Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Who on this thread is using religion as the reason to deny same sex marriage? I must have missed that.

Yes and infact we not only have a prior history of this type of family set up (POLY) we also have whole communities which are now living this way.

Because it's illegal and hidden, it is ripe for other crimes to flourish.

The news reports focus on these extreme cases and disregard the vast majority of families living normal every day lives... with the exception of the number of people in the secret relationship.

I say if you give the right to marry to two men... well how in the world can you deny a three some. People either have a "Right" to marry according to the dictates of love (Liberal speak) or the state does have the right to draw bounds.

Yeah - fundamentalists who practice Polygyny.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

You demanding substance?

You unable to provide it?

Seriously - I love this back and forth, I guess its all you can do when you having nothing to say.

I'm sure you can spin this into an "I am rubber, you are glue / sticks and stones" comeback. Feel free - you've validated my point.

I give as good as I get, and from you, I get nothing.

Polygyny has existed far longer than monogamy. It's not incidental.

[Peikko 1,575]

Marriage is about couples and a legal framework for inheritance, familial responsibility, obligation and benefit. It is not about god and it really doesn't have to have anything to do with love, and historically, it has not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

You demanding substance?

You unable to provide it?

Seriously - I love this back and forth, I guess its all you can do when you having nothing to say.

I'm sure you can spin this into an "I am rubber, you are glue / sticks and stones" comeback. Feel free - you've validated my point.

I give as good as I get, and from you, I get nothing.

On the basis of your last few dismissive one-liners what exactly should I give you?

If there is a mainstream debate on plural/group marriage rights - it shouldn't be difficult to identify it.

You're the social science/culture/history/politics expert - after all.

If I'm wrong you should be able to bury me with your knowledge on this subject.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Marriage is about couples and a legal framework for inheritance, familial responsibility, obligation and benefit. It is not about god and it really doesn't have to have anything to do with love, and historically, it has not.

Why, oh why do you have to bring logic into this thread Cleo??? #######!!!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

You demanding substance?

You unable to provide it?

Seriously - I love this back and forth, I guess its all you can do when you having nothing to say.

I'm sure you can spin this into an "I am rubber, you are glue / sticks and stones" comeback. Feel free - you've validated my point.

I give as good as I get, and from you, I get nothing.

On the basis of your last few dismissive one-liners what exactly should I give you?

If there is a mainstream debate on plural/group marriage rights - it shouldn't be difficult to identify it.

You're the social science/culture/history/politics expert - after all.

If I'm wrong you should be able to bury me with your knowledge on this subject.

You wouldn't know knowledge if it buried you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Polygyny has existed far longer than monogamy. It's not incidental.

I know. But it has fallen from mainstream favor for the exact same reason that it used to be practiced in the first place. Because our 21st century society is not a feudal fiefdom where women have minimal civil and legal rights.

You wouldn't know knowledge if it buried you.

So bury me.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are on a sticky wicket there PD#6. Muslims recognize polygamy so I expect VW is in a bit of an uncomfortable position. It'll be interesting to see the wiggling that goes on.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Polygyny has existed far longer than monogamy. It's not incidental.

I know. But it has fallen from mainstream favor for the exact same reason that it used to be practiced in the first place. Because our 21st century society is not a feudal fiefdom where women have minimal civil and legal rights.

You wouldn't know knowledge if it buried you.

So bury me.

Doooood.... you so have to read my thread on the new Afghani rape law....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Polygyny has existed far longer than monogamy. It's not incidental.

I know. But it has fallen from mainstream favor for the exact same reason that it used to be practiced in the first place. Because our 21st century society is not a feudal fiefdom where women have minimal civil and legal rights.

You wouldn't know knowledge if it buried you.

So bury me.

Ok,I'll take you on. Here are links to all of your posts on this thread up to #300. Choose which one offers the kind of substance you demand from me, and I'll match it.

I have nothing to worry about

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804027

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804040

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804210

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804225

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2806417

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2807189

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808042

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808733

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808764

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808812

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808829

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808850

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2809601

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811046

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811907

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811956

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811956

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812602

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812608

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812614

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812638

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812786

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812828

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812844

You are on a sticky wicket there PD#6. Muslims recognize polygamy so I expect VW is in a bit of an uncomfortable position. It'll be interesting to see the wiggling that goes on.

Amazing how you always make negative ASSumptions. I'm not uncomfortable. Why would I be?

Edited April 6, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, I made an assumption. You don't want people messing with 'traditional US marriage' which is, quite definitely couples not polygamous, and yet quite clearly the Muslim religion looks favourably on MEN taking more than one wife, although not women taking more than one husband. Seems a pretty uncomfortable position to be in. But, then that's me, I like my reasoning to be somewhat logical.

As for your links, what a joke.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yes, I made an assumption. You don't want people messing with 'traditional US marriage' which is, quite definitely couples not polygamous, and yet quite clearly the Muslim religion looks favourably on MEN taking more than one wife, although not women taking more than one husband. Seems a pretty uncomfortable position to be in. But, then that's me, I like my logical reasoning.

Actually, Islam warns against polygyny, even as it allows it under narrow circumstances. The way some Muslim practice it and what God allows are two different things.

You wouldn't say such things if you had any idea what you were taking about.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As for your links, what a joke.

It's mean to be a joke coz Pike is a joke.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Polygyny has existed far longer than monogamy. It's not incidental.

I know. But it has fallen from mainstream favor for the exact same reason that it used to be practiced in the first place. Because our 21st century society is not a feudal fiefdom where women have minimal civil and legal rights.

You wouldn't know knowledge if it buried you.

So bury me.

Ok,I'll take you on. Here are links to all of your posts on this thread up to #300. Choose which one offers the kind of substance you demand from me, and I'll match it.

I have nothing to worry about

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804027

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804040

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804210

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2804225

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2806417

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2807189

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808042

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808733

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808764

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808812

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808829

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2808850

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2809601

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811046

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811907

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811956

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2811956

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812602

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812608

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812614

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812638

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812786

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812828

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2812844

You are on a sticky wicket there PD#6. Muslims recognize polygamy so I expect VW is in a bit of an uncomfortable position. It'll be interesting to see the wiggling that goes on.

Amazing how you always make negative ASSumptions. I'm not uncomfortable. Why would I be?

You see... you go to all that effort to dig up and paste links to all those posts of mine, and yet you are apparently unwilling to do the one thing that will shut me up.

I smell a rat.

[dalegg 143]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

which God? I mean, so we are all on the same page.

Pick one.

Cool. I'll play. My Creator loves all creatures equally. Communion of Two-Spirited people (gays to you) are not frowned upon- and no, I am not making it up.

OWNED.

Gay "to me"? So now I'm the oddball for referring to them as gay? I cannot remember ever hearing gay peeps as being referred to as "Spirited People" and I've watched a lot of the Here channel!