Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:31 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,176,442 times
Reputation: 1577

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Why stop at 2 consenting adults. Why not allow 3, 4, heck 10 consenting adults to get married. It wont hurt anybody at all..
I don't think it would, nor do I have a compelling argument as to why it should be illegal. However, like NAMBLA, I don't think that was the topic of the thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:31 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,562,831 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by chele123 View Post
It might not. But that is not the issue NOW; the issue now is Gay marriage. There is no logical reason to ban it.
No, no, no, It may not be YOUR issue, but that is THE issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:32 PM
 
Location: SW Kansas
1,787 posts, read 3,873,036 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom View Post
Heck add in a goat, a sheep and a mule and you'll have a real down home event.

freedom
There is no reason to compare homosexuality to beastiality. They are no where near the same. I'd have to look it up, but I'm going to bet that the majority of people engaging in beastiality are heterosexuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:33 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,562,831 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Because that's not what the debate is about. The question is: Do we each, as Californians, have a right to marry the individual of our choice?

And don't veer off into comments about marrying your brother or sister because, again, that's not what this is about.
Actually thats exactly what the debate is about.

The debate is if the LEGAL definition of marriage should be changed. If your going to change it, then why not allow 3, 4, 10 people to get married. After all, that would be the non-bigoted, progressive thing to do, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:33 PM
 
Location: SW Kansas
1,787 posts, read 3,873,036 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No, no, no, It may not be YOUR issue, but that is THE issue.
Are you saying that your oppostition to gay marriage is your fear it will lead to more than two people being married to each other?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:35 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,842,918 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The lawsuits are a seperat act from the ballot initiative. The minute the ballot initiatives win, by majority vote, its law.
But a judge can put a restraining order on the new law immediately, as happened with Prop 187.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:35 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,562,831 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges View Post
I don't think it would, nor do I have a compelling argument as to why it should be illegal. However, like NAMBLA, I don't think that was the topic of the thread.
Changing the legal definition of "Marriage" is the topic of the thread.. so yes, marrying multiple individuals is on topic..

Hey, if your all for same sex partners getting married, I'm all for marrying 2, 3, heck 7 females sounds right..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:36 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,562,831 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by chele123 View Post
Are you saying that your oppostition to gay marriage is your fear it will lead to more than two people being married to each other?
I'm opposed to the change of the definition of marriage PERIOD. But if your going to shout and scream that you want the right to marry someone of the same sex, then I want the right to marry multiple females. Its progressive and non bigoted..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:37 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,176,442 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom View Post
I see your point, but they had seen hetero's kiss and it was not the same reaction. They know, its not a mystery to them.
Hard to believe they weren't influenced by you or your wife, then.

Quote:
Well while that certainly could have been part of it, the advertisers pulled the plug on any more ads, after the kiss.
I never heard that, but it could be the case. Shameful.


Quote:
Not fully accepted nor partially accepted, tolerated yes... accepted... don't see it happening, and i think prop 8 proved that.
Then you have less patience than I do. These things take time.

Quote:
Really i thought what a waste of time, pushing a anti gay marriage prop. in California... i figured that liberal state to have bought into gay is okay, long ago. But fortunately i was wrong... at least for now.
Exactly...for now.

Quote:
It's been studied to death, and i've yet to see a case where there wasn't some trigger or excuse for gay behavior. I don't need to justify, its all there for the world to see, and i don't cheer the suffering, i have empathy and hope.
You need to get out more, because I have met plenty of well-adjusted non-heterosexuals who have not suffered abuse. Common sense. You do have to justify views such as those--the ones that contradict reason. And there's no sense in having hope for those who are fine as it is. If you won't support marriage for all, redirect all that empathy and hope to people who are starving or otherwise suffering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:37 PM
 
Location: SW Kansas
1,787 posts, read 3,873,036 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Changing the legal definition of "Marriage" is the topic of the thread.. so yes, marrying multiple individuals is on topic..

Hey, if your all for same sex partners getting married, I'm all for marrying 2, 3, heck 7 females sounds right..
Good luck with that. But what the heck, if you can find that many to put up with you then go for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top