Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM[W:95]

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

1.) honest and educated people dont care what you buy because you buying it or not doesnt impact that facts

Click to expand...

Well, knowing from living with myself my entire life that I am honest and educated and not knowing you from Adam pretty much tells me you're on the wrong tack there. You have it wrong about me, what else do you have wrong? Also knowing how people have voted in the majority tells me what other people (beside yourself and the minority that thinks like you do) do indeed care what I think.

AGENT J said:

2.) no i cant do what i want theres laws i must follow and rights of others i must respect.

Click to expand...

Then you're not as bright as you advertise. You've helped to set up a condition in this country where all you have to do is manufacture a new constitutional right in order to do what you please.

AGENT J said:

3.) to bad you feel that way, the awesome thing is you are free to leave and find a country with less freedom and rights that suits you.

Click to expand...

As you have been this entire time. And nope, not gonna leave, I'm here for the free stuff remember? I've joined your side of the deal.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

I'd rather it be made legal in all 50 states so I can find out what liberals will bitch about next.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.

Click to expand...

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:

From the point of legal status and the legal ramifications of that idea you do run into a more complicated contract which requires more rules and arbitration. The marriage contract focusses a lot on legal responsibilities, assets, and the status of the contract. You have singles, you have doubles, but when you get into a polygamous marriage you enter into a contract that would look more like a corporate contract. For instance if a couple decides to break up the partnership is done and they go back to single status. If you have three or more people it is likely some will chose to stay together and others will chose to leave the contract. How do you divide things up when the contract is over considering divorce is pretty standard? Who gets to make decisions on finances for someone if they are incapacitated? As a partnership one person gets that authority, but then you would have multiple people in charge who would potentially have a say in things like medical treatments, and different opinions which they may not have time to argue out. In this case you do actually have large complications which come about that are not religious in nature.

It is not that these issues cannot be addressed as we have legal contracts like corporations which are defined by a starting contract where the members decide things like responsibilities and asset management when they enter in, and often have methods for members leaving and other issues. It is not very romantic or religious to start declaring these things before a marriage which is a legal contract which is treated very simplistically by many people entering into it. People do not like looking at the divide between the religious and romantic areas of marriage and the legal contract which is what the state is truly responsible for. I think people would have to start taking a much less romanticized view of marriage in order to make polygamy work, and I don't think that is what people in love are really prepared to do today.

I do not have any real opposition to it on a emotional or religious standpoint. If you do not feel it is right on a moral standpoint you simply do not have to involve yourself in one. Still, it is hard enough for the government to handle all the BS of a divorce between two people and maybe they should stay out of polygamy and leave it to religion to make religious oaths between people and limit the personal contracts to partnerships.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion will people in a threesome relationship try to get married if the gays do or not?

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

winston53660 said:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Every one of those cutures is dead now. :mrgreen:

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

1.) The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage.
2.) Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope.
3.) From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.

Click to expand...

1.) so since gay marriage exists BC and polygamist marriages already existed in the pase and in this very country incest marriage existed so can you tell me what the meaning is? no you cant because, sorry, its made up, its totally subjective.
2.) see #1 maybe you didnt understand the question, i asked for FACTS that link gay marriage leading to a slippery slope of other marriages. not your opinions
3.) and that stand point is illogical and a failed one like i said. theres no logical reason for gay marriage to lead to EVERYONE in a relationship Andy more than hetero. thank you fro proving my point. You need facts and precedence, maybe you didnt understand.

Like i said earlier your argument is just as sound as when people said guess we should let dogs vote to after women and minority rights. SOrry you have no leg to stand on. let me know when you do.
like i said if you disagree provide the facts that lead to polygamy marriage just based on gay marriage precedence.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

winston53660 said:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

All well and good but I'm talking about America here.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

no equal rights wouldnt apply since NOBODY can have a marriage contract with multiple partners

so unless a state banned specifically polygamous MAARRIAGE first, then they could argue discrimination and equality but that would have NOTHING to do with gay marriage or hetero marriage.

also polygamy is polandry/polgynyy

Click to expand...

Not true. You seem to accept the number of partners limitation as cast in stone yet see the being of opposite gender limitation as "easily" changable. Business partnership contracts, which handle survivorship, voluntary/involuntary separation of a partner and joint asset ownership, allow any number of partners and of any gender. The only fundamental change of a business partnership to make it marriage compatable would be the limitation to be in only one such agreement at a time (no bygamy).

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

1.)Well, knowing from living with myself my entire life that I am honest and educated and not knowing you from Adam pretty much tells me you're on the wrong tack there. You have it wrong about me, what else do you have wrong? Also knowing how people have voted in the majority tells me what other people (beside yourself and the minority that thinks like you do) do indeed care what I think.



Then you're not as bright as you advertise. You've helped to set up a condition in this country where all you have to do is manufacture a new constitutional right in order to do what you please.



3.) As you have been this entire time.
4.)And nope, not gonna leave, I'm here for the free stuff remember? I've joined your side of the deal.

Click to expand...

1.) no i got it right, your feelings dont change facts. got that 100% right
2.) meaningless lie and failed insult, thanks but this changes nothing
3.) 100% correct but im happy my country protects my rights and the rights of my fellow american so i dont want to leave. so thats silly to bring up
4.) that has nothing to do with me, but please, feel free to make up more stuff and use more failed strawmen

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

1.) so since gay marriage exists BC and polygamist marriages already existed in the pase and in this very country incest marriage existed so can you tell me what the meaning is? no you cant because, sorry, its made up, its totally subjective.
2.) see #1 maybe you didnt understand the question, i asked for FACTS that link gay marriage leading to a slippery slope of other marriages. not your opinions
3.) and that stand point is illogical and a failed one like i said. theres no logical reason for gay marriage to lead to EVERYONE in a relationship Andy more than hetero. thank you fro proving my point. You need facts and precedence, maybe you didnt understand.

Like i said earlier your argument is just as sound as when people said guess we should let dogs vote to after women and minority rights. SOrry you have no leg to stand on. let me know when you do.
like i said if you disagree provide the facts that lead to polygamy marriage just based on gay marriage precedence.

Click to expand...

Just because you ask for something does not mean I have to answer. I thought I was pretty clear that gays changing the meaning of marriage was a slippery slope. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree or better yet you give me facts, facts that prove gay marriage won't lead to other relationships demanding marriage rights. See, I can play your stupid game too.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.

Click to expand...

What I see under constant assault is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness for ALL of our citizens along with "equal protection" under the law, and "due process" which is, to me, the more important issue over who marries who.

So polygamy would effect you or the rest of us how?

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.

Click to expand...

perhaps that was a slope that needs to be gone down. They are consenting adults. Them getting married does not harm anyone but them if things go wrong. Your argument does not take into account the open prejudice of saying these adults can enter into a partnership with each other, but for some strange reason they cannot enter into the same legal contract with other adults. From a legal standpoint you can make any other contract but marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. Just because it has always been done that way is a terrible argument on two fronts. First, we have not always done things right so changing them when they are wrong is important. The other is that it has not always been marriage as we know it today. marriage used to be entirely about political and financial unions of families and it was arranged. Your traditional marriage idea of two people being in love is certainly not a traditional marriage at all.

If there is a legal contract there is no reason that religious values like man and woman should be mixed in there at all. If the people entering into the partnership have moral reservations they should be free of forming a contract they are not consenting to, but if they have no objections and are willing they should be allowed to partner as anyone else would. It is called free and equal. Polygamy would require a new form of domestic union contract. Gay marriage does not actually require a new contract, it only needs to have gays allowed into the old contract. So your slippery actually bottoms out because it is not as simple as just letting more people into a legal contract designed for only two people. Letting gays marry is as simple as just opening the partner contract to them, and as we see in states like NM nothing actually changes when they just start issuing contracts to people of the same gender. That slippery slope BS fails on almost every level. Even things like partnerships with kids, animals, and objects would require changes in the laws because we have something called consent which none of those things can give legally. So even there you cannot just start handing out marriage contracts to a man and a dog because the dog cannot enter into the legal contract like two consenting adults of the same gender.

Still, perhaps we should go down the next slope and offer up a domestic contract to more than a partnership. That needs to be argued on it's own issues. Stop trying to combine them.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

ttwtt78640 said:

Not true. You seem to accept the number of partners limitation as cast in stone yet see the being of opposite gender limitation as "easily" changable. Business partnership contracts, which handle survivorship, voluntary/involuntary separation of a partner and joint asset ownership, allow any number of partners and of any gender. The only fundamental change of a business partnership to make it marriage compatable would be the limitation to be in only one such agreement at a time (no bygamy).

Click to expand...

not only true its factual. we are talking legal marriage contract , rights and precedence here. There is none that has been established with equal gay rights that magically loans itself to polygamy.

anything polygamist would try would have nothing to do with equal gay rights, thats the point. If im missing something and you disagree point out the factual link that is solely based on equal rights for gays.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

So in your opinion will people in a threesome relationship try to get married if the gays do or not?

Click to expand...

I would imagine that whether or not gays get married the people who wish to get polygamous marriages will continue to fight to get them. Since neither relies or is connected to the other i see no reason for either to rely on the other's passing aside from a desire by certain people to pretend we are going to just allow everything if we allow one or the other to marry.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:

perhaps that was a slope that needs to be gone down. They are consenting adults. Them getting married does not harm anyone but them if things go wrong. Your argument does not take into account the open prejudice of saying these adults can enter into a partnership with each other, but for some strange reason they cannot enter into the same legal contract with other adults. From a legal standpoint you can make any other contract but marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. Just because it has always been done that way is a terrible argument on two fronts. First, we have not always done things right so changing them when they are wrong is important. The other is that it has not always been marriage as we know it today. marriage used to be entirely about political and financial unions of families and it was arranged. Your traditional marriage idea of two people being in love is certainly not a traditional marriage at all.

If there is a legal contract there is no reason that religious values like man and woman should be mixed in there at all. If the people entering into the partnership have moral reservations they should be free of forming a contract they are not consenting to, but if they have no objections and are willing they should be allowed to partner as anyone else would. It is called free and equal. Polygamy would require a new form of domestic union contract. Gay marriage does not actually require a new contract, it only needs to have gays allowed into the old contract. So your slippery actually bottoms out because it is not as simple as just letting more people into a legal contract designed for only two people. Letting gays marry is as simple as just opening the partner contract to them, and as we see in states like NM nothing actually changes when they just start issuing contracts to people of the same gender. That slippery slope BS fails on almost every level. Even things like partnerships with kids, animals, and objects would require changes in the laws because we have something called consent which none of those things can give legally. So even there you cannot just start handing out marriage contracts to a man and a dog because the dog cannot enter into the legal contract like two consenting adults of the same gender.

Still, perhaps we should go down the next slope and offer up a domestic contract to more than a partnership. That needs to be argued on it's own issues. Stop trying to combine them.

Click to expand...

First off I agree that polygamist will be next to demand marriage rights but you took it to the absurd with kids and animals. Lets keep it to consenting adults.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

1.) no i got it right, your feelings dont change facts. got that 100% right
2.) meaningless lie and failed insult, thanks but this changes nothing
3.) 100% correct but im happy my country protects my rights and the rights of my fellow american so i dont want to leave. so thats silly to bring up
4.) that has nothing to do with me, but please, feel free to make up more stuff and use more failed strawmen
4.)

Click to expand...

Stop altering my posts. You can do the silly list thing with your own if you wish, but quote mine as written or not at all.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

Yep, we know, you don't care. As long as you get what you want when you want it that's the gold standard. We'll see how you feel in a generation when the folks who did care have checked out, given up and joined the gimme set.

Click to expand...

Equal rights are entitlements, welfare now? LoL

You're blind with rage over business that is none of yours.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

All well and good but I'm talking about America here.

Click to expand...

America did not invent marriage, and if you want tradition you have to go back to all traditions. BTW if you are just looking at america there is no way the government can respect the religious definitions of marriage by denying couples of legally consenting age marriage based on biblical rules.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Removable Mind said:

What I see under constant assault is life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness for ALL of our citizens along with "equal protection" under the law, and "due process" which is, to me, the more important issue over who marries who.

So polygamy would effect you or the rest of us how?

Click to expand...

I'm all for giving them all legal rights but if you let them get married you fundamentally change the meaning of the word. There is no denying that.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

1.)Just because you ask for something does not mean I have to answer.
2.)I thought I was pretty clear that gays changing the meaning of marriage was a slippery slope.
3.)Just my opinion
4.), feel free to disagree
5.) better yet you give me facts, facts that prove gay marriage won't lead to other relationships demanding marriage rights.
6.) See, I can play your stupid game too.

Click to expand...

1.) translation, you cant because you have no argument against the facts
2.) yes you gave me that opinion but i asked for facts to back it up. If you just want to say its only your opinion thats fine by me but theres no facts to support it
3.) ahhh now we have the back pedal, thank you
4.) another mistake, my opinion is meaningless to the facts just like yours
5.) this isnt the argument, hell it might inspire everybody to try, the argument was "slippery slope, rights, laws and precedence" thank you again for proving you have no clue what slipper slope actually means.
6.) lashing out in dismissive anger only further exposes your completely failed argument.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

Stop altering my posts. You can do the silly list thing with your own if you wish, but quote mine as written or not at all.

Click to expand...

translation: you go nothing, thanks i knew that

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

not only true its factual. we are talking legal marriage contract , rights and precedence here. There is none that has been established with equal gay rights that magically loans itself to polygamy.

anything polygamist would try would have nothing to do with equal gay rights, thats the point. If im missing something and you disagree point out the factual link that is solely based on equal rights for gays.

Click to expand...

The definition of a gay and a polygamist are both based on strong personal preference. I understand your opinion that keeping the two partner limit is "fundamental" to a marriage "partnership", but why is that not true of a business "partnership"? The point is that once a strong personal preference requires that the state present a compelling state interest to justify the "inequality" of the law, that makes a polygamy ban a tough thing to justify, especially since it is a much more popular form of marriage than SSM is worldwide.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

First off I agree that polygamist will be next to demand marriage rights but you took it to the absurd with kids and animals. Lets keep it to consenting adults.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you do recognize the slippery slopes are not connected. BTW polygamists are not the next to ask for marriage since they have been demanding it for much longer than gays have. You do remember mittens romnifeller from last election? Word has it his parents were polygamists who were in this religion with other polygamists who fought against a ban on polygamy and felt so strongly about it they went to mexico so they could practice it. In other words, the gays are the next ones after polygamists to ask for marriage rights. The polygamists never stopped, but they might feel empowered to ask more often if gay marriage is recognized.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Verax said:

Equal rights are entitlements, welfare now? LoL

You're blind with rage over business that is none of yours.

Click to expand...

No equal rights are not entitlements. But this whole gay marriage thing is. And you join Agent J in not knowing what you're talking about. I have no anger against gay, straight, or sideways folks - never have.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:

First off I agree that polygamist will be next to demand marriage rights but you took it to the absurd with kids and animals. Lets keep it to consenting adults.

Click to expand...

they wont be NEXT, they have been trying for years
you really dont know anything about this subject do you?