How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


425 posted 01-24-2005 04:04 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"Explain how you can call them perverse, by the standard you are now using."


Stephenos

They are perverse because they are obvious bowings-down to sexual and other greeds, but worse continued in consent and in action.
  
People know how to treat people better and choose to treat others and themselves worse for their own selfish greed.  

That is the perversity and the shame.  

Not (different or same) gender.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-24-2005 04:41 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


426 posted 01-27-2005 08:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Why should a man, who doesn’t want children,
has already been in love and wants no other,
(lets say she’s gone forever), and can afford either,
have a wife instead of take a mistress?


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


427 posted 01-27-2005 09:41 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Your question strikes me as largely irrelevant to the thread, John.

Mistress or wife, either can have children, neither can have children, and the choice as you've worded it really has little enough to do with any relationship. If he wants no other, he should seek no other.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


428 posted 01-27-2005 09:46 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John,

Because I think that a mistress will only satisfy his physical appetites.  Marriage involves covenantal love which may endure beyond egoistic concern.  And I think a man needs that.  I think a man needs a woman to love him and be committed to him even when things aren't going well for him, when he's not as attractive as he once was, etc ...  Why would a mistress stay committed to a man in times like that?  And why would a man stay committed to a mistress, when she loses her mystique in his eyes, and he can get the same perks from any number of other more attractive women?  


I honestly think a man finds in a faithful wife, something he cannot find elsewhere.


Stephen.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


429 posted 01-28-2005 12:14 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Stephen,

“Why would a mistress stay committed to a man in times like that?”

$

“And why would a man stay committed to a mistress, when she loses her mystique in his eyes, and he can get the same perks from any number of other more attractive women?  “

Good question.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


430 posted 01-28-2005 12:27 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John,

What about when the money gets low?  


When we're in it for what we can get, the threads are thin that keep us hangin' round.  

Stephen.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


431 posted 01-28-2005 12:36 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Stephen,

“What about when the money gets low?”

Until it does why worry.  If it does, and she leaves,
then he’ll know what he thought was true.  Now she could
always surprise him at that time; wouldn’t that be a nice story.

Besides,

“the money gets low”

has been real reason enough for divorce as well.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


432 posted 01-28-2005 01:02 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
They are perverse because they are obvious bowings-down to sexual and other greeds, but worse continued in consent and in action.
  
People know how to treat people better and choose to treat others and themselves worse for their own selfish greed.  
That is the perversity and the shame.


So if such acts are consensual, why couldn't I simply accuse you of discriminating against someone's chosen "sexuality"?


Because they are by consent, your examples, in essense are no different than mine.  So I can just as easily call you a bigot concerning someone's chosen sexual preference, as you can call me one concerning their choice of gender for a mate.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


433 posted 01-28-2005 04:39 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"So if such acts are consensual, why couldn't I simply accuse you of discriminating against someone's chosen "sexuality"?"

Because I'm not talking about the "frame" of sexuality itself but the "picture" that people are putting in it.   To me there's a great difference between putting greed in that picture and frame, and putting monogomy with someone that is same gender.  

Greed too soon becomes an excessive and violent appetite and if people consent to that greed and act in that greed, that puts people under the danger of that excess and violence.

What similar may be said about samegenderness?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-28-2005 06:14 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


434 posted 01-28-2005 08:05 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
I'm not talking about the "frame" of sexuality itself but the "picture" that people are putting in it.

But Essorant, the "frame of sexuality itself" is such a hopelessly ambiguous phrase, that I can't know what that means.  You of course, say it includes gender preference.  But to me, gender preference is just as much the actual "picture" as anything you are describing.  It is a particular, and we are talking of particulars.    


quote:
To me there's a great difference between putting greed in that picture and frame, and putting monogomy with someone that is same gender



I've already explained why monogamy versus polygamy is null and void if we accept homosexual marriage.  We can't keep that as a solid guideline, if we refuse to HAVE any guidelines.  

You want to try to argue monogamy in a way that equates polygamy with "greed", using the kinds of standards which have been demanded by many in this thread (including you unless it's something you happen to agree with)? Remember that nothing short of empirical science will do.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with monagamy as the standard, but your statements about "greed" are impossible to demonstrate using sexual examples you disapprove of, and the standards you are using with the homosexual issue.  

Sorry Ess, by your standards, you end up in the same boat you're trying to sink.  


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


435 posted 01-29-2005 01:42 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Not to worry, Ess. The boat is crowded, but Stephen seems willing to move over a bit for you.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


436 posted 01-29-2005 02:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,

I may show you a thousand ways that man giving into his greed, in will and in action may bring soreness on others and on himself, whether it involves greed for sex, greed for power, greed for money, or all of those.  Whichever greed, a will or an act in that greed, often uses and abuses people and things in order to try to fullfill the appetite of that greed.  Continued more and in more frequencies, that greed and consent as a will and a deed are life-threatening and life-harming.
To me that is a danger, and thoroughly our experience as being humankind has emphasized that with many examples.  

What does homosexuality incur on people?

I just don't see any such dangers or examples about same sex people in any love-willed relationship.  When Love's will brings two people together, I don't care about gender.   If that is wrong, tell me why.  But give me examples and evidence.  Why must I care about gender, if two people love each other above all?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-29-2005 03:05 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


437 posted 01-30-2005 08:56 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,


If you answer my question first, I'll agree to answer yours.  


How can you show things like "swinging", or polygamy, or pornography to be examples of greed, if they are consensual?  


What exactly are your "examples and proof" that these constitute forms of greed?


Until you can answer that without dodging the question, you're holding me to a standard you're not willing apply to your self.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


438 posted 01-30-2005 12:24 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"...if they are consensual"

I sense why you keep emphasizing "consensual"  But that just doesn't work in my court.
To me the more consent that is shown and expressed is the more we may acknowedge the wrong had not even come to the extent it had to begin with if the person or people had not consented to it to the extent they did in themselves respectively, and among themselves collectively.
There's no doubt in my mind that, when consent is involved in a wrong deed, it is about, if not equally, as wrong as the deed committed.  
That is my opinion about consent.  I don't make distinctions about age, gender, race, religion, etc.  If you consent to something wrong, that consent is wrong too.  There's no exemption or justification in that consent, even if you are a thousand years old.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


439 posted 02-01-2005 12:47 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

it doesn't "work in my court" either.

My point was that other than the "consent" issue, you have given no reasons (which conform to the standard you're demanding of me) for being against things like pornography, polygamy, swinging, etc ...


You say I'm discriminating against "gender".


By your own standards, your anti-porn stance could be called discriminating against freedom of speech.


Your insistence on committed monogamy could be called discriminating against someone's sexual preference.


Your abhorrence of adults having sexual relations with children could be called "age discrimination"


etc ...

etc ...


You know I agree with all your feelings about the above issues.  I just haven't seen upon what basis you're drawing a distinction between my type of moral/ social judgement, and yours.  Your distinction is way too arbitrary.


sigh ... is this exchange getting close to being over?  If you don't see what I'm saying by now Essorant, you probably won't (for the time being).  We'll just agree to disagree.


Stephen.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


440 posted 02-01-2005 05:26 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
By your own standards, your anti-porn stance could be called discriminating against freedom of speech.

I agree. And, clearly, so do the courts.

quote:
Your insistence on committed monogamy could be called discriminating against someone's sexual preference.

You're muddying our terms, Stephen, because monogamy has nothing to do with sexual preference. Nor do I think a discussion of monogamy can be so clearly defined or easily resolved. Whose definition of monogamy do you want to dissect?

quote:
Your abhorrence of adults having sexual relations with children could be called "age discrimination"

That's just a crock, Stephen, and a brutal twisting of any reasonable meaning of "consent."

I will agree that Essorant's standards appear to be far less consistent than, say, your own. So what? Invalidating his doesn't in any way serve to validate yours.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


441 posted 02-01-2005 12:40 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"By your own standards, your anti-porn stance could be called discriminating against freedom of speech."

I'll talk about free speech in respect to pornography where people are pursuing speech, talking and writing about something that is pornographic.  
When people, however are commiting prostitutive, abusive and exploitive acts to make a publication for money, sorry, but that is no longer the pursuit of speech.
Talking and writing about such things are talking and writing, not doing those things.  When people write about such such things then I'll talk and write about the aspect of free speech too.  But when people are in acts, leaving attitudes, images, acts, as records in an industery that shows nothing in pursuit of the craft of speech, it is no longer relevant to bring up "freedom of speech"  We're the ones talking, they're the one's acting.
  
If you bring forth the speeches and the writings then I'll talk about free speech; but when you bring up records that capture people in acts themselves, those are now acts we're talking about.  And I no longer have anything to say about free speech.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


442 posted 02-01-2005 06:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Essorant, maybe you should start a new thread on what Free Speech means to you, and perhaps tell us why you don't think it should apply to Paramount Pictures, National Geographic, or Pablo Picasso.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


443 posted 02-01-2005 08:00 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I agree. And, clearly, so do the courts.



So?  Just as an example, the courts who defend the rights of women to abort, just charged a man with double homicide for killing his pregnant wife.  So the courts aren't always consistent, and certainly not always right.  And if they ruled in a way that was contrary to your thinking, you wouldn't automatically accept their views as holding any weight of argument either.  Right?


quote:
You're muddying our terms, Stephen, because monogamy has nothing to do with sexual preference.



Why?  I don't see how a numeric value is all that different from gender, if such choices are a matter of "rights".  And that's EXACTLY how the polygamy lobbyists are approaching the matter.

quote:
Nor do I think a discussion of monogamy can be so clearly defined or easily resolved. Whose definition of monogamy do you want to dissect?



Ron, look up 2 words in the dictionary ....


obfuscation

and

monogamy




quote:
I will agree that Essorant's standards appear to be far less consistent than, say, your own. So what? Invalidating his doesn't in any way serve to validate yours.



At the moment I was only trying to show the faulty standard by which he sought to invalidate my views ... and perhaps make him rethink his own, for a better defense.  Perfectly germane for a philosophy thread, I think.


Stephen.    

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


444 posted 02-01-2005 11:21 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Just as an example, the courts who defend the rights of women to abort, just charged a man with double homicide for killing his pregnant wife.

There's nothing inconsistent, Stephen, is saying I can drink alcohol, yet denying you the right to force it down my throat. The former is a pragmatic acknowledgement, based on several years of Prohibition, that a law can never protect me from me, while the latter is an equally pragmatic and I think justifiable application of the law to protect me from you.

quote:
I don't see how a numeric value is all that different from gender, if such choices are a matter of "rights".  And that's EXACTLY how the polygamy lobbyists are approaching the matter.

I'm not denying similarities, but those similarities don't include sexual preference. If you are suggesting that both are attempts to legislate morality, with no real regard to consequences beyond "it ain't right," then I would certainly agree.

quote:
Ron, look up 2 words in the dictionary ....


monogamy

* The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time

* The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.

* The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.

Sorry, Stephen, but I don't see anything obfuscatory about deciding which of those very different definitions you want to promote. Especially since I suspect we won't agree on which one is "right." Monogamy, like morality, is defined by the individual, not a dictionary.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


445 posted 02-01-2005 11:28 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi



Was anyone's mind changed
by all of this?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


446 posted 02-02-2005 02:39 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos

The problem with your argument is that gender has no "content" to judge.  It's not like pornography and swinging that involve publications or lifestyles that show a notorious manner of will and acts fixed on sexual hedonism above any other kind of pursuit;  and make it a "standard" to continue in their publications, or lifestyle.  Despite those things that are far from just differences, we rightly do not deny the people involved the right and enjoyment of marriage.
But you're trying to suggest there's something deeper and more dangerous at a mere gender-difference to deny people the rite, the promise and the enjoyment of marriage.   And I don't see the "content" you are making your judgement by.  How deep does gender-difference go?
Polygamy number-difference has some similarity to gender-difference.  
But the "content" that speaks against polygamy, is actually the intimacy and love of monogamy that we know succeeds to a much better life for the people involved.  Not because of gender or sexuality.  But because of what makes monogomy: an undivided lover's love to another lover.  You simply can't have undivided husbandlove or wifelove, when it is divided.  

All I want to know is what "content" inside what we call "homosexuality" are you making your judgement by?  If it is genderdifference how does that constitute a  "content" that makes a wrong?  What is the wrongful content therein?  And why should we put that above two people's love?

I don't blame you for having misgivings and doubts.  For sure, I had them, but mostly because my misgivings and doubts are about sexuality in general in this age.  But you must prove that you are going by more than those misgivings and doubts.  Otherwise, people at least deserve the benifit of them, I believe.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (02-03-2005 12:19 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


447 posted 02-02-2005 11:37 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
There's nothing inconsistent, Stephen, is saying I can drink alcohol, yet denying you the right to force it down my throat. The former is a pragmatic acknowledgement, based on several years of Prohibition, that a law can never protect me from me, while the latter is an equally pragmatic and I think justifiable application of the law to protect me from you.



Is this the same as the courts allowing someone the right to end life (questioning the very humanity of those very lives) and yet punishing someone else with homicide for taking that same kind of life?  Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but homocide means murder.  It's not a synonym for damage of property.  If the underlying assumptions of Roe V. Wade are correct, then Peterson was unjustly charged in one of his counts of homicide.  If the underlying assumptions of the Peterson case are correct then Roe V. Wade was greatly in error.


You can't get more inconsistent than that.


You can protect me from pouring alcohol down your throat all you want too, and rightly so.  But if when YOU drink it it's called alcohol, and when I force it down your throat it's called Anti-freeze, we've got a problem.  One of us is wrong.


quote:
If you are suggesting that both are attempts to legislate morality, with no real regard to consequences beyond "it ain't right," then I would certainly agree.



I'm in no way suggesting that.  But since both history and prediction have been a priori ruled out by you, there's really no way to discuss consequences with you, that you'll accept.


quote:
Sorry, Stephen, but I don't see anything obfuscatory about deciding which of those very different definitions you want to promote. Especially since I suspect we won't agree on which one is "right." Monogamy, like morality, is defined by the individual, not a dictionary.



It's very obfuscatory Ron, because it forces other considerations to the center when they are not being considered ... and not for the purpose of elucidation, but for the purpose of distraction as a kind of smoke-screen effect.


Since the whole question was about marriage, your first definition of monogamy is irrelevant.  Since those who push for forbidding marriage more than once a lifetime, even after the death of a spouse, represent a fringe smattering, and since divorce is accepted by most (even by those who believe in very narrowly allowed reasons for it), your third definition just dropped out.  That leaves one.  The one most people think of when you say the word "monogamy".  Sometimes distinctions are needed, and sometimes they only get in the way of concourse


John:
quote:
Was anyone's mind changed
by all of this?



Perhaps not ... especially among the most adamantly opinionated among us.  (Like me and the Ronster, and a few others     ).  But for others who are undecided, or are still considering the issues, I think these discussions may provide more to think about, and perhaps some angles they haven't really considered before.


It's not that philsophical / political discussions never move people in a direction ... it's just that they rarely do so, and never all at once.  But even when they do, no one really ever comes out and says "Hey you changed my mind".  There's a pride in not wanting to say those kinds of things publicly.  And there's a dignity in being allowed not to have to.


Essorant,

I'll respond later.


Stephen.
Capricious
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 89
California, USA


448 posted 02-03-2005 05:29 AM       View Profile for Capricious   Email Capricious   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Capricious

I actually read this entire topic and all the replies.  So, now that my eyeballs are bleeding:

quote:
Is this the same as the courts allowing someone the right to end life (questioning the very humanity of those very lives) and yet punishing someone else with homicide for taking that same kind of life?  Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but homocide means murder.  It's not a synonym for damage of property.  If the underlying assumptions of Roe V. Wade are correct, then Peterson was unjustly charged in one of his counts of homicide.  If the underlying assumptions of the Peterson case are correct then Roe V. Wade was greatly in error.


Actually it's more like charging Peterson with homocide for killing the unborn child because it was not his choice to make.  Had Mrs. Peterson attempted suicide, they'd not charge her with attempted homocide because according to our laws, the life of the unborn child is hers to terminate as it is part of her body at that time.  It's not pretty, maybe it's not even fair, but there is logic to it.  Unless it is terminated with the mother's consent, that fetus is a potential child, and the courts chose to charge Peterson accordingly.


quote:
You can't get more inconsistent than that.


You know what they say about sweeping generalizations, don't you?  

As to the topic, I don't see any real legal reason to continue to deny homosexuals their right to equal treatment and protection under the law.  Marriage in itself is not sacred - it is a civil union with secular benefits.  There is absolutely no reason why non-traditional families (and by this I mean homosexuals and *maybe* polygamists, although the possible negative financial aspects of polygamy with respect to the State could certainly be argued) should not enjoy the same benefits given they accept the same responsibilities.  This "slippery slope" argument where a man marries his shoe or his dog are quite non-sequitur with regard to this subject, and the pedophilia and incest cases have clear physiological and/or legal barriers.

There's enough red herring in here to feed a third-world country.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


449 posted 02-03-2005 12:00 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

" Marriage in itself is not sacred - it is a civil union with secular benefits."

Are you considering marriage in respect to its history and to other countries in the world?  And to many people that still involve sacred ceremonies and rites, sacred vows, sacred honey moon, sacred beliefs, and a love they cherish as sacred between themselves?   Just because you may not hold marriage as sacred, that doesn't mean everybody or even most people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, are the same.  I know it is not true about my mother and my father's marriage.  And if I ever marry, I hope it is just as sacred as theirs.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors