Google "Santorum"

[Yukon Jack]

I apologize for the edge. Having a full day of work and a terminally ill close family member puts a bit of a strain on things.

No problem, jbg, I understand.

Sometimes these forums bring out the worst in us.

[jbg]

No problem, jbg, I understand.

Sometimes these forums bring out the worst in us.

But as for black labs and newfoundlands you have to admit that their tails hurt when slashing back and forth and they look quite vicious and scary.

[Shady]

you were arguing with yourself

Actually I wasn't. I made the point several pages ago. People of your ilk claimed that I was off base. Looks like I was completely correct. You can apologize to me as usual via personal message.

by hey now, can this highlight on Utah, polygamy and Mormonism be good for your boy Mitt? Really?

I'm not suprised you're changing subjects, seeing as though I've been proven right once again.

[kimmy]

Like I said. If you're going to change the definition of marriage related to sex. Then there's no logical defense as to why it can't be changed further.

We in BC are familiar with the difficulties of prosecuting Mormon bigamists. Not sure if you easterners are aware of the situation, but here in BC there's a town called "Bountiful" where a kook named Winston Blackmore and his followers practice polygamy. Authorities have been looking for a way to prosecute him, but have concentrated on avenues like tax evasion and finding underage brides, because they are afraid that a polygamy charge will not survive in court. And the stumbling block is not those darned homos, but rather religious freedom.

Authorities in the United States are about to experience the same headache, and once again the headache will not be those darned homos, but rather constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.

I'm confused, Shady. Up until today you were a staunch defender of religious freedom. What happened? Why aren't you standing behind these poor Christians who are being persecuted for their religious beliefs? As Rick Santorum would say, America is the only country on earth where rights are granted by God rather than by government, and these people believe God wants them to have lots and lots of wives and some flawed human-made government is standing in their way. Is that right? I ask you. Is that right? How can the laws of man stand in the way of what God himself told Joseph Smith to inscribe on those brass tablets? Does that seem right?

When did you start hating religious freedom, Shady? You changed, man. It used to be about the music.

-k

[Black Dog]

Once again, I'm proven right.

Like I said. If you're going to change the definition of marriage related to sex. Then there's no logical defense as to why it can't be changed further.

Actually one does not logically follow the other.

[waldo]

Once again, I'm proven right.

Federal judge allows polygamous family’s lawsuit

A federal judge has ruled there’s sufficient evidence to allow a polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show to pursue a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s bigamy law.

Washington Post

Like I said. If you're going to change the definition of marriage related to sex. Then there's no logical defense as to why it can't be changed further.

you were arguing with yourself, so... you'd always be right!

by hey now, can this highlight on Utah, polygamy and Mormonism be good for your boy Mitt? Really?

Actually I wasn't. I made the point several pages ago. People of your ilk claimed that I was off base. Looks like I was completely correct. You can apologize to me as usual via personal message.

huh! As for personal messaging, I've long ago disabled mine (definitely over a year ago), since I was being inundated with such pleasantries. But c'mon, Shady... I offered you the following support in your quest:

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be. Laws were changed. So I'm asking the proponents of the changed definition of marriage, why marriage can't be changed further? If, as I'm told, that two people loving each other, no matter what sex, should be recognized as married, then why not 3 people that love each other? What's the logic denying them that right? On what basis?

So, just make it so, make it happen! Add it to your other expressed intent - you're going to be quite busy, hey?

*

On a side note. I'm now starting a Google campaign to have the term Layton be defined as breaking the hymen of a 12 year old girl. Since I don't like the NDP stance on minimum sentencing, especially in regards to sex offenders.

it is quite a chucklefest seeing you tout your "rightness" over a simple judicial ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed. Make sure to check back in again once the Utah state level law is actually found to be unconstitutional... with what resulting implications at the state and national levels. At that point, chime in and tout your "rightness", hey?

[Shady]

huh! As for personal messaging, I've long ago disabled mine (definitely over a year ago), since I was being inundated with such pleasantries. But c'mon, Shady... I offered you the following support in your quest:

it is quite a chucklefest seeing you tout your "rightness" over a simple judicial ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed. Make sure to check back in again once the Utah state level law is actually found to be unconstitutional... with what resulting implications at the state and national levels. At that point, chime in and tout your "rightness", hey?

Have no fear. This issue will be going all the way to the Supreme Court. In the mean time, you could attempt something that nobody else has been successful providing. A legal and legitimate basis for why the definition of marriage can be changed based on gender, but not on the number of people involved in said union. If 3 people love each other, what harm does it do to you if they're married? How does it negatively impact your life, or others? Why can't they also be accommodated?

[waldo]

Have no fear. This issue will be going all the way to the Supreme Court.

and yet this, your acknowledged uncertainty, didn't dissuade you from hyping your self-proclaimed "rightness" - go figure.

In the mean time, you could attempt something that nobody else has been successful providing. A legal and legitimate basis for why the definition of marriage can be changed based on gender, but not on the number of people involved in said union.

see your earlier reference to an expectation of a U.S. Supreme Court review/ruling

If 3 people love each other, what harm does it do to you if they're married? How does it negatively impact your life, or others? Why can't they also be accommodated?

again, I encouraged you in your quest

Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be. Laws were changed. So I'm asking the proponents of the changed definition of marriage, why marriage can't be changed further? If, as I'm told, that two people loving each other, no matter what sex, should be recognized as married, then why not 3 people that love each other? What's the logic denying them that right? On what basis?

So, just make it so, make it happen! Add it to your other expressed intent - you're going to be quite busy, hey?

*

On a side note. I'm now starting a Google campaign to have the term Layton be defined as breaking the hymen of a 12 year old girl. Since I don't like the NDP stance on minimum sentencing, especially in regards to sex offenders.

one question: I don't recall you ever replying to the following exchange. Although I've highlighted the mocking intent, MLW member jbg, the self-proclaimed progressive, insists his is a serious want/desire. Although MLW member jbg, as I recall, hasn't spoken to the gender makeup of his 4 mammal marriage-mix, do you have human limits on your extension to the 2-person, non-gender specific marriage bar?

Exactly. After all, if it's about freedom and love, there's absolutely no justification for not allowing 3 people to legally marry.

Note, I didn't limit it to people. I said "any four mammals, as long as one is a human over the age of sixteen". Your limiting it to people is simply reactionary.

[Shady]

As usual, I still can't get an answer out of you, and anybody else that takes that position. My questions were fairly simple.

[BubberMiley]

As usual, I still can't get an answer out of you, and anybody else that takes that position. My questions were fairly simple.

You got your answer: the definition of marriage can change to whatever society wants it to be. But speaking of not being able to get an answer, I believe Kimmy asked you a question point blank just a few posts ago and you didn't respond at all.

[Black Dog]

As usual, I still can't get an answer out of you, and anybody else that takes that position. My questions were fairly simple.

It's been answered numerous times in this thread and elsewhere. not sure why you keep pretending that's not the case.

Personally, I reject the idea that the gender or sexual orientation of the participants constitutes a dramatic redefinition of marriage, which has always been a legal contract between two parties. That said, if they could work out a way to make polygamy between consenting adults work, I don't see the issue. But it's a far more radical change than SSM.

[jbg]

It's been answered numerous times in this thread and elsewhere. not sure why you keep pretending that's not the case.

Personally, I reject the idea that the gender or sexual orientation of the participants constitutes a dramatic redefinition of marriage, which has always been a legal contract between two parties.

Wasn't it defined as a union between a man and a woman till recently. By the way this thread stars here (link).