-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:03 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
On this point, if two people want to have a committed, loving relationship,
why can't three? Why not ten? Where does the number two come from?
Tradition? Society? You're insinuating that polygamy is wrong.
It sounds like now we're pushing past your comfortable area. I happen to
think marriage is between a man and a woman. You (I'm inferring from the
message) think it's between any two people. Somebody else might recognize
it between six people. Where does it end?
- Matt Small
----- Original Message -----
From: BethF
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
Where does the logic that same-sex marriage logically leads to polygamy?
Homosexual people also have families. They have children, and partners,
just like you do. How does it being recognized as a legal contract hurt
traditional marriage?
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Small
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
I don't think I agree with you - the basic precept of marriage is to
create a family structure, and swinging violates that precept since it
introduces an outsider into the structure. The family structure is central
to ours and most societies, which is why there is a push for same sex
marriages by homosexual couples. Why get married if you want to include
others? Only for the licensing, as Jim Campbell tells me. I guess the next
logical step for the court to take is to allow marriages of three or more
people - and it will happen.
- Matt Small
----- Original Message -----
From: Heald, Tim
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
Realistically adultery is a religious construct. You look at the
various
polyamory movements and swingers and so forth and see groups that
don't
believe in monogamy, and they are perfectly happy with their choice.
Now
obviously you need to look at it kind of like contract law too I
guess. If
you agree to monogamy during your vows you should be somehow bound,
but
altering the vows to allow extra marital relations should certainly be
allowed. The military has some very out dated laws regarding
sexuality
still. Sodomy of any kind, even when consent is given, is prohibited.
That's just silly in this day and age.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:58 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
I was just thinking the same thing...
Obviously, adultery has no consistent meaning in a legal sense and all
definitions of it should be thrown out until something that works can
be
discovered. This should apply to religious institutions as well.
Should mean Erika is released from any monogomous obligations she
previously felt bound by, Gel.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
So let me get this right...
In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are ok
But in New Hampshire, if you are married and have an affair with
someone
of
the same sex, it is not adultery.
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
