Personality

Forest, will you talk to God Louise? She has quite a bit of religious knowledge (obviously) and also knows a little about current events, literature, just about any common catch-all subject, and if she doesn't know it she can sort of fake it. You can also test her on trick questions or see how willing she is to explain her paradigm.

What she is rustiest at is plain old small talk. But, uh, I'm trying to get a decent transcript from somebody or another so I can enter her in the Loebner contest. All I can say is, have fun and see if you can stay on with her for a while. I'll try to do the same with Brianna.

I don't do the poly thing, but I don't have a problem with it either. At the same time, let's remember that these are two DIFFERENT situations.

Anyway, long-term gay couples already exist, as they have for years and years and years. Why not support strong relationships instead of trying to tear them down?

Poly relationships currently exist too, in fact there's whole communities about them on livejournal and probably other sites too. I couldn't live that way myself, and I don't understand why some people seem to enjoy it, but as long as they're happy, who am I to say they can't do it?

Anyone who says enlarging the definition of marriage would make it less sacred should consider the fact that it's not exactly sacred now. Maybe that's the ideal, but in practice it's generally a legal thing. And we're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?

I would argue that the definition just be expanded to include any two people who wish to marry. The system is already set up to handle two-party marriages. If nothing else, the need to revamp the entire system to account for marriages between three or more persons would make it unlikely to get very far. (Benefits, tax laws, etc.)

Yes, I know lots of poly people, Onyx. Those relationships take LOADS of work, and the more people involved, the more that can go wrong.

ANYWAY...why should the church and religion in general have to be involved? If you have a problem with gay marriage, I can see that being an issue if the couple wants to get married in YOUR church and you don't believe that way, but otherwise, why should it be anybody else's business?

I wonder what those Mormons with 8 wives do about custody of the kids if they split up? As bad as 2 person custody battles are, I can only imagine the legal hoops people would have to jump through if 3+ person marriages were legal.

I think as long as everybody involved is an adult and is willing then poly unions should be recognized by the government (even if they don't call it "marriage"). But that's all beside the point.

What I really want to say is that I totally understand where you're coming from, Prof. I student teach and I'm really sick of always having to remind my kids not to use "gay" as an insult and that changing it to "That's so homosexual" won't cut it either. I agree with this decision, especially if rasist and sexist bots are already discouraged.

I agree it's kinda untenable in Western society, but poly marriages happen in some countries and are culturally appropriate. Africa for instance. It just comes down to what's right for who and being flexible and open minded enough to accept that. I've just never understood why some people don't get it.

Am I right in thinking that there already is some sort of ceremony available for gay couples? I'm sure I heard somewhere they could be blessed publicly, although unfortunately, they wouldn't have any legal security.

Luckily, all kids would have only one biological mother. If there are several men in the relationship, it could involve a LOT of DNA-testing, trying to find out which of the 12 children "belong" to each man.

I think polygamic marriages would be very difficult to handle legally. I can't really say what I would think of polygamic relationships, since it's not really any of my business if 10 people want to marry each other. Polygami is, however, illegal in most western countries. Homosexuality is legal, and that does speak in favour of same-sex-marriages.

Although I find it rather backwords, churches (as long as they are seperated from the state) should have the right to refuse gay-couples to marry in that specific church, which I think I base on the religious freedom etc.

Does that make sense to you all?

There are 'commitment ceremonies' for gay couples, but they are not legally binding in USA.

How would you feel if they called YOUR wedding a 'commitment ceremony' or 'civil union' and refused to make it legal because the government didn't like who you were marrying?

I'd hate it. I believe gay marriage should be legal.

I didn't say I approved of them, I was just pointing out the fact that they exist. I completely agree that gay people should be allowed to marry; I know many homosexual couples who are more committed and have a stronger relationship than many straight couples I know, and it's sad to see these relationships undermined.