Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

You brought up the animal/incest comparison, not I. That's a stupid argument that I don't agree with.

As far as changing laws, if you can advocate change to same sex partners it would be just as easy to change the laws to make plural marriages work. What's a few more pages of tax codes to the thousands that exist?

You talk about changing the institution of marriage, making it more than 3 certainly does that. It's not just a few pages of tax code and it's not just about diving it up in 3!

Does the 2nd or 3rd wife have custody of the children? Or sole life threatening decision making ability in a medical emergency? Who receives the earned income tax credit? Who is head of household? How do you divide an estate into 4's if the man is married to 4 wives - or, how do you tax the estate to 4 people? Would the family and medical leave act be available to all 6 wives to care for 1 children?

The institution of marriage does not support polygamy. I can easily answer all these questions for gay couples though!

All questions you pose can be worked out, just as many things would be worked out for same sex 'marriage'.

If you want to redefine marriage, then you're opening it up. If you want to jump from one man/one woman to something else, well, plural marriages are on the table. I'm sure the many other countries that have legal plural marriages have solutions for the questions you pose as obstacles.

You don't think three people can be in love together? Why should their 'rights' be abridged and suppressed and yours protected and cherished? Who's the bigot now?

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

You brought up the animal/incest comparison, not I. That's a stupid argument that I don't agree with.

As far as changing laws, if you can advocate change to same sex partners it would be just as easy to change the laws to make plural marriages work. What's a few more pages of tax codes to the thousands that exist?

You talk about changing the institution of marriage, making it more than 3 certainly does that. It's not just a few pages of tax code and it's not just about diving it up in 3!

Does the 2nd or 3rd wife have custody of the children? Or sole life threatening decision making ability in a medical emergency? Who receives the earned income tax credit? Who is head of household? How do you divide an estate into 4's if the man is married to 4 wives - or, how do you tax the estate to 4 people? Would the family and medical leave act be available to all 6 wives to care for 1 children?

The institution of marriage does not support polygamy. I can easily answer all these questions for gay couples though!

Yvonne wrote:
Here is an article of a nurse suing a hospital because she was forced to participate in an abortion. There are several articles on this nurse, one article describes the flashbacks she has when she had to count the severed limbs of the unborn child. Yes, we do need freedom of religion! http://nypost.com/2009/07/26/nurse-forced-to-help-abort/

Yvonne wrote:
Here is an article of a nurse suing a hospital because she was forced to participate in an abortion. There are several articles on this nurse, one article describes the flashbacks she has when she had to count the severed limbs of the unborn child. Yes, we do need freedom of religion! http://nypost.com/2009/07/26/nurse-forced-to-help-abort/

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

You brought up the animal/incest comparison, not I. That's a stupid argument that I don't agree with.

As far as changing laws, if you can advocate change to same sex partners it would be just as easy to change the laws to make plural marriages work. What's a few more pages of tax codes to the thousands that exist?

Yvonne wrote:
You change doctors anytime, what a poor analogy. And every treatment requires your signature. Doctors are not gods in hospital the insurance companies are.

Yvonne wrote:
I find it amazing that the 2nd amendment is always defended yet the first amendment which says, there should be no state religion, and you have the right to exercise your religion are empty words on this blog. I guess the founding fathers who put the words Creator in the Constitution, should have combined the first and second amendments together, so gun people would jump into the act. I do think gun advocates are somewhat extreme, but heaven forbid if someone touches their 2nd amendment. Our country will step on religion but cannot do back ground checks on gun buyers, this is strange.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

okay, let's do this Monroe. How is it any different? Well, when I learned to count, I remember learning that 3 was larger than 2 and in real life, if 3 people shared something, there would be less of it.

So since marriage gives you tax, insurance, and other benefits, how will marriage between 3 people work? I didn't see a "TRIPLE JOINTLY FILE" option on my tax return.

Also, since you want to go the retarded route, how can my kangaroo lover sign the IRS form to receive my medical benefits? He would have to sue the pen maker first because they don't make kangaroo shaped pens...like wtf?

I researched this (again) a few years ago when we had a JW nursing student being trained on our unit. I never had the "pleasure" of working with her, but she made enough of a stink over her "sincerely held religious beliefs" not permitting her to administer a blood fraction (which, as we all know is a Conscience Matter? that JWs can accept if they wish to do so) that my co-workers (and her teacher) asked me about it.

The WT article that I found stated that a JW physician would not be permitted to "order" a blood transfusion for a patient of theirs, however, a JW nurse - since they are not participating in the decision-making between the physician and the patient (or their proxy) - could, in good conscience, administer a blood transfusion. BTW, physicians don't usually do the "administering" of a blood transfusion. They write the order and the nurse administers it.

Monroe wrote:
Plural marriages are legal and accepted in many countries around the world, don't know why having them here is any different than gay marriage. You'd think the 'progressive' gay marriage advocates would be ok with them, rather than oppose them because it doesn't fit their definition of marriage-which they've been trying to redefine to suit their own desires. It's actually pretty funny to see the proponents of gay marriage corkscrew themselves into the ground arguing against plural marriage. 'We want to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of years, but don't want it changed more once we change it'.

Yvonne wrote:
I find it amazing that the 2nd amendment is always defended yet the first amendment which says, there should be no state religion, and you have the right to exercise your religion are empty words on this blog. I guess the founding fathers who put the words Creator in the Constitution, should have combined the first and second amendments together, so gun people would jump into the act. I do think gun advocates are somewhat extreme, but heaven forbid if someone touches their 2nd amendment. Our country will step on religion but cannot do back ground checks on gun buyers, this is strange.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, why do pro gay marriage advocates often oppose plural marriages? It's been accepted across many cultures. Shouldn't three people in love be able to marry?

Yes, let's jump to the plurality arguement. Then let's do bestiality and then incest. That's not demeaning to homosexuals at all!

A union between two people offers tax advantages through joint filing and also offers other benefits - visitation, custody, insurance etc. - Not all of those are covered under the guise of civil unions - which many in your party are also against. Marriage, at the end of the day, is a governmental service. if there is true separation of religion and govt then two people should be able to get married regardless of sexual orientation.

Btw, not all marriages are catholic marriages so stop being so pompous. Remember other religions exist - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism.

You bigots really irritate me.

Who's the bigot? Why do so many gay marriage advocates want to close the barn door when THEY achieve marriage 'equality', denying the rights of others who are in love and want to practice their own religion? Talk about hypocrisy and myopia, lol.

radryan03 wrote:
I desire to deny you nothing.... I'll even encourage you myopic opinion.

You desire to not bake me a fcking cake... That's bigoted

Edit - just for reference - Book of Yvonne 1:15
"As a practicing Catholic, my religion is the strongest voice against same-sex marriage, so it would be a mockery to provide services to a same sex couple (baking wedding cake, renting hall, catering, etc.)"

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
To call someone "bigoted douchery" is a bit extreme. I never attack gays or others who believe in same sex marriage, I said I should have the right to practice without being sued. The people who advocate tolerance on same sex marriage are short on giving tolerance to others who choose to follow their faith. I see bigotry in reverse.

Yvonne wrote:
To call someone "bigoted douchery" is a bit extreme. I never attack gays or others who believe in same sex marriage, I said I should have the right to practice without being sued. The people who advocate tolerance on same sex marriage are short on giving tolerance to others who choose to follow their faith. I see bigotry in reverse.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What about the religious rights of the taliban ? Why is ok for the American Jewish community to send their sons and daughters to do active service in Israel, yet a muslim is not permitted to fight for their cause in the middle east ? Interesting how every religion and country turned a blind eye to slavery !
What's more important, Country or religion - I'd suggest that many people would put religion well ahead of Country!

As for Christie, he's a self righteous idiot when it comes to gay marriage - I guess the next election will require people to ask more questions about certain topics when voting someone in - Christie doesn't represent my views, but the ass was elected and what HE wants goes!

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, why do pro gay marriage advocates often oppose plural marriages? It's been accepted across many cultures. Shouldn't three people in love be able to marry?

Yes, let's jump to the plurality arguement. Then let's do bestiality and then incest. That's not demeaning to homosexuals at all!

A union between two people offers tax advantages through joint filing and also offers other benefits - visitation, custody, insurance etc. - Not all of those are covered under the guise of civil unions - which many in your party are also against. Marriage, at the end of the day, is a governmental service. if there is true separation of religion and govt then two people should be able to get married regardless of sexual orientation.

Btw, not all marriages are catholic marriages so stop being so pompous. Remember other religions exist - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism.

You bigots really irritate me.

Yvonne wrote:
I want the right to practice my religion without being sued. Why is that so much to ask? Our country has condemned the what is happening in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries where Christian churches are being burned down and Christians are being killed. This is also happening in Sudan. Muslims groups in Sudan recently killed children attending a Catholic school in Sudan. http://www.catholicculture.org/cultur ... rary/view.cfm?recnum=5067
A lawsuit that ruins a family finances is a bloodless attack. The USA should allow people to follow their conscience.

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, why do pro gay marriage advocates often oppose plural marriages? It's been accepted across many cultures. Shouldn't three people in love be able to marry?

Yvonne wrote:
I want the right to practice my religion without being sued. Why is that so much to ask? Our country has condemned the what is happening in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries where Christian churches are being burned down and Christians are being killed. This is also happening in Sudan. Muslims groups in Sudan recently killed children attending a Catholic school in Sudan. http://www.catholicculture.org/cultur ... rary/view.cfm?recnum=5067
A lawsuit that ruins a family finances is a bloodless attack. The USA should allow people to follow their conscience.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not agree, government will be telling me how to practice my religion. Ten years from now plural marriages might be in fashion. I cannot call myself a practicing Catholic, then take the money from a same sex couple. I am endangering my beliefs and my immoral soul. I will not run away from my faith, besides there are evidence of harassment from past lawsuits. a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
?Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
?San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
?A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business
The Hobby Lobby case will settle the practice of religion. This is the real reason the Pilgrims came to the New World, the right to practice their faith without government telling them what to believe. I shouldn't be hit with lawsuits in the USA for practicing my religion, this law will open up more lawsuits.