Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Santa?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sorry, PF. I thought it was OK, being in Debates. All is good.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GrayMatterWife View Post
      SD: it was just a hypothetical. An extreme. There are "furniture" lovers out there. I was thinking specifically of certain polygamist-promoting sects.
      OK. That's why I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. From where I sat I thought you were getting a little bit mean-spirited in pointed opposition to the defense of gay marriage (talking about whiners -- I don't know about you but I *hate* whining! -- and about people marrying their pets, as if a union and legal contract between two consenting adults had anything to do with some kind of weird love match with a non-human non-citizen), but that didn't seem like you so I wanted to be sure. Still though, I am not totally thrilled by categorizing people's complaints as mere whining, no matter what side of the argument they're landing on. For some people this is a heartfelt core issue, whether they desperately want to call their wife their wife, or whether they worry that their MARRIAGE (as Pollyanna puts it) is polluted because of its semantic similarity to legal marriage. Anyway...kumbaya, and Merry Christmas, eh?
      Alison

      Comment


      • Originally posted by spotty_dog View Post
        OK. That's why I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. From where I sat I thought you were getting a little bit mean-spirited in pointed opposition to the defense of gay marriage (talking about whiners -- I don't know about you but I *hate* whining! -- and about people marrying their pets, as if a union and legal contract between two consenting adults had anything to do with some kind of weird love match with a non-human non-citizen), but that didn't seem like you so I wanted to be sure. Still though, I am not totally thrilled by categorizing people's complaints as mere whining, no matter what side of the argument they're landing on. For some people this is a heartfelt core issue, whether they desperately want to call their wife their wife, or whether they worry that their MARRIAGE (as Pollyanna puts it) is polluted because of its semantic similarity to legal marriage. Anyway...kumbaya, and Merry Christmas, eh?
        Not a gay thing. I am actually very supportive of gay folks marrying if that is a religious practice they observe. And i am very supportive of the state defining and recognizing civil unions. I just want the law to recognize the different spheres of authority. If gay folks believe, as a matter of their religious beliefs, they can be married, then they should be able to enter into that relationship through their spiritual system. And if the civil law system provides that gay folks can enter into a civil union, then that's ok, too. I just don't think that religious constructs should be defined civilly and that civil concepts should define religious concepts. They are separate spheres of authority. It is poor argument to try to civilly define a religious construct, which both sides do. Gay marriage advocates want to expansively civilly define marriage and conservatives want to restrictively civilly define it. It is just really not a civil law issue--or it shouldn' t be. Someone desperately wants to be able to call her wife her wife? Then enter into a spiritual commitment that allows it. Why the hell the state should hsve any say on who is whose spouse is beyond me. The state should stop telling people the civil effect of a religious act. Because there shouldn't be any effect. Want equality of marriage? Go to a church that subscribes to that doctrine. Want equality of union in the eyes of the law? Vote and get involved with defining unions as a matter of law. Honestly, if marriage is not a legal concept, i have a hard time seeing the argument, from a legal point of view, as to why gays should not be allowed to enter into a civil union. The "traditional" definition of marriage would not be relevant.

        But , of course, if you don't believe in Santa, does any of this really matter.
        Last edited by GrayMatterWife; 12-22-2011, 10:12 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PrincessFiona View Post
          Stop guys. Please. Its the red wine talking now, but ... it's the holidays. There is no place in a Santa thread for bahumbug. Either you do him or you don't (mwahaha innuendo intended. ). Now .... kumbaya, falalalals and .... happy holidays however you celebrate.
          Amen. Halleluja! Holy $h!t! Where's the tyenol?

          I wonder how Tom and Katie celebrate Christmas.
          -Ladybug

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ladybug View Post

            I wonder how Tom and Katie celebrate Christmas.
            Ask Suri?
            http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/
            *snicker*
            Wife to Family Medicine attending, Mom to DS1 and DS2
            Professional Relocation Specialist &
            "The Official IMSN Enabler"

            Comment


            • I love you A
              Married to a newly minted Pediatric Rad, momma to a sweet girl and a bunch of (mostly) cute boy monsters.



              Comment

              Working...
              X