i'm not sure what your point is, but thanks for the input.

it is true we get caught up in all these terms when talking about our government, our society and whatnot. it can get confusing and easy to sub 1 term in for another. perfectly understandable.

don't worry, this is a "lecture, legalism and carefully worded denial" free zone.

I will ask you this straight up, Sean: do you support the same rights for polygamy or polyandry? Assuming that ONLY consenting adults are part of the relationship? IF not, Why not?

Assuming there isn't military bias against it, even in nations that allow it, is irresponsible. But, then, so is using a man from 200 years ago as a hand puppet to promote one's own morality...

just the fact that you consider homosexuality a "morality" is why we can't talk about this. it has nothing to do with morality. being gay is not a choice. and the only people who do think it's a choice are quite frankly, morons on this issue.
and i don't know if you meant it in the way it could be read, but it's not my "morality" in the 1st place as you assign it. in other words, i am not gay. but i do support their right to serve in the military and enjoy the benefits of a civil union equivalent to marriage. i could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their own consenting adult life. you obviously do.

honestly gid, i probably don't know enough about all of those types of relationships to make a call one way or another. but i certainly would hear their side of the equation and see if it applies to what i believe is constitutionally protected.

maybe since those types of relationships haven't been at teh forefront, i haven't really examined them. plus, i have known many homosexuals in my life. i can't say i know any polygimists and such.

i can say i would be willing to listen to both sides. but i can't say i've ever reached any conclusions on that. but i appreciate you askin. and it is food for thought. it is also notable that you asked about actual types of relationships that do exist, not some off the wall "beastiality" type question a la rick santorum.

I don't know about polyandry (is that something I'd regret googling?) but I don't have a problem with polygamy so long as none of the participants are forced. I think religious polygamy* (where the husband is allowed to have multiple wives but women lack the same right) as wrong, but only because it's blatantly unfair.

* I say religious because that seems to be the way Christian, Muslim and Hindu polygamy works.

polyandry is specifically one woman with multiple husbands

so she has several men who sit around and watch sports, won't give up the remote and refuse to ask for directions? lol

OH MY GOSH...now this is the most UNNATURAL thing I've ever heard of. One husband is enough...I can't imagine having multiples. With three teenage boys and one husband in the house....there's no way I'd want MORE men in the house.

Just whisper the word "bathroom" to any knowing female, and she'd get "it" in a real hurry.

As far as Washington goes, he left behind a huge 100 or so set of volumes behind so it's really easy to know what was on his mind. I recently read this:

Washington on Gays in the Military
We don't have to wonder what Washington thought about homosexuals in the service because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."


WWW Link

I wasn't condoning it. I was simply asking if he was consistent in his standards.

Really? A woman who regularly sleeps with more than one man is the most unnatural thing you've ever heard of? You really need to get out more. Many female 'friends' of professional football teams engage in this behaviour.

i can't stand things like "people who think its a choice, are quite frankly morons on the issue".
to any rational person, its obviously a choice.
i really don't have anything against gays, but it doesn't matter what you think in your head, or who you are attracted to, if you act on it, you've made a choice.
hard choice or the hardest choice. its still a choice.

Prove it. You're playing the rational head here. It doesn't matter if someone points out 100 people who shifted to heterosexuality after being "gay" during their lives, it is just assumed they weren't gay to begin with. You'd think someone as smart as you would see the twisted logic in this stance.

It's like someone saying that being, say, Californian is a predisposition. Sure, a lot of people move away from California after living there, but that doesn't prove its a choice, only that they weren't REALLY Californian. Oddly, when people start talking about discovering whatever physical attribute causes this lack of choice and "curing" it, then choice enters into the picture again...

It's really not difficult to test this and I don't know why it hasn't been tested. You can find out if a man could get off on sex with a man just by subjecting them to the porn test. If they get an erection from watching gay porn, they're gay or bisexual. If not, they're not. If they get an erection from watching straight porn, they're probably into women (this is difficult to prove cos straight porn by definition involves a man...).

For moralists to be right then every participant would need to get an erection in both instances. Why? Because the baseline of their argument is that it is a rational choice. For it to be a rational choice there must be a pay-off from both options. So that would mean that all those who call being gay a preference must themselves find men as equally attractive as women.

Strangely enough I've never heard someone who believes in preferences make that argument. I wonder why?

Come on. Somehow men father families before realizing they are gay. Some people consider themselves bi-sexual. Some people get erections watching animals screw and people go to the bathroom. So we invent types for them, too? What about the people that get erections doing other people harm? No, simply getting turned on doesn't prove anything.

I'm not going to be crass and ask your experience, but I know for a fact just grabbing any porno off the shelf isn't a guaranteed erection for me. A lot of it is just mundane and boring. Watching a closeup of some guy's saggy balls bouncing against some dried up catcher's mitt for 10 minutes isn't my idea of a turn on.

the ignorance continues...who are you to say that it is wrong for them to act on a natural biological need???

i grew up in a very conservative household (and that goes well beyond politics) and was taught that gay people don't want to marry (this is in the 70's when i started asking questions) and that they just hopped from bed to bed. i was taught all homosexuals were permiscuous sex addicts with no relationship interest whatsoever.

as i grew up and started playing music in public in my teenage years, i started hanging out with more "artsy" crowds than i was exposed to from my parents. i got to know many homosexual couples, both male and female. and i learned and observed 1st hand how some of these relationships were more stable and natural than some of the straight couples i knew.

yeah, there were still some "flamers" and some permiscuous folk, but the vast majority of homosexuals wanted exactly what straight people wanted. a stable, loving relationship. and many of em wanted to "make it official."

this wasn't a political statement. the issue wasn't even up for debate then. gay people were just trying not to be the victims of blatant violence against them. the issue of actually being accepted enough to attempt or asking to get married wouldn't come up for another decade in the political landscape.

i understand some people's resentment of gays. i grew up seeing the "mardi-gras on acid" style "gay pride" parades that the evening news would show. of course, they would always show the most outlandish, flamboyant "newsmakers." and like most people, i was not only shocked about what they were showing me, i was a little scared.

but as i grew up, and got to know some actual gay people, i learned and realized that like most other "10%'ers" those "flamers" garnered more attention and appeared to be larger in numbers than they actually deserved or were.

but the most obvious thing was that they weren't making any "choice." they were simply being who they were.

up until 1967, it was illegal in many states for an interracial couple to marry. states like alabama refused to change their state constitution until the year 2000. opponents of interracial marriage damned it as "unnatural." the law pre 67 was such that people thought that it was a "choice" to love a person of another race...and they disapproved of that choice. but in the end, reason won out over hatred and bigotry...eve nwhen it was masked in laws that appeared to prevent people from making those "unnatural choices."

You've got to be kidding? And this is considered a Scientific Test in your opinion? Some test. Too bad the Scientists haven't figured out exactly how simple this is huh?

Well what about a little baby boy who has errection when his diaper is changed? What does that mean?

What about the boys were were aroused by pedophiles? Were they gay as well? I know of one case where 7 boys in one family were abused by one Priest. Does that mean the whole family of boys were gay? Or were they "turned" gay by these same men by messing with their minds? It all starts with the brain. It all starts with the thoughts. That's the key. Not a porn flick.



No that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the reverse polygamy where a wife has more than one husband. Big difference. Selling one's body for an hour or two for income is NOT the same as taking multiple husbands. Geeeesh

you have completely missed the point here kfc.

according to this logic, pot should be legal as well, cause washington grew it. slavery would still be around, cause washington had them.

the statement i quote from washington in the article has to do with the progression of a society. washington saw that society would evolve, and more and more segments would clammer for their rights and such. washington wanted us to be on the forefront of that progressiveness and keep the door open to others who were looking for the same as they were.

in the 1700's, we were still burnin "witches" at the stake and using leeches as medicine.

I did?



He did?



Washington was also a man of God who believed the laws of God superceded the laws of man. It's hard for me to believe he'd be THAT progressive.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor… we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations…"
-- George Washington, Oct. 3, 1789

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
--President George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Lol, who you decide to marry IS a choice, Sean, and if you decide to marry someone of another race, that is a choice, too. Are you now trying to say that we are also predisposed to marry people of another race? I think you ought to think about that one a little harder.

I have no problem with people marrying someone from another race, but if you are trying to say that we are born to interracial marriage in the same way you're saying people are born gay I'm gonna laugh my ass off...

nice twist and spin. that was an example of where the courts defended minority rights.

yes he did...i went out and grabbed something to back it up (there is plenty out there)..i happened to copy something that lists him and 15 other famous people who did (including jefferson)...i know it's overkill, just thought you might find it interesting. (btw, "hemp" is another name for marijuana...it is the industrial term..."hemp" fields contain both male and female plants, people who grow today, usually weed out the male plants to reduce seeds and make bigger buds.)

1. SHAYKH AZ-ZAWAJI HAYDAR (c. 1150-1221)


Persian founder of the Haydari order of Sufis, he is credited with discovering hashish and cultivating hemp in his monastery in Khurasan. By his order, hemp was planted around his tomb, which is still visited by Sufi pilgrims.

2. JALAL-UD-DIN MUHAMMAD (1483-1530)


First Mogul emperor of India, he loved hashish sweetmeats and planted hemp near Delhi. His grandson Akbar the Great (1542-1605) expanded the empire to include Afghanistan and Bengal and systemized hemp and poppy cultivation throughout northern India.

3. GARCIA DA ORTA (c. 1490-1570)


Portugese physician in Goa, he grew marijuana and other medicines and discussed their use in his Cooloquies on the Simples and Drugs of India (1563). The third book printed in India, it was widely consulted by herbalists during the Age of Exploration.

4. FRANCOIS RABELAIS (1494?-1553)


French author of Gargantua and Pantagruel, he grew up on a hemp farm which his father had inherited. His intimate knowledge of hemp cultivation is revealed in the chapter on the herb Pantagruelion in book 3 of Pantagruel.

5. LEONHARD FUCHS (1501-1566)


German botanist, he grew marijuana and other drug plants and had his artists draw them from life for his book De Historia Stirpium (1542). Fuchs gave the plant its present botanical name, Cannabis sativa.

6. JAMES I (1566-1625)


Hoping to establish a colonial fiber source, the King of England allowed gardens for hemp and flax cultivation to be given to each Jamestown colonist in 1611; this was the first private property in Virginia. In 1619 the first representative government in the colonies, the Virginia General Assembly, required all householders having any hemp seed to plant it the next season. This was America's first marijuana law.

7. WILLIAM BYRD II (1674-1744)

In 1737 this Virginia planter, trying to collect bounties for hemp offered by the British government, sowed hemp on his 180,000-acre plantation called Westover. Byrd reported: "It thrives very well in this climate, but labour being much dearer than in Muscovey, as well as the freight, we can make no earnings of it."

8. CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

Swedish father of modern botany and inventor of the binomial classification system for plants and animals, in 1753 he subsumed all varieties of hemp under the name Cannabis sativa. Linnaeus raised marijuana on his windowsill while investigating plant sexuality in 1760.

9. GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732-1799)

This U.S. president imported hemp seeds from all over the world and planted them in his vineyard at Mt. Vernon from 1765 to 1796. He hoped to establish an American hemp industry able to compete with those of England, Russia and Italy.

10. THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826)

One of the most versatile U.S. presidents, he planted an acre of hemp at Monticello in 1811, wrote a pamphlet on hemp cultivation, and invented a power machine for breaking hemp in 1815.

11. HENRY CLAY (1777-1852)

U.S. senator from Kentucky, he got a bill passed in 1810 that required the navy to purchase American hemp products rather than imported ones. This established hemp as the foremost cash crop of Kentucky, a position it held until the Civil War.

12. SIR ROBERT CHRISTISON (1797-1882)

Scottish toxicologist and president of the British Medical Association, Dr. Christison cultivated marijuana in his father's botanical garden at the Edinburgh College of Physicians. His noted works on plant drugs are still consulted by modern pharmacologists.

13. THEODORE ROOSEVELT (1858-1919)

This U.S. president established a federal "poison farm" in Washington D.C., in 1904, near the site now occupied by the Pentagon. Fields of marijuana, opium, coca, and other drugs were planted so the U.S. wouldn't have to import them.

14. HENRY FORD (1863-1947)

Pioneer automobile manufacturer, he cultivated a marijuana crop for "experimental purposes," which he surrounded with a cyclone fence. Supposedly the plot was destroyed after his death, but his family later found the marijuana growing wild.

15. LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (1908-1973)

While U.S. president, he signed a bill establishing the federal marijuana farm at the University of Mississippi in July, 1968, as a research center for the botany, chemistry, and cultivation of the drug. This farm now supplies most of the marijuana used for official medical research in America.

16. TOMMY RETTIG (1941- )

Former child star of the TV series Lassie, Rettig was arrested in 1972 for growing marijuana on his ranch outside San Luis Obispo, Calif.

You sure? What you said was:

"the law pre 67 was such that people thought that it was a "choice" to love a person of another race...and they disapproved of that choice."

Seemed like you were saying that they thought it was a choice and that it wasn't. Sorry if it seemed like I was twisted something, it seemed twisted the way I found it. If you are saying that government can't limit our choices in life, I can give you bunches they cram down my throat every day.

I've been reminded on TV at least three times today that the state troopers are looking to catch me without my seatbelt on...

sc, you missed it.

i never said i thought it was a wrong choice, just that it was a choice.

having sex with someone the same gender as you is not a natural biological need.
you've heard it all before, but the reason for having sex, biologically, is procreation. blah, blah.

i would think that gay being a choice would be a better seller for the thing. why take pride in something that just happened to you.
make a choice, and stand behind the decision. that is something to be proud of.
if you were born gay, i don't get the parades.

gay groups, who have an agenda of making gay seem as normal as possible,(also, don't confuse gays groups with all gay people, any more than you should confuse al sharpton and all black people.)think being born gay makes it seems more legit. i have no proof of that, just a feeling i get.

another thing i have noticed about discussing these things with gay people, or gay defenders, is that it always seems to come back to somehow being afraid or confused by gay people. one of my family members is gay, and one of the members of my band is gay, and in a civil union with their long time partner. one of the best friends i ever had, and who i miss very much, was gay. i am not scared of gay people. i am not confused.

all i'm saying, is that "being yourself" or not, everything you do or don't do is a choice. it's a cop-out to try and lay the responsibility for anything you do on anything but your own beautiful free will.