That sounds like you only wanted to see what it tasted like. :p

I wasn't being sarcastic about "them" I was being sarcastic to your claim that

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults"

when that is false.

Now we'll end up in a discussion of what the definition of is is... oh wait, what consent is.

What reasons do you have to determine the difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage?

to answer your question, see my response on the historical degradation of society.

My 2 cents on this:


What we are all struggling with here is as old as humanity itself.

It is the personal struggle between what we as a race of human beings intrinsically hold as "good" and "moral" and "ethical" and "right", . . . . . balanced against "self rightousness" and "intolerance" and "lack of unconditional love for our fellow human being"

This struggle is held both at a personal level within each of us as well as at a social level among all of us collectively.

We will NEVER figure it out. It has gone on from the time the first person became self aware and will continue until we all meet our maker. Maybe we are not supposed to figure it out. Maybe the journey and the effort in itself is the value!!!!


.

Did I make that connection?
If your question is from the statement
"Jerry Lee Lewis was considered a pedophile, and his "wife" was fine with it, that's consent."

That was in response to VRM's statement

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults, neither is pedophilism."

I probably should have addressed it as a question in response.


Then shouldn't the argument be taken on the federal level?

If this were to continue, wouldn't 501(c)3 churches be held discriminatory for not performing a homosexual marriage?

I don't think it's possible to use the term simple and legal in the same sentence. ;)

Well said, Ed ;)

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults"

Polygamy is between three or more people, consenting or otherwise, thus making my statement true.

Thanks Jamo. I appreciate that coming from you!


.

JT...just based on the order of your posts...assumed you were still talking about Lewis since you were asking about consent.

Federal level? Might get there someday (like abortion), but doubtful given each state's inherent right to regulate marriage and how it affects side issues such as family law matters, divorces, liability, etc. It's not really a "life or death" question.

I looked at the bill initially when it was being put forward and didn't remember anything about the "religion of homosexuality" and will read it again. But, I think it is pretty funny how the Yes on 8 people made this huge deal about wanting to keep the idea of gay marriage away from their kids and then put Yes on 8 ads at ALL hours of the day on every channel - so we ended up having to explain it to our kids anyway. So the idea of shielding them from gayness is kind of pointless. The other thing that I find strange is how some people think that a state law banning sodomy or gay marriage somehow prevents people from "turning" gay. This is unfathomable to me. Think back to when you were a teenager and imagine that there was no stigma attached to being gay . . . would you really have suddenly gotten a boner in the shower at gym class or suddenly NOT gotten a boner when flipping through the SI swimsuit issue? Just because of a LAW? Mother nature is waaaaay more powerful than our stupid laws. We don't suddenly crave hairy-man-love because there is no law against it. And none of my hetero classmates would have suddenly forgotten how smoking-hot our MILF 10th grade English teacher was because of a court decision.

I personally believe that there is a small minority of people are born with it. They had different, (what I would call "aberrated") wiring regarding sex. Some people are born with a pre-disposition to all kinds of things that religions teach as wrong. I can't imagine it is a matter of choice. Gay men are just simply not turned on by women. They don't choose it to be that way. It just is. At least that is my opinon. So I don't see that even if kids eventually learned that gay marriage is legal we would see any sort of increase in the "gayness" of our population.

I agree with Jamo's take on the education aspect. I don't really think it is appropriate at all to teach about any kind of sexuality in school to elementary aged kids. But whatever they teach in school, the burden is on me as a father to raise my kids in a manner that they are able to think logically and make decisions for themselves. Not be sheep who will follow their teachers, their preachers, their friends or even their parents without bothering to research and critically think for themselves.

Alien Fred, me namesake....
 

That's I in the PASSENGER seat!!!

Better (more revealing) shot is of me boarding the HMS Uncapsizeable (aka "The Rub-a-Dub"). Krikeys! I even got one of my nieces into the thing----unsafe at any speed. I think the old engineering formua was "freeboard=reserve bouyancy". Ar-ar-ar. The little yacht is only 4.2 feet long, but it's got unlimited headroom! It's even got a "head"* too! We use the transom when overnighting......

*naughty-cal for "terlit"

PS Recognize the yellow Cobra? It won the Run and Gun, 'way back when. Owner's initials were** RL. Who dat, cobra history buffs? First correct answer gets a ride in the Rub-a-Dub! (Even if we have toshanghai you!)

*car is now "recycled" having gone slightly off-course in NH Speedway.

That would be Rick Long.

With you losing 60 lbs. I think both of us MIGHT fit.I'd be willing to give it a try only if I can pee over the side.

There is nothing more liberating than peeing over the side of a sailboat in gale foorce winds.:)

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...dingTheTub.jpg

Alien Fred,
 

Didja ever see that two-panel cartoon by the "Far Side" creator Gary Larson (?) re the "master and his dog"? It shows the "master" berating his dog, Trixie for grousing in the garbage: "Trixie! How many times do I have to tell you not to go in the garbage?!, etc., etc., etc." The next panel shows what the dog hears: "Trixie! blah-blah-blah-blah, etc., etc." It's really something you have to see and read.....

Nonetheless, I can rarely finish reading yer posts, because of Boobs Bonelli in your avatar!
Ar-ar-ar!

Steve,

I lived in Salt Lake valley for three years in a little town named Bluffdale. I was the only non-Mormon in the neighborhood. Like every religion there were different subsets from "jack Mormons" to polygamists. The guy who lived across the canal from me was a polygamist with three wives. His house was basically a communal center portion with three attached wings. All three of his marriages were between two consenting adults. All of the wives were very happy as were the children. A little old fashioned but very nice people, nicer than some of Catholics I grew up with. I see absolutely nothing wrong with their marriages especially if they're going to allow gay marriage. How you can look on it any other way is beyong me. Now interspecies marriages might just be going too far.

What do you have against sheep?

Bernie,
I could really care less what they do, and I hope they are happy. What they do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business.
My only issue with polygamy is the financial aspect of it, though I'm sure there are other legal issues such as a spouse determining whether or not to pull the plug. What do you do if one spouse wants one thing and the other does not?

Steve

Steve,

A person can enter into three different legal partnerships with three different people. If it turns out that doing the right thing in one partnership puts pressure on another partnership, that's life. If one of the partnerships goes sour and ends up in court for settlement, that's not unusual. If government would get out of the business of defining marriage and let each pair of adults define their relationship and legal entanglement as they choose, we would be much better off. .... When I grew up in the deep south, the Christian majority considered it immoral to operate a business on Sunday, so there were Blue Laws that prohibited businesses from opeing on Sunday. It didn't matter that some business owners and customers were not Christians and didn't consider opening on Sunday to be immoral. I have no problem with laws that exist to protect public safety, but I don't like laws that attempt to impose the majority's moral standards just because they are the majority.

Tommy,
I don't like government being involved either. But they are, and I don't really see any way for them to get out of it.
One of the problems I see would be a Terry Shiavo type case (another waste of government money and time) where one spouse wants to pull the life support plug and the other does not. You can't even do a King Solomon solution because one of them is trying for that result.

Steve

:confused:
...King Solomon?