What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”
Click to expand...

legalize polygamy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
moevillini said:
I'm not sure I understand how going to a flat tax on incomes would necessarily do anything to change the distinction between filing an individual return vs. filing a joint return - nor does it have anything to do with abolishing deductions for dependents, charitable donations, home mortgage interest, property taxes, etc.

My understanding is that it would change the graduated system whereby higher taxable incomes are taxed at higher rates to one where all taxable income is taxed at the same rate - - but it doesn't change the method of arriving at the amount for taxable income.

But maybe I misunderstand.
Click to expand...

I think the legitimate beef gays have had about "marriage" all comes down to tax status and employment benefit status. Why should we treat people differently? I mean, how legitimate are the distinctions we draw in the tax code and in defining job benefits? Dutch pointed out above that in Israel these distinctions are resolved per household co-residence, which means the tax and benefit biases based on prejudice just go away. Dutch also points out that in general, people who don't care about religion or have inordinate respect for "legality", like most gays/lesbians really are at heart, are not going to pin their star on a "marriage license", either. Since it really means nothing, the State should just stop issuing them.
 
I just wanted to say that I would be fine with polygamy.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I just wanted to say that I would be fine with polygamy.
Click to expand...

how about a giant homosexual pile of polygamy

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I think I will pass on that.



But I wonder how far we are from mere acceptance not being enough to prove you are not homophobic. How long until full participation is the only acceptable measure of acceptance.


That thought, and that picture, gives new meaning to the phrase "slippery slope".
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think I will pass on that.



But I wonder how far we are from mere acceptance not being enough to prove you are not homophobic. How long until full participation is the only acceptable measure of acceptance.


That thought, and that picture, gives new meaning to the phrase "slippery slope".
Click to expand...

We'll never get to that point. Not in my lifetime.
 
JimLes said:
To interrupt a little, why is it so important for religious organizations to be able to discriminate? Why does it seem like being able to hate on gay people is one of the tenets of so many denominations.

There has been hoopla here in Canada over a Christian university being able to give out law degrees, and it has to do with the university is question banning gay sex. And I'm sitting here wonder where the hell in the Bible did gay sex get singled out as the single worst sin you can do, meriting expulsion for students. And I tried to google whether the university has expelled people in the past for violating the 10 commandments or committing a deadly sin. You know, kids going home during a break and getting into mad fights with their parents over switching from Business to Poli Sci and getting expelled or someone eating 4 medium pepperoni pizzas at Pizza Hut's all-you-can-eat lunch buffet and getting kicked out of school. Couldn't find anything.

So, why then is homosexuality so much worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, gluttony, or greed? Why do mission statements of these school single out homosexuality instead of saying "We are against all sinful behaviour, as per our holy text?" Why is it so important to them to constantly single out and rebuke gay people?
Click to expand...

I agree that greed, gluttony, etc are oft ignored by Christians when they shouldn't be. As for the rest of your post, I had a good friend who got kicked out of a Christian college for getting drunk (got caught twice). I know of people who got kicked out for having pre-marital sex. The common theme among all of them was a sense of unrepentantness. They didn't want to say what they were doing was wrong or change their behavior.

Now I can understand why you disagree with those decisions, I just wanted to point out that it's not just homosexuality (although sometimes it is, and I think that's just as wrong.)
 
Big differences between polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage...

Moving to a system that allows two people of any gender to enter into a legally defined status (commonly referred to as marriage) did not require recreating the system.

Legalizing polygamy so that it becomes an equivalent system would be very complex - - for instance, say three people are "married" and one wants out of the "partnership" - - does that mean the entire partnership dissolves? Or if one dies - same question? Would there be any limit on the number that could be joined under this system? It would be interesting to see what would happen if there is a state that wants to set up some sort of system that would answer these questions, and allow folks to apply for this new status.

As it is now, there's nothing to prohibit three or more people from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what is the purpose of "legalizing" polygamy?

To me, it just sounds like a form of communal living, which is certainly already allowed. Here's an interesting article:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150320/ISSUE03/150329991/is-communal-living-making-a-comeback
 
moevillini said:
Big differences between polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage...

Moving to a system that allows two people of any gender to enter into a legally defined status (commonly referred to as marriage) did not require recreating the system.

Legalizing polygamy so that it becomes an equivalent system would be very complex - - for instance, say three people are "married" and one wants out of the "partnership" - - does that mean the entire partnership dissolves? Or if one dies - same question? Would there be any limit on the number that could be joined under this system? It would be interesting to see what would happen if there is a state that wants to set up some sort of system that would answer these questions, and allow folks to apply for this new status.

As it is now, there's nothing to prohibit three or more people from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what is the purpose of "legalizing" polygamy?

To me, it just sounds like a form of communal living, which is certainly already allowed. Here's an interesting article:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150320/ISSUE03/150329991/is-communal-living-making-a-comeback
Click to expand...

If three people love each other, who ar you to stand in their way, H8ter!
 
This is irrelevant to the current discussion, but relevant to Christiniaty, homosexuality, and my feelings on the matter. It describes it in a much better way than I've been able to. So I hope you guys read this, especially Trout, as this is how I feel Christianity views homosexuality.

https://adam4d.com/dont-hate/
 
moevillini said:
Big differences between polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage...

Moving to a system that allows two people of any gender to enter into a legally defined status (commonly referred to as marriage) did not require recreating the system.

Legalizing polygamy so that it becomes an equivalent system would be very complex - - for instance, say three people are "married" and one wants out of the "partnership" - - does that mean the entire partnership dissolves? Or if one dies - same question? Would there be any limit on the number that could be joined under this system? It would be interesting to see what would happen if there is a state that wants to set up some sort of system that would answer these questions, and allow folks to apply for this new status.

As it is now, there's nothing to prohibit three or more people from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what is the purpose of "legalizing" polygamy?

To me, it just sounds like a form of communal living, which is certainly already allowed. Here's an interesting article:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150320/ISSUE03/150329991/is-communal-living-making-a-comeback
Click to expand...
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
 
Howard said:
This is irrelevant to the current discussion, but relevant to Christiniaty, homosexuality, and my feelings on the matter. It describes it in a much better way than I've been able to. So I hope you guys read this, especially Trout, as this is how I feel Christianity views homosexuality.

https://adam4d.com/dont-hate/
Click to expand...

As a non-believer in Christian-Judeo organized religion, the cognitive dissonance spilled all over that cartoon is why many are just baffled by your position.

First, I love how "Me" in the cartoon is circled many times mentioning that "there is love there" and "i love you", yet the other person doesn't have anything written about "You". Very telling actually.

Second, this cartoon basically says "I don't hate you, but God disagrees with the way you live your life, and in turn I do." This is classic religious deflection, i.e. "It's God's way, not mine." You get to appropriate your opinions and beliefs to God and not yourself. In essence, "It's God's call, not mine." Problem is, it is your call. You decide what your opinions are and what you believe. There are so many religions and interpretations of God, there is no way to know which one is correct. You have faith, an opinion, and believe if your interpretation. That's your choice, no one elses. Once you own that, you'll realize that "love" your trying to project is stifled by hurtful opinions.

Third, I know this works out in your head because it justifies your belief system and world view. But try turning it on its head and think if being straight was the "sin" and being gay was "God's plan". Think about someone giving this cartoon to you and how it would make you feel. Think about if a person from another religion gave this to you and it was about your religion being a "sin". Conversations go both ways, make sure you are able to take the same explanation and feel "loved".

"I love you, but God thinks who you are is sinful, so I will try to stop you from being able to truly be who you are. But I don't hate you, I love you." I'm sorry that makes no sense, and is a way for religious people to justify treating people like crap.

How does this logic makes sense to you? Ultimately, many just say "because Jesus" and move on. Because it doesn't make sense. You can tell someone you love them all day, and actively speak out against who they are, and they will not feel loved. So because you say it makes it true? No. Love is 2 way street. This is an extreme example but explains the macro idea: Some murders "love" their victims, does that make it ok? No. Doing things out of love are not always good. Love is not an excuse.

Once people stop lying to themselves just to keep their beliefs totally consistent across the board, they'll realize that its not about being right or wrong. It's about real love, the kind others feel from you, not just what you want to project.
 
DutchJazzer said:
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

look at the U.S. Tax Code...

since you don't live in the United States or pay taxes here, it might not be something you're that aware of, or seem that important to you - - but it's a benefit that was formerly only available to married opposite sex couples
 
DutchJazzer said:
i could use your argument agains tgay mariage

As it is was before the supreme court decision, there was no to prohibiting 2 same sex persons from sharing living quarters, having whatever consensual sexual relations they choose, dividing up expenses and assets as they see fit, etc. I'm sure they could even go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up to codify their choices. So what was the purpose of "legalizing" same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

again, a married same-sex couple was NOT eligible for the same tax benefits (and other legal status benefits) that were available to opposite-sex couples

all the ruling does is say that the legal benefits that are extended to couples of the opposite sex are extended to couples of the same sex - otherwise, it's the same thing
 
moevillini said:
look at the U.S. Tax Code...

since you don't live in the United States or pay taxes here, it might not be something you're that aware of, or seem that important to you - - but it's a benefit that was formerly only available to married opposite sex couples
Click to expand...
i know about that code. but seems like they wouldnt accept same rights with another name of mariage ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top