Beyond that, it's not in my top 10 most important issues, probably not even in my top 20 and honestly not something I feel any passion towards.

That's funny cause the topic appears in 65 posts (excluding the guest posts by ari and yaron). That, as compared with the only 43 times you mention Herman "walks on water" Cain, the fifteen times you mention Vincent "please, oh, please let me be your baby's mama" Gallo and the still zero times you refer to your best friend as the "lovely Dawn Summers."

I know. It's just such a prevalent topic, I can't help but write about it. I was actually going to add 'no matter how much I write about it' after the word 'towards' but then figured that no loser was going to scour my archives counting up my posts. I was wrong.

Hhahaha too funny n.d.s.

God, this same argument AGAIN!? Didn't we grow tired of the whole Polygamist thing 4 years ago?

No, not if you consider 'you're homophobic!' a real argument to what I wrote.

Still can't post on this site.

"My own take is that the government should not be in the marriage business."

WRONG (This is the first time I have disagreed with you. Usually you are so intelligent.)

Absolutely, the government should be in the marriage business. Well functioning families are essential for a well functioning society.

Married couples are far more apt to stay together than unmarried couples. The onerous legal consequences of divorce force many couples to work through their differences.

Children are far more apt to be abandoned by the father if the parents are not married. And abandoned children are disastrous for society. 70% of all the men in prison did not have a father figure in their lives. Girls raised without a father are more apt to be abused as adults because they have not learned how men should properly treat women.

Abandoned families have a high probability of being in poverty. Thus they are eating revenue from the government rather than creating it. The best way for a country to reduce crime and poverty is to promote marriage especially for those couples who are having children.

But Jake, then we get into a situation like we have today where the courts are deciding that marriage doesn't mean what we've always believed it meant. Gay marriage is becoming more of a reality all the time and like my post illustrates, 'other' marriages won't be far behind. I understand what you're saying about marriage and families being good for society, and while I think that the government should encourage marriage, I don't think they should be the ones deciding what marriage is or who can or can not marry. As conservatives, we don't believe government is good at anything. Why would they be good at this?

Eh. My parents were married for like 13 years and my father still abandoned me. And despite being raised in poverty by a single mother, I am now (if my last paycheck's 50 percent tax rate is any indication) single handedly funding the federal government, New York state and New York city with my earnings. Point being, affirmative action created educational opportunities, not mandated marriage and gestational certificates, made me the revenue creating, non drain on society that I am today.
And television, if anything, will make me the revenue eating lay about I may become tomorrow.

Oh, and girls who watch their fathers beat their mothers are much more likely to be beaten by boyfriends and the like than girls with no fathers -- the baby mamas are a tough bunch, generally speaking.

Karol:

Spouses and parents have rights and responsibilties. It is because of this that government has a role to play in marriage.

Until recently, no one in their right mind would have thought that there could be such a concept as 'gay marriage'. It is too bad that society has come so far that people no longer can agree on certain basics like this. We have this issue because of the cultural divide in America. I think conservatives need to fight back rather than giving in like they usually do on cultural issues. Conservatives should use whatever they can to block back gay marriage (and roll it back in Massachusetts) until the issue goes away.
If conservatives don't try to conserve the family, then they do not really stand for anything.

Karol:

"'other' marriages won't be far behind."

You do have a point. In Sweden they wrote the gay inclusive marriage law so general that men can not be prosecuted for animal abuse because they have sex with animals. So when Swedish guys say, "Sven's girl friend is a dog." It might not be a insult but a fact. That marriage law has made Sweden the world center for man/beast pornography.

This is outsourcing at its worst. Thousands of Swedish women are being put out of work by naked animals.

Having said that, I still think the government should codify and encourage marriage. Creating a foundation for the creation of society is a function government must do.

Dawn:

Ok Dawn, you beat the averages. That is one of the reasons I am proud to know you. I think the reason you beat the averages is that you have a very unusual mother. Plus your hatred for Karol, drove you to excel. You owe a lot to both your mother and Karol.

"affirmative action created educational opportunities"

B. S. You created those opportunities. With your brains, talent and personality, you would have gotten a free ride to any college you wanted to attend. That's one of the reasons I hate affirmative action. The recipient thinks that affirmative action is the reason they succeeded, when 98% of the time they succeeded because of the talents they possess.

Just plain silly. Let's face it - if you're really worried about polygamy, then you should aim your fire at the religious right. Those who claim that marriage is a religious institution have zero argument against polygamy - since - let's face it - the Bible openly approves of polygamy.

Gay marriage is now legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Massachusetts. Is there any movement to legalize polygamy there? No.

But there are still hundreds of thousands of people in Utah who want to legalize polygamy, a state that is not friendly to gays.

If you want to really talk about a slippery slope argument, then I think we should talk about Karol's friends (Ace of Spades, Charmaine Youest, etc.) who not only want gay marriage to be illegal, but want gay people to be imprisoned.

So why shouldn't polygamists be allowed to marry?

Well, that's the thing, Yehudit. I'm not sure how that argument can be made, especially since 'but that's the way we've always done things' doesn't seem to hold weight anymore.

Well, "that's the way we've always done things" isn't a good argument in and of itself. You could use it to justify slavery, giving the vote only to landowning males, beating and raping wives, and the divine right of kings, among other things. And that's just in the Western hemisphere!

I don't see any reason why more than two consenting adults shouldn't be able to form a legal union, but some details like health insurance benefits and legal responsibility for children would need to be worked out.