www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/monogamy.realistic.today/index.html

 

And MFM is pushing this crap down our throat. Just as many has predicted, support to homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy.

You should be shocked that Obama hasn't done or said anything to move towards the US signing Copenhagen. 

 

And laws against both polygamy (among adults) and gay marriage are unconstitutional.  Actually, I've heard that there are court challenges in support of polygamy on those grounds.  Once those law fall, gay marriage bans will be declared unconstitutional and all of those fundamentalist preachers be out in the open with their boyfriends.

 

 

Social conservatism is worthless garbage and very taliban-esque.

 

Is that the best you can come up with?  Besides, keeping a harem in China is back, girls would rather be a rich man's part timer than marry a peasant.

Hollywood is backing Polanski because he's their boy.  No other reason.  It's amusing to watch the mental contortions that they're going through to excuse him, because they end up defending child rape and aren't smart enough to realize it.  But that's Hollywood.

 

I agree with Nan here on one thing: the government has no business either promoting or criticizing gay marriage.  It's none of their friggin' business.  If Steve wants to marry Greg, let them.  I'm not threatened by it.  Now if they're having sex in the streets--as they do at the Folsom Street Fair in Frisco every year--that's where the line gets drawn.  I don't inflict my heterosexual predilections on them; they should return the favor.

 

Polygamy is dumb anyway.  One wife is hard enough, but four or five?  I don't see how Brigham Young managed without going completely bonkers.

 

Unfortunately, marriage is a government business. Your marriage contract has signature of governor to approve it. It has been this way for legal reasons. We can go on and on to discuss cultural, historical and sociological impact of various marital institutions. Nonetheless, historically, there was never a record of homosexual marriage as a culture norm.

 

Why?

 

Because marriage is not about love, sex, happiness or pleasure. To gays, homosexual behavior means love ,sex and pleasure. The real face of homosexual behavior is not what Hollywood portraits today. Orgy is better description of that sort of sexual conduct. It is no statistic coincidence that AIDS spread faster among two groups in 1980s.

 

So what is the interest for homosexual to get married in order to have an officially approved paper of legal status? There is literally no tax benefit for married couples nowadays. Even heterosexuals don't want to get married, for fear of divorce court and custody battle. All marital function can be replaced by civil contract and death will. So what's the point here?

 

Probably.... no point at all, except being the remnant of demoralization of  the Western Civilization and scam put up by professional system workers who work the system for life.

 

BTW, governments do have business in heterosexual marriage. At least used to be, as a mean to promote reproduction and population growth. If you study this sort of thing, then you'll find that cultures that practice polygamy take very perverted sexual acts as norm. Things such as old men marrying girls of single digit age, marrying first cousin to "keep blood in" or marry deceased father's concubine. Funny all of them will put gays on gallows.

Sorry, Yelli, but I'm not going to agree with you.  The gays that I know do not do what they do out of an ardent desire to bring down Western civilization.  Matter of fact, the ones that I know aren't even all that enthusiastic about gay marriage.  They figure it's no one's business.  The main argument I heard when it was on the ballot here in Montana was mainly for tax and insurance reasons.  I don't like it nor do I condone it, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

 

I don't think the Federal government should either condone or condemn gay marriage, or homosexuality for that matter.  It's not their place to do so.  As long as they keep it in the bedroom and it is between two consenting adults, then it shouldn't matter.  Do I think homosexuality is awesome?  No, I think it's unnatural.  But I'm also pretty sure that I'm not God, so it's not my place to condemn gays...I'll leave that to a higher Power.  (If I was God, I'd probably would've made sure a piano would've fallen on Pelosi's head by now and that Nan would be the head of China, which is why I'm not God.)

 

Now if gays or straights delve into child molestation, they should be punished for it big time.  (I'm a firm supporter of Jamie Foxx's position on Polanski: if he had molested my daughter, he would have disappeared.  Permanently.)  If gays feel the need to get their sex on in public, they should be thrown in the slammer.  My gay friends would agree with me on this.  The ones I can't stand are the ones who make their sexual preference their profession--these are the ones you see making a damn fool of themselves in gay pride parades, or screaming "discrimination!" anytime someone looks crosseyed at them, or threatening bodily harm to those who disagree with them on something like Prop 8.

 

There's another word for people like that: atttention whores.

 

I just don't see the slide into anarchy and mass perversion and polygamy if gay marriage is allowed.  Baron von Steuben was gay, but Valley Forge didn't exactly turn into a homosexual orgy.

 

You're right.  Just like a zillion other things, it is completely unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any laws whatsoever regarding the definition of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.  There's no ennumeration of any such authority to do so to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

 

Therefore that authority remains with the people and the states, in accordance with what the Constitution unequivocably and explicitly proclaims in the 10th amendment, and nothing else in the Constitution can properly be used as any justification for any action, decision, etc., by the federal government pro or con regarding any stance any state does take in defining marriage in that state, with only the ***POSSIBLE*** exception of the equal protections clause.  However, I'd bet a very good argument could be made against the equal protections clause applying to force one state to accept another state's definition (the equal protections clause does not universally apply to all subject matter), and at best it should properly only be recognized as compelling one state that does define marriage to include homosexuals to therefor recognize the marriage of homosexuals from another state that also defines marriage to include homosexuals.

 

Thus, any state that decides to define marriage as consisting only of a sacred union of a man and a woman can do so, and the federal government has absolutely no authority to tell that state otherwise.  Also, any state that decides to define marriage as also including the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can do so, and the federal government has absolutely no authority to tell any other states (or the citizens thereof) that they must recognize such a union as being a marriage.

 

Such is the beauty of our Republican form of government, where the ultimate law is the Constitution, and is not the whim of the current crop of elites.

 

Also, any state that decides to define marriage as also including the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can do so, and the federal government has absolutely no authority to tell any other states (or the citizens thereof) that they must recognize such a union as being a marriage.

Whoops.  For completeness that would have better said:

"Also, any state that decides to define marriage as also including the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can do so, and the federal government has absolutely no authority to tell any other states (or the citizens thereof) that they must recognize such a union as being a marriage--unless the other state also defines marriage that way."

Yellichink:

 

 

 

I have no way of knowing that. I never go out and watch to check up on what gays are doing to each other. Do you?

 

 

As a Frenchman once said: orgies are fun once, but only a cad would make a habit of them.  (Or was that Flashman?)

 

Anyhow, one correction there, Nan:  the Greeks and Romans did have formalized traditional marriages, and laws to this regard tended to be pretty strict--at least in the letter of the law. 

 

Spartan bonds of marriage were considered very strong, though the male often took homosexual lovers (since the only way he could see his wife was to sneak out of the barracks, whereupon his buddies would see that as a training exercise and try and ambush him) and the female was allowed to take outside lovers with her husband's permission or if she wasn't getting pregnant, since the primary purpose of Spartan ladies was to have kids and maintain the household.  Once the husband was released from service at age 30--he was considered a reservist after that--they weren't supposed to take other lovers, unless again the woman wasn't getting pregnant.

 

Among the Athenians, it was okay for men to take lovers, but not women.  They were supposed to stay in the house, barefoot, pregnant, and most of all, quiet.  If they did go outside, they had to cover up.  Makes you wonder if that's where the burqa got started.

 

The Romans were a bit more formal.  The husband could legally kill or sell into slavery his children, but not his wife.  If he wanted a divorce, it went before a jury--a jury made up of the wife's relatives.  You can guess how that went.  Adultery was about the only way a Roman man could get out of marriage, and then he'd better have some damn good evidence that his wife was running around on him.  Roman noblewomen wielded a considerable amount of power, and of course Roman history abounds with women who figured out how to use that power.

 

Granted, this didn't stop people from running around on each other; certainly Julius Caesar rarely kept it in his pants.  For appearances' sake though, he had to make sure his affairs were discreet (or far away, like with Cleopatra), because he stood to lose a lot if Calpurnia divorced him.  Octavian used the excuse of Mark Antony marrying Cleopatra when he was already married to convince the Senate that Antony was an outlaw to be hunted down.  In any case, Roman law was specific, although people didn't often adhere to that law.  The same thing could be said today, of course.

 

I don't know how the Chinese worked, but in feudal Japan, it was legal for samurai to take as many mistresses as they liked, but only one wife.  Divorce was difficult, though the daimyo or shogun could order a marriage dissolved--even then, he'd better have a good reason, or at least a good excuse.

 

 

I don't need to hammer my penis to know that I don't like it.

 

dailynews.sina.com/bg/tw/twlocal/bcc/20090803/0741534708.html

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237899,00.html

 

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86412

 

www.cwfa.org/articles/16257/CFI/family/index.htm

 

www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-art/greek-love-homosexual-art/bisexual-greek-pottery-orgy.html

 

www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/01/1180205513859.html

 

 

You also forgot the part that samurai class can't marry on their own will. Their marriages are political, and often ends quite ugly. At least that didn't go well with Takeda Shingen.

 

Chinese do not have feudal society for very long period of time. However, the marriage law hasn't changed much during the ages to conform to Confucius values. Regardless of the demise of nobility and feudal lords, men and women from different social class don't intermarry. A lot women married to their first cousin for that matter. This was especially the case in farm village where most people used to leave. Taking concubines is another matter. Rich men get concubines, while poor men can hardly get a wife. As a result, tribalism arises from concentration of young women and off springs. That's how most rural Chinese villages are dominated by one or two families. It's not even hard to find a village where everyone is Wang.

 

In the cities, you have surplus underclass single men and thriving prostitution sector, which, believe it or not, drives down labor salary dramatically.