SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: civil marriage and a civil right< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3978
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 10:31 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This is nothing more than a discussion, mental exercise on my part so please take it for that and nothing more.  

As the USSC has decided to wade into the anti-gay marriage laws of various states, does this open a bigger question?  Specifically, will there be a challenge to anti-polygamy laws in the US?  If civil marriage is a civil right between consenting adults, wouldn't multi-partner marriages be just as valid under the law?  Are there any other marriage combinations that might currently be outlawed that would wind up being permitted?

It is obvious that the whole frame here is that these laws ONLY apply to consenting adults.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
vinovampire Search for posts by this member.
Winter is Coming
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: Dec. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 10:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It seems reasonable to me. There's certainly a historical precedent for such arraignments, if that matters at all.

Also, from an economic and social standpoint, plural marriage seems like a reasonable arraignment. If two-parent households are considered preferable to single-parent households, then it seems that three or more parents in a household would be even better, right?

Live Free or Die

:angry: ino  :angry: ampire
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2900
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 10:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Seems reasonable.

Of course, divorce law could become really complicated in the case of plural marriage. Like the scenario where one (or more) spouse wants out of the marriage, but not all of the parties want to dissolve the marriage.

Call me crazy, but I think the demand among consenting adults for plural marriage is pretty low. Hell, it's hard enough to find one partner and keep them happy longterm.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 11:39 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I would have no problem with a poly marriage being legal.  Divorce laws would need some adjustments, saying that 1/2 would no longer be the appropriate fraction.  

Might be the best way to justify those McMansions.  Allow multiple partner arrangements to occupy those monstrosities.  How much better it would be, if larger groupings of adults shared incomes and responsibilities.


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2053
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 3:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Would be a bit of a hoot if the 1890 SCOTUS decision forbidding polygamy was used as precedent to bar same-sex marriage. The court stated in that opinion that marriage was so important to society that the government had every right to regulate it.
Not saying that will happen, but if it did, would be the very definition of irony.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43986
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 3:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"The court stated in that opinion that marriage was so important to society that the government had every right to regulate it." Ah yes, but regulate it equally eh?

By which reasoning and precedent, yes, plural marriages (aka multi-party contracts) would be required to be allowable through enforcement on the federal level.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 3:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

My proposal:

1.  Let there truly be the freedom to associate -- among consenting adults.  Two some?  Three some?  Why is it my business or yours if people wish to live together for the rest of their lives (or whatever)?

2.  ELIMINATE both tax benefits and tax penalties associated with marriage!  You're working single guy?  You get paid.  You pay your taxes.  And you pay your insurance.  You now decide to more than just shack up with somebody else, but otherwise still doing the same job and all?  Then same pay and benefits.  Same tax rules.  Why should you get more insurance benefits or whatever just because you decide to move in with someone else -- while doing exactly the same work?

A lot of the current fight is about dignity and freedom.  But a lot of it is also to fight for a share of the corporate and government benefits that are currently associated with marriage!  Let's give everyone the same dignity and freedom.  And stop making our government pay you for your personal lifestyle choices!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
DonTom Search for posts by this member.
Trixie (RIP)
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3625
Joined: Feb. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 1:40 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 10 2012, 12:58 pm)
QUOTE
2.  ELIMINATE both tax benefits and tax penalties associated with marriage!  
IOW, if they ever make same-sex marriage legal (and get rid of the DOMA) , make sure gay couples still get none of the possible benefits.

The way I see it, is the federal government owes Tom & me many thousands since we've been together, as that  would have been the case if we were legally married for the 38 years (if no DOMA).

-Don-


--------------
-Don- South San Francisco, CA or Cold Springs Valley, NV (near Reno).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 1:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(DonTom @ Dec. 10 2012, 10:40 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Dec. 10 2012, 12:58 pm)
QUOTE
2.  ELIMINATE both tax benefits and tax penalties associated with marriage!  
IOW, if they ever make same-sex marriage legal (and get rid of the DOMA) , make sure gay couples still get none of the possible benefits.

The way I see it, is the federal government owes Tom & me many thousands since we've been together, as that  would have been the case if we were legally married for the 38 years (if no DOMA).

-Don-

Actually, equal-opportunity seething against any and all "married" individuals who get more "benefit dollars" at work than I -- even though we put in the same hours!

Your government owes you as much or as little as it owes me.  IOW, nothing.  Why should anyone get tax benefits by making 100% personal lifestyle choices?  ???


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
DonTom Search for posts by this member.
Trixie (RIP)
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3625
Joined: Feb. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 1:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Dec. 10 2012, 7:31 am)
QUOTE
Specifically, will there be a challenge to anti-polygamy laws in the US?  

Probably not because there is no equality issue there. IOW, if we can all only marry one person, all is fair. Or two, or three, etc.

There is a problem when gays are allowed to marry zero of any  adult person  of who found to be  compatible, while heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry one, with full benefits.

-Don-


--------------
-Don- South San Francisco, CA or Cold Springs Valley, NV (near Reno).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
DonTom Search for posts by this member.
Trixie (RIP)
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3625
Joined: Feb. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 1:58 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 10 2012, 10:47 pm)
QUOTE
Why should anyone get tax benefits by making 100% personal lifestyle choices?  ???

When one person is paying for another, it keeps the other person from collecting many other government benefits. For an example, say a person who is poor is getting food stamps and living off off welfare and such. Now this person marries a person with money, and no longer qualifies for such. Now, the government pays less, not more, by letting them marry with the marriage benefits.

-Don-


--------------
-Don- South San Francisco, CA or Cold Springs Valley, NV (near Reno).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 2:08 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Methinks we as a society should provide for decent public education and basic health care (leaning more on preventative care).  Beyond that, every able-bodied adult should take care not to be a burden to everyone else.  Government aid should be very temporary and clearly limited.  We should, however, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and have no family to fall back on.  My guess is that shouldn't be much more than 2-3% of our population.

But we digress...


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6414
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 7:44 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 2:08 am)
QUOTE
every able-bodied adult should take care not to be a burden to everyone else.  Government aid should be very temporary and clearly limited.  We should, however, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and have no family to fall back on.  My guess is that shouldn't be much more than 2-3% of our population.

But we digress...

Agreed, at least to this part of your post.

--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
DonTom Search for posts by this member.
Trixie (RIP)
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3625
Joined: Feb. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 9:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 10 2012, 11:08 pm)
QUOTE
My guess is that shouldn't be much more than 2-3% of our population.

Then perhaps only that 2 to 3 % should be able to get marriage benefits.

BTW, I really don't care how it's done as long as it's as fair to all as reasonably possible.

I don't think any reasonable person would say the DOMA is fair.

-Don-


--------------
-Don- South San Francisco, CA or Cold Springs Valley, NV (near Reno).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2900
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 9:26 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 1:08 am)
QUOTE
Methinks we as a society should provide for decent public education and basic health care (leaning more on preventative care).  Beyond that, every able-bodied adult should take care not to be a burden to everyone else.  Government aid should be very temporary and clearly limited.  We should, however, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and have no family to fall back on.  My guess is that shouldn't be much more than 2-3% of our population.

But we digress...

Nothing there to disagree with, really. You used the word "should" (or related forms) five times in five sentences. Unfortunately, there is often a significant gap between what people should do and what they actually do.

To give another example: people with jobs should be able to live without government assistance. But that's not always the case.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 1:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(cweston @ Dec. 11 2012, 6:26 am)
QUOTE
Nothing there to disagree with, really. You used the word "should" (or related forms) five times in five sentences. Unfortunately, there is often a significant gap between what people should do and what they actually do.

To give another example: people with jobs should be able to live without government assistance. But that's not always the case.

You know, even though I am single, I don't mind seeing tax dollars going to education at all.  It's individuals who view extra payments and benefits as entitlements that bother me.

Why?  Because collectively, our culture of entitlement is continually eroding our spirit.  For example, the fast-growing countries of Asia represent a threat -- and also a tremendous opportunity for us.  Some of us are already out there carving out new markets.  Many others prefer to whine, to demonize and to 'circle the wagon' instead.  Spoiled, arrogant, and 'mad' for all the wrong reasons.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 4:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ben

"culture of entitlement"? Maybe you should read up your American history a little more. All development here since European settlement is a function of a 'culture of entitlement'.

Phrases like that are essentially meaningless; I don't think they have a useful place in discourse. I'm sure the Cherokee have a very different perception of what something like 'culture of entitlement' might mean than you do.

Further, those kind of phrases simply reinforce very incorrect perceptions about the culture and history of this nation; i.e., that at some point in years gone by we were NOT a culture of entitlement/violence/immorality/add your own adjective, etc.

On the topic of civil rights, I agree with Don that polygamy would appear to be more of a lifestyle choice than sexuality. I understand there are some people (weirdly enough) who actually believe sexuality is a choice, but I doubt many people at all would view polygamy as a a function of nature over nurture. I've never read a story about someone who knew, at age 11, they were polygamous.

Further, equality is the issue. If some people were allowed to be polygamous and others not, it'd be a different question.

That said, I have no issue with the legality of polygamy; I think outlawing it very likely was a violation of religious freedom. So if the polygamists want to come out of the closet and stand up for their rights to freedom of marriage, have at it.

Cheers

Carl


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 18
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 4:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Is the world all black or all white for you, walkinman?  Can you not discern differences in degrees -- trends?

Aside from pointing out the obvious that society is always a matter of 'give and take' between the group and the individual... your little retort there obfuscates -- but adds absolutely nothing to the issue at hand.  We are talking about increasing pervasiveness -- not new, or all or none.

I should think that many today want many, many more things and services paid for by 'the government' -- than any Cherokee who lived a hundred years ago...  And that's one of the most important reasons why we now have obscene, trillion dollar plus budget deficits!  So, in light of this, to say, well, um, yeah, but there's always been entitlement (or whatever) is a complete non starter.  Because NOTHING in history matches what and where we are in today.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 4:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ben

There's no "black and white" in meaningless bumper stickers. "culture of entitlement"? That doesn't mean any one thing at all .. how you define it is VERY different to how I might define it, as to how someone else might define it. I'd wager all of us define it in a way that sees ourselves and our own lives as not fitting that definition, and other people as fitting it perfectly. How useful is that?

Case in point - you completely misunderstood what I referred to in mentioning the Cherokee. They ( and myriad other indigenous people/cultures have done the same) watched a group of people invade and take their land, their way of life, their home, their place; a group of people who felt, very strongly, that they were entitled to do so. Yet somehow, people today want to pretend this 'culture of entitlement' is some new thing. It's not, it's part of the history of western (if not all) civilization.

With a wider perspective, it's not at all a shift in American culture, regardless how you/we define it, but a perpetuation of the same. What difference does it really make if we want things paid for by the gov't or if we want the minerals and forests and resources found on someone else's home? The US was one of the last places in the western world to abolish slavery, fer cryin out loud. And those who fought most vigorously to defend it did so, essentially, claiming it as their entitlement.

If this entitlement has been a part of our culture since day one, how on earth do you suppose it's eroding anything kind of spirit, today?

Capitalism, in one sense, is the perfect "culture of entitlement".

btw - I don't see anyone in this thread talking 'how much', but rather 'who' - which, I'll add, fits my point perfectly well; "who" is the history of our culture.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 20
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 4:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Perpetuation of the same?  Sure, I grant you that.  Nobody is saying it isn't -- so not sure at all who or what you are arguing against.

I am merely pointing out the continued enlargement and intensification of same.   With the result being our trillion dollar annual deficits.  :;):


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 12:49 pm)
QUOTE
Perpetuation of the same?  Sure, I grant you that.  Nobody is saying it isn't -- so not sure at all who or what you are arguing against.

"Further, those kind of phrases simply reinforce very incorrect perceptions about the culture and history of this nation; i.e., that at some point in years gone by we were NOT a culture of entitlement/violence/immorality/add your own adjective, etc."

When you talking about it as 'eroding our spirit', you're essentially saying that it is NOT a perpetuation of the same, but a new shift in our culture.

It's like when people talk about 'moral downslope' or such. Like what's more immoral today than stealing a continent, using chemical warfare under the guise of assisted living (see 'infected blankets'), slavery, not granting women the right to vote, ad infinitum. Both direct and indirect  Disneyfication of our history is a pet peeve of mine, I guess.


(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 12:49 pm)
QUOTE
I am merely pointing out the continued enlargement and intensification of same.   With the result being our trillion dollar annual deficits.  :;):

Well, I doubt our trillion dollar deficit is a function of marriage laws. More likely a function of pandering to the wealthiest (perpetuation of same ole same ole) and a culture of war (perpetuation of same).

Cheers


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
When you talking about it as 'eroding our spirit', you're essentially saying that it is NOT a perpetuation of the same, but a new shift in our culture.


I completely fail to see the logic of your argument.

Be that as it may, what I see is a phenomenon that got ratcheted up quite a few notches with FDR -- and then worsening all through the post War decades -- as more goodies get piled on the "free" shopping cart -- and worse, instead of feeling satisfied, folks continue to clarmor for ever more!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How can a perpetuation of our spirit/culture simultaneously erode it?

As I suggested earlier, even a cursory read of American history shows this clamoring for more, for free, and so forth as part and parcel of American culture.

Same could be said, I suppose, for the slow grind towards civil rights.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 24
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Dec. 11 2012, 2:26 pm)
QUOTE
How can a perpetuation of our spirit/culture simultaneously erode it?

Using your (lack of) logic -- to say the Colorado River is perpetually carving out the Grand Canyon (meaning perpetually eroding its banks of course) is therefore a claim that the river's never been there -- that it's all a new phenomenon!

OMG, what a fool thing to say!  OK, walkin' -- Go sig 'em!   :laugh:

But more seriously, think about a scenario where a meeting of demands leads to higher expectations and more demands.  Do that for a couple of centuries (starting off really small scale) -- then retcheting it up ... and yeah, by and by, even the most powerful country with the biggest economy will find itself unable to afford the largesse.  Not initially, of course, or it wouldn't have even started.  But by and by, one generation, then another, then the third...


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Or, a claim that the canyon is a function of that erosion, of course.

That you don't understand is not a lack of logic on my part, Ben. :)

"starting off small scale"? Read, sometime, Zinn's People's history, or Derrick Jensen's Railroads and Clearcuts sometime.

So, in review, you're now arguing that the demand for right to marriage by gay people is responsible for, or even an illustration of the reason for, an ever-escalating national deficit?

Were they all out of your pills in the pharmacy today?


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 5:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What is "sig 'em"?

--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 27
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 6:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not worried about gay unions.

More worried about how many  hetero unions are failing.  Especially those with children.

Fix the hetero problem, then get back to me.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 6:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Dec. 11 2012, 3:27 pm)
QUOTE
Not worried about gay unions.

More worried about how many  hetero unions are failing.  Especially those with children.

Fix the hetero problem, then get back to me.

You can't fix the problem and maintain the right of any and all individuals to 'walk out' any time they want.   We gain some, we lose some.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 10:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 6:47 pm)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Dec. 11 2012, 3:27 pm)
QUOTE
Not worried about gay unions.

More worried about how many  hetero unions are failing.  Especially those with children.

Fix the hetero problem, then get back to me.

You can't fix the problem and maintain the right of any and all individuals to 'walk out' any time they want.   We gain some, we lose some.

I'm not sure I understood correctly, but it seems to me that although we cannot stop individuals from walking out on a marriage, we can make the marriage contract have stiffer consequences for those who choose to "walk out" while children are in the equation.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26412
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2012, 10:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Dec. 11 2012, 7:02 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Dec. 11 2012, 6:47 pm)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Dec. 11 2012, 3:27 pm)
QUOTE
Not worried about gay unions.

More worried about how many  hetero unions are failing.  Especially those with children.

Fix the hetero problem, then get back to me.

You can't fix the problem and maintain the right of any and all individuals to 'walk out' any time they want.   We gain some, we lose some.

I'm not sure I understood correctly, but it seems to me that although we cannot stop individuals from walking out on a marriage, we can make the marriage contract have stiffer consequences for those who choose to "walk out" while children are in the equation.

I was commenting on 'unions failing'.  I think our laws are -- and need to remain -- strict regarding child rearing and child support.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
41 replies since Dec. 10 2012, 10:31 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply civil marriage and a civil right
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions