't married, or g/f and b/f, same sitution, and I assume thats where blood related family would come into the matter. But, yes, I do understand your point, all states would have to recognize this.
it would seem the issue of same sex marriage is where the rubber meets the road regarding religion, law, and society. I'll be surprised if it is in settled my my lifetime. But who knows we put a man on the moon
yes  
#95 | 1614 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
it would seem the issue of same sex marriage is where the rubber meets the road regarding religion, law, and society. I'll be surprised if it is in settled my my lifetime. But who knows we put a man on the moon
I think you'll have more states legalizing it in the next 10 years. Some states will fight it though, especially
the bible belt and parts of the Midwest. I was wondering about that scenario you mentioned, why couldn't gays and lesbians have civil unions and also have power of attorney for each other? other than that, at this time and age, what else is there?
as you said, the whole U.S. will not be agreeing on this anytime soon.
yes  
#96 | 1614 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
Drummer99 wrote:
I think you'll have more states legalizing it in the next 10 years. Some states will fight it though, especially
the bible belt and parts of the Midwest. I was wondering about that scenario you mentioned, why couldn't gays and lesbians have civil unions and also have power of attorney for each other? other than that, at this time and age, what else is there?
as you said, the whole U.S. will not be agreeing on this anytime soon.
Gay activist have made a discrimination issue out of it. In this debate I think there is no perfect solution, only a trade off, and I for one am not interested in validating the sexual desires of some adults.
 
yes  
#97 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

qtowndogg wrote:
That's because people have already begun redefining it.  (See Oddfool's post #75 for another definition.)
Well, I don't know exactly where you are going with this one, but Oddfools "definition" is very similar to the one that I posted.  This is line #2 from the definition that he posted in post #75:  
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
no  
#98 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
Gay activist have made a discrimination issue out of it. In this debate I think there is no perfect solution, only a trade off, and I for one am not interested in validating the sexual desires of some adults.
 
Coyote:   I read your posted "Legal Definition" of marriage, and though it's clearly outdated- it is what it is. My question is "Where did that definition actually come from?"  Every State has their own set of Laws and their own definitions as far as legal terms go. What would be considered (by definition) a GROSS Misdemeanor in one State could and more than likely would be defined as only a Misdemeanor in another. Also EVERY STATE has their OWN Bar Exam that a Lawyer must pass to become a working Lawyer in that State. So it this just a "broad" definition that you found or is the Definition as defined by a certain State?
no  
#99 | 1614 days ago

Speaking strictly in a legal sense, which I think is what this poll was originally based on, I would vote yes to redefining the legal term of "marriage" to be the legal union of two consenting adults through either a religious or civil ceremony whereby it would entitle the couple to all legal rights and privileges under the laws of the state in which they reside and the federal government of the United States of America.

I would never vote to make polygamy legal.  From what I've seen it's detrimental to the welfare of women.

I don't think drug use is "akin" to either the legality of marriage nor polygamy, To me it's a separate legal issue.


And just for the record...I think anyone who wants to be married to anyone else is nuts.  I'd rather live in sin occasionally and have the freedom to tell them to go home when they start to bug me!
no  
#100 | 1614 days ago

I looked it up in the Lectric Law Library. Vindog I have a question for you. If same sex marriage should become legalized thought the U.S.A. do you want children indoctrinated, with or without parental consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage?
yes  
#101 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
I looked it up in the Lectric Law Library. Vindog I have a question for you. If same sex marriage should become legalized thought the U.S.A. do you want children indoctrinated, with or without parental consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage?
Indoctrinated? I don't nderstand what you mean by that?  If you mean that Children should be taught about EQUALITY for ALL- then that Indoctrination should already be taking place in the American School System as these children SHOULD be being taught what the U.S. Constitution says......
no  
#102 | 1614 days ago

vindog wrote:
Indoctrinated? I don't nderstand what you mean by that?  If you mean that Children should be taught about EQUALITY for ALL- then that Indoctrination should already be taking place in the American School System as these children SHOULD be being taught what the U.S. Constitution says......

What's not to understand. Do you think children should be taught to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage?
yes  
#103 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
coyotedances wrote:

What's not to understand. Do you think children should be taught to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage?
If it's LEGAL and backed up by the U.S. Constitution- then my answer is YES!  But "morals" aren't taught by Teachers- they should be taught by the kids parents!   Also, if you don't want your kids to accept something that you as a Parent don't want your kids to be taught-  or if you don't want a Teacher "indoctrinating" (that word makes it sound WORSE than it actually is) your kids then you have a few options. A) Pay more attention to your kid and teach them what you THINK and FEEL they should be taught- regardless of what others believe.  B) Quit complaining and wasting my tax dollars and pull your kid out of the Taxpayer funded Public School System- and pay for their education yourself. or C) Home School your kid   (I'm sure there are other options as well- I may have missed a few)......   My thought is that YOU ARE NOT FORCED to put your kids in the Public School System and it is your RIGHT as a parent to shelter your kid from the real world or allow your kids to be "worldly" and be exposed to different views than your own.        
no  
#104 | 1614 days ago

vindog wrote:
If it's LEGAL and backed up by the U.S. Constitution- then my answer is YES!  But "morals" aren't taught by Teachers- they should be taught by the kids parents!   Also, if you don't want your kids to accept something that you as a Parent don't want your kids to be taught-  or if you don't want a Teacher "indoctrinating" (that word makes it sound WORSE than it actually is) your kids then you have a few options. A) Pay more attention to your kid and teach them what you THINK and FEEL they should be taught- regardless of what others believe.  B) Quit complaining and wasting my tax dollars and pull your kid out of the Taxpayer funded Public School System- and pay for their education yourself. or C) Home School your kid   (I'm sure there are other options as well- I may have missed a few)......   My thought is that YOU ARE NOT FORCED to put your kids in the Public School System and it is your RIGHT as a parent to shelter your kid from the real world or allow your kids to be "worldly" and be exposed to different views than your own.        
"If it's LEGAL and backed up by the U.S. Constitution- then my answer is YES!" That is a pretty responsible response. What about this.. If same sex marriage were legal and backed up by the Constitution should homosexual couples be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate?
yes  
#105 | 1614 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
"If it's LEGAL and backed up by the U.S. Constitution- then my answer is YES!" That is a pretty responsible response. What about this.. If same sex marriage were legal and backed up by the Constitution should homosexual couples be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate?
No, NOBODY should have legal preference over another person no matter who they are. Hence the word EQUALITY!  The prerequisites for adoption should be the same for everybody!
no  
#106 | 1614 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
In Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, slaves (identified as 'other persons' that would otherwise qualify to vote were only considered 3/5ths of a person.  Shall we return to the original writing of the Constitution?

Article 5 of the United States Constitution (taken from: www.usconstitution.net/const.html)
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

For an almost exact personal commentary I made a day or two ago on another issue:

"The most incredible aspect of the U.S. Constitution, and the brilliance of our founders is that they realized that inasmuch as they were learned men, packed with the knowledge of their own existence and the understanding of the philosophers and history of their past, they knew that the world changes.  Thus, in order for our nation to remain strong, and to evolve with the changing needs of our times, the virtues of the Constitution must remain, but the applications of such a foundational document must in and of itself remain 'flexible'.  That is why, in the body of the main text, they gave their legacy (we, the people of the United States) the ability to make changes necessary for the greater prosperity of all."

This is a quote from a founder that I consider quite appropriate:

"“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
--Thomas Jefferson
#107 | 1613 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
NorseHeathen wrote:
In Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, slaves (identified as 'other persons' that would otherwise qualify to vote were only considered 3/5ths of a person.  Shall we return to the original writing of the Constitution?

Article 5 of the United States Constitution (taken from: www.usconstitution.net/const.html)
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

For an almost exact personal commentary I made a day or two ago on another issue:

"The most incredible aspect of the U.S. Constitution, and the brilliance of our founders is that they realized that inasmuch as they were learned men, packed with the knowledge of their own existence and the understanding of the philosophers and history of their past, they knew that the world changes.  Thus, in order for our nation to remain strong, and to evolve with the changing needs of our times, the virtues of the Constitution must remain, but the applications of such a foundational document must in and of itself remain 'flexible'.  That is why, in the body of the main text, they gave their legacy (we, the people of the United States) the ability to make changes necessary for the greater prosperity of all."

This is a quote from a founder that I consider quite appropriate:

"“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
--Thomas Jefferson
thank you for this informative post. 

Regarding Thomas Jefferson, not only did he author of the Declaration of Independence but the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which says in part  "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion"
yes  
#108 | 1613 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
thank you for this informative post. 

Regarding Thomas Jefferson, not only did he author of the Declaration of Independence but the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which says in part  "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion"
Maybe you should call the State of Texas and let them know that information- LOL!  Obviously, they don't think he is THAT important of an American as they are removing him from the "Important People in American History" list in their school books......
no  
#109 | 1613 days ago

vindog wrote:
Maybe you should call the State of Texas and let them know that information- LOL!  Obviously, they don't think he is THAT important of an American as they are removing him from the "Important People in American History" list in their school books......
completely understandable considering Jefferson kept up to 200 slaves til the day he died freeing only two in his lifetime
yes  
#110 | 1613 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
completely understandable considering Jefferson kept up to 200 slaves til the day he died freeing only two in his lifetime
Ummm, that's not their REASON at all.... You can check out the story just about anywhere!  Dude, HE AUTHORED the most important document in American History-  enough said!   BTW, many very Famous and important Americans owned slaves- that's not a reason to eliminate them from history books- is it?
no  
#111 | 1613 days ago
vindog (+)

On March 12, 2010 the Texas Board of Education voted to change that states school curriculum and severely alter the way that economics, social studies, and history is written in its student’s textbooks.

As the New York Times put it, “The Texas Board of Education…will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.”

So guess how many conservatives there are on the board? Well, since the board voted 10-5 to remove teachings about Thomas Jefferson I’d say 10. Why eliminate teachings about our third president? Because he was the lead proponent for separation of church and state. Instead conservative board members  want teach how our country was founded on Christian teachings.

The board also voted to replace the word “democratic” with “constitutional republic” and to add the history of the Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement. Why? You know to show there were violent black protests during the civil rights era, not just the peaceful protests of Martin Luther King Jr. I’m a little surprised they didn’t vote to take MLK out of the books all together.

Additions the board also voted to include were teachings about the NRA, and the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is, as they put it, “the nation’s leading conservative think tank” whose leaders are a bunch of white men and two white women.

Let’s break down what this will look like. The Texas Board of Education has voted to change school textbooks in the following ways:

  • White Christian Republicans:Good
  • Black Civil Rights Protesters: Bad
  • Hispanics: Neither Good or Bad because they are omitted.
  • NRA: Good
  • Separation of Church and State:  Again omitted along with our third President Thomas Jefferson of the United States, and I assume the Louisiana Purchase, and the Declaration of Independence.
  • Guns: Good
  • Right to Think differently than Conservative Texans: BAD
no  
#112 | 1613 days ago

vindog wrote:
Ummm, that's not their REASON at all.... You can check out the story just about anywhere!  Dude, HE AUTHORED the most important document in American History-  enough said!   BTW, many very Famous and important Americans owned slaves- that's not a reason to eliminate them from history books- is it?
chill dude I was being sarcastic
yes  
#113 | 1613 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
chill dude I was being sarcastic
I am chill- I'm actually having a nice frothy beer right now. That post wasn't meant to seem un-chilled- LOL!
no  
#114 | 1613 days ago

vindog wrote:
Ummm, that's not their REASON at all.... You can check out the story just about anywhere!  Dude, HE AUTHORED the most important document in American History-  enough said!   BTW, many very Famous and important Americans owned slaves- that's not a reason to eliminate them from history books- is it?
Jefferson was not from Texas, so he could NOT have done anything important...
no  
#115 | 1613 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

coyotedances wrote:
completely understandable considering Jefferson kept up to 200 slaves til the day he died freeing only two in his lifetime
Very, very true above.  The two he did free were his own kids, whom he fathered from a slave mistress.  There's more to it as to the direction his children took after their freedom was granted, but it's been a long time since I read about it and I don't want to get the facts wrong.

An important "flavor" to the above statement is that the very principles that they themselves so sincerely dedicated themselves towards accomplishing (which would have been death as traitors to the British Crown if America lost the War of Revolution), were things that they themselves chose not to exercise.  Each spoke out about the issue and the nature of slavery, but they didn't follow through with the very words they expressed in this regard.  I remember a professor telling me that it was his opinion that the founders rationalized their status as slave holders based upon their rationalization that they planted the seeds that would eventually ensure their freedom.  A very, very weak rationalization to be sure if my professor was anywhere near to being correct.

The cycle of social evolution is advanced in pain, and too oft times bloodshed.  Even so, slow as a snail as it appears at times, we ourselves need to be the instruments of change--based upon their virtues expressed, but yet to be enacted.  It's easy enough to say as such topics and issues are definitely impassioned with the perspectives and beliefs of the times.

I wish I could say I have an optimistic perception and confidence of our present day society, but right now I do not; I see an ever increasing polarization that is going to get much worse before it gets better.....  I also humbly hope that I am dead wrong, we skip the adversities I believe are coming, and move forward towards another step in our social evolution, but right now I can't.  Regardless of where we stand, I guess we'll all see.
#116 | 1613 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
MIKELIN8 wrote:
Jefferson was not from Texas, so he could NOT have done anything important...
By the Tivar.....statements such as that remind me of a senior NCO I was stationed with in the Navy.  I never knew what the hell a U-TEP was until he told me it was his favorite college.....LOL! 
#117 | 1613 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
NorseHeathen wrote:
Very, very true above.  The two he did free were his own kids, whom he fathered from a slave mistress.  There's more to it as to the direction his children took after their freedom was granted, but it's been a long time since I read about it and I don't want to get the facts wrong.

An important "flavor" to the above statement is that the very principles that they themselves so sincerely dedicated themselves towards accomplishing (which would have been death as traitors to the British Crown if America lost the War of Revolution), were things that they themselves chose not to exercise.  Each spoke out about the issue and the nature of slavery, but they didn't follow through with the very words they expressed in this regard.  I remember a professor telling me that it was his opinion that the founders rationalized their status as slave holders based upon their rationalization that they planted the seeds that would eventually ensure their freedom.  A very, very weak rationalization to be sure if my professor was anywhere near to being correct.

The cycle of social evolution is advanced in pain, and too oft times bloodshed.  Even so, slow as a snail as it appears at times, we ourselves need to be the instruments of change--based upon their virtues expressed, but yet to be enacted.  It's easy enough to say as such topics and issues are definitely impassioned with the perspectives and beliefs of the times.

I wish I could say I have an optimistic perception and confidence of our present day society, but right now I do not; I see an ever increasing polarization that is going to get much worse before it gets better.....  I also humbly hope that I am dead wrong, we skip the adversities I believe are coming, and move forward towards another step in our social evolution, but right now I can't.  Regardless of where we stand, I guess we'll all see.
Thomas Jefferson, was not a Christian, but was a Deist. That is, he believed in God or a Creator, but did not believe Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way and did not believe the Bible was the word of God. That is one reason the Declaration of Independence never mentions Moses, Jesus, or the Bible. Instead it refers to God as Nature’s God, the Creator and divine Providence. All Deistic terms.
yes  
#118 | 1613 days ago

(Edited by janet011685)
coyotedances wrote:
how is it you missed the part of my post above "My position all along is that the term marriage needs to be redefined legally." humility is not your strong point huh?
I'll be humble when you actually read and respond to what I'm saying in my posts.    Once again...

 "And if I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that you feel homosexuality is a natural act and that gay people are being denied equal rights that they deserve."

That is what I originally argued with you about.  You said I was wrong and that you never said anything to the contrary.  So, to bring it back now ... the quote above, once again, is what we originally sparred about.  If you agree with me on THAT, then say it.  If not, please don't talk about humility until you catch up to where this argument started/currently is.

EDIT:  Well, nevermind.  After reading everything after the post I responded to, it's clear where you stand on the issue, finally ... and only took how many hours after I so terribly went and "assumed" that I knew?  Like I always say, if it LOOKS like a homophobe and TALKS like a homophobe...  


no  
#119 | 1613 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

coyotedances wrote:
Thomas Jefferson, was not a Christian, but was a Deist. That is, he believed in God or a Creator, but did not believe Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way and did not believe the Bible was the word of God. That is one reason the Declaration of Independence never mentions Moses, Jesus, or the Bible. Instead it refers to God as Nature’s God, the Creator and divine Providence. All Deistic terms.
Yes, Jefferson and others were Deists.  However, I don't believe your correct in that he didn't believe Jesus was God's son or that the Bible was the word of God.  Thomas Payne, another Constitutional founder who was a deists was highly criticized for his writing of, "Common Sense"--a book that identified the many contradictions in the black and white text of the Bible.

In fairness, I'll have to do some reading to fully affirm my statement in this regard, but one thing I do know is that Jefferson's apprehensions about the establishment of the Constitution, his beliefs, and his feel for the separation of church and state were solely based upon his personal knowledge of how the the major organized church structures had used governments in Europe for their purpose of power over people, and that it was the structured institution of the major churches that created adversity and NOT the religion itself.  So, the focus of himself and other founders was that whilst the free exercise of religion and the ability for those of faith to have every protection and freedom to practice their religion, the establishment must safeguard itself from allowing the major church powers from being able to control the government and create strife that is not in the best interest of the country and its citizenry.

I think I can better explain such a position with the following quote:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”
--James Madison

The problem with a blanket definition for Deism is that there were variable approaches to such a belief.  Just like the various denominations of Christian practice of the time.  For those of our founders who held such beliefs, and even for those who identified themselves as Christians, the history of influence and control of church over government or government over church is danger to the freedom and liberty of the entire citizenry.
#120 | 1613 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
NorseHeathen wrote:
Yes, Jefferson and others were Deists.  However, I don't believe your correct in that he didn't believe Jesus was God's son or that the Bible was the word of God.  Thomas Payne, another Constitutional founder who was a deists was highly criticized for his writing of, "Common Sense"--a book that identified the many contradictions in the black and white text of the Bible.

In fairness, I'll have to do some reading to fully affirm my statement in this regard, but one thing I do know is that Jefferson's apprehensions about the establishment of the Constitution, his beliefs, and his feel for the separation of church and state were solely based upon his personal knowledge of how the the major organized church structures had used governments in Europe for their purpose of power over people, and that it was the structured institution of the major churches that created adversity and NOT the religion itself.  So, the focus of himself and other founders was that whilst the free exercise of religion and the ability for those of faith to have every protection and freedom to practice their religion, the establishment must safeguard itself from allowing the major church powers from being able to control the government and create strife that is not in the best interest of the country and its citizenry.

I think I can better explain such a position with the following quote:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”
--James Madison

The problem with a blanket definition for Deism is that there were variable approaches to such a belief.  Just like the various denominations of Christian practice of the time.  For those of our founders who held such beliefs, and even for those who identified themselves as Christians, the history of influence and control of church over government or government over church is danger to the freedom and liberty of the entire citizenry.
I very well could be wrong, however nowhere have I read there were "denominations" of Deist. What limited knowledge I have has come to me via the writings of Thomas Payne, Elihu Palmer, and Bob Johnson.

off topic joke for ya
AMERICAN CORPORATION:

You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the second one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.
yes  
#121 | 1613 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
janet011685 wrote:
I'll be humble when you actually read and respond to what I'm saying in my posts.    Once again...

 "And if I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that you feel homosexuality is a natural act and that gay people are being denied equal rights that they deserve."

That is what I originally argued with you about.  You said I was wrong and that you never said anything to the contrary.  So, to bring it back now ... the quote above, once again, is what we originally sparred about.  If you agree with me on THAT, then say it.  If not, please don't talk about humility until you catch up to where this argument started/currently is.

EDIT:  Well, nevermind.  After reading everything after the post I responded to, it's clear where you stand on the issue, finally ... and only took how many hours after I so terribly went and "assumed" that I knew?  Like I always say, if it LOOKS like a homophobe and TALKS like a homophobe...  


And which dwarf are you?
yes  
#122 | 1613 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
And which dwarf are you?
she's Happy...duh!
#123 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
And which dwarf are you?
I'm Bitchy to your Dopey.  
no  
#124 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Thomas Jefferson, was not a Christian, but was a Deist. That is, he believed in God or a Creator, but did not believe Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way and did not believe the Bible was the word of God. That is one reason the Declaration of Independence never mentions Moses, Jesus, or the Bible. Instead it refers to God as Nature’s God, the Creator and divine Providence. All Deistic terms.
Almost sounds, or seems like a "cousin" to an Agnostic.
yes  
#125 | 1612 days ago

Drummer99 wrote:
Almost sounds, or seems like a "cousin" to an Agnostic.

Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity by Robert L. Johnson. I am not promoting this nor recommending it as a "must read" but it will give you some insight as to what Deism is about

yes  
#126 | 1612 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
janet011685 wrote:
I'm Bitchy to your Dopey.  
"Bitchy" try wearing your tampons where they belong instead of behind your ear . Have a nice day. end/conversation
yes  
#127 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"Bitchy" try wearing your tampons where they belong instead of behind your ear . Have a nice day. end/conversation
No longer that time of the month, although most of our debate did occur during that time, hence the extra "Bitchy" attitude.  
What's your excuse, Dopey?  
no  
#128 | 1612 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
No longer that time of the month, although most of our debate did occur during that time, hence the extra "Bitchy" attitude.  
What's your excuse, Dopey?  
I'm old and set in my ways
yes  
#129 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
I'm old and set in my ways
OK.  Now it's all coming together.  For both of us.  
no  
#130 | 1612 days ago

There is no comparison, it is like comparing apples to oranges, you can't do it. They should legalize drugs also, and let the government sell them. This would do away with organize crime and give our country a huge tax base. The war on drugs is just a ploy to fool the naive public. Remember the band on Alcohol?
#131 | 1612 days ago

bradufo wrote:
There is no comparison, it is like comparing apples to oranges, you can't do it. They should legalize drugs also, and let the government sell them. This would do away with organize crime and give our country a huge tax base. The war on drugs is just a ploy to fool the naive public. Remember the band on Alcohol?
"The war on drugs is just a ploy to fool the naive public" care to elaborate on this statement?
yes  
#132 | 1612 days ago

bradufo wrote:
There is no comparison, it is like comparing apples to oranges, you can't do it. They should legalize drugs also, and let the government sell them. This would do away with organize crime and give our country a huge tax base. The war on drugs is just a ploy to fool the naive public. Remember the band on Alcohol?
Guess it all depends on what the government feels will be more profitable to them:  money gained by prosecuting/fining drug offenders or money gained by legalizing, taxing, and regulating these now-illegal drugs.  I think the worry is that the government would never be able to fully regulate and control the drug industry, therefore they would not profit from it nearly as much as they do by keeping (most) drugs illegal.
no  
#133 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"The war on drugs is just a ploy to fool the naive public" care to elaborate on this statement?
Our government has been involed in the drug trade for decades. Iran-contra in the 80's, we use drug money for top secret programs that they call black budget or black opps. I have seen two documentary shows on the drug trade on Showtime and HBO where former and present DEA agents said our government is involed in the drug trade and it will never be solved. They said that most of their drug busts are just low level street dealers. They almost never catch the big suppliers, the ones who are bringing the drugs into our country, and the ones who send it around the country for sell,because their is so much money involed, our government want's a cut, so they help the big suppliers. They said that this has been going on for at least the 60's.
#134 | 1612 days ago
vindog (+)

bradufo wrote:
Our government has been involed in the drug trade for decades. Iran-contra in the 80's, we use drug money for top secret programs that they call black budget or black opps. I have seen two documentary shows on the drug trade on Showtime and HBO where former and present DEA agents said our government is involed in the drug trade and it will never be solved. They said that most of their drug busts are just low level street dealers. They almost never catch the big suppliers, the ones who are bringing the drugs into our country, and the ones who send it around the country for sell,because their is so much money involed, our government want's a cut, so they help the big suppliers. They said that this has been going on for at least the 60's.
Oh no, say it ain't so!  Didn't you know that President Reagan was the MOST HONEST President that this Country has ever seen. He couldn't have possibly been involved in the drug trade!    ******  sarcasm  *******
no  
#135 | 1612 days ago

ruh roh
#136 | 1612 days ago

bradufo wrote:
Our government has been involed in the drug trade for decades. Iran-contra in the 80's, we use drug money for top secret programs that they call black budget or black opps. I have seen two documentary shows on the drug trade on Showtime and HBO where former and present DEA agents said our government is involed in the drug trade and it will never be solved. They said that most of their drug busts are just low level street dealers. They almost never catch the big suppliers, the ones who are bringing the drugs into our country, and the ones who send it around the country for sell,because their is so much money involed, our government want's a cut, so they help the big suppliers. They said that this has been going on for at least the 60's.
Tell that to 'El Teo'
yes  
#137 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Tell that to 'El Teo'
Who is El Teo Mike?
#138 | 1612 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Guess it all depends on what the government feels will be more profitable to them:  money gained by prosecuting/fining drug offenders or money gained by legalizing, taxing, and regulating these now-illegal drugs.  I think the worry is that the government would never be able to fully regulate and control the drug industry, therefore they would not profit from it nearly as much as they do by keeping (most) drugs illegal.
They could sell it cheaper than the drug cartels, get rid of the middle man and organize crime. They already have the ABC stores where they could sell it, another savings for the government.
#139 | 1612 days ago

bradufo wrote:
Who is El Teo Mike?
Teodoro Garcia
yes  
#140 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:

Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity by Robert L. Johnson. I am not promoting this nor recommending it as a "must read" but it will give you some insight as to what Deism is about

Most of the founding fathers were Deist as well as Free Masons. A Deist doesn't believe in any of man's Religions, or Gods. Therefore, he doesn't believe in Jesus at all. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible if you recalled. I belived that because of all the Religious problems that Europe had, and because the founding fathers were highly educated is the reason for them being mostly Deist and Free Masons. They have read all of the ancient stories and they probably realize that all Religions and their Gods were just versions of Egyptians and Sumerian creation stories. The 2 Cradles of Civilizations.
#141 | 1612 days ago

I just happen to be channel surfing, and Huckabee said, he was taken out of context. He said he gave an interview to......???
(I don't remember who he said it was) and the interviewer edited it to seem as if he was saying, Gay Marriage, Incest, drug use and polygamy were comparable, and it spread like wildfire that he said this. What he said was, that if you legalize Gay Marriage, some ppl will want to try and legalize these other things, such as polygamy or drugs.
yes  
#142 | 1612 days ago

Drummer99 wrote:
I just happen to be channel surfing, and Huckabee said, he was taken out of context. He said he gave an interview to......???
(I don't remember who he said it was) and the interviewer edited it to seem as if he was saying, Gay Marriage, Incest, drug use and polygamy were comparable, and it spread like wildfire that he said this. What he said was, that if you legalize Gay Marriage, some ppl will want to try and legalize these other things, such as polygamy or drugs.
"What he said was, that if you legalize Gay Marriage, some ppl will want to try and legalize these other things, such as polygamy or drugs." Now that I can believe. Hard to imagine a member of the media spinning an interview to create drama, what a dik. 
yes  
#143 | 1612 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"What he said was, that if you legalize Gay Marriage, some ppl will want to try and legalize these other things, such as polygamy or drugs." Now that I can believe. Hard to imagine a member of the media spinning an interview to create drama, what a dik. 
It bugs me I can't remember who interviewed him, but, it sure wasn't a household name, so it was probably some unknown knucklehead with an agenda.
yes  
#144 | 1612 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

bradufo wrote:
Most of the founding fathers were Deist as well as Free Masons. A Deist doesn't believe in any of man's Religions, or Gods. Therefore, he doesn't believe in Jesus at all. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible if you recalled. I belived that because of all the Religious problems that Europe had, and because the founding fathers were highly educated is the reason for them being mostly Deist and Free Masons. They have read all of the ancient stories and they probably realize that all Religions and their Gods were just versions of Egyptians and Sumerian creation stories. The 2 Cradles of Civilizations.
I encourage you to read Thomas Payne: "Common Sense".  In it, you will see that as a professed Deist he did believe in God.  And, no, all the theologies were not created from the Egyptians and Summerians.  It's a convenient way to tie things together, but definitely not accurate.
#145 | 1611 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
coyotedances wrote:
"What he said was, that if you legalize Gay Marriage, some ppl will want to try and legalize these other things, such as polygamy or drugs." Now that I can believe. Hard to imagine a member of the media spinning an interview to create drama, what a dik. 
Ok, I guess it was a College newspaper. I'm reading around online and they say he wasn't taken out of context. Its now a he said, he said, situation. Huckabee is telling the College journalist to release the unedited tapes. Geeezzz, take your pick I guess until the full unedited tape is released.
yes  
#146 | 1611 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
I encourage you to read Thomas Payne: "Common Sense".  In it, you will see that as a professed Deist he did believe in God.  And, no, all the theologies were not created from the Egyptians and Summerians.  It's a convenient way to tie things together, but definitely not accurate.
Norse I agree with you that Deist do believe in God, "Natures God" however this is not the God of any "Reveled Religion."
Natural Religion:    Belief in God based on the application of reason on the laws/designs of Nature as opposed to revealed religion which is based on alleged revelations.Revealed Religion:  An organized system of belief in and worship of God based on the belief that God communicated/communicates with certain individual founders/members of the particular revealed religion. God:  The universal creative force which is the source of the laws and designs found throughout Nature. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
yes  
#147 | 1611 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
I encourage you to read Thomas Payne: "Common Sense".  In it, you will see that as a professed Deist he did believe in God.  And, no, all the theologies were not created from the Egyptians and Summerians.  It's a convenient way to tie things together, but definitely not accurate.
Some of the Deist did believe there might be a God or Gods but, not any of man's God. You are right that all theologies did not come from Egyptian and Sumerian stories but most of all major religions that have survive into modern times did such as Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, and Zoroastrianism. You can also see some of their stories in a lot of other ancient civilizations around the world as well as pyramid building. The ancient people did explore and traded with each other and they learn from one another. The Indus Valley Civilization has a lot of similarity's with Egypt as well. Thank's for writing and feel free to write back any time.
#148 | 1611 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
Great point....  I was surprised to see the vast similarities when watching a film that focused upon such content (actually recommended by another individual here in the Q).  I spent some time afterwards reading through Mircea Eliade's: "History of Religious Ideas" Vol.1 - 3 to get a bit more information.  For anyone that hasn't read through those books; there are only 3 volumes and it does follow a certain chronology.  So, if your only interested in specific belief systems, I'm sure you can find a table of contents through one of the major online book sales sites to identify which volume(s) you would be most interested.  I would encourage anyone to do so that has an interest in such things.  Of course, I take issue with various conclusions he made--then again, his study encompasses religion in general, whereas I focus upon one specific era and people, so I don't fault him as there's so much information (especially about the Old Norse) that's become realized even within the last 10 years.

Coyote, thanks for the link.  I'll have to check out that one in more detail tomorrow or Tuesday as I'm scheduled for a long day at the hospital tomorrow with appts, tests, and whatever else they decide to throw at me whilst I am there.  I haven't done hardly any research on the modern Deist perspective / beliefs, so any information to which I can broaden my understanding is very welcomed.  I still haven't found what I was looking for regarding our discussion of Thomas Jefferson.  If you find something before I do, please let me know.
#149 | 1611 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Great point....  I was surprised to see the vast similarities when watching a film that focused upon such content (actually recommended by another individual here in the Q).  I spent some time afterwards reading through Mircea Eliade's: "History of Religious Ideas" Vol.1 - 3 to get a bit more information.  For anyone that hasn't read through those books; there are only 3 volumes and it does follow a certain chronology.  So, if your only interested in specific belief systems, I'm sure you can find a table of contents through one of the major online book sales sites to identify which volume(s) you would be most interested.  I would encourage anyone to do so that has an interest in such things.  Of course, I take issue with various conclusions he made--then again, his study encompasses religion in general, whereas I focus upon one specific era and people, so I don't fault him as there's so much information (especially about the Old Norse) that's become realized even within the last 10 years.

Coyote, thanks for the link.  I'll have to check out that one in more detail tomorrow or Tuesday as I'm scheduled for a long day at the hospital tomorrow with appts, tests, and whatever else they decide to throw at me whilst I am there.  I haven't done hardly any research on the modern Deist perspective / beliefs, so any information to which I can broaden my understanding is very welcomed.  I still haven't found what I was looking for regarding our discussion of Thomas Jefferson.  If you find something before I do, please let me know.
your welcome, I hope your in good health and that tomorrow is only a routine check up
yes  
#150 | 1611 days ago

Nope not at all in words and in deed my dear.    ha.. ha.
#151 | 1611 days ago

kramer wrote:
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this comparison is one of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard for being against gay marriage.
That's really true LOL    
#152 | 1611 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 but the question isn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy or drugs, it's about the process of legitimizing any of them.

i think we are on the same page.
I for one believe that gay marriage and drugs shouldn't be legalize at all LOL
#153 | 1611 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 in terms of legalizing it, i would say its on par with drugs and polygamy.

outside of that, there is really nothing in common.

and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation. 
#154 | 1611 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Not even remotely close.  Despite the fact that Governor Huckabee and I generally disagree on everything, I do respect him. He seems like a genuinely good person.  However, this is just ridiculous. Its a Constitutional issue. We grant everyone equal protection under the law. Its settled.  I know Huckabee is partly just posturing for a Presidential bid in 2012, but still this statement is irresponsible.
I believe that's all true lol    and he's not really careful in his statement  just taken in exaggeration dear. 
#155 | 1611 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
No. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I'll have to go back and make sure to clarify my previous comments I guess.
Why do these Lesbians and gays allowed to marry?  In my country there is no such thing as the third sex.  As a christian (Roman Catholic) country, we believe that gays and lesbians are all sinners and don't follow the word of God the Almighty Father.  In marriage ceremony it' clear of his command "Gog and multiply "  will all those lesbians and gays do this command of the Lord ? 
#156 | 1611 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
So if I understand your position sexual preference should define marriage
Nope not at all LOL so please think it over a thousand times..... right LOL?
#157 | 1611 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
In THAT regard, yes they're similar.  But likening gay marriage to polygamy and/or drug use is a stretch.  
Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is akin to those who try to compare it to "marrying an animal or your cousin".    
And drugs are illegal because they can be physically harmful (yes, I know that's a whole other debate in which I'm not picking a side because, well, this isn't about that).  I don't think gay marriage will physically harm anyone (except for the poor homos that decide that marriage is a good idea ... suckers).
So, while you CAN compare apples and oranges, I don't think it makes for a fair, balanced argument all the time.
#158 | 1611 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
"and incest shouldn't ever be in a conversation." ....?
Why shouldn't be LOL?    This thing happens everyday on people around the world    and this is one  problem  of society.
#159 | 1611 days ago

qtowndogg wrote:
Sin is sin.  I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, that's real true LOL   and you're right about that. 
#160 | 1611 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
The statement is ridiculous. Polygamy and gay marriage deviate from the "norm", but they are not akin to incest. That is like saying they are the same as rape. Idiocy! People/politicians cant have it every way they want it because it's impossible to please everyone which is why the gov't should stay out of certain things. Every one has their own opinion and is entitled  to it, but some things in a person's private life should never be anyone else's business. neither act hurts the next neighbor or a coworker, so these are decisions that should be made in the home. It's personal. Marriage should be a legal issue not a religious, BTW unless your religion is in favor of polygamy i guess. LOL

Also, I can think of a few things that were once upon a time (and still may be) considered deviant that most americans currently enjoy.
So true LOL  
#161 | 1611 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
The statement is ridiculous. Polygamy and gay marriage deviate from the "norm", but they are not akin to incest. That is like saying they are the same as rape. Idiocy! People/politicians cant have it every way they want it because it's impossible to please everyone which is why the gov't should stay out of certain things. Every one has their own opinion and is entitled  to it, but some things in a person's private life should never be anyone else's business. neither act hurts the next neighbor or a coworker, so these are decisions that should be made in the home. It's personal. Marriage should be a legal issue not a religious, BTW unless your religion is in favor of polygamy i guess. LOL

Also, I can think of a few things that were once upon a time (and still may be) considered deviant that most americans currently enjoy.
#162 | 1611 days ago

myrna_ventura wrote:
Nope not at all LOL so please think it over a thousand times..... right LOL?
what the heck are you talking a\bout?
yes  
#163 | 1610 days ago

You know, you say you haven't made up your mind about God, Jesus and religion in general. Sure seems like you have.
You even said it was brainwashing, where as I call it learning, learning about my creator. You and many other ppl have a tough time believing, because its not in front of you, you can't touch or hear it. You've been told things over the years and then ppl such as yourself think a light bulb goes off, and you think, "Oh, my parents or whomever was wrong all these years" why? because those things don't happen now? that's not proof that God does not exist. I understand your quest to know for sure, but nobody can do that but you. ppl leave their religion or stop believing because its boring to them, or they never believed, or they think, "its not cool" or my friends think, "its dumb".... I personally don't care what ppl think, they can look at me like I'm nuts all they want, thats their opinion.
yes  
#164 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

Drummer99 wrote:
You know, you say you haven't made up your mind about God, Jesus and religion in general. Sure seems like you have.
You even said it was brainwashing, where as I call it learning, learning about my creator. You and many other ppl have a tough time believing, because its not in front of you, you can't touch or hear it. You've been told things over the years and then ppl such as yourself think a light bulb goes off, and you think, "Oh, my parents or whomever was wrong all these years" why? because those things don't happen now? that's not proof that God does not exist. I understand your quest to know for sure, but nobody can do that but you. ppl leave their religion or stop believing because its boring to them, or they never believed, or they think, "its not cool" or my friends think, "its dumb".... I personally don't care what ppl think, they can look at me like I'm nuts all they want, thats their opinion.
Just as Sherman can believe what he wants to believe as well.   Obviously you missed his point completely- so I'll make it very clear for him!  KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS!  It has no place in the decision making process of a Nation of FREE CITIZENS!
no  
#165 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

no  
#166 | 1610 days ago

(Edited by Drummer99)
vindog wrote:
Just as Sherman can believe what he wants to believe as well.   Obviously you missed his point completely- so I'll make it very clear for him!  KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS!  It has no place in the decision making process of a Nation of FREE CITIZENS!
NO, I did NOT miss his point, Me and Sherman have been discussing and debating this subject already, so, to everybody else it looked like a misunderstood answer to his posting a quote from Jefferson. According to Sherman he believes to some extent. Read his Religion and mind control blog. I do not think Sherman was saying what you think he was saying. I think he was trying to make his point of Jesus and or religion is man made. Which I'm VERY sure you agree with. Why so hostile Vin???
I never said Sherman or anybody else has to think like me, nor did I say that Religion should be mixed with Politics.
yes  
#167 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

Drummer99 wrote:
NO, I did NOT miss his point, Me and Sherman have been discussing and debating this subject already, so, to everybody else it looked like a misunderstood answer to his posting a quote from Jefferson. According to Sherman he believes to some extent. Read his Religion and mind control blog. I do not think Sherman was saying what you think he was saying. I think he was trying to make his point of Jesus and or religion is man made. Which I'm VERY sure you agree with. Why so hostile Vin???
I never said Sherman or anybody else has to think like me, nor did I say that Religion should be mixed with Politics.
No hostility at all from me. I misunderstood the conversation between A and B and should have "C"een my way out of it!  LOL  BTW, I capitalize words to STRESS that word in my statements- I'm not yelling or angry at all. Showing "emotions" in a form of speech on the internet is almost impossible to do you know so I try to stress certain words.
no  
#168 | 1610 days ago

vindog wrote:
No hostility at all from me. I misunderstood the conversation between A and B and should have "C"een my way out of it!  LOL  BTW, I capitalize words to STRESS that word in my statements- I'm not yelling or angry at all. Showing "emotions" in a form of speech on the internet is almost impossible to do you know so I try to stress certain words.
Ok, Gotcha,

As my Son always says, "peace out"
yes  
#169 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

Drummer99 wrote:
Ok, Gotcha,

As my Son always says, "peace out"
No problem
no  
#170 | 1610 days ago

vindog wrote:
No hostility at all from me. I misunderstood the conversation between A and B and should have "C"een my way out of it!  LOL  BTW, I capitalize words to STRESS that word in my statements- I'm not yelling or angry at all. Showing "emotions" in a form of speech on the internet is almost impossible to do you know so I try to stress certain words.
He actually posted that quote twice, once in here and the other in his blog, "Religion mind control" .... I probably shoulda said, "this is an ongoing discussion, and It may seem I think I have all the answers to religion, I SURE don't, I've been "studying" as I call it for years, even tho I go to church, it still seems there is a lot of questions not answered, but, me or many other ppl will not find these answers, nothing is 100% clear when it comes to scripture interpretation. I was actually athiest myself in my teenage years, I upset all my friendships and I didn't even tell my family, but, as I turned 18-19, I talked to an agnostic of all ppl, who some how convinced me, there is indeed something or someone out there. The rest is history.
yes  
#171 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
Drummer99 wrote:
He actually posted that quote twice, once in here and the other in his blog, "Religion mind control" .... I probably shoulda said, "this is an ongoing discussion, and It may seem I think I have all the answers to religion, I SURE don't, I've been "studying" as I call it for years, even tho I go to church, it still seems there is a lot of questions not answered, but, me or many other ppl will not find these answers, nothing is 100% clear when it comes to scripture interpretation. I was actually athiest myself in my teenage years, I upset all my friendships and I didn't even tell my family, but, as I turned 18-19, I talked to an agnostic of all ppl, who some how convinced me, there is indeed something or someone out there. The rest is history.
Just the opposite for me! I was a practicing Catholic up until about 20 years old- then I "saw the light"! LOL  After working Intelligence in the Marine Corps and being required to study ALL religions as they pertain to terrorist activities- I came to the conclusion that Religion and the "Faith" in God were nothing but " control tools" used by various entities to keep the "people" in lock step with blind followings that their particular Leaders wanted them to follow! Religion (and the FORCED belief in God)- in my honest opinion- are nothing but scare tactics to keep people in check- period!  So "forcing" religion upon a Free Society as the means and methods of creating Laws is WRONG on ALL levels- especially in a Society such as ours that strictly requires the Separation of Church and State!
no  
#172 | 1610 days ago

vindog wrote:
Just the opposite for me! I was a practicing Catholic up until about 20 years old- then I "saw the light"! LOL  After working Intelligence in the Marine Corps and being required to study ALL religions as they pertain to terrorist activities- I came to the conclusion that Religion and the "Faith" in God were nothing but " control tools" used by various entities to keep the "people" in lock step with blind followings that their particular Leaders wanted them to follow! Religion (and the FORCED belief in God)- in my honest opinion- are nothing but scare tactics to keep people in check- period!  So "forcing" religion upon a Free Society as the means and methods of creating Laws is WRONG on ALL levels- especially in a Society such as ours that strictly requires the Separation of Church and State!
Think you got the language messed there a bit.      "such as ours that strictly forbids the Separation of Church and State!"     I think we require the Separation of Church and State.
#173 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

Oddfool wrote:
Think you got the language messed there a bit.      "such as ours that strictly forbids the Separation of Church and State!"     I think we require the Separation of Church and State.
Merely semantics... Nothing intentional there
no  
#174 | 1610 days ago

No problem.   I knew what you meant, but I also know that some people would assume you are on the opposite side of arguments for less than that.
#175 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

True- I changed it so there is no confusion. LOL
no  
#176 | 1610 days ago

vindog wrote:
Just the opposite for me! I was a practicing Catholic up until about 20 years old- then I "saw the light"! LOL  After working Intelligence in the Marine Corps and being required to study ALL religions as they pertain to terrorist activities- I came to the conclusion that Religion and the "Faith" in God were nothing but " control tools" used by various entities to keep the "people" in lock step with blind followings that their particular Leaders wanted them to follow! Religion (and the FORCED belief in God)- in my honest opinion- are nothing but scare tactics to keep people in check- period!  So "forcing" religion upon a Free Society as the means and methods of creating Laws is WRONG on ALL levels- especially in a Society such as ours that strictly requires the Separation of Church and State!
Thats how I used to think, lol, are we opposites?
Vin, I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
yes  
#177 | 1610 days ago
vindog (+)

Drummer99 wrote:
Thats how I used to think, lol, are we opposites?
Vin, I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
Yes we can respectfully agree to disagree on this one!  I respect EVERYONE'S Religious beliefs- just as long as their beliefs don't interfere with my life or anyone elses life!  And using "Religion" as the basis of Refusing the Rights of individual Americans to marry WHOMEVER they want to marry (in my opinion) is a crime against the U.S. Constitution.   As I said, Separation of Church and State!
"American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
no  
#178 | 1610 days ago

vindog wrote:
Yes we can respectfully agree to disagree on this one!  I respect EVERYONE'S Religious beliefs- just as long as their beliefs don't interfere with my life or anyone elses life!  And using "Religion" as the basis of Refusing the Rights of individual Americans to marry WHOMEVER they want to marry (in my opinion) is a crime against the U.S. Constitution.   As I said, Separation of Church and State!
"American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
As you've probably read in this blog, I don't agree with same sex marriage, other than that, I'm leaving that to the ppl who make those judgments, (which is put to a vote) I won't and don't try to interfere with the laws or rulings.
yes  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Filter Error 09/16
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Today
3 opinions | 11 comments | Last by Jess
ZOINKS!
Asked by Jess | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/14/14
10 opinions | 14 comments | Last by Oddfool
F/E 9/15
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
13 opinions | 16 comments | Last by woody050681
I'm not a police officer, I'm a princess!
Asked by Jess | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/13/14
5 opinions | 5 comments | Last by Lobotomy Jones
F/E 9/12
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/12/14
9 opinions | 14 comments | Last by woody050681