The 473

[Harambe]

This is like a day too late. I had one at 6am yesterday

sorry bros... didn't mean to rerail this.

 

[colton]

They are different but does that make them less? Does it mean the love is any less? No it doesn't.

Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)

 

[8]

Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)

No, yes, yes

 

[Gameface]

Sorry, the grammarian in me objects to that sentence. Their romantic partner is whom they want to marry, so by definition they do in fact think they should get to marry whomever they want.

I want to marry Rashida Jones, may I marry whomever I want? I'm gonna make some calls to make sure I'm a man and she's a woman.

 

[Stoked]

Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)

No, yes, yes

Which is where I get into civil unions and marriages. Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Civil Unions should be done but the government, instead of marriages. They should grant all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage currently does. Any group of consenting adults, regardless of relation, sexual orientation or any other clarification should be eligible for civil unions.

Now if a homosexual (or even a random group of 3 or more) couple find a recognized religion that will marry them than good for them. They are married.

 

[Bronco70]

Stoked (among others) already said this, but majority opinion does not turn something unconstitutional into something constitutional. If a majority in a state decided they wanted to outlaw religion completely, would that make it okay, constitutionally speaking? The constitution was written specifically to protect against the majority taking rights away from everyone else.

 

[8]

Which is where I get into civil unions and marriages. Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Civil Unions should be done but the government, instead of marriages. They should grant all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage currently does. Any group of consenting adults, regardless of relation, sexual orientation or any other clarification should be eligible for civil unions.

Now if a homosexual (or even a random group of 3 or more) couple find a recognized religion that will marry them than good for them. They are married.

iawtp

 

[Harambe]

Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Seems like there's evidence to support that marriage was not religious in it's creation, but just a way to identify a protected individual or family unit. The Gods, or God at the time had nothing to do with it.

 

[Archie Moses]

Is the sister in question momasita moses, by chance? Tell her she should post more.

No. This is one of my three adopted Russian sisters.

 

[Gameface]

No. This is one of my three adopted Russian sisters.

Sounds hawt

 

[Archie Moses]

Sounds hawt

I'd stick with Nubile films, tbh.

 

[Gameface]

I'd stick with Nubile films, tbh.

What's the difference?