Conservative Heads Explode

woman are a handful. In a perfect world this would be awesome, then you factor in nagging multiplied by 2, fighting by 3, what if each wife wants like six kids, then you got bathroom space and all hell breaks loose.

Sex might be the only good thing in a polygamy marriage, but what if one wife doesnt like threesomes! They could also pull the age old no sex for you thing, so that pretty much takes the fun out of that.

Pretty much polygamy is a bad idea. Cool on paper BAD in practice.

This is exactly the kind of relationship I would want. No outside relationships. Just a grouple where we all support and love one another.

So, how about them Steelers??

This could lead to some interesting combinations. Opposite-same-opposite, same-same-opposite, opposite-opposite-same, same-same-same, opposite-opposite-opposite, or the ever popular opposite-same-opposite-same marraige. Wait that's to many someone call a mormon or Miss California.

unclecharlie,

And all those the oppose equal rights - your moral and natural laws entitle you to not indulge in something you do not agree with. You always have the right to voice an opinion as long as you understand it is just that, an opinion, a point of view. Because you oppose something doesn't mean it should no longer exist. It simply means you shouldn't partake of that which you oppose.

I personally don't particularly care for the homosexual life style, as a personal choice. Therefor I won't be dating any gay men and I certainly won't be marrying any. However that should in no way shape or form inhibit anyone else from doing what is right for them.

No one wants to end traditional marriage. No one wants to force anyone to have an abortion. No one wants to dominate or enslave the race that thought it was ok to enslave others. You can continue to marry who you choose and feel the way you choose about controversial issues. You just need to extend that same right to others that don't share your opinion. Is that really too much to ask?

unclecharlie, I'd prefer it if the law isn't decided by your God. Thankyou :)

The law isnt saying a Catholic church has to perform the marriage of two people who love eachother like God wants them too, instead it is saying that the State and Federal government recognize the marriage of two people.

Unlike you, there is a world outside of the church and your man in the clouds, in which people can get married in (GASP) a different building besides one that puts a torture symbol everywhere. OH JEEZE!!! Would you believe that??!?!??!?!?!

My apologies, Charlie. I wouldn't think of suggesting that you compromise your morals. And I am also sorry that you interpreted my response to be "venomous." That was certainly not my intent. I am sure you have given these matters much thought and this concept of "natural law" is much more sophisticated in your thinking than it is in most of the contexts in which I see it used. Most of the time I see people referring to "natural law" the people involved have created it out of whole cloth to justify doing whatever it is that they think is right. Too often "natural law" turns out to be nothing more than a polished-up version of "my opinion." I also tend to get a little suspicious when "natural law" is used as the reason to proactively engage in some kind of conduct that involves changing something from its natural state.

I am not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that I was trying to deprive you of your rights to your opinions. I have heard that before -- especially when people are calling me a liberal. I am not a liberal -- though I can't imagine why that would necessarily be a bad thing any more than being a conservative would necessarily be a bad thing. But in my opinion, we ARE agreeing to disagree. You believe that your position is based on your interpretation of the requirements of "natural law." I don't think there is any such thing as "natural law" and therefore suggest a different reason. We disagree. No big deal.

Take care...

Firstly, I cited Winston Churchill in jest. That being said, I will not sacrifice my morals for something that is seen as being "politically correct." I don't agree with this issue, and I say so. I am entitled to my opinion, just like you are to yours. I am extremely tolerant (the accusation is laughable.) I just happen to believe in objective right and wrong. In the eyes of God, what is right? I won't be judged by mankind when I die, so I really don't try to conform to it when I am alive. Incidentally, I don't suffer from OCD. A liberal is one who is unwilling to take their own side in an argument, it has been said. Narrow minded intolerance? I believe in the fundamental moral values of right and wrong. I believe that right and wrong is not subject to personal whims and pop culture, I believe it is established in Natural Law. Because I believe that some values are not subject to change with the whims of society, I am considered "intolerant." Those who constantly preach "tolerance" and "diversity" are they themselves the most intolerant. Disagree with the crowd? They demonize you, giving you a label, like "intolerant", rather than agreeing to disagree- (which is real tolerance) and their venom is unleashed. "Intolerant"? So be it.

Sigh. You make me sad, Charlie. You cite Winston Churchill for the phrase "Never give up!" But Winston Churchill was fighting for fundamental principles like liberty and freedom. You are fighting AGAINST liberty and freedom. You are fighting against an IMAGINED future in which your church is "forced" to perform gay marriages or your children are "disciplined" for believing in marriage between people of different genders. I am encouraged that your arguments have more depth and breadth than the vast majority who come to the same conclusion, but I am afraid if you are going to say "Never give up!" with regard to the fight in which YOU are engaged, your citation should be to Don Quixote. Because you truly ARE tilting at windmills. Nobody is going to charge you with a hate crime for your mere narrow-minded intolerance. That is just an excuse on your part to justify your attempts to deprive others of their liberty and freedom to fall in love with and form a union with whomever makes their hearts go pitter-pat.

I have not seen any evidence that you are a homophobe...I don't detect any FEAR. You may, perhaps, suffer from a bit of obsessive-compulsive disorder (I am not trained to know for sure) insofar as you clearly can't let go of a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with you. I mean, of all the horrible injustices going on in the world THIS is the issue that captures your imagination? Whether two people who love each other should be kept from forming a union because they happen to be of the same GENDER!

All of the "harm" you claim these people are doing to you is at best speculative (since none of it has actually happened) and at worst simply the product of an overactive imagination. If you really think that the "gay community" gets together to try and figure out how to stick it to unclecharlie, I have some REALLY bad news for you. Not only are they NOT doing so, they neither know nor care that you even exist. That is a poor reaction to all the attention you are giving THEM, I know, but it is what it is.

I realize, of course, that you are never going to change in this regard. Your intolerance is as much a part of you now as any other part of your character. But you are going to go to your grave having spent a lifetime being wrong on this issue, charlie. That is simply regrettable.

Tolerance. If they quit trying to change the fundamental principles of marriage (it is more than just being "accepting.") then I'll be tolerant. Eventually, when people like me speak out against gay "marriage", we'll be charged with "hate speech." There won't be tolerance when Catholic churches will be forced to host gay "marriages", which go against the foundational natural law. I don't want to have to explain to my kids why I'm "out of touch, old fashioned," because, at school, when they bring up objections to gay "marriage.", they will be made to feel like outcasts- not only will be their difference of opinion NOT be tolerated, they will be disciplined. It's about the Moral Law, the Natural Order. Of course, when someone is a humanist or atheist, natural law is meaningless, as there is no god in the first place, and this where the phrase "anything goes" applies. Incidentally, I appreciate your charitable response, as some of the younger, college age members here continually lambaste me for being a "homophobe." because I choose to disagree- not because I have hatred for homosexuals. I have had friends who were gay, and they struggled mightily. To the college crowd, disagreeing means the same thing as hating, and it shows how sheltered they really are. So, thanks again for your charity, and I always like reading your thoughts on Current......

Oh for heaven's sake, Charlie. You are smarter than that. I was being tongue-in-cheek when I said that marriage was wonderful except when it wasn't. My own marriage is ten times stronger and more satisfying after 19 years than it was after 1 year.

Not only is GAY marriage completely irrelevant to my marriage, so is every OTHER marriage on the planet (along with the relationships of those who choose merely to cohabit). Besides which, the "institutional" aspects of marriage are those that are least important. If a couple's marriage exists only because of its "institutionality," then it is no marriage at all, and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for such a couple -- regardless of whether it is between a man and a woman, two men, two women, or between Schwartzenegger and Kennedy.

If you are married to a woman and have even 10 SECONDS to worry about some marriage between two men you don't even know, then you aren't paying enough attention to your wife. EVERYBODY else's marriage is utterly irrelevant to your own. The two of you have a limited amount of time and health within which to treasure each other. Every moment you spend sticking your noses into someone ELSE's marriage is a moment wasted.

Those marriages are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If you choose to MAKE them your business, then you are not only intruding into the most intimate private affairs of others (and are therefore acting in an immoral manner), but you are also devaluing your own marriage by taking your time and energy away from your own "knitting."

The think is, Charlie, that virtually NOTHING is being asked of you in this regard. All these couples are asking from you is tolerance. You don't have to lift a finger to help them, nor are you required by any force on earth to lift a finger to hurt them. They don't know that you exist. They don't CARE that you exist. And they would be perfectly content if you did not KNOW or CARE that they existed, either. Live and let live. Life is just too short to get your shorts all wadded up over something like this that is just none of your concern.

Marriage, as an institution, is dead. The sacredness of it is dead, the gays killed it......

Marriage is WONDERFUL except when it isn't.

marriage is dead.

I wouldnt do it but I think people should have the choice to do it.

I have no comment at this time. I'll get back with you after my wife Ethel fixes me dinner...but if today is Monday, then that means it's my other wife's turn to cook. (that would be Hazel- or maybe Edith- I can't keep track of them all!!) Gay Marriage, Threesome Marriage, Pedophile Marriages....Down the slipery slope we go, when we stop, nobody knows........

I think the mormans did this a long time ago. It's called polygamy.

nothing new

This will take forever to get through. You know how wives, ex-wives and children fight over estates, I see alot of money in it for attorneys.
Does that sound sarcastic? Gee, let me think about this one for a while. How about two men and one female?
Wow what a clean house we'd have. We could enjoy shopping, all three of us....do lunch, do girl flix.... does that mean I'd have to give up football and hockey?

I think they are referring to the one first publicized in Sweden. If you don't recall, there was one case where a swedish "family" consisted of one man and two women. If you ask me, the guy's an idiot. Being married to one woman is duty enough for one man. I can't speak for other permutations and the idiots that would be stupid enough to try it.
It's like the old saying, two's company and three's a crowd.

Okay, clue me in what is a threesome marriage?