Gay Marriage in California

[quote name='dopa345']As long as all the parties involved are consenting adults, what shouldn't polygamy be allowed?[/QUOTE]

Well that's what I'm wondering. But apparently it's the consensus in this thread that it isn't comparable to homosexual marital rights because nobody is allowed to marry more than one spouse.

Most of the arguments against it end up sounding an awful lot like "majority rule" or "society doesn't like it" or "society doesn't benefit" arguments. Which I find ironic, since that logic was overturned in California.

That and if you read through the past page or so you'll see how many stereotypical beliefs still permeate society concerning polygamists.
 
Like I said, I don't like polygamy at all. But I'd have no problem with it being legalized. If it's all consenting adults (and not a brainwashing cult) I have no real objection to it beyond personal distaste. And you don't ban things out of personal distaste.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
That and if you read through the past page or so you'll see how many stereotypical beliefs still permeate society concerning polygamists.[/QUOTE]

answer the equal protection problems then we can talk, kay?
 
It doesn't matter if polygamy should or should not be legalized, it's really an entirely different situation than same-sex marriage. Period.

Same-sex marriage is the extension of currently existing rights to people who were denied it previously. Polygamy is an entire revamp of marriage laws to figure out legal ways to accomodate the multitide of different variants of marriages that can be allowed. Ex. One man marries two women. Are the two women married to one another as well? If the man dies with no will, where does his belonging go? Can a man marry two women who are cousins? Or sisters? These are just some of the early questions that would NEED to be addressed if one was to change the marital laws to include polygamy. Whereas with same-sex marriage, there are no new questions or new changes to the law except to extend the right to more people.
 
Yep, that's exactly it and exactly why it's frustrating when people bring up the polygamy argument in discussions of gay marriage.

It's a very different issue despite being related to marriage, with a much larger set of legal issues to deal with, and a seperate set of moral/social obstacles to overcome. One has nothing to do with the other, and the battles should be fought seperately.
 
For someone that feels it's their "natural" god-given right to be married to multiple people, it really isn't any different than the gay person who wants the same rights based on their own "natural" god-given rights. You keep saying it's entirely different, but when it comes to how someone FEELS deep down about their own identity, it isn't. Your argument clearly hinges on the belief that polygamy is a "choice" rather than a force of nature. The funny thing: the "choice" argument against homosexuality is no longer tolerated, even without medical proof of the "born with" argument. I wager it will be another 30 years or so before we can come to the same conclusion about other lifestyles - which is my ultimate point.

Legal complications used as an excuse to maintain discrimination is a really poor argument to keep using. How's this for complicated: Destroy marital ties to government. Clearly the "easiest" answer. It's shocking to me that people would say that one thing is justified over the other simply because of legal complications.

But I digress, I can see I'm not winning anyone over here, and you are not winning me over in the belief that somehow gay marriage is a more legitimate cause. Ultimately the discussion is just cyclical.
 
I'm not saying that one is a more legitimate cause over the other, I'm saying that they're entirely different causes. Since removing marriage outright from the public sector, which is an entirely libertarian point of view, is not going to happen...they are very different issues to tackle. That's my point and I think that's what most people have been trying to say.
 
My main point is just keep this shit out of the gay marriage threads.

If you feel so strongly about polygamists needing the right to marriage, start a separate thread on it. No need to obfuscate the gay marriage issue with a different type of marriage issue that has it's own, larger (IMO) social and legal barriers to overcome.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']For someone that feels it's their "natural" god-given right to be married to multiple people, it really isn't any different than the gay person who wants the same rights based on their own "natural" god-given rights. You keep saying it's entirely different, but when it comes to how someone FEELS deep down about their own identity, it isn't. Your argument clearly hinges on the belief that polygamy is a "choice" rather than a force of nature. The funny thing: the "choice" argument against homosexuality is no longer tolerated, even without medical proof of the "born with" argument. I wager it will be another 30 years or so before we can come to the same conclusion about other lifestyles - which is my ultimate point.

Legal complications used as an excuse to maintain discrimination is a really poor argument to keep using. How's this for complicated: Destroy marital ties to government. Clearly the "easiest" answer. It's shocking to me that people would say that one thing is justified over the other simply because of legal complications.

But I digress, I can see I'm not winning anyone over here, and you are not winning me over in the belief that somehow gay marriage is a more legitimate cause. Ultimately the discussion is just cyclical.[/quote]

Polygamy is NOT a similar issue to the issue of same-sex marriage. No one is discriminating against anyone because of an outright ban on polygamous marriage. There are always going to be people who disagree with any number of laws and it has nothing to do about how someone feels deep down about their own identity. For example, we have freedom of religion in this country but certain Indians are not allowed to smoke peyote even though it's an integral part of their religion - because it is illegal for EVERYONE to smoke peyote no matter how a particular group feels about it. That's not exactly on-point but you get the idea. Otherwise any group could claim discrimination for any law/rule they didn't wish to follow.
 
Dmaul, as I've tried to point out several times now, I'm not championing Polygamy. I'm not trying to sell anyone on polygamy. My original point was not to compare polygamy. My original point was this:

Just because most people are ok with gay marriage now, it's really no indicator that we as a people have made great leaps to being open, tolerant, and accepting of other people's lifestyles. We are nearly as close minded today as we were 50 years ago. The slow clogs of social progression have just now allowed one thing, that's all. THAT IS MY POINT.

If you think that "argument" doesn't belong in a gay marriage thread, then fine. But I was only using polygamy as a tool to illustrate it simply because it's something I'm familiar with.

Oh and for the record, I have created polygamy threads. They get ignored. Which helps illustrate my point further.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just because most people are ok with gay marriage now, it's really no indicator that we as a people have made great leaps to being open, tolerant, and accepting of other people's lifestyles. We are nearly as close minded today as we were 50 years ago. The slow clogs of social progression have just now allowed one thing, that's all. THAT IS MY POINT.[/quote]

Oh, well... um, I can agree with that I guess although I tend to believe every generation is a little more tolerant than the one that came before it so we will get there eventually. I think a lot of progress has been made in the last 50 years but that's just me. I wonder what the ceiling is on stuff like that though.... also, when is Big Love coming back? I love that show!
 
I'm aware of that point. I don't think people here are patting themselves on the back about how progressive they are. Reform comes in baby steps.

Polygamy is a tougher different lifestyle to swallow for most as we're grounded in the idea of monogamy. A mongamous gay relationship is easier to swallow than a man having multiple wives--doesn't really fit with the feminism/equal rights movement that most of society supports, doesn't fit with the notion of a traditional two parent family etc.

That said, while I don't like the idea of polygamy, I'm not opposed to it. People can do whatever they want as long as it's all consenting adults, no insest etc. And I'm fine with it being legalized if they can sort out all the legal issues that come with having multiple spouses.

I'm not going campaign to have something banned that isn't hurting me and that people are doing of their own free will. I mean I think believing in a supreme being is fucking stupid, but I'm not going to force my views on others and try to ban religion. Different strokes for different folks.

I'd just rather see these threads stay on gay marriage. Not polygamist's rights. Not tangents about how society isn't really that progressive as we still think polygamy is wrong etc. Stay on topic and discuss the issues and news of gay marriage.
 
Polygamy and gay marriage rights are TOTALLY different.

Let's take care of the gay issue first.
Afterwards, we can then tackle Polygamy and what we can do to give people certain rights. That's a whole different lifestyle compared to 2 people living a life together.

One issue at a time. No point in comparing things that are way different.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Oh, well... um, I can agree with that I guess although I tend to believe every generation is a little more tolerant than the one that came before it so we will get there eventually. I think a lot of progress has been made in the last 50 years but that's just me. I wonder what the ceiling is on stuff like that though.... also, when is Big Love coming back? I love that show![/QUOTE]

That's an interesting discussion in itself, about tolerance and progressiveness of society. Especially compared to greek/roman times. But I've hijacked this thread enough...

Big Love Season 3 got pushed to Fall due to the writers strike.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] My original point was this:

Just because most people are ok with gay marriage now, it's really no indicator that we as a people have made great leaps to being open, tolerant, and accepting of other people's lifestyles. We are nearly as close minded today as we were 50 years ago. The slow clogs of social progression have just now allowed one thing, that's all. THAT IS MY POINT.
.[/QUOTE]


No offense but your point is 100% bullshit. Tolerance has never arrived in giant chucks and quite frankly, it is ridiculous to assume simply because every non-tradiional arrangment is not uniformly accepted that is the same thing as none being accepted.

And brushing aside the legal implication is lame. Simply getting rid of the governmental ties to marriage doesn't do anything with regards to equal protection. Marriage or not, people still require legally recognized relationships.
 
[quote name='usickenme']No offense but your point is 100% bullshit. Tolerance has never arrived in giant chucks and quite frankly, it is ridiculous to assume simply because every non-tradiional arrangment is not uniformly accepted that is the same thing as none being accepted.[/quote]

I absolutely did not say any such thing.

I just said it's premature to start patting each other on the back and blowing each other as if this was some important new landmark of tolerance for society or America.

Oh and when 56 men signed a document about 234 years ago declaring a new form of government focused on it's limitations rather than powers, that allowed people to live, worship, and explore life in an unprecedented way, wouldn't you say that included "giant chunks" of progressive tolerance for humanity?


And brushing aside the legal implication is lame. Simply getting rid of the governmental ties to marriage doesn't do anything with regards to equal protection.
It most certainly does. If we got rid of the ties, why would people need equal protection from something that was invisible to the government? Why would they need equal protection from something that offered no clear material benefit to anyone?

For example, if the government viewed marriage as a religious ceremony (as they should), they couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't need to recognize it at all. If you wanted equal protection from a religion, join a church that accepted your individual favorite flavor of matrimony.

Marriage or not, people still require legally recognized relationships.

Currently, unfortunately, yes. But I don't see how that's a good thing.
Maybe some day we'll "progress" beyond that archaic dependency too. (abolishing that one might actually warrant patting each others backs and blowing each other in celebration)
 
For the love of god, take your bullshit polygamy argument to another thread. Every freaking time there's a topic on gay marriage, you come in here, derail the discussion, and make a failed attempt to equate the two. Enough already!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I just said it's premature to start patting each other on the back and blowing each other as if this was some important new landmark of tolerance for society or America.
[/QUOTE]

But again, you're just stirring shit up as no one here is patting themselves on the back or saying how progressive we are.

At best people have just said they're happy to see gays getting more rights. No one's made a post saying how wonderfully progressive society is-- as such you've just said repeatedly that we're not progressive because we don't respect polygamists.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']For the love of god, take your bullshit polygamy argument to another thread. Every freaking time there's a topic on gay marriage, you come in here, derail the discussion, and make a failed attempt to equate the two. Enough already![/QUOTE]

First of all, I stopped beating the dead polygamy comparison horse a few posts ago. The last post is clearing the air about other false assumptions of things I said. Try to read, instead of skim, before making embarrassing accusatory posts. I'm long done making my point about it, unless you want to keep provoking.

Secondly, please explain how I'm derailing this thread by discussing polygamy when polygamy was brought up in the OP? It was brought up in a context I disagree with, so why am I not allowed to discuss it? Because you disagree with it?

Oh and I equated the two just fine. I know heterosexuals, polygamists, homosexuals, and one autosexual - and I wouldn't go and tell one of them that their rights, needs, or desires were more important than the others. However, I did, obviously, fail at putting a dent in such stereotypes.

If you are sensitive to discussions of marital right comparisons and prefer a thread for praising and "way to goes!", maybe go find or make one?
 
i just found this area of cag, but I will start here and I will keep it short. I think that marriage is best fit between a man and a woman and that is how a family should be raised especially for kids who have to deal with them for 18+ years.
 
Well, a bang-up job keeping it short, but I think most people would have accepted a bit more length if you'd backed up your position or something.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Well, a bang-up job keeping it short, but I think most people would have accepted a bit more length if you'd backed up your position or something.[/quote]

Yeahthat.
 
[quote name='ajumbaje']i just found this area of cag, but I will start here and I will keep it short. I think that marriage is best fit between a man and a woman and that is how a family should be raised especially for kids who have to deal with them for 18+ years.[/quote]

How interesting. I am under no delusion that anything I'm about to say will change your mind, but you may find it interesting.

On Friday, I got married to my partner of eleven years. We decided to keep it simple, just doing the civil ceremony, going out to lunch, and having cake at home. It was just us, our 8 year old son, and my mother and father.

It was especially meaningful for me to have my parents there. Twenty years ago (fuck! I'm now old enough to toss around phrases like "twenty years ago" fuck!, anyway...) when I had come out to them, I had asked them if I should ever decide to have a commitment ceremony if they would come. Then, they told me they'd have to think about it.

No remark from my parents has ever cut me as deep as that. Their own, only son, and they'd have to think about it.

But times have changed, and so have they. Last weekend, my mother told me at that time, she just wasn't ready for the idea. They had so many preconceptions of what life would be like for me. But now she was happy for us, and genuinely happy that we would be able to get married.

In many ways, we are exactly the reason why the state is in the marriage business: stable relationship, children, members of the community. We are utterly, utterly boring, and apart from both of us being guys, are like any other family in our area.

While it is somewhat of an anti-climax to be married after having been together for eleven years, I can say that the ceremony meant a great deal to me. Looking my partner in the eye and taking those vows, vows which I have already kept for eleven years and intend to keep for the rest of our lives, it reconfirmed my love for him and the importance of our relationship.

Our son was thoroughly bored by the whole thing. I had asked him if he'd rather come to our wedding or stay home and play video games, and he unhesitatingly and enthusiastically chose the latter. (Future CAG!) But we didn't let him. He didn't quite understand how us getting married changed anything, since in his eyes we've always been together and always will be. Awesomely, he took the best pictures.

Ultimately, he's right: it doesn't change a whole lot. Saturday, the day after, was like countless weekends before it. Whether or not the amendment banning gay marriage passes in November, we'll still be a couple, a family, together. Now, having been married, I'm still not sure if it's the word "marriage", the idea of it, or other preconceived notions that make people so eager to judge, condemn, or restrict something that they would, in slightly different circumstances, recognize in themselves and their friends and their communities.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']For the love of god, take your bullshit polygamy argument to another thread. Every freaking time there's a topic on gay marriage, you come in here, derail the discussion, and make a failed attempt to equate the two. Enough already![/quote]

:applause:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']blandstalker,

If you don't mind my asking, how do you have an 8 year old son? I'm guessing one of you hasn't always been gay.[/quote]

Adoption? Artificial insemination? Crack addict cousin? Very nice female friend? Airmail from China? There are lots of ways....

Congrats on the marriage blandstalker! :applause:
 
[quote name='javeryh']Adoption? Artificial insemination? Crack addict cousin? Very nice female friend? Airmail from China? There are lots of ways....

Congrats on the marriage blandstalker! :applause:[/quote]

Hope its not that one. That would really mess up a guys insides!
 
[quote name='SpazX']Or 8 years ago somebody was in denial.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause:

But seriously, I know a lot of gay people (clearly adults, 30s-40s) who have a kid or kids. They've been married before but things just never worked out. I'm afraid to continue because some people tend to always belive it's a CHOICE to be gay..and I have a feeling it's gonna start that debate again.

The point is, when you grow up your told that you should like ____. It's not so much of a choice, it's more or less..you kinda just go with the flow of what's "normal". That's for SOME people. For SOME people, they don't realize they are gay until later in life. This is what sometimes breaks up a marriage.

It's kind of hard for me to explain because I knew what I wanted since I was like 16, LOL, but I've "liked" girls in HS.

I really can't explain anymore. I hope Blandstalker (CONGRATS BTW! :applause: ) can explain this better.
 
My view on this issue is that it so such a manufactured issue it is unbelievable. Republicans will always use this and defense against terrorism as "wedge issues" to split the country. There are many people in middle America who will say "oh, so-and-so supports gay marriage, they lost my vote" when that candidate might have a far better economic plan.

I don't see how this issue is still around in today's progressive society. We should have allowed gay marriage years ago, and this ruling is a step in the right direction.
 
[quote name='CAG_fox']My view on this issue is that it so such a manufactured issue it is unbelievable. Republicans will always use this and defense against terrorism as "wedge issues" to split the country. There are many people in middle America who will say "oh, so-and-so supports gay marriage, they lost my vote" when that candidate might have a far better economic plan.

I don't see how this issue is still around in today's progressive society. We should have allowed gay marriage years ago, and this ruling is a step in the right direction.[/quote]

You seem to be supporting gay marriage a little too much there buddy.....

Where's the me-running-away-from-you smiley? :D
 
[quote name='the_punisher']You seem to be supporting gay marriage a little too much there buddy.....

Where's the me-running-away-from-you smiley? :D[/QUOTE]

LOL, I support gay marriage...you got a problem buddy? I didn't think so.

Gay marriage is not only something that we, as a country, should have because it is the right thing to do, it also would help our economy tremendously. Imagine every "civil-union" in America being able to marry, how much money do you think all of those weddings would put into the economy, I can tell you, A LOT!
 
[quote name='CAG_fox']LOL, I support gay marriage...you got a problem buddy? I didn't think so.

Gay marriage is not only something that we, as a country, should have because it is the right thing to do, it also would help our economy tremendously. Imagine every "civil-union" in America being able to marry, how much money do you think all of those weddings would put into the economy, I can tell you, A LOT![/quote]

You can't say "I didn't think so"? as my answer is YES. I do have a problem.

It's GAY! :shame::censored::no::error:

That enough smiley's for today.
 
[quote name='the_punisher']You can't say "I didn't think so"? as my answer is YES. I do have a problem.

It's GAY! :shame::censored::no::error:

That enough smiley's for today.[/quote]

...and you know what? You're fat.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
If you don't mind my asking, how do you have an 8 year old son? I'm guessing one of you hasn't always been gay.[/quote]

No, I don't mind at all. We adopted him, through the state.

We went through an agency and the county, took classes in parenting and CPR, filled out reams of paperwork, references, fingerprinting, home inspections and visits with social workers -- the typical list of tasks you have to do to adopt. Our son was placed with us when he was a baby, and the adoption was formalized a year later.

Most gay men ask me if I've been married. I find this funny. I've never been with a woman.

[quote name='lilboo']
But seriously, I know a lot of gay people (clearly adults, 30s-40s) who have a kid or kids. They've been married before but things just never worked out. I'm afraid to continue because some people tend to always belive it's a CHOICE to be gay..and I have a feeling it's gonna start that debate again.

The point is, when you grow up your told that you should like ____. It's not so much of a choice, it's more or less..you kinda just go with the flow of what's "normal". That's for SOME people. For SOME people, they don't realize they are gay until later in life. This is what sometimes breaks up a marriage.

It's kind of hard for me to explain because I knew what I wanted since I was like 16, LOL, but I've "liked" girls in HS.

I really can't explain anymore. I hope Blandstalker (CONGRATS BTW! ) can explain this better.[/quote]

I'll try, but because everyone is different, it's a little difficult. I've edited this a few times, trying to keep it from getting too long and meandering.

For myself, I realized when I was in high school that I respected women too much to ever have sex or a sexual relationship with one. It was something that could never end well.

I had one girlfriend in high school. I met her at work, and she asked me out. I couldn't think of a reason (that I could tell her) to say no, and thought it would be good to experience dating, even though I had no intention of ever letting it go very far.

We went to a movie, and afterward, a walk in the park. She started trying to manhandle the family jewels. It was extremely awkward for me, made even worse by the sudden realization as it was happening that I didn't want her to be doing that, but I would have felt quite the opposite if it was this attractive guy I knew from work trying to do the same thing.

I felt terrible about the whole thing, but it sobered me up. I did not want to be one of those guys who ended up marrying a woman, starting a family, and then breaking everything up years down the road. I knew I was gay, recognized it since I was in eighth grade, and knew that it hadn't changed and wasn't going to.

It would be so easy to go down that route, guided by parents and family and society at large. You can have the best of intentions, and the vague hope that it will all work out in the end, and everyone will be happy to help you along so long as the show keeps going on and nobody drops something.

And yet, that's just how I felt about it. I know a guy who's the same age as me -- we lived in the same city and went to the same Catholic high school (though I didn't know him while we were both there). I had the one girlfriend and swore off the whole dating/relationship with women thing. He got married to a woman. And later divorced.

Knowing him now, he's clearly gay and always was -- I can only imagine that the only reason someone didn't object at the wedding was a severe case of wishful thinking or mass delusion. Whether it was pressure from his family, the church, his girlfriend, or what, or even all of the above, I can't say. But even products of relatively similar environments can make vastly different decisions.

Others have different experiences. Some people are truly bisexual, to one degree or another. Others are in denial. Still others are pressured by family, community, church, or whatever to make a go at heterosexual marriage and family, and either pursue something on the side or repress things until they blow up.

[I find it ironic and sad that the ex-gay or conversion crowd encourage the people they're trying to 'change' to marry heterosexually. These are the first people to bleat about the sanctity of marriage, yet are setting these poor bastards up to fail and creating a marriage based on self-loathing, wishful thinking, and the pressure of disappointing God if they fail.]

For me, the only choice involved is when you decide to accept yourself for who you are. It takes some people more time than others, and I believe that the longer it takes to accept it, the more potential damage, to yourself and others along the way.
 
My stepmom & dad forwarded this email to me today:

A little "down home" video that is the best answer that I have seen to the current court ruling in CA. Enjoy a little light hearted truth.

You can watch email Videos all day long, but I don't think you will
find one with more "Truth" in it than this one. You even get some
Bible teaching with it. Click the Link below and see for yourself.
Turn on sound, you will miss the point if you don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbP2W_FOWJY

*sigh*
 
This is the forward I got today:

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?

California became a state.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like it is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.
 
Thrust, Kog - wanna track down whoever it was that decided that "forward" should be a standard feature for all email clients? Daroga said we can use his car to hide the body.
 
[quote name='Ender']Except for when He called it an abomination.[/QUOTE]

You mean like "HE" (nice gender attachment, BTW) called menstruation the same thing?

Assuming, of course, that the humans who wrote this made no errors on their own, avoided any sort of council of nicea-quality politicking as to what was and was not included in the bible, and that over two millennia, the message was never altered or changed.

How strong is *your* faith in humanity to avoid idiocy over 2,000 years?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
How strong is *your* faith in humanity to avoid idiocy over 2,000 years?[/quote]

By the gods, that requires a chart.

Y axis: Faith in Humanity to avoid idiocy.

X axis: Time.
 
In the eyes of god it does not count. If somebody needs a bill to say that they are married, let them do it. However there is the obvious rights that comes with being marriaged. In all due respect getting married to a person the same gender is like the person who got married to a horse a Jerry Springer.

Yes now we are going to see divorce court with a bunch of men fighting over things along with movies about my lover from tiawana but there is no women. Yes make it count and watch two lying bastards sue each other over a golden bannana basket.

Also sitcoms have been done on the subject.

1. The one where the two men had adopted a daughter.

2. The one where the guy who on Rosanane was gay.

3. That show with the girl with high pitch vioce and her follower almost like in Just shoot me
 
[quote name='Mpire-R']In the eyes of god it does not count. If somebody needs a bill to say that they are married, let them do it. However there is the obvious rights that comes with being marriaged. In all due respect getting married to a person the same gender is like the person who got married to a horse a Jerry Springer.

Yes now we are going to see divorce court with a bunch of men fighting over things along with movies about my lover from tiawana but there is no women. Yes make it count and watch two lying bastards sue each other over a golden bannana basket.

Also sitcoms have been done on the subject.

1. The one where the two men had adopted a daughter.

2. The one where the guy who on Rosanane was gay.

3. That show with the girl with high pitch vioce and her follower almost like in Just shoot me[/quote]


Where's Tiawana?
 
[quote name='Mpire-R']In the eyes of god it does not count. If somebody needs a bill to say that they are married, let them do it. However there is the obvious rights that comes with being marriaged. In all due respect getting married to a person the same gender is like the person who got married to a horse a Jerry Springer.

Yes now we are going to see divorce court with a bunch of men fighting over things along with movies about my lover from tiawana but there is no women. Yes make it count and watch two lying bastards sue each other over a golden bannana basket.

Also sitcoms have been done on the subject.

1. The one where the two men had adopted a daughter.

2. The one where the guy who on Rosanane was gay.

3. That show with the girl with high pitch vioce and her follower almost like in Just shoot me[/quote]....did you just compare two men/women getting married, to bestiality? God damn you're an idiot.
 
[quote name='homeland']Where's Tiawana?[/QUOTE]
It's a place you can get marriaged to a horse a Jerry Springer!

[quote name='JolietJake']....did you just compare two men/women getting married, to bestiality? God damn you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
For serious.
 
[quote name='Ender']Except for when He called it an abomination.[/quote]

He (or She) never called gay marriage an abomination.

For an excellent and thorough investigation of what Leviticus actually says from a variety of viewpoints, I recommend:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

The short version is:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior. [/FONT]
 
bread's done
Back
Top