So you are saying that currently there are no threesomes, foursomes, incest, and so on. You are saying that marriage itself is a mechanism that magically makes people straight, monogamous, only engaged in bilateral sexual arrangements, and prevents incest. So that if marriage laws are expanded to include a gays, that al of a sudden there will be more threesomes, more incest, etc....

Can you explain to me the exact magical mechanism contained within the holy or secular vows of marriage that makes people non-incestual, and not involved in group sex. Can you please explain to me how this mechanism seems to have failed since there actually already is lots of group sex, gay sex, and incest in the world, often amongst married couples and within married families?

Do you ever actually use your brain to think Kinetic?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

If people want to ban marriage against man and man, woman and woman or polygamists, they might as well ban marriage between fat and skinny people. It's just THAT stupid.

YOU HOID IT HERE FOIST" New Jersey has just passed a law allowing Same sex couples the same rights as two sex couple. GOOD FOR THEM.

Not true, as was the case in Massachusetes, no law saying any such thing was passed, it was imposed on the state by judges making up a "right" not found in the law. This could cost the democrats Menendez' Senate seat....and possibly drive all the cultural and "values" voters off of their asses to the polls in two weeks, having just gotten a kick in the ass over what liberal judges will reign down upon us from on high.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Didn't they find it was an unjust infringment on individual rights, and since the Bill of Rights upholds that first and foremost that it was therefore to be passed because otherwise it would go against those individual rights. Courts are there for that purpose, when society doesn't agree, when they are quick to judge, when they don't have all the facts, that's where courts come in. Otherwise no one would have anything cause no one would agree. It never gets old to knock the system when it doesn't work for you does it?

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

Here is a link to an article about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6083744.stm

It states that any actual laws will need to be passed by the legislators.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

The difficult part about all this redefinition of marriage, is that starting about a year later, you have to redefine divorce, and while it's all love and music and flowers at the beginning, it's all lawyers and depositions and aggrieved parties at the other end.

So if three people get married, and one of them wants a divorce, do they get 1/3 of the assets? If two want the third one out, do they keep two thirds?

And why limit someone to one married group, can they belong to two or more "marriages".

In the end, it's always about how to split up the money, and simple basic two person marriages already consume a vast amount of the legal system trying to figure out who gets what.

Maybe a marriage contract that has room for more than two names ought to require wills, pre-nuptual agreements, pre-agreed custody arrangements for children that may issue from the group, etc. More like a business partnership contract, that spells out buyout amounts, liabilities, responsibilites, death benefits, severance arrangements..........
Isn't it Romantic?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

All reasons why this should be left to the democratic process rather than judicial decree

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

MY BAD, it is not a law, it is a Supreme Court decision but it states that same sex unions (sic) or whatever you want to call them shall (should) have the same rights as other dual sex unions. but left what they were called (IE unions or marriageor whatever) to the states' law-makers.

You make some pretty good points goober. Unfortunately, I certainly can't answer them.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Yeah... and law makers should follow suit with the law or at the very least have a vote on it. Otherwise what is the point of the courts, which are very much a good part of free society.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as traditional couples. Personally, I couldn't care less about what it is called heh.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

As a matter of policy, I am relatively ambivalent and don't care much one way or the other whether same sex couples are recognized legally. What I DO care very passionately about is that it is simply not the place of the courts to impose these sweeping societal changes on the people, it should be left to the people to decide through the democratic process.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

That is EXACTLY what a lot of people said about Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia.

Isn't that basically what the courts said??