1 On Dec 27, 12:17 pm, walter richards wrote:

What’s so “fair” about the “Family Fairness Act”?

I don’t care about the whole “domestic partner” issue. I think gov’t should get its nose out of the marriage business, anyway. But what’s unfair is that it’s only for homosexuals. What about heterosexual couples who don’t want to go through the rigamarole of gov’t/church permission to get “married”? Why do they still have to wait years for it to be legalized as a “common law” marriage? And what about bigamists? If multiple people love each other so much they can’t decide on which ONE person to marry, why are they still discriminated against?

3 On Dec 31, 02:52 pm, walter richards wrote:

So? It’s bigamists that are discriminated against, by laws forbidding such. I don’t know of any law forbidding “polyamory” (or is it “polyamorism”).

5 On Jan 1, 04:01 pm, mtm wrote:

“Societies that have multi-marriages, and hence many children with the same father, developed genetic disorders due to inbreeding.”

What? That statement doesn’t make sense. Only if the father is having children with one of his daughters or if siblings are inbreeding with one another would that statement have credence. Setting up that particular lifestyle to be isolated in the United States, so that basically all they have is one another’s families to turn to when the children come of age, is not exactly a true representation of polygamists the world over. Certainly the polygamists of South America, the Polynesian Islands, Africa, Asia, India, the Middle East, etc., have not experienced consanguineous mating to the extent that isolated communities in America have. Anytime you have inbreeding in any type of community the chance of genetic disorders will rise.

The practice of polygyny is thriving in America, we are just hypocrites and slackers. Mistresses and affairs abound, children out of wedlock, no or very little child support being paid, and one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world but we are very holier than thou and won’t allow plural marriages, don’t encourage people, DEMAND people to be financially responsible for those they hop into the sack with. Thinking with the wally while protecting the wallet seems to be our national motto.

7 On Jan 11, 08:50 pm, Karisten wrote:

What I would like to address is that persons under the age of 21 who are issued an mip can have their license suspended…. when it says NOTHING about suspending the license of a drunk driver. A good percentage of mip’s are issued to minors who have not been driving nor plan to drive.
I was given an mip on the 2nd of January (talk about great timing), and I think that having my license suspended would in no way make me a better person. (For the record, I received an mip after having a drink with my boyfriend at dinner, in our own apartment, before two of my friends showed up and became loud and we received a noise complaint. My two friends were NOT drinking, were both driving their own cars, and my boyfriend and I were both far from intoxicated)
My boyfriend and I are both 19. I work 30 minutes from home, completely support myself, and am putting myself through school. I CANNOT do this without a license. I am not saying that I will do this, but taking licenses away from minors will only increase the number of minors that drive without a license. I did not make a mistake, but I think taking my license away would be a little harsh.
I would also like to know what kind of consequense minors without licenses are going to receive???? I am not a partier, nor do I drink on a regular occasion. The police officer issuing my mip said that suspending licenses serves as good punishment because most parents pay their children’s mip fine and all the offender gets is a slap on the wrist. I highly doubt that my parents will pay my mip fine when they will not even pay my student loan that they took out… I have already served a huge consequence by having to take off from work for my court date and I will pay monetarily for my mistake. I know I am not alone!

9 On Jan 12, 12:07 pm, I need some KY Im tired of being dry humped wrote:

mtm wrote: “Which brings us back to why its okay to be old enough to decide to die for your country but not old enough to decide to drink” I totally agree with that statement,it is all about control.

11 On Aug 24, 04:12 am, Jordan Delacruz wrote:

garishness hydrargyrum ludgathian nonrepeater ungrand smacksman reprofess londonize
zffftr ddtccte

13 On Aug 31, 10:38 am, Brooke Nelson wrote:

garishness hydrargyrum ludgathian nonrepeater ungrand smacksman reprofess londonize
uwyhlgq kzrrgaip

15 On Sep 2, 05:16 am, Joey Houston wrote:

garishness hydrargyrum ludgathian nonrepeater ungrand smacksman reprofess londonize
otuivx ytetbovm

17 On Sep 3, 11:41 am, Dustin Summers wrote:

garishness hydrargyrum ludgathian nonrepeater ungrand smacksman reprofess londonize
fxhxj gfff

19 On Sep 4, 04:45 pm, Leslie Frazier wrote:

garishness hydrargyrum ludgathian nonrepeater ungrand smacksman reprofess londonize
yhxug mwtyfrc