Google "Santorum"

[Shady]

of course a successful campaign will require finding others of your persuasion coupled with a receptive media/blogosphere. Or, given your raised concerns you could alternatively channel your energies into attempting to raise the Santorum rankings... your call.

I guess I'll see how it goes. I haven't made any final decisions yet.

Guyser already dealt with all of this very efficiently, but I'd just like to emphasize that the very quote that we've been discussing, which sharkman linked to earlier, is from an interview in which Santorum is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-sodomy law.

Could you link to it? I'd definitely be interested in listening/reading it.

If you're well informed, then I guess the only explanation is that your head is stuck so far up your "no spin zone" that you're unable to interpret all this information you claim to have.

I'd love to interpret any new information you might have.

He's was (and still is) advocating for the idea that states have a right to tell people what they can and can't do in bed together.

Once again, I'm completely open to any new information you'd like to add.

He seems like a pretty outrageous person, I'm puzzled that you want to defend him.

Because he's attacking a Christian.

[Shady]

Freedom of expression of sincere and true love.

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

[waldo]

of course, there is nothing preventing Santorum, or supporters, from attempting to influence search engine rankings to lower the Savage site ranking. As for his attempt with Google, apparently Santorum doesn't have the same pull as George Bush did... see "miserable failure Google Bomb". Of course, Google insists it didn't oblige Dubya... it simply adjusted it's search algorithm's as a part of "improvements/optimization/efficiency".

further to Santorum's current 'Google bomb' difficulty, coincident with my earlier referenced, "miserable failure - George Bush" example, was this little gem ranked highest when you ran a googly on, "weapons of mass destruction"!

[guyser]

Could you link to it? I'd definitely be interested in listening/reading it.

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-ban-contraception-romney-says-working-just-fine-045412035.html

[Shady]

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-ban-contraception-romney-says-working-just-fine-045412035.html

I watched that debate. He didn't suggest banning contraception at all. In fact, he specifically states as the question is being asked, that he doesn't support banning contraception.

[guyser]

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

Actually it is a really dumb comment devoid of any rational thinking .

The laws for distribution of assets, child custody , spousal benefits, death benefits , survivor rights and so on , as marriage have, traditionally were written for two people (why yes, it was man and a woman)however with the changes, the number of poeple remained the same (two people instead of man and woman) and did not require the pontificating all the 'what ifs' should the law be amended to more than 2 people.

[Shady]

Actually it is a really dumb comment devoid of any rational thinking.

No, it's a perfectly logical question of which you have no answer.

The laws for distribution of assets, child custody , spousal benefits, death benefits , survivor rights and so on , as marriage have, traditionally were written for two people

So what? Those can be easily changed as well.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it's a perfectly logical question of which you have no answer.

There's nothing "logical" about it, and he most definitely did haven an answer.

So what? Those can be easily changed as well.

No, it can't; there would be nothing "easy" about it. It would require changing the nature of the laws.

Edited February 2, 2012 by American Woman

[jbg]

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.

[The_Squid]

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.

And your silly red-herrings about people marrying animals are simply trolling.

[waldo]

No, it's a perfectly logical question of which you have no answer.

not to give your statements any real credence... you, of course, have not provided an answer to your own, 'look over there, squirrel!", distraction. Why don't you pony up your own answer as to why society hasn't deemed the marriage of 3 or more persons, legal and conventional?

[Shady]

There's nothing "logical" about it, and he most definitely did haven an answer.

Why is it not logical?

No, it can't; there would be nothing "easy" about it. It would require changing the nature of the laws.

Nonsense. Laws can be changed. In this case, it wouldn't be that complicated.

[Shady]

Why don't you pony up your own answer as to why society hasn't deemed the marriage of 3 or more persons, legal and conventional?

I'd suggest it's because soceity deemed marriage between a man and a woman. But that's changed. So why can't it change further? What harm does a man and two women marrying do to you? How does it negatively impact your life?

[waldo]

I believe that any four mammals should be able to marry as long as one is a human over the age of 16.

just to understand and appreciate your belief, why do you hold such a belief and what value-add do you believe this would bring to society, if any?

Freedom of expression of sincere and true love.

and the society value-add?

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.

you haven't answered the question... again... and the society value add?

by the by, you mentioned you plied this same sentiment on the board 'babble'... and you were summarily banned. Do you have any thoughts as to why you might have been banned over such a presented view?

[Guest American Woman]

I'd suggest it's because soceity deemed marriage between a man and a woman. But that's changed. So why can't it change further? What harm does a man and two women marrying do to you? How does it negatively impact your life?

Society deemed marriage between two people - one person to look after the home/family and another to work and have the benefits that come along with it for the family. Insurance benefits go to two people, tax benefits go to two people, government benefits go to two people, social security benefits go to two people, maternity/paternity leave benefits go to two people, spouses of citizens have the right to live in Canada and that right goes to one spouse - start giving the same benefits to multiple spouses, and you can bet it would affect all of us economically - if one person could enter Canada with multiple spouses, if anyone could marry as many people as they wanted, they all would have to be able to receive the benefits and rights afforded to a spouse.

As Guyser pointed out, all that had to be done to allow gay marriages is to change the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to between two people - to allow multiple marriages would require a change in the laws as they now exist.

[waldo]

I'd suggest it's because soceity deemed marriage between a man and a woman. But that's changed. So why can't it change further? What harm does a man and two women marrying do to you? How does it negatively impact your life?

no - it's your distraction to provide the answer you're asking others for. Obviously you're aware of past isolated examples of polygamy... again, why don't you pony up your own answer as to why society hasn't deemed the marriage of 3 or more persons, legal and conventional... and yet, the legality and conventionality of same-sex marriage exists, to varying degrees, throughout the world?

just what is your distraction all about, anyway?

[Shady]

Society deemed marriage between two people - one person to look after the home/family and another to work and have the benefits that come along with it for the family.

So what? Why can't it be 3?

Insurance benefits go to two people, tax benefits go to two people, government benefits go to two people, social security benefits go to two people, maternity/paternity leave benefits go to two people, spouses of citizens have the right to live in Canada and that right goes to one spouse - start giving the same benefits to multiple spouses, and you can bet it would affect all of us economically - if one person could enter Canada with multiple spouses, if anyone could marry as many people as they wanted, they all would have to be able to receive the benefits and rights afforded to a spouse.

Again, so what? Yep, benefits, etc would be divided multiple times instead of twice. Big deal. It's not rocket science.

As Guyser pointed out, all that had to be done to allow gay marriages is to change the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to between two people - to allow multiple marriages would require a change in the laws as they now exist.

Again, so what? So the laws would require changing. They already have been changed. What harm does a man marrying 2 women do to you? How does it negatively impact your life?

[Shady]

no - it's your distraction to provide the answer you're asking others for.

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?

[waldo]

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?

alright, you won't/can't answer - no biggee. 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.

[msj]

So what? Why can't it be 3?

It certainly could be 3 if society so agrees to it. Or even more.

Marriage/Common law could be defined as a consenting conjugal relationship between adults without any limits of gender, race, number of spouses, etc...

As a reasonable and practical limit, however, it makes sense limit these things to 2 people without any limits to gender, race, etc....

I look at it from a tax point of view (not surprising since I'm a tax accountant).

If I was allowed to have 3 spouses then I would keep my existing wife (who is very lovely) and marry another woman much younger than myself.

That way if my existing wife and I die then we could pass our assets to this younger spouse on a tax free basis.

Of course, the government would never go for that - they want the taxes to be paid on those capital gains at some point in time so best to leave the laws where they are now at 2 people at a time, regardless of gender.

I do realize that in reality if we were allowed to have 2 other spouses that this would really mean the my wife would have a younger man and me. That wouldn't be very much fun.

[Guest American Woman]

Again, so what? Yep, benefits, etc would be divided multiple times instead of twice. Big deal. It's not rocket science.

No, they wouldn't be "divided," they would be multiplied. Figure it out. It's not rocket science.

Again, so what? So the laws would require changing. They already have been changed. What harm does a man marrying 2 women do to you? How does it negatively impact your life?

I've already explained it. Either you didn't read it or you're purposely being obtuse. I doubt if you're truly unable to comprehend what's been said - but then, I could be wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

If I was allowed to have 3 spouses then I would keep my existing wife (who is very lovely) and marry another woman much younger than myself.

Or your very lovely wife could marry a man much younger than herself.

I do realize that in reality if we were allowed to have 2 other spouses that this would really mean the my wife would have a younger man and me. That wouldn't be very much fun.

Ahhhh, you beat me to it. Yes, she very well could - while a woman "much younger than yourself" might have no interest in marrying you.

Anther scenario - a Canadian man could marry a dozen women and bring them all to Canada for "free" health care - and they could bring all of their children along for the same benefits too, if they are already mommies. Or the reverse. A Canadian woman could marry a dozen foreign men.... I think some might object to that.

Edited February 2, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

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?

The logic, besides the practicalness that I already discussed above, is that it is not discrimination.

It is discriminatory to allow a man/woman to marry while denying, say, a black man/white woman to marry (racial).

It is also discriminatory to disallow a man/man or a woman/woman to marry (gender/sexual orientation).

It is not discriminatory to say - hey, you are already married to one person (gender/race irrelevant) and that's all you're allowed to.

But if you and your spouse agree to shack up with 6 other people then that's your business.

No, you won't get any more spousal tax credits, or pension splitting or whatever tax/pension benefits because we (as in the state) will only count one spouse for these purposes.

[msj]

Ahhhh, you beat me to it. Yes, she very well could - while a woman "much younger than yourself" might have no interest in marrying you.

Based on my looks, you're likely right.

Based on other factors (wealth, decent guy) I don't think it would be a problem.

Besides, my wife is very lovely and I'm sure could find a suitable woman for us both.

Edited February 2, 2012 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

Based on my looks, you're likely right.

Based on other factors (wealth, decent guy) I don't think it would be a problem.

Besides, my wife is very lovely and I'm sure could find a suitable woman for us both.

Now see, being that she's so very lovely, I was thinking surely she could find a suitable man for both of you.