Chris...I am out collecting signatures. If you are looking to sign...I'd be happy to come by..haha! That goes for anyone else on AMG interested.
Charlotte, I'll sign yours if you sign my "I want to marry my parakeet" petition.
You'll know the house for all the Strimling for Mayor signs tacked up.
"The answer, of course, is that there is no way that any lawmaking institution in our society would legalize such arrangements. "
I wonder what the reaction would have been to proposals of "same gender marriage" twenty years ago? I expect it would sound a lot like "there is no way that any lawmaking institution in our society would legalize such arrangements".
The grand question is whether the current state of affairs reflects evolution, degeneration or sideshow. Your selection will determine your position on the issue.
If you actually find something (which cannot include anything in which you are the source), let me know. Perhaps then I'll start worrying...
Your retort was lame. I answered your question, merely saying I didn't doesn't do a thing for you.
There's no law that prevents a man from living with several women. Sorry, bud, but that’s the way it is. What is illegal is polygamous marriage - same as gay marriage, And the same arguments for gay marriage can be made for polygamous marriage.
It seems you have invested a lot of intellectual energy in the "legal” argument.
Sorry I showed it to be a sham in about five seconds!
It amazes me that people come up with these hare-brained ideas and don't think them through! (Hey! Is there an echo in here?)
There has to be support if you're to believe the "slippery-slope" argument raised by Tom C.
Oh, brother. Now you're in denial about your stupid "legal" argument collapsing - which it did as soon as it came out of the little leftie echo-chamber it appears to have come from and was shown the light of day!
Goodness -the whole "where are the petitions" is lame circular logic, and it shows you desperately flailing around, trying to find ANY support for your position.
Like all leftie logic it proves nothing but the inability of the person spouting it to reason.
For God's sake, man. (Or woman.) Look at your postings. All you have is pointless lies, non-sequiters and straw men. Take a breath.
You want to have an honest discussion I'm happy to oblige you. You just want to lie and post non-sequiturs, knock yourself out, but you'll have to do it by yourself.
Essentially, if we legalize same sex marriage, what prevents us from applying the same arguments to support such a move to things such as marriage between siblings, parents and their children, pet owners and their pets, etc?
Where did I say "between pets"? Again, all you have is lies. Pathetic. Why are you tryiing so hard?
Marriage "rights" may not necessarily include sex. Why should a child that has taken care of a parent all their lives be denied access to their social security if we grant that right to Adam and Steve - who have only lived together for a few years?
Of course, from what you've offered so far, I'd guess THAT goes beyond you rather flimsy reasoning power to understand.
But keep regurgitating the baseless leftie dogma.
Lies are all the liberals have. If they told the truth they'd be run out of town.
'And the same arguments for gay marriage can be made for polygamous marriage."
We'd love for you to shout those arguments from the highest rooftops and every soapbox you can find. Please do carry on and throw in some of that laughter for the full affect.
Why would I do that? I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
You're the one saying it's a personal "right". Good luck limiting that.
If a guy gets a sex change operation, she can marry 1 guy, but she still can't marry 2 or more guys. :D
Still not sure why the so called for who want equality for all would deny anyone the right to be married to whomever they want, after all if they love each other why should they be denied the right that everyone else has, how does their marriage effect yours? Thus I will never vote for the sham "equality for all" until it is truly equality for all.
I think I'm getting a clearer understanding of what a reprobate mind is.
Tom C: Where did I say "between pets"? Again, all you have is lies. Pathetic. Why are you trying so hard?"
Well, I can't say that I tried very hard. I did a simple Google search "Tom C Marriage Pets". I was impressed with the number of hits, but only had to look at the first one that came up (from 2/28/2007).....Once you start making exceptions, you'll end up with people marrying their pets.
It wAs a matter of fact - who remembers the case in Maine a few years ago where the man insisted he had a loving relationship with his dog? As I recall it ended up in court because his father pounded the cr@p out of him for doing so.
It was a very strange case.
Anyway, we have traditional marriage for a reason. The arguments on this thread show why we do. I think the rest of it said something like, Blah, Blah, Blah, burp, Blah, Blah....
Typical liberal tactic shown above: deflection, when you don't want to answer the questions.
jeepn: I reposted one of the questions asked and then answered it. I'm not sure that's a deflection. I haven't yet separated out the actual questions from general ranting and insult-lobbing to answer the others. By the way, in the one month that I've joined AMC, I've only chimed in on 3 topics: DADT, Gay Marriage, and Same/Day Voter Registration/Fraud. I certainly take progressive views on these three topics, but I'm wondering how you're able to extrapolate from such limited information that I'm a "typical liberal"? Collins, for example, though hardly a "true conservative (whatever that means)", is most definitely not a "liberal", yet she was one of the leading proponents for the repeal of DADT. For what it's worth, I don't distinguish myself as a "liberal" or a "conservative". I don't know many people who are all one or all the other. Anyway, I was just curious how you were able to make such a judgment on such little information....
Well, maybe you're just an average joe, but there just seems to be a liberal bent about your posts, and the use of liberal logic as well.
But it could be a misunderstanding on our part.
Anyway, welcome to AMG. I'm glad you're here.
So, what do you think of the Maine Democrats, CV, eh? Only NINETEEN PERCENT of the vote in the gubbinors race!
When was the last time a major party did that poorly?!
Are they a bunch of losers, or what!
But hey, they're the smart ones. Just ask and they'll tell you!
Do you agree?
Tom C...in response to your last....
1. The Dems performance in the Gubernatorial race seemed like the Red Sox playoff chances do now... I think there was a perception that "Phew, Lepage came out of the primary...we're a shoe-in." There's more to it than just "they blew it", but in my opinion, they blew it. That doesn't mean LePage won...he just didn't lose as badly.
2. I think the Dems were (are) unaccustomed to being the minority party. That's okay, humility is good thing. However, I think they did a decent job in the end helping to head off some of the more severe stuff coming from ALEC, I mean LePage. I'm actually more impressed with the R's who stuck their necks out to soften the same policies.
3. I'm not being coy, but I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal logic", but I certainly have a "liberal" bent on the issues I've spoken about so far.
4. One comment on the D's and R's at the national level. I think the D's (as a whole...including Obama) are living out the stereotype of the spineless wimp. I think the current R's are lost in the echo chamber and are some of the most cynical "leaders" our country has seen in awhile. I actually find the entire national institution to be depressing right now...plenty of blame to go around.
5. When was the last time a major party did that poorly? I don't know, actually. However, the D's can certainly do much worse next time around if they don't figure out why they got into the position they're in now. At the same time, I think the R's continued success is inversely proportional to the level of involvement of its party's chair.
6. It's nice to be here....
Reaganite said: lucky: No, I'm not especially happy about the Catholic church pushing their views, either.
I think a lot of people don't understand where the Catholic Church's traditions come from. It's a world-wide religion with thousands of years of history and wisdom is based on both nature and philosophy. It doesn't miss a beat. It doesn't become outdated or irrelevant, and it doesn't change just for current fad or whimsey. It's wisdom is deeper than our politics, it's laws come from the author of nature herself, God, so it is coherent with everything that is good in life.
I want to puke every time I'm reading this crap about how we are discriminating against Romeo and Julius, just two gentle souls who love each other and want to be happy as man and whatever.
This is the homosexual Nazi truth. Punish any whisper of opposition. Bully children into submission and silence.
I know what Kevin Jennings and Arne Duncan are. What concerns me the most is whether the rest of the pro gay marriage people even have a concept of right and wrong, the laws of God and God's natural order, or are you really that off in outer space somewhere? Didn't your parents and grand parents teach you anything?
What happened to free speech in this country?
Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality
I guess mommies know best...
The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl
(ed.note: I had to find a newspaper in England to report on this California story)
Hey, I hope Charlotte and the rest of Equality Maine come out and really support equality for all because just what was predicted is going to happenhttp://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/12/15/sister-wives-family-celebrates...