NC Marriage Amendment

Quote from Iaaaiws : If marriage is so wonderful in taking care of our citizens then why not allow multiple husbands and wives? If some is good then more is better right?

Works for some people. I've certainly known my share of three-way long term partnerships--in fact, I have some very good friends who will be celebrating their 20th anniversary later this month. Especially in this day and age, most married couples (even legally-sanctioned ones) I've known haven't made it that long.

For a while it seemed like almost everybody I knew was polyamorous (and a lot still are) and saw no conflict between that and being married, so there's a lot broader range of how people define marriage than even the respective sexes of those involved.

It's tricky coming up with a rigorous definition when people keep going around living their lives un-rigorously.

What is this thread even about for fark sakes? Women that are into women who also look like dudes? And....?

Or is it about being loyal to one husband or one wife? I guess if you both agree on getting your freak on with others that's between the couple. Not my style and not my business.

Cheaters on the other hand....why do they even get married...ARE SHITBAGS. Wives or husbands. And one way or another they will pay for being a dirty skeev at some point in life.

Quote from Mad Scientist : Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. The government didn't decide the definition of marriage, the people did, by their vote.

I'm pretty sure the government did, without a vote from the people, for the last couple centuries. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Quote from Iaaaiws : I guess I just don't see the significance of a reduction in paperwork as being one of the primary benefits of civil unions or marriages. Do you support civil unions that don't have tax associations and if so is the paperwork thing really that important in your choice? If not then why use that as your primary discussion point?

No, I don't. Honestly, I was pretty much arguing for argument's sake.

Quote from Count_Chocula : then you should have no problem with puttin together a list of all the beautiful lesbians? how about let's keepin this simple, name just 1

Rosie O'Donnell.

Quote from Frogstar : No, I don't. Honestly, I was pretty much arguing for argument's sake.

Yeah, me too. I was just presenting a position that has some potential merit.

From a legal standpoint I don't believe the federal government is given the power by the constitution to regulate marriage and that it should be decided by the individual states.

From a logical standpoint I don't have any idea how to handle the marriage issue when people move from state to state if there are different legal definitions of marriage.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Rosie O'Donnell.

Read closer. It says "beautiful" not "beast"

those podium mods are gonna get it!

Quote from serra : those podium mods are gonna get it!

Why was this even moved to the lounge in the first place? Just looking at the thread, seems like a really bad call.



MOVE IT BACK TO THE PODIUM!

I don't care if it's two women, two men, or a pig and a wallaby, let 'em all marry, I say. Not because I'm pro gays or anti-heteros. I just believe in "misery for all".

Today is my 20th wedding anniversary .... and to a really great guy ... but here's the thing. If I have to deal with the snoring and the extra laundry and countless hours of sports on television and empty toilet paper rolls and taking the trash to the curb myself because he forgot, AGAIN! ..... then I think everyone should have a right to that "sweetheart deal".

If it's going to cost me $20,000 to get rid of him (if I ever choose to do so), then I think everyone should have to pay to play "chuck a spouse", too. No more of this "we want equal rights for our partners" crap and then changing partners 6 months later. You're either in or you're out. And if you're out, you should have to go through the baggage and financial screwing that the lawyers and judges bestow upon the rest of us.

Just sayin........

Quote from Frogstar : Two non sequiturs in a row. I should parry with an ad hominem, I think.

Quote from Frogstar : I fail to see where I implied that marriage is wonderful in taking care of citizens, hence me labeling it a non sequitur (and rendering the second question completely irrelevant). I was simply pointing out that there's very little functional difference, if all tax conditions associated with marriage are removed, between filling out the various forms that are implied with a marriage if one hasn't filled them out separately (since you indicated you wouldn't support civil unions that were free of tax conditions but carried the other associations).

I was about to say that this is why I like the lounge: because we can have a legitimate discussion, whereas in the podium you can't.

Then you have to do pull out hoity toity debate terms.....

It's time to send this one to the podium.

Quote from Iaaaiws : Read closer. It says "beautiful" not "beast"

I tried to take Count's challenge, and I could not think of one.

Quote from chewspam : I was about to say that this is why I like the lounge: because we can have a legitimate discussion, whereas in the podium you can't. Then you have to do pull out hoity toity debate terms..... It's time to send this one to the podium.

Nah, I think we're pretty much done.

Quote from MsGal : I don't care if it's two women, two men, or a pig and a wallaby, let 'em all marry, I say. Not because I'm pro gays or anti-heteros. I just believe in "misery for all". Today is my 20th wedding anniversary .... and to a really great guy ... but here's the thing. If I have to deal with the snoring and the extra laundry and countless hours of sports on television and empty toilet paper rolls and taking the trash to the curb myself because he forgot, AGAIN! ..... then I think everyone should have a right to that "sweetheart deal". If it's going to cost me $20,000 to get rid of him (if I ever choose to do so), then I think everyone should have to pay to play "chuck a spouse", too. No more of this "we want equal rights for our partners" crap and then changing partners 6 months later. You're either in or you're out. And if you're out, you should have to go through the baggage and financial screwing that the lawyers and judges bestow upon the rest of us. Just sayin........

is your dictionary busted?

Quote from MsGal : I just believe in "misery for all". Today is my 20th wedding anniversary .... and to a really great guy ... but here's the thing. If I have to deal with the snoring and the extra laundry and countless hours of sports on television and empty toilet paper rolls and taking the trash to the curb myself because he forgot, AGAIN! ..... then I think everyone should have a right to that "sweetheart deal".

No HDMI kills it. (Even if it does come with a set of Ginsu knives, absolutely free.)

Quote from MsGal : I don't care if it's two women, two men, or a pig and a wallaby, let 'em all marry, I say. Not because I'm pro gays or anti-heteros. I just believe in "misery for all". Today is my 20th wedding anniversary .... and to a really great guy ... but here's the thing. If I have to deal with the snoring and the extra laundry and countless hours of sports on television and empty toilet paper rolls and taking the trash to the curb myself because he forgot, AGAIN! ..... then I think everyone should have a right to that "sweetheart deal". If it's going to cost me $20,000 to get rid of him (if I ever choose to do so), then I think everyone should have to pay to play "chuck a spouse", too. No more of this "we want equal rights for our partners" crap and then changing partners 6 months later. You're either in or you're out. And if you're out, you should have to go through the baggage and financial screwing that the lawyers and judges bestow upon the rest of us. Just sayin........

You mean ...... He's not worth it?