I disagree. I don't think there should be such a thing as "two husbands" or "two wives" in a marriage. Again, that is just semantics for me.
I pointed out the new testament figures - they'd be jewish and christian and muslim religious figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup>At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup> To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy.
I guess it depends on what you consider "large". Considering the very small minds they possess, "large" is an exaggerration of their place in society.
As a libertarian, my view is that people have the right to pursue happiness. If it means polygamy or same sex marriages, I'm fine with it. The line is where it's not a voluntary contract between consenting adults. I personally find much of it "disgusting" (for lack of a better word), but it's not really my business.
Yes. And those that don't respect their viewpoints and see them as "small-minded" are just as guilty. Their viewpoints are deeply rooted in the way they are brought up and their own personal moral code and they are able to think that way.
No, they're not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two women agreeing to "marry" does not make it a marriage.
Re: Palin bends McCain over and has a gay old time with him As the Presidential Candidate of the newly-formed Semantic Party, I welcome, solicit, greet, receive, wish for, seek out, mine, cherish, desire your votes. I am sure we can agree on specifics after I am elected.
Actually I'm pretty sure that common law is an option that comes up when two people have been living together for a long time. And no it does not apply to gay couples. If it did then two straight males (or females) who live together for years because they are great friends would be able to receive the same tax and medical benefits that common law marriage provides. I'm surprised that we are focusing on so much on the issue of marriage in this thread. Anybody else find it interesting that Palin broke with McCain on such an important issue?
Hardly. Recognizing mental retardation in others does not make one a retard. They question nothing and blindly think as they are told. They avoid education and shun new ideas presented to them. They have no personal moral code, they have had one assigned to them. They avoid personal responsibility by saying it's God's will. I find them reprehensible as human beings. Seriously, it takes a very inactive mind to swallow the nonsense that is spewed in support of the many religious beliefs nowadays, and Christianity is one of the most absurd religions there is. I really can't take anything said by a "religious" person without observing "this person actually believes in mythical beings and other nonsense". It's 2008, not 208.
