QamiQazi

Yes Garth, something like that.

Garth, does Cynic pay you to make him look good, or is it just a reflexive thing you do?

Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition. Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe. Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage. And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.

I knew you were going to say that.

Cynic, you're just raising the same point I did before. If marriage is open to homosexuals, why not polygamists (with an m, by the way - a polygynist would be very interesting though). It seems as if people are less and less willing to be defined in the traditional ways. After all, we know a lot more about everything those who handed down those traditions. Sort of. Much of our tradition comes from our biology, and its profound influence upon our psychological and social behavior. Even today, in the modern world.

Abigail, I was serious in the first part, but I thought about some of the possible permutations we might see once the M/F requirement was lifted. I think churches have always managed to certify and sanctify marriages according to their beliefs, and I don't think that should change. If you only believe in heterosexual marriage, get married in a church that believes likewise. If you are an Episcopalean, change churches. Maybe this relates to Zixar's point - churches associate themselves around scriptural doctrines which do not change with "every wind." If the church has members who wish to change the rules, it must decide, as many have, whether it is a theocracy bound to scriptural edict, or a democracy bound to change with the trends. There is plenty of room for both, and nobody is preventing anybody else from joining or switching to the church that teaches what you want to hear. I can understand the anger JL might harbor from his early experience, and how it translates into his current perspective. I think it's wrong though. He experienced what countless girls his age have experienced and come to expect from older men, and unlike them, he had considerable physical strength to defend himself. On the other hand, the girls may handle it a lot better than he has, emotionally speaking. (No offense, JL, but your conclusion - "if there weren't any it wouldn'a happened" - just sounds way over the top.) Girls have a lot more practice at fending off advances and so they are more resiliant. It's the guys who tend to be "girls" about it, so to speak. M&A your anger seems a lot less focused. Maybe I missed it but you never explained why it is so heated. What happened? My own problem with the various activist groups has more to do with their politics. They are fairly predictable when November rolls around. Since liberalism is on the surface more permissive, I can understand it, but some of the more radical groups are pretty hard to take. Act Up, for instance, is like a PETA for people. I do believe the law should adapt. If a couple wishes to marry, there is a spiritual component provided by the organization they choose, and there is a legal component, provided by the state. Where children are involved, if married couples receive tax deductions (they ain't much), then all couples with children should. There will be additional costs, but there will be benefits as well, many intangible though palpable. Social stability for one. Marriage is a debt of faithfulness which makes one stop and consider more than just "#1." There is a "marriage penalty" that probably more than offsets any deductions for kids (but I don't know), and everybody will have to pay it until Congress 86's it. If a friend from work invited me to his or her "alternative" wedding, I would want to attend. I'd even be honored. I haven't forgotten the Judeo-Christian socio-theocratic prohibitions-by-fiat I once accepted. I no longer accept some of them. It's just about people, and the people I know are good people. We've all adjusted our lives to the times, and in most ways, much for the better. We keep the commandments that need keeping. The others belong to the past, by most measures a darker age.

I think all consenting adults should be able to enter into a contractual, personal partnership, a mutual commitment. The whole old-fashioned marriage thing needs to be modified and modernized. Whether the consenting adults in particular choose to call it marriage or partnership or domestic bondage is up to them. The label should be whatever they like - the bottom line is partnership. A mutual commitment contract should fulfill certain legal requirements to be recognized by the law as such, and therefore entitle the licensees to all commensurate rights and privileges in accordance with their commitment status, and in their state of residence. And why limit it to two partners? Does Webster say a partnership is limited to two? How sad for the characters on Friends that they can't all be together - a married quartet. I was thinking it might be cool if you could also marry your car, your new DVD burner, or your Rottweiler, but they are not now nor ever able to vote or pay taxes - and it's only a one-way commitment, if you really think about it. And, your Rottie will leave you someday. The first day somebody in the neighborhood's in heat, in fact. Doggies are loyal but not very faithful. Next issue?

Evil? There's a new show on cable that is based on Survivor called "Witch Hunt." The 13 contestants gather all kinds of evidence of the occult on one another. They are allowed to make things up, and to cheat, but the show plants various objects around each of them to be found by other contestants. At the end of the series they have a type of mock trial and they determine who is "Number 13," by who has the most convincing evidence of witchcraft against them (crystal balls, shrunken heads, remains of animal sacrifices are the kind of evidence they come up with). For the post-season finale, the 12 "righteous jurors" tie the "witch" to a post surrounded by a pile of wood and brush and they light it and burn him or her alive while they sing 17th century Puritan hymns. They even dress the part. The surviving family members of the "witch" win the $50,000 in prize money and the show covers the taxes, funeral expenses, fire insurance, etc, etc. Not really. [This message was edited by QamiQazi on February 05, 2004 at 17:32.]

Martindale was very conscious of his "superiority," and thought of himself as chosen by God for his exceptional talents and abilities and discipline etc. If you missed his "administration," you missed an arrogant jock (by his behavior) lording his authority over a lot of naive followers. That's about it, Jim.

I never intentionally killed anyone but I can recall annoying people to death.

Say a lurker who never posted or even registered prints out the location from D3M's thread. This lurker is the ex-husband of a woman that LCM moved in on. The ensuing adultery caused untold personal and family grief in its wake. Divorce, alcoholism, suicide - the worst sorts of things associated with addictive personalities (as in cult members) and adulterous behavior. The fellow owns a few hunting rifles and he carries a big grudge and a world of pain. Suppose one day he drives his pick-em up truck to the end of the block on Exmog Ave and waits for Bally Boy to return from work. The local evening news tells the rest of the story, and mentions a certain website which provided the address, which the lurker had printed out, later to be found by police in the back seat of the pick-em up truck. Maybe there's a liability issue. Maybe not. The house is fair game. Clues to the specific location/address, because it's a private residence, probably not.

Craig a copout? But he's a thoroughbred! Remember? How could anybody forget? He was always reminding us. (It might account for the horse....!) If believing equals receiving, and confession of belief yields receipt of confession, then his drapes WILL be fire-engine red and he WILL be a greasespot by midnight, because nobody said it with more conviction than Mr. Spittymouth. Was that midnight thing local time? Be careful not to step in him, but if you do, please wipe your feet before you come in. And maybe burn your shoes. And the doormat.

laleo, good thread.