celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Polygamy?Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.
The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...
If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.
This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.
If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.
creativedreams said:This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.
I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.
The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...
If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.
This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.
I don't support someone having to get a marriage license to get married.
I could personally care less if two or more people wanted to be together in such a way.
.
Rather than legalize gay marriage, eliminate marriage licenses entirely.
I do not support any of the above for the reasons that I cited in this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057980894-post179.html
None of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government.
What evidence there is shows that poly couples stay together as long as monogamous ones - and, apparently, for good reasons. In a study published last December in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality (vol 8), Cook analysed the relationships of seven couples who had been married for more than 10 years, and who had had additional partners for at least seven of those years. She found that most of the couples reported "love" or "connection" as important reasons for staying together. This contrasts with monogamous couples, Cook notes, who often list external factors such as religion or family as major reasons for remaining committed.
Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D. attended Barnard College, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California at Berkeley in 1975 and received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Washington in 1981. She is a leading edge healer, writer, and teacher. In 1984, she founded the Sacred Space Institute (formerly IntiNet Resource Center and The Abundant Love Institute), a national organization dedicated to reintegrating sexuality into spirituality and health care and expanding the boundaries of the family.
Dr. Anapol is the author of Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits (1997), cofounder of Loving More Magazine, and producer of the video, Pelvic Heart Integration. Dr. Anapol has worked with groups, partners, and individuals who are exploring conscious relationships and sexual healing for over two decades, leads workshops nationwide, and is an inspiring and illuminating speaker. She is available for individual coaching, phone counseling, seminars, and public speaking engagements.
I don't see how government regulating marriage through marriage licenses either provides benefits nor how ending that regulation would end those benefits.Would you support nixing all the benefits from being married as well? Thats the reason I support gay marriage so they can get the same legal benefits regular married couples do.
A fair question. I posed it that way because I wanted to see how gay marriage supporters viewed the rights of consenting adults more broadly--i.e., are gay marriage supporters strictly advocating a right/privilege for homosexuals, or are they willing to take a broader view of the issue.I'm curious why the OP poses the question of polygamy to gay marriage supporters. Since polygamy seems to be primarily a heterosexual practice, it seems that question would better be posed to supporters of traditional male/female marriage.
But I'm funny that way.
A fair question. I posed it that way because I wanted to see how gay marriage supporters viewed the rights of consenting adults more broadly--i.e., are gay marriage supporters strictly advocating a right/privilege for homosexuals, or are they willing to take a broader view of the issue.
It hardly seems productive to ask the question of people who advocate for exclusively heterosexual monogamous marriage.
My response to that would be "so what if it did?"The purpose, in some instances, is to force the conclusion that allowing gay marriage would open the 'Pandora's box' for all sorts of other non-traditional marriages.
I am opposed to government being in the role of sanctioning marriages of any kind. Marriage should be religious sacrament, period.
Not inconsistent at all. I wanted to add a different dimension to the gay marriage debate. I specifically avoided declaring a position up front in the hopes of stimulating discussion.If that's truly your position, then why didn't you create a poll asking whether marriage should be sanctioned by the government or rendered to a strictly religious sacrament? And why limit it to those who favor gay marriage?
Your response here is completely inconsistent with the thread you created.
:doh