*DAMN R6 Forum

Today I read in the metro newspaper that the ABC in America had made a poll with 1000 people participating with the question whether they believed the Biblical stories of the creation etc (had something to do with Gibson's new Jesus-movie), and apparently 61% had answered they believed it word by word, how can this be true? This isn't at all the image I've gotten when speaking to Americans on the net... of course I'm aware of that the Internet using Americans may be a certain selection of people but still, it's a huge number to me.

In the same newspaper and almost on the same page I read that the Brits were considering putting chapters named Atheism, Agnosticism and Humanism in their religion books, next to others such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. I found this pretty funny and to me it really showed how differently religion is concieved over here and over yonder, what do you think are the reasons for this and what do you think of it?

Another thing worthy of note, I also read that some guy from the Swedish Missionary-something was arguing that the Church shouldn't be responsible for the registering of marriages, both for homo- as much as for heterosexuals. Instead he argues that they should have a governmental-something and that it should have the full responsibility for registering etc. If people still wanted to get married in a church they could have their religious traditional ceremonies afterwards. This shit is difficult for me to translate so I think I'll stop at that.

Cheese.

1011 Americans polled, ~3% margin of error and a side note, 8 out of 10 Americans are Christian.  

So, one thing you have to remember, you are seeing a huge minority here on the forums with so many atheists.  Then add the agnostics, jews, etc.  

Another thing is while 6 out of 10 did believe in creation and Moses parting the red sea, less believed in Noah's flood and even less that the Jew's were so responsible for Christ's death.  Which is the actual controversy with the movie that spawned the poll.

BTW, wonder how this poll would have turned out in Spain, Itally, or many other heavily Catholic European countries?

Last thing is, who cares?  One of America's biggest founding principles was religious freedom.  Why treat this like it's a bad thing?  People have their faith, what in the world is wrong with that?


I think  you misunderstand a lot of things.  What "religion books" are they adding chapters to?  Not the bible.  So that would be books for school, right?  So that's any different than here?  We didn't learn about Agnostic or Humanism in school?  Is that what you are implying?

You see, I think the difference is that you treat religion like having it is a big fucking deal Kami.  Here, we have Catholics, Jews and Moslems all living next to each other.  I can go down to church street and take a picture of about 10 different faiths.  And that's good.  Let them believe what they want.  Where's the harm?


Wow, that would finally bring your marriages in line with American marriages.  Since ours are all a government registration process here, and while you can be married by most churches, you can also be married by secular means (judge, justice of the peace, etc).  But all have to have a marriage license and follow state laws.

You sounded as if you didn't know this?

[Just fixing the FUBAR'd quotes. Ace]

wow really then america isnt so  much of a difference you can have all of this shit also here in belgium, I dont see any difference.

I'm sure much fewer people would have responded believing word-for-word in creation. That view is much more typical of a Bible belt Protestant than a Catholic.

It's only a problem to me when they want to make matters of their faith public policy problems. I don't want their beliefs to hinder my freedom. Examples include teaching "creation science" in public schools while trying to get rid of the teaching of evolution, opposing gay rights, and blurring the lines between separation of church and state. People have whatever religious beliefs they want, as long as they don't want to use the power of law to make me follow their religious doctrine.

I think he is probably talking about religious studies books. In high school, we learned about christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism, etc, but we never learned anything about humanism or agnosticism.

Except that gay people can get married in a lot of European countries (Denmark, Netherlands, I think Sweden) and at least get civil unions in most others (Germany, Great Britain, France).

Well, you learn about the major religions because they had a direct effect on the history of the world.  There is writings and such to look back on and see how those major facets of the world effected history and how it developed into today.  The fact is there is no leader or institution of agnosticism, atheism and the other isms.  Also no large contribution or detractor from humanity at a large.  So there is nothing more to teach than just what they are, about a paragraphs worth.

Personally, I think the survey was based on crap.  In the US the results can drastically differ depending on what region you contact.  Californians will give you more answers to religion than you would want, the bible belt, well self explanatory.  Shit, I can be pretty sure no Omish were contacted in the survey because they don't have goddamn phones.  Besides, Mel's movie is based on a strict view of Catholicism that deals with reforms before Vatican II, so I doubt many people agree with what the entire story has to deal with.

Once again Bucc takes everything I say as being against America, how surprising.
First of all a correction, 60% believed in Noah's ark, 61% believed in the creation, according to the survey.
Here in Sweden I'm sure you can find just as many muslims as over there in the US, probably more come to think of it, in my class over here in Gothenburg I'd say atleast a fourth has mid-eastern heritage (Iran mostly).
Why I was so surprised over this number was because I wasn't aware that so many Americans were actually that faithful to the bible as this survey shows. And let me tell you something, I'd reckon over 80% of Swedes would be called 'Christians', although only 10% regularly attend church and the rest probably call themselves secularized.
I didn't compare the US to Europe, I didn't compare the US to anything, so why would doing similar surveys in catholic European countries mean anything?

Oh and Amen Tasty.

What I was talking about was religious study books you use in high-school, yes. Here in Sweden I never learned anything about Atheism, Agnosticism and Humanism in school. You were more or less expected not to believe in God I guess, not like any of my friends went to confirmation because they wanted anything else than presents. We did however learn a whole lot about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and 'nature religions', oh I remember studying for the tests...

Bucc, I probably fucked up on the translation of some of the legal terms there in my last paragraph so just scrap that, I was just relaying some (to me) interesting news I'd just read. I guess I should've just omitted that last part.

You don't live here, so what freedom of yours are they hindering?


That doesn't happen here.  What makes you think that it does?  How many public schools can you name that teach creationism and not evolution?

As for gay rights, that's not just a religious argument you know.  It's a morality argument.  It doesn't matter which side you are on, don't blame it on something it's not.  I do know some atheists that don't believe in it.


I did (though it was always called "secular humanism" back then).  Which I guess puts us ahead of both countries then?  Or, more accurately, my school, since schools differ.


And that has absolutely nothing to do with your first post or my reply.  Your first post was about them making marriages in the secular realm (registration and rules), not about GAY marriages.  And like I said, we already have that.

One of the things I've never been able to get my head around is the resurgence of evangellical Christianity, fundamentalist Christianity, and Creationism in America.

I'm all down for faith. It's great if you have it, particularly when your faith brings you great joy and comfort, and clear, poignant moral clarity (even if I disagree on that clarity: ie, abortion, etc)

Faith is good for America and good for the world.

What I don't like seeing, and I'm fairly sure I don't need to go dig up links on, is school boards trying to give Creationism equal pairing with evolution. Or that school boards are trying to place the ten commandments in schools. Or that time for prayer is set aside during school hours. Ditto for varients of this in court houses, seats of government, the white house, etc.

Being American often means being somewhat schizophrenic when it comes to issues like school, church, and state. If you truly believe in creationism then going to a state run school and not seeing the ten Cs up there, not having prayer time, being taught evolution - it's all offensive. But, being American, having prayer in school, creationism in the books, and the ten Cs on the wall is offensive as well. Especially since it progagates one particular faith over all others. It gets complex when you are a true patriot and a devote Christian.

My feeling is, if the 8 outa 10 Americans who are Christian (and really, that's a broad brush - they are variants of Christian) want creationism on the books, prayer, and the ten Cs on the wall then they better be ready to have Islamic prayers several times a day, L Ron Hubbard's wacky Scientology tenents right there next to creationism and evolution, and Wickan chants next to the ten Cs.

Basically, practice what you preach.

Frankly, I like the Brit way of things, as it fits my odd sense of humor ("You want to talk about Christianity in school and make kids learn about things like creationism? Fine, but next we fucking talk about Aethism and why God is dead. After that, we'll do some Satanic rituals). But, dispite my need for mirth, for educational purposes, schools need to be secular. They should teach about all faiths and none, but not teach a faith. (please, don't comeback with that "evolution is faith" line - it's not. It's science - see below, below.)

Faith is private. Teach your kids you faith, hang the ten Cs on your wall, take time to pray together, tell them about creationism and why evolution is flawed. But don't make my kids suffer under a faith they don't believe. Don't try and be sneaky and convert them via symbols imbedded into our classrooms.

I know this very argument can be turned around on it's head - don't make my kids believe in Darwinism, etc. But really, science is science and faith is faith.

In my biased opinion, the big difference between creationism and evolution is that creationists will never, ever believe creationism is wrong, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. But scientists will be more than happy to find evolution is all ker-funky, and that there is a truer, better scientific explaination. Even if that scientific explanation is God.

The point is that some religious people refuse to acknowledge there is a place in society for both faith and science.

I guess it comes down to honest intelectual openness versus honest emotional openness. People of faith want their religion to be valued and are (rightly, I think, in a very broad way) afriad of persecution and people of science want their hard work and knowledge to be valued and are rightly afriad of ancient mysticisms replacing the Truth with the Word .

But faith and science don't cancel each other out.

They can exist, and do exist in the US, in a careful, often titling, but never flipping, Balance.

<<<< quoting Bucc, quoting someone >>>>

"Examples include teaching "creation science" in public schools while trying to get rid of the teaching of evolution, opposing gay rights, and blurring the lines between separation of church and state. People have whatever religious beliefs they want, as long as they don't want to use the power of law to make me follow their religious doctrine."

That doesn't happen here.  What makes you think that it does?  How many public schools can you name that teach creationism and not evolution?

As for gay rights, that's not just a religious argument you know.  It's a morality argument.  It doesn't matter which side you are on, don't blame it on something it's not.  I do know some atheists that don't believe in it.

<<<< end quoting Bucc, quoting someone >>>>

I think Bucc is mostly right. But, the attempts to smack down science still go on in the US. The US has some hardcore religious fundamentalist. I?m pretty content to look down on them like I look down on fundamentalist muslisms who fly planes into buildings (mostly because fundamentalists in the US, too, blow up buildings: remember OK?), and I look forward to their increasing marginalization. Hell, I look down on fundamentalists of any sort (even fundamentalist Liberals (like fucking Stalinist communists)).

As for the argument that gay marriage is mostly a morality debate, well, most religious people like to think their Faith is the root of their morality, so the debate swings back to Faith versus Secular.

One of the things that I dislike about fundamentalists in general is that you can?t talk to them. They really are set in stone. I don?t want my kids to be like that. I want them to question everything. I want them, in sum, to think for themselves and if they find comfort in faith then I?ll fucking drive them to church.

I think I should make a point here to say that by no means are all people of Faith fundamentalists - the few give the many a bad name.

On a related note, I have been very worried by Bush, considering he is a born again Christian who uses constant religious rhetoric in his few public speaking engagements. Most unnerving has been his use of the word ?Calling? in regards to himself and the presidency and the war on terror.

Calling is a hardwired Christian word that means God is telling you in the most perfect way that this deed or deeds must be done and you are the one to do it.

So what worries me when Bush says he was Called to be president is that the dude must mean God personally placed him into the presidency. Which is fucking insane. Cause he?s the leader of the world?s largest, most powerful secular democracy. In American democracy, it?s votes that call you to duty, not your religion. So Bush has pretty much been slipping towards fundamentalism since day one. Tack on his office of Faith Based Initiatives, his advocating the use of Federal funds for religious orgs, his quasi-seeming support for a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from marriage (one based in his faith), his placing of Ashcroft (a fundamentalists fundamentalist) as the supreme prosecutor of all the USA, and it just adds up to a terrible smear on the tenets of this nation as a secular nation.

How far is Bush from the King of Saudi Arabia on the fundamentalist scale at heart? I am unsure, which, when you really think about it, is the scariest part of all.

He?s pushing the country thata way. It?s a long, tough haul, but dude wants us to go there.

Btw, great job pointing out the polling sample and error margin on this one. I always try and look for the total polled, the questions asked, and the sample locale. It often helps put shit into perspective.

Imagine asking these questions in Los Angeles, with a sample pool based in Burbank, Santa Monica, Venice, and Beverly Hills?

And the question was: "Do you believe the ancient Christian text 'The Bible" word for word?"

to clarify: Great Job Bucc on pointing out the polling points!

And smart to note that European countries are mostly homogenus, so, issues of religion are rather ... well, agreed on.

Where is "here"? I thought we were talking about the United States? and last time I checked I lived in Iowa.

State School Official Threatens Children?s Education By Bowing To Fundamentalist Groups (http://www.au.org/press/pr040130.htm") - how religious groups are trying to remove evolution from the curriculum in Georgia
Evolution Evasion (http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs10991.htm") - how "creation science" was introduced into the curriculum in Kansas in 1999

If you want more examples, just check out www.au.org, it's a great resource for strict church-state separationists like myself. But it just goes to show that yes, this does happen here, and efforts to make such reforms are much more widespread than their few successes.

Yeah, I guess I don't really understand that. I'm not familiar with non-religious anti-gay arguments, so I'd have to hear their point of view to be able to comment. I'm sure that you will agree with me though that the vast majority of those fighting against gay rights in this country have primarily religious reasons.

The reason I quoted that (besides that it is important to me) is that if there were no religious connotation to marriage that gay marriage would be allowed. However, according to our president, marriage is "a sacred institution" and "a sacrament" (both religious terms). Since it is regulated by the state, that implies some blurring between the lines. Like loth said in the other thread, the best solution is just to not confer any governmental advantages to married couples in the first place.

I'm a Liberal with a big L. But I disagree with this:

"Like loth said in the other thread, the best solution is just to not confer any governmental advantages to married couples in the first place."

Families need help. The conceptof marriage, more than anything else I think, is that it is a protective institution. It's where kids should be safe and cared for. Tax breaks that give support that goes directly to kids and institutions that benifit kids (like marriage) should be supported.

This is why I both support Gay marriage (because I'm convinced gay people fall in love too, and can be as commited as heteroes for sure) and disagree with your position on abolishing governmental advantages on married couples. Gays should have all the rights of heteroes, includeing marriage, and marriage tax breaks, and adoption rights. Loving families are loving families and we need more of them. Certainly straight people have proven they suck at marriage, even religious straight people.

So, to even the playing field by flattening it is to create more problems while trying to solve one.

Sorry, confused you with Kami for a second there.

However, didn't they teach you evolution in school?  Did they screw that up?  Were your rights infringed upon?


Efforts are widespread?  You sound so much like the other side of Rush's coin anymore Tasty.  Thought you agreed with freedom of speech?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with them trying to do this.  They have that freedom in our society, don't they?  

And again, this isn't the nation, it's small communities.  And if like minded communities want to band together on school issues, I'm not that much against it.  Think about the Amish, etc.  We talked about it before, in another thread, that shouldn't the parents have the right to say what their children learn?


Vast majority, no, I don't agree.  I think a good part base it strictly on economics (health care benefits etc) and a good many others are all about morality, not religion.  What I think you see is that the really vocal ones are from the religious right wing.

I'll grab an argument from a few others (I think Jeb was anti-gay marriage in a couple threads here too, and we know he's declared an atheist).  One basic argument is simple, that two of the same sex can't be a propagating family, which is the basis for marriage (both traditional and common law in most of the USA).  Some people feel, without any prodding from the church, that homosexuality is deviant behavior, and while it may be ok to allow behind closed doors, they don't want it publicly condoned.

But it's like this Tasty.  I don't follow Christian religion or any church (though wife and baby are Catholic).  But I morally object to abortions.  Just like I morally object to murder.  If you say that my morals have to be formed by a church / religion, than you are saying you can't have morals without religion, and I know you don't think that.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with homosexual marriages and full benefits.  I'm all for equality, however, equality between men and women has to be worked out first (fathers rights to stop abortion, fathers getting child custody, no more alimony, etc).  Since men and women aren't treated EQUALLY under the law or it's enforcement, bringing in homosexual marriages into the mix before that would just screw up the system more.  Fix it first for the majority, then add the minority.


You really need to get over your hate of Bush.  It doesn't matter what fucked up terms he uses to endear himself to the religious right.  The laws are the laws, and the church can be part of a marriage, if the people chose, but it doesn't have to be, and that started back in the 1600's here in America, with the first settlements.  

So it still goes back to, we already have state controlled marriages, and have had for hundreds of years, something that it seems they don't.  Please stop using that as a soapbox for gay marriage policy.  I understand that it's important to you, but you don't need to take every opportunity to segway into it.  

Alright, the last part of my first post here was based on an article about a debate article which can be found here, in Swedish: http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/brannpunkt/did_6913099.asp

The topic is 'take away the marriage from the church' or something like that.

"Staten B?r dra tillbaka samtliga vigselr?tter. ?ven kyrkans. Det r?cker med en enkel registrering hos civil myndighet f?r heterosexuella eller homosexuella par som vill leva tillsammans. Efter registreringen kan paret v?lja att frivilligt "v?lsigna f?rh?llandet" i kyrkor eller f?reningar, skriver missionsf?rest?ndaren Krister Andersson."

Translation: "The state should withdraw all religious marriages. Even the church's. It's enough with a simple registration at a civil authority for heterosexual or homosexual couples who want to live together. After the registration the couple can choose to freely "bless their bond" in churches or 'clubs', writes the missionary head Krister Andersson."

Translation is a bitch.

That's close to our process (allowing or not allowing homosexuals is not a process, so let's all drop that please).

Here you go apply for a license, fill out the paperwork showing your birth certificates, etc, then you have to have someone authorized sign it with witnesses, and mail it back to the state.  The authorized signer can be anyone from a priest, to a judge, to one of those guys (like willie tell) that applied to be a minister online.  Point being, it can be done with, or without the church's blessing, but it always has to be done with the license / paperwork from the state.

To Bucc:
Heh, point well taken on the Rush comparison. I definitely don't want to be the one on the other side proclaiming some "vast right wing conspiracy". Like I said, the main thing of importance to me is that they don't infringe on my rights. So far, it's not a problem -- I learned evolution (not creation science) in school and after college I'm moving to a large urban area (not the type of area that typically experiences church-state type battles). And of course, it's their right as citizens to try to create whatever type of government they want, I don't deny that. I don't care what they do among themselves, in their own community. I just worry about national policy issues that can affect me (another good argument for decentralization). And of course you can have morals without religion. Just always like to hear people's reasons, is all.

To Sixhits:
Don't you think that conferring financial advantages to married couples is discriminatory? What about single people? Or couples that don't want to get married. You don't need a marriage to have a family. I don't think a marriage necessarily benefits a child any more than two loving, unmarried people raising a child. The marriage is purely a thing between the parents. And even if it were, there are still other ways to help children other than discriminating against unmarried people.

So anyway, to sum up this long meandering post: I have concerns, just out of fear for my own rights, but as long as they aren't infringed upon, I don't care what people do/believe.

I have concerns about my rights being infringed, but they revolve around bullshit like the Patriot Act, or over zealous gun control laws.  

I'll debate enthusiastically with people that think these rights and freedoms should be infringed upon, but I don't worry about the fact that these people are out there.  (obviously talking about gun control, not the Patriot Act, since that's actually here and a real fight).

I'd have to disagree with you on several points.

First, I think that marriage is both symbolically and structurally important to the health of the nation. Incentives to marry are good.

Second, children raised in married couples tend to do better on all fronts than those raised outside of marriage. So to argue that being biased for marriage is discriminatory is, I think, barking up the wrong tree. We should all hope to see more marriage, more stable and loving marraige. Thus, I point to gay marriage as a potential source of commited couples who can raise children greatly. Kids need attention and support: single parents are sapped for time and energy, while married couples have a built in support structure - a partner.

Third, as for being biased I suppose it is. But, there are already structures in place in society to help the single mother or father, to lend support to unwed couples. In fact, "common law" marriages accomplish much the same thing as legal marriages do.

You're right about not needing marraige to have a family, but my best counter to that is you want families to be based around marriage as much as possible. It's a good thing to get married, have kids, and love each other and them. The state should support it.

I doubt I've done a good job responding to this as I'm shit tired. But I've tried.

Good points, Kami.

     Tasty, I never said that withdrawing legal benefits from marriage would be a good thing. I said that all people should be guaranteed the right to a secular marriage. Legal benefits for marriage are definitely a good thing. Let's own up to it: marriage is an economic proposition. That is not a bad thing.

     Sixhits, given that one of marriage's functions is to provide a redundant support for the raising of children, and given that you stressed the benefits of two parents for that reason, how do you feel about legalizing group marriage, since it would provide an even more redundant network of parents to raise the children?

Loth, to talk about gay marriage and group marriage in the same breath is a like putting the cart before the horse.

I think what you are really asking is whether I think giving gay's the right to marry is a slippery slope that will lead to others "wacky" marriages.

As for the multi-partner marriage thingie. I haven't given it much thought. My gut feeling is it's a pretty marginal group of people who are poligomous. However, there are a lot of gays out there in America. How do I feel personally about group marriage? I think it's silly, but, what the fuck? I think loving other humans is normal and however you want to express it should be supported.

And redundancy? I thick what is redundant about the union of two people is that the common structure of that union applies those two people to the task of loving and rearing young in an equal way - they have a similar interest, founded in love. Keys being love and equality.

I think, and could very well be wrong, that poligomy is founded on religious doctrine rather than love. It's a dude marrying a lot of women. The job of caring for the young is passed to the women. The man is superior. It's not at all the same structure. It's not equal, it's not founded on love, and it's inherently unstable.

As for what I know of poligomy it's rather bad for the women involved, too. My understanding is that you can see the father marrying his own children ... So while I'm not opposed to group marriage, I'd want to see some good info on what it means, really. And as a taste issue, poligomy smacks of fundamentalism, women dressed head to toe in thick, obscuring clothes, and women as objects - all things which piss me off.

Gays aren't talking about changing the structure of marriage - two people, pledging their lives and love to one another - but they are demanding they be let into the club. I'm happy to give them the secret handshake.

In getting back to a rehashing of the old slippery slope argument, one that I've used before in regards to other things (esp state/church seperation issues), but in this case I don't think it applies. I don't think it applies to gay marriage because we've had similar cases of civil rights vs cultural fears before: the civil rights movement, the abolishion of slavery, ownership rights for blacks, and women's right to vote. All were contraversial, much like gay marriage. All were rights issues that have turned out great for America.

So as far as slippery slope ... no. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.

Below is a link to a great column on this slipper slope gay marriage thing:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Here's a long gaff. Understand, it's rather biased.

"From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality.

That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach.

In short, to the neocon Right, a nation that allows gays to marry is a nation with no boundaries and no condoms and where all sorts of illicit disgusting behaviors will soon be legal and be forced upon them, a horrific tribal wasteland full of leeches and flying bugs and scary sex acts they only read about in chat rooms and their beloved "Left Behind" series of cute apocalypse-porn books.

You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps. "

    Pardon me for responding in the opposite order, but hahahaha, I love that quote you closed with. I've had several gay-marriage arguments with a guy who used that exact argument: gay marriage leads inevitably to bestiality. Funny funny shit.

     I don't intend to pull the thread off in a new direction here with the group marriage tangent. It just came to mind and I wished to discuss it in this context.
     Six, please note that I never used the term "polygamy". Instead, I consciously and intentionally asked about "group marriage". Polygamy is one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman with multiple husbands. Group marriage (or polyamory as it's known in some circles) includes both of those as well as any other combination of sexes. Simply put, it is when more than two people are married to each other.
     Similarly, I did not use "redundant" in a pejorative manner. I used it in the engineering sense of "backup systems". One of the benefits of marriage is that if one parent dies or leaves, the other remains to raise the children. If that much redundancy is good, more redundancy is arguably better. The same reasoning applies to the economic function of marriage: one good income allows the other parent to raise the children full-time; alternately, two incomes are better than one. Again, if two is good, more is better.

     Anyhow, I think it's an interesting idea and as long as marriage reforms were on the table, I figured I'd bring it up. : )

Copy that, Loth. "Group Marriage".

The long and the short of it is I don't know. It's a concept I'm not familar with. I presumed you meant polygamy.

As for group marriage being more redundant. It sound like it would be... It also sounds similar in concept to "it takes a village" child rearing processes. It leans toward community care for the nations young.

It blends into several positions I think are positive (more people taking care of kids) and some I'm warry of (just wtf would a group marriage look like?)

In the end, you can put it on the table but it needs to be seconded. There are a lot of people who want gay marriage (there are a lot who don't)(there are also a lot of people who want me to learn to spell better) - but to me the key point is people are asking for it, bending the laws to make it happen, and are initiating a national debate. On the group marriage front ... well, group marriage feels more like a concept meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of gay marriage (sorta like when I say, Bush AWOL in '72 is ridiculous, and then him sending hundreds of Americans to their deaths in an unjust war is super silly).

Honestly, though, I can't figure any seriously informed response about group marriage. On the absolute surface level it sounds kinda ... fun.