Send a Message
to EdmondWA

Comments

6,577

Joined

Nov 17, 2009

EdmondWA Profile

Recent Posts

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

So say it now. Clarify. Does the Bible ONLY condemn the act of sodomy? Or does it condemn ALL same-sex relations, such as romantic love and companionship?  (Friday | post #104428)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Nope, you're fishing for the answer you want, again. I'm saying that if polygamy becomes legalized, it will be because polygamy-seekers presented sound legal arguments for their case. If they're not currently doing that, then it's worth considering that they might not HAVE any such sound legal arguments. And if THEY don't have any, it would be virtually impossible for someone who does NOT seek polygamy to come up with any. I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be legalized, but I am saying that while considering its legalization, we should also consider this absence of arguers, and their absence of arguments. Should I just anticipate more accusations of hostility, anger and bigotry right now?  (Friday | post #547)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Suppose we married up a whole town together, or an entire county? Then we could influence town policy to only benefit our "family" . We would all be protected from testifying against one another for any crime. This is beginning to sound like a very DIFFERENT kind of "family" . We could make the other remaining townspeople offers they can't refuse. Polygamy is capable of generating a mob, a harem, or a cult. It is rife with abuse potential. This isn't a matter of "offense ", it's a problem of workability. If something CANNOT function because of numerous intrinsic complications, then the people who oppose it just MIGHT not be motivated by offenseUh, sure. I say such hostile things, like suggesting that 1,138 marriage laws should be rewritten to better benefit polygamists. My anger is just boiling over, whenever I call for putting a plan in place to protect the rights of polygamists. I really must learn to control my temper.  (Friday | post #546)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

Is this how you support your arguments? By becoming so convolutedly confusing that it's impossible to even know what you're saying? Let's review the record, for clarity: Page 4729, post 104309, KiMare feigns ignorance of who is labelling homosexuals as "abominations ". Page 4730, post 104333, I remind KiMare that it is the Bible which speaks this way against homosexuals. Page 4731, post 104358, KiMare asserts that the Bible calls only "sodomy" an abomination. Page 4732, post 104373, I ask KiMare for the biblical chapter and verse which says this, again reminding him that the Bible does not specify only sodomy, but calls for the bloody death by stoning of anyone who engages in any same-gender sexual activity. Same page, post 104374, KiMare pretends that the Bible says something which it does not, and that all Christians are really only opposed to anal sex for any orientation, as if Christianity otherwise embraces same-sex relationships. Same page, post 104379, I ask KiMare for clarification of whether the Bible condemns ONLY sodomy, or ALL same-sex activity. I've yet to receive that clarification. The fact stands that the horrible treatment of gay people is almost 100% Bible-inspired. And the fact that this primitive slander was allowed to proliferate for centuries tells us nothing about how the treatment of gay people will change in the future, in an electronically-con nected world where brutal and inhumane ideas can be more easily analyzed and challengedYou understand nothing. Don't tell other people what their emotions and beliefs are. ASK them, and then take them at their word. And now you're pretending AGAIN that there are "resources " as if they can be depleted. You really, really understand nothingThere are no "resources ". Marriage rights are not something which can be "used up". As my husband and I employ our marriage rights, no one else is shorted on theirs. Don't you have any examples to demonstrate your claim? Can't you SHOW how it will limit a mother's ability to protect her child, if I am given the freedom to protect my husband? Are you just fear-mongering, with no real-world support for your boogeymen? I'm picturing those poor mothers and their children, forced out into the cold, huddling for shelter, unable to live their lives with the proper protections, all because I selfishly put a ring on a man's finger. Is that what's happening? How does that work? At what point were they told that the government is all out of rights to give them?  (Friday | post #104426)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Hey, your writing’s not perfect, either  (Friday | post #529)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Are you kidding? That’s the ONLY thing which matters! If THEY can’t put together an effective argument FOR it, then THAT COUNTS as an argument against it. If the very people who are the most invested in this issue and have the most to gain from it cannot convince a court of their supporting reasons, then that shows pretty conclusively that the arguments are weak. If they had GOOD arguments for it, then they SHOULD be able to advocate for its legalizationYou’re so silly with THAT shtick. I haven’t said that. I said polygamy should be advanced carefully and slowly because of the tangled legal considerations. I never said it shouldn’t be allowed. Can you really only support your position by misrepresenting the other sideWhat is the point of coming here and asking people over and over about something which has no connection to their situation, something which they cannot influence, and something which they do not seek? Is it JUST so you can call them “bigots”? I tell you this over and over because you have a lot of work to do if you truly want to see polygamy legalized, and none of US have that responsibility. I wouldn’t care if it WAS easy. It has nothing to do with me. It is a challenge only for those who seek itOh, you suspected all along that I wasn’t certain about this? What gave you the first clue? Was it all the times I said that there were problems to be considered? I have never hidden the fact that I’m not 100% behind the idea, but neither have I stated that I’m 100% against it, either, as you’d like to pretend. This is a complex issue which invites nuance and ambiguity. Feel free to stop painting everyone as if they can ONLY hold a black or white position on this.  (Friday | post #528)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

He might, it's a possibility. Or a woman might find a thousand men to marry HER. Who are we to impose our preferred limits on them? Why are you assuming that the only arrangement would be that of one “head” spouse in charge of many “supporting” spouses? Instead, it could be a giant CHAIN of people, where person A marries person B, who marries person C, who marries person D, who marries person E… No one needs to find a thousand spouses to marry them. They can just find one spouse, and that step can be repeated 1000 timesIf they got some standard benefit multiplied 1000 times, it could financially harm others. You’re not bothering to think out all the possibilities. You don’t HAVE to, of course, but don’t accuse others of “not thinking” when THEY are the ones doing all the work exploring the possible detailsYour dishonesty really demolishes your credibility. You’ve heard all my objections; I’ve repeated them for you ad nauseam. None of them have anything to do with being offended by the sight of a happy poly family. But, that wouldn’t fit your narrative of the hypocritical, discriminatory gay, would it? If polygamy turned out to be a lucrative way to rake in government benefits, we might see it become a lot LESS rare.  (Friday | post #527)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

You are one cuckoo bird. You make a bunch of claims, and when someone calls you on how wrong it all is, you deny what you said, and then tell the other person what THEY believe. Religion has had a caustic effect on your thinking process.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #104386)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

They said the same thing to us. Then we went to court. They can say it should not be allowed all they want, but it takes more than just "saying" it. They have to convince the courts, and they haven't been doing a very good job. If polygamists go to court, and they have good arguments, then the people telling THEM that it should not be allowed won't matter, either. The strength of the arguments is all that matters, but it won't matter at all if the right people aren't making their arguments in the right place. If polygamists don't go to court, then there's nothing to discussLot's of people ARE saying that, but our chances continue to be pretty good. "Bad and wrong and should never be legal" is not a very strong or detailed argument. I realize you're oversimplifying, but it's not far from the truth. The weakness of anti-gay arguments has proven to be a courtroom disasterThere is no one for me to speak my voice TO, if polygamists are not taking their cases to court. I'm not certain I feel that polygamists SHOULD have as much right to their marriage. Marriage celebrates commitment and exclusivity. The rights and benefits of marriage are specifically written to reflect that. I'm not sure if I feel there's much purpose in giving legal recognition to relationships which don't honor commitment and exclusivity. If marriage is a limitless revolving door, is it really "marriage "? Boyfriends and girlfriends can break up at will, go on-again-off-again , or even see other people with no real repercussions. Legal recognition is delayed until someone is ready to put all that behind them, and settle down. If Mike and Betty and Connie are legally joined, how long until Connie decides she wants another? And Betty wants two more? And THOSE two want six others? And those six want.... on and on. This isn't "marriage ", and it isn't "family" . It's elevating "acquaintance " to undeserved heights. Instead of a confidential bond between two, it's an entire social network. There's no purpose for this.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #490)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Not at all. You're describing the "slippery slope" argument, which tries to frighten people into thinking that recognizing the rights of humans means that we'll suddenly start recognizing the rights of NON-humans. This is too baseless to bother describing what is wrong with it. But I'm asking about the very structure of marriage if it is limitless. This is not a slippery slope argument. I'm not asking what POSSIBLE similarities could come down the road in the future. I'm asking what marriage would presently be, if it were in a present state of not having any limits. The rights and benefits of marriage are a special thing for one person to offer another. But is there anything special about them if everyone can offer them to everyone? Are they actually "protections " if they're churned out like penny stocks? Are they "benefits " if there's no benefit to being exclusive? Polygamy says that "friendship " is now the equivalent of "couple" , and that "acquaintance " is the same as "life partner". Bob marries Alice, Alice marries Steve, Steve marries David, David marries Kate, Kate marries Alex, Alex marries Dan.... what protections and benefits does Bob (the first guy) need to offer to Dan (the last guy)? Yet this is one big happy marriage! It isn't the multiple partners which bother me. It's the limitlessness. Marriage is a contract, and contracts have limits. A contract which has no limits is the same as no contract at all.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #488)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

By repeating what you've saidIt's exactly what you said. Let's watch you contradict yourself, shall weYes, that's what I said. It does NOT just focus on ONLY sodomy, as YOU claimedYes, that's also what I said. YOU said that I was "stealing away" rights intended for mothers and their children. YOU said this, as if those rights COULD be depleted. Not me. Do you just forget the things you say? Even when they're printed right on the screenI'm 45, thanks. I am ashamed of my species, that there are so many members who accept "magic" as explanations for how the world works, and who can't admit when they've been quoted almost word for word.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #104384)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

And the next person, and the next person, and the next person, and.... If we're going to have limitless marriages, then why have ANY marriages? There's no longer any reason to choose someone to be your power of attorney, if everyone in town can be. Why should hospitals be cautious about the number of people who can visit a patient, if 150 spouses can come marching through? What protections are you offering your family, if you barely even know your spouse's spouse's spouse's spouse's spouse? Just call EVERYONE married and be done with it. There's no purpose for the close protections which marriage offers to people building a family, if "family" is defined as "everyone within view". I'll support the right to have limitless spouses when I'm sure they're not going to suck Social Security dry, or be handed tax refund checks that skyrocket as they add to their harems. Polygamy has too much potential to be a numbers racket.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #470)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

No one will be forced to do anything, if people who want polygamous marriages go to court and make an effective argument for the arrangements they seek. If they don't do that, then the rest of us can't be blamed for somehow holding them back.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #450)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

For those of us who spent most of our lives being told that we couldn't marry ANYONE suitable to us, it's kind of hard to get excited for the cause of people who already have that but want MORE.  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #446)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

Are you saying that the Bible is perfectly okay with same-sex kissing and oral sex? Is God perfectly happy with homosexuality, as long as anal sex is the only thing they avoid? I don't care how you personally choose to interpret the passage. Everyone does that in their own personal way, but there isn't a nationwide movement of Christians to ban anal sex ONLY. They don't even want to see gay people holding hands or living together, and they say that this is what God wants. You can't speak for ALL Christians. Their beliefs are evident. Sodomy is NOT their only concernI'm sorry, but this is a profoundly stupid thing to say. Are you saying there's a limited number of rights sitting around, and we've swiped them off the shelf before more-deserving mothers and children could come and claim them? And now they're all out? Rights don't have a "limit" on their number, like a pile of killing stones. If a trillion people were born, we could supply them all with rights. Someone is not going without their rights, just because I'm using them. And there are NO rights that mothers need for their children, which they get from marriage. Mothers have all the rights they'll ever need for the protection of their children, simply because they ARE mothers. Marriage won't change that. A mother's rights to protect her children will not diminish just because someone else gets married, regardless of their gender. You don't seem to understand justice, or rights, or even the concept that abstracts can be unlimited. You don't understand your own scripture, or the the billion "fellow" adherents who don't share any of your alien-based beliefs. You say the craziest things. Stealing benefits and rights from mothers and children? Are gay people stealing up all the LOVE that is intended for heterosexuals, too? Is there a limited amount of that as well? Does some great storage well of love and rights get depleted a little bit, every time a gay couple weds?  (Thursday Aug 28 | post #104379)

Q & A with EdmondWA

Headline:

Unconvinced

Hometown:

Seattle, WA

I Belong To:

My Husband

Read This Book:

The Wind Through The Keyhole

I Believe In:

measureable, testable, confirmable, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence.