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  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
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 
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


25 posted 04-01-2004 02:06 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Marriage:
*To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
*To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
*To twist or turn abnormally; distort:
torture a rule to make it fit a case.

oops sorry that's torture, my bad

'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?'
~Gluteus Maximus

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


26 posted 04-01-2004 02:08 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

LOL.  Ironically, if one wants to reduce the incidences of gay sex, perhaps one ought to be supportive of gay marriage.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


27 posted 04-01-2004 06:35 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Jim,

Trying to play catch up? I said that two weeks ago.

For obvious reasons, I have no religious objections to gay marriage, I just think that if two people want to commit to each other, we should recognize that.

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


28 posted 04-01-2004 08:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
Stephen, I see the point that you're making, but I'm going to be quite frank with you. It doesn't sound like a sound argument against these things... it just sounds like you're scared they will happen.



Concern about what will happen ... likelihood of social / legal consequences, does not constitute sound argumentation?  If your morals aren't up to having a place in the public square (a concept I deeply question), then let your sheer pragmatism take over.  So you think they won't happen?  As deeply against polygamy as you are, what makes you think that the refusal to define something, won't let it many many variations in?  This whole debate is the refusal to define marriage ... or more accurately the rejection of the traditional definition.  But there IS no definition offered in it's place.  At least no definition that will provide any lasting framework for marriage that makes sense.  


Stephen.


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


29 posted 04-01-2004 08:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
People willing to make life-long commitments to each other



Any kind of life-long commitment?  What is the nature of this life-long commitment?  Commit to do what?
Give me a minimum of what marriage would require.


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


30 posted 04-01-2004 11:26 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Any kind of life-long commitment?  What is the nature of this life-long commitment?  Commit to do what? Give me a minimum of what marriage would require.

What commitment did your parents make to each other?

I see no reason why the commitment between any two people, regardless of circumstance, need be any more or any less to qualify for the same rights. Considering today's divorce rate, it doesn't seem a minimum is going to be too hard to meet or beat.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


31 posted 04-02-2004 05:59 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'As deeply against polygamy as you are, what makes you think that the refusal to define something, won't let it many many variations in?'

I don't understand what you're asking. I already answered your questions about the variations- as long as they don't hurt anyone, why not let them in? It doesn't matter if I don't like it, because I shouldn't have veto power over someone else's life.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 04-02-2004 06:11 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Adults who agree to care for each other.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 04-03-2004 11:55 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

two adults who care for each other ...

then two heterosexual elderly sisters who help each other can "get married"?  I can get married to my elderly grandfather whom I keep in my home to care for his medical needs?


It's got to be a more "discriminatory" definition than "a commitment to care for one another" or it will  be sunk to the level of a state benefit clause between two "parties".  What parties?  Any.  For what purpose?  Any.


Stephen.

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


34 posted 04-04-2004 12:07 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
I don't understand what you're asking. I already answered your questions about the variations- as long as they don't hurt anyone, why not let them in? It doesn't matter if I don't like it, because I shouldn't have veto power over someone else's life.



But you said polygamy was "wrong" earlier didn't you? ... not that you merely don't like it.  Is it a matter of aesthetics to you, or do you think it's wrong for definite reasons?  If there are definite reasons, then saying "it doesn't hurt anyone" cannot be true.  I can think of many ill effects of polygamy, on individuals and larger society, and I'll bet you can too.


I never said you should have "veto" power over someone's life.  We're talking about laws anyway, and the authorities behind those laws.  And civil legislators DO have power over someone else's life.  That can't be intrinsically wrong, or you would have to be against all laws for that same reason.


Stephen.  
  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


35 posted 04-04-2004 04:13 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

I really don't see the problem. A hunting license is not restricted to one type of animal alone, it entitles you to capture different species. There are, however, restrictions against capturing  species out of season or on the endangered list. It's an open license but with reasonable guidelines and boundaries.

A marriage license is no different unless homosexuality is deemed a crime. Since it is not, and marriage is the union of two loving partners, a man can marry a woman, a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman. All within reason and  most important, legality.

The restrictions would/do still exist, again within reason. For example, marrying within the family(incest), marrying a minor(as statutory rape or because minor entering a contract), your pet. There you go, there are your guidelines and restrictions. All based on legalities.

Is that so difficult? There's no free for all or anarchy. The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue. I find it incredibly silly arguing against gay unions. In my opinion it's not an argument based on reason or logic, but more often than not, simple prejudice and conservative 'morality'.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-04-2004 04:52 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 04-04-2004 11:07 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

For what purpose?  Any.



To care for each other.  

Certainly two elderly spinsters who live together may want to consider such an arrangement.  I've said it before.  But, I doubt there would be any real benefit to marrying any blood relative.  I thought Ron sorted that out earlier.

Your marriage wouldn't change in meaning a bit. Why would it?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


37 posted 04-05-2004 10:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Aenimal:
quote:
... marriage is the union of two loving partners, a man can marry a woman, a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman. All within reason ...



Marriage is not currently "the union of two loving partners".  Currently it is the union of two loving partners who are male and female.


  

By saying "all within reason", you are implying that certain things are reasonable about marriage ... in other words, certain things are obviously basic to the institution.  Having rejected heterosexuality as basic, you've naturally chosen to retain some other traditional view as basic, namely love and commitment.  Of course these aren't ascertained by reason alone.  These concepts will also be challenged as to whether they are fundamental to the definition of marriage.  Once the slippery slope of arbitrary reinvention is taken, marriage will eventually become a bland social contract to ensure financial perks, that won't be denied anyone who wants it ... or any number who want it.  Of course since such an arrangement would be senseless and impractical, what would become of the institution itself is doubtful.  Rivers with no banks become marshes.


quote:
The restrictions would/do still exist, again within reason. For example, marrying within the family(incest), marrying a minor(as statutory rape or because minor entering a contract), your pet. There you go, there are your guidelines and restrictions. All based on legalities.



Yes, but you're forgetting something.  Whenever law becomes suspect as "discriminatory", it too will become challenged and overturned.  Marrying within the family does not necessarily mean incest, if we take Ron's view that marriage is not in the least about sex.  (Of course I don't agree with him there, as the bulk of history refutes that suggestion)  Nor will marriage between adult and child mean pedophilia.  Nor will marriage between humans and animals mean bestiality.  These laws were based upon the sexual aspect which, as Ron nicely illustrates, some are wanting to (excuse the pun) divorce from the meaning of marriage.  


quote:
The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue.


But you just attempted to mitigate the free-for-all, and define marriage using present laws that are based precisely upon sex and sexual preference ... incest, pedophilia, bestiality.


quote:
I find it incredibly silly arguing against gay unions. In my opinion it's not an argument based on reason or logic, but more often than not, simple prejudice and conservative 'morality'.



But your above arguments aren't reasonable or logical are they?  You're still limiting the loss of marital boundaries, by sex and sexuality ... the very thing you said shouldn't be a factor anymore.  
Understand I agree with you that such things should limit what Marriage is.  It's just that I have a foundation for believing so ... sexuality has always been a great portion of what defines marriage.



Stephen.  

      
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


38 posted 04-07-2004 07:02 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue."

"But you just attempted to mitigate the free-for-all, and define marriage using present laws that are based precisely upon sex and sexual preference ... incest, pedophilia, bestiality."

~ Based on sex and sexual preference... alone... between 2 consenting adults and within the legal boundaries of our country's laws. Incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are outside of those boundaries and are not based on sex and sexual preference... alone.

~ I think it is quite obvious that those who have a religious "take" on this matter, can't hide that fact, although they have tried to reason through other means.

In other words, the marriage between 2 people of the same sex should not be allowed simply because God and the Bible say so [insert period here]


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


39 posted 04-08-2004 12:45 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

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


40 posted 04-08-2004 10:36 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Based on sex and sexual preference... alone... between 2 consenting adults and within the legal boundaries of our country's laws. Incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are outside of those boundaries and are not based on sex and sexual preference... alone.



Opeth,

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey in the above.  But I'm saying that using sexual issues are "out of court" in defining what marriage is, if marriage has nothing to do with sexuality.  Therefore, there can be no limitations of marriage based on pedophelia, bestiality, or incest.  Therefore I'll ask again, what WILL define marriage?  What will determine it's boundaries?

  
quote:
I think it is quite obvious that those who have a religious "take" on this matter, can't hide that fact, although they have tried to reason through other means.

Opeth, I have never tried to "hide" anything regarding my religious views.  But since the "moral" views of the Bible were never given in a vacuum, there is usually much that can be said regarding social policy without referring directly to the Bible.  


If you're trying to say that there are no reasons (besides the Judeo-Christian ethic)  why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage, then why mention my religious views at all?  Just respond to what I've said.  Show my "extra-religious" reasoning to be fallacious by pointing out why exactly it is.


Stephen.    
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


41 posted 04-08-2004 11:27 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey in the above.  But I'm saying that using sexual issues are "out of court" in defining what marriage is, if marriage has nothing to do with sexuality.  Therefore, there can be no limitations of marriage based on pedophelia, bestiality, or incest.  Therefore I'll ask again, what WILL define marriage?"

~ I completely understood what Raph stated and merely put it in another way, which you don't understand what either of have stated.
Marriage will be defined as two legal aged adults who as a pair, are not in violation of other laws, and are in a loving relationship.

"What will determine it's boundaries?

~ The laws of the land. If one does not like the laws, attempt to change them through legal methods.

"I think it is quite obvious that those who have a religious "take" on this matter, can't hide that fact, although they have tried to reason through other means."

"Opeth, I have never tried to "hide" anything regarding my religious views."

~ Did I name you, specifically? No. I was makeing a general declaration. If you felt that I was directing that declaration to you, Stephanos, then I would ask you, why did you think so? The declaration was not a part of the statement above. It was a separate remark.

"If you're trying to say that there are no reasons (besides the Judeo-Christian ethic)  why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage, then why mention my religious views at all?"

~ I don't get this. All I typed was that there are people who believe homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed based soley on, "Because God and Bible say so."


"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

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


42 posted 04-08-2004 05:24 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Marriage will be defined as two legal aged adults who as a pair, are not in violation of other laws, and are in a loving relationship.



Good.  You do understand what Raph was saying.  So did I.


Notice the number "two", the word "pair", and the phrase "loving relationship".  These all are examples of how marriage is currently defined, they are not guaranteed as foundational are they?  If the limitation of two people is found to be discriminatory, then it will also be declared unconstitutional at some point.  The constitution says nothing at all about limiting marriage to two people.  


Insisting that marriage be defined by love and fidelity could be discriminatory as well, by today's standards.  Thus marriage could be entered into for (eventually) any reason whatsoever.  


There is nothing in the constitution about forbidding blood relatives to marry.

There is nothing in the constitution about forbidding people and their pets from marrying.  


Though some of those sound extreme (but so did gay marriage 50 years ago), my question still stands unanswered.  What will keep marriage within reasonable boundaries, so that it doesn't become a simple contract to obtain economic benefit?  If the anthropological, biological, and cultural consensus of the past is utterly rejected ... what safeguards are there that will prevent its dissolution?  


And please don't just keep saying "laws".  The laws themselves are being questioned as to their adherence to the Constitution.  There are already state laws against homosexual marriage.  If the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid something, and any group deems it "discriminatory", here we go.  This whole debate is already about Judges disregarding current laws.  Law is not a valid answer to this question since the question is about what laws should be.  


Another thing we forget is, heterosexuality as the standard of marriage was overwhelmingly taken for granted by the framers of the constitution.  They never would have never dreamed of putting such a defining clause in there.  They innocently didn't have the foresight to restate the obvious, in anticipation of an increasingly relativistic culture.


quote:
I was makeing a general declaration. If you felt that I was directing that declaration to you, Stephanos, then I would ask you, why did you think so? The declaration was not a part of the statement above.



Why did I think so?  Because I have a religious "take" on homosexuality.  And I have tried to "reason through other means", as in this thread.  Whether or not you were talking about me specifically, you were making a stereotypical remark.  Sorry if I misinterpreted.  But I thought you were implying that there are no good reasons other than because the Bible says.  My response was to say that though the Bible does speak about such things, it's mandates are not given in a vacuum.


quote:
I don't get this. All I typed was that there are people who believe homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed based soley on, "Because God and Bible say so."



It's not inherently bad to take things on authority, if the authority is the right one.  However, I think he had (has) definite reasons for certain prescriptions.


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


43 posted 04-08-2004 08:59 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What will keep marriage within reasonable boundaries, so that it doesn't become a simple contract to obtain economic benefit?

Why shouldn't marriage be a contract wherein two people benefit as long as that benefit is at no one else's expense?

Marriage is about taking care of each other.

quote:
It's not inherently bad to take things on authority, if the authority is the right one.

No, it's not. What's bad is trying to force others to accept your definition of authority. Because at that point it's no longer authority. It's cohesion.

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


44 posted 04-08-2004 10:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Why shouldn't marriage be a contract wherein two people benefit as long as that benefit is at no one else's expense?


I didn't say it shouldn't be that... I said it shouldn't be merely that.
  

quote:
Marriage is about taking care of each other.



Until even that notion is challenged.  It doesn't have to be about that at all.  That's just one more traditional view of marriage, albeit one which you've chosen to retain.  Heterosexuality just happens to be one that you've chosen not to retain.
  

quote:
What's bad is trying to force others to accept your definition of authority. Because at that point it's no longer authority. It's cohesion.



I'm sure you meant "coercion".  Freudian slip?     

But how am I trying to "force" anyone?  I don't make the laws.  Nor do I enforce them.  But someone has to.  And therefore any legality can be called coercive, as it is invariably based upon someone's values or ideology.  Do you really think the nearly unbroken heterosexual definition of marriage for these thousands of years has been based on "coercion"?


Though I think there are many good lesser reasons to be against Homosexual marriage than just because "God says so", I was just defending that very position as not so bad, if God happens to know what he's talking about.  Though it might mean very little to those who don't accept God's authority, other reasons might mean more.  And yes there are other reasons.  One of which I am addressing in this thread.  When "heterosexuality" is rejected as foudational to marriage, there will be nothing (in principle) to stop the eventual challenge and demise of virtually every other traditional view of marriage.


Stephen      
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 04-08-2004 10:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

In what state is it legal for a dog, cat, barnyard animal, wild animal, fish, bird, or mongoose to enter into any kind of a legal contract?  

Well, maybe I missed some -- every kind of creature on the Ark?  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


46 posted 04-08-2004 10:43 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
When "heterosexuality" is rejected as foudational to marriage, there will be nothing (in principle) to stop the eventual challenge and demise of virtually every other traditional view of marriage.

And my point, Stephen, is that there should be nothing, either in principle or practice, to stop the challenge of any and all traditional views of marriage. If they can withstand the challenge, they will be maintained. If they cannot withstand the challenge, they must be abandoned. Tradition isn't an authority.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


47 posted 04-09-2004 12:39 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR:
quote:
In what state is it legal for a dog, cat, barnyard animal, wild animal, fish, bird, or mongoose to enter into any kind of a legal contract?


I don't mean to be the pessimist, but give it a few more years.  

  

Ron:
quote:
And my point, Stephen, is that there should be nothing, either in principle or practice, to stop the challenge of any and all traditional views of marriage.



Yes, you've restated your opinion yet again.
  

quote:
If they can withstand the challenge, they will be maintained. If they cannot withstand the challenge, they must be abandoned.



You mean without law?  Surely you aren't implying that such espoused principles by you, as "do no harm to your neighbor", should also be expected to flourish without the protection of law?


That's way too easy to get anything you don't agree with, out of public policy ... Just say if it's worth anything at all, it'll prosper without any help.  But it's a different story when it comes to public policy you happen to agree with.


Stephen  
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


48 posted 04-09-2004 07:25 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Stephanos,

There is more to law than the constitution. There are state laws, among others, too.

Keeping issues separate and simple, and taking each issue on in order would serve people well.

It is a fallacy to add beastiality, incest, polygamy, etc., to this issue.

KISS

Minus all of the other issues... the only change to a state's marriage "clause" would be same sex partners allowed [period]

Nothing more, nothing less.

All other issues regarding this matter are separate and non-sequitar regarding this, yes this, one issue.

"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

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


49 posted 04-09-2004 02:44 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Well said.

Even God's judgement about something, may not be bound forever to stay the same.  If He came to realizations and thereby his judgement changed about homosexuality, it may be here reflected, in some of our own changes.   I don't know, but I trust it is possible.  
We don't know what is between two people for sure, or what is between them and God or not.  When two people wish to get married therefore, how can we not give them the benefit of any possible doubt  they are following their heart and a sincere will for something good?  We don't know for sure.  Only they and God know best what is in them.. Therefore I don't see how we may deny or treat two [mature] people as unworthy of the rite of marriage and enjoyment and security thereof, especially if we will continue to edify the governings we call "democracy".

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2004 03:39 PM).]

 
 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