States violate the Constitution, the administration argued, if they offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry.

I thought a civil union is a wedding uniting a same sex couple and gives them all a particular State's privileges and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples in that same State. Federal benefits cannot be given out by a State anyway, so I don't get it where a civil union violates the Constitution. Wouldn't that be a federal issue only?

And guess what, folks? Men are not the same as women, and women are not the same as men -- physically, emotionally, or even as to how they think or go about resolving various problems. And never will be. You can keep on saying differently -- that two men in a relationship can be exactly the same as a man and a woman would be -- but nature will prove you wrong every time.

My girlfriend says it isn't

#8 | Posted by Dalton

Isn't what? Isn't true? That men and women aren't different?

Ness --

On a serious tone, do you not think that if the law was changed to no longer make marriage be between ONE man and ONE woman only and we allow marriage to be between two men or two women, that after that was allowed to pass, it could then easily open the door to polygamists demanding their "right" to have multiple spouses?

It's not far fetched since some of the Morman faith -- along with Muslims (who want to adhere to their religion's allowing of four or more wives) - could make the case that their "religious rights" are being infringed upon. And one woman could even demand she be allowed to marry multiple husbands at one time. So seriously, just where does one's "right" to marry whomever, and how many, end?

Or do you not even care if we as a culture slide into allowing polygamy -- and who knows where else it would go to from there.

Think seriously of all the ramifications before you answer.

Hope This clears things up CC.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack

It does, Clown. And thanks. Seems I was at the "wrong end" when it came to understanding the meaning of Dalton's post. : )

Polygamists are not numbered in the millions and are not demanding the right to marry. Even if they were---so what? How would that affect you in any way?

Not now they are not demanding they be allowed to marry, but once you open the door to giving one untraditional group a "right" to marry -- then where does it end? And while we're at it, why only allow the old-fashioned kind of polygamy -- what about a woman's right to have multiple husbands at one time? Would that be okay with you too -- wife sharing among 5 or 6 different men?

But in the end, it isn't about how it "affects me" -- not everything should be only about one's own self -- but the often negative effect it has on the numerous children normally born to a polygamist marriage. To function as a society we need to know where to draw the line for the good of all its members -- even if it leaves some of them unsatisfied.

Well we will never agree on a number of issues, BBob, 'cause you seem really liberal and I'm, well, I'm not. But I think you're a really nice guy anyway : )