Everything BUT marriage

[Snorri1234]

a. You're generalizing 'leftists' to everyone arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, which very few (if any) people in this thread currently are certified 'leftists'.

I guarantee you that most of the people on this website that support same sex marriage voted for Barack Obama or are liberal Democrats. If they're not, then they usually are European socialists. There are very few exceptions.

Relevance? Seems like name-calling and labeling. Usually used when there is no real argument. If you have a real argument... use it, don't resort to stereotypes which are generally at least as wrong as often as they are correct.

Name-calling? Labeling? No real argument?

In bradley's post?!

IT CAN'T BE!

[thegreekdog]

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

I have not once stated a moral opposition to polygamy.

a. I am supporting same-sex marriage, that's where the argument lies, polygamy is not currently relevant.

b. Many legal difficulties are presented with regards to polygamy that have nothing to do with morals.

Polygamy is relevant because the United States Supreme Court has deemed (albeit in the early 20th century) that the dangers of polygamy (having nothing to do with child abuse or consent by the way) outweigh the religious freedom of Mormons. In other words, the Supreme Court took a moral stand to say that laws against polygamy were constitutional with respect to the freedom of religion clause.

Gay marriage is, arguably, not covered by the Constitution (maybe right to privacy, maybe contracts, maybe free speech, I don't know). Anyway, many people find polygamy to be morally outrageous (mostly because of your b. and consent issues), much as some people find gay marriage to be morally outrageous. I find this to be hypocritical (although, at least three people have acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with consenting polygamy).

Regarding your b. above, I would say that there are no legal difficulties with polygamy that do not also exist with homosexuality or heterosexuality. In other words, if I have homosexual relations with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I have heterosexual sex with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I marry three people under the age of consent, I go to jail.

[Timminz]

Fuck you PLAYER! Hatred is the answer!

Tim why are you so upset that you would misquote me? Is it because I don't believe that you and your "significant other" should be allowed to marry? Calm down, you will get what you desire in time I'm sure.

I guess you've never heard of paraphrasing. Pardon me for pointing out your obvious hatred towards the side of yourself you fear the most. Jesus forgives me. Maybe someday, with some help, you can be more like him.

I think this is the best post Jay has ever made. It, very clearly, shows that he bases his arguments on irrelevant, biased, false, and/or fearful/hateful ideas.

Congrats Jay. You are a shinning example of what is wrong with your country.

[Snorri1234]

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

I have not once stated a moral opposition to polygamy.

a. I am supporting same-sex marriage, that's where the argument lies, polygamy is not currently relevant.

b. Many legal difficulties are presented with regards to polygamy that have nothing to do with morals.

Polygamy is relevant because the United States Supreme Court has deemed (albeit in the early 20th century) that the dangers of polygamy (having nothing to do with child abuse or consent by the way) outweigh the religious freedom of Mormons. In other words, the Supreme Court took a moral stand to say that laws against polygamy were constitutional with respect to the freedom of religion clause.

Did they really take a moral stance? what were the "dangers" cited by the Supreme court?

Regarding your b. above, I would say that there are no legal difficulties with polygamy that do not also exist with homosexuality or heterosexuality. In other words, if I have homosexual relations with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I have heterosexual sex with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I marry three people under the age of consent, I go to jail.

Those are actually not the legal problems lucy is referring to.

[thegreekdog]

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

I have not once stated a moral opposition to polygamy.

a. I am supporting same-sex marriage, that's where the argument lies, polygamy is not currently relevant.

b. Many legal difficulties are presented with regards to polygamy that have nothing to do with morals.

Polygamy is relevant because the United States Supreme Court has deemed (albeit in the early 20th century) that the dangers of polygamy (having nothing to do with child abuse or consent by the way) outweigh the religious freedom of Mormons. In other words, the Supreme Court took a moral stand to say that laws against polygamy were constitutional with respect to the freedom of religion clause.

Did they really take a moral stance? what were the "dangers" cited by the Supreme court?

They did. I'm trying to find the case now.

[thegreekdog]

Reynolds v. U.S.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=145

[spurgistan]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

[got tonkaed]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

to be honest, given my lack of a heart the most pressing issue for me regarding multiple spouses would appear to be taxation issues.

[Snorri1234]

Reynolds v. U.S.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=145

That's not really a moral stance though I'd say. In the same way that prosecuting someone for murder when the murderer claims it was his religious duty is not a moral stance.

"The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action." -This is btw solely referring to using religious duty as a defense. It's not about polygamy but more about "but my religion!..." being a bad argument.

That's why I asked for the "dangers" cited by the Supreme Court. I want to know what the specific reasons for outlawing polygamy are.

[King_Herpes]

Why are so many people afraid of gay marriage?

Oh cripes, how many times are you people actually going to pull out this namby pamby safe card?

Homophobia is a full on fallacy fabricated for the fruity phallic feelings of felonious flute fiddlers....

[spurgistan]

Why are so many people afraid of gay marriage?

Oh cripes, how many times are you people actually going to pull out this namby pamby safe card?

Homophobia is a full on fallacy fabricated for the fruity phallic feelings of felonious flute fiddlers....

Fallacious!

[Snorri1234]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

to be honest, given my lack of a heart the most pressing issue for me regarding multiple spouses would appear to be taxation issues.

And quite a bunch of other legal problems too with regards to divorce, welfare and so on. That's why I don't really care about the issue of whether polygamy should also be given legal status when gay-marriage is because there are inherent problems in it that require a lot of time to fix.

[spurgistan]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

to be honest, given my lack of a heart the most pressing issue for me regarding multiple spouses would appear to be taxation issues.

And quite a bunch of other legal problems too with regards to divorce, welfare and so on. That's why I don't really care about the issue of whether polygamy should also be given legal status when gay-marriage is because there are inherent problems in it that require a lot of time to fix.

I may be willing to revisit my earlier statement. The fact is, we have a legal framework for how marriage between two people works. The fact that we're dealing with marriages of the same gender doesn't need to change the language in this legal framework at all. Whereas, if suddenly we're dealing with people marrying goats, that would take a major rewrite of our legal code concerning taxes, visitation rights, etc. So, while it is possible to expand the definition of "the person whom I can legally marry without screwing with the law", the question of how many people I can marry is fundamentally different.

[Woodruff]

To Woodruff (I couuldn't help myself... seriously, I have a problem... help me):

You and me both, dude. You and me both...<sigh>

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages. THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT SO PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY, DO NOT ATTACK ME ON THIS.

I'm not attacking YOU, but I will attack that argument. How pray tell does permitting homosexual marriage harm heterosexual marriages? I'm quite certain that my marriage will not be in any jeopardy at all simply because homosexual marriage is legalized. I'm quite certain I don't even understand how it possibly COULD be.

As to the argument regarding the individuals, God gives us freedom of action for a reason. If nobody is being harmed (homosexuality being a "crime of no harm", then let God judge them when the proper time comes. It's his job, not the Catholics'.

(2) I am not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty. In any event, I dropped the bestiality thing because I'm wrong.
(3) Bestiality and child abuse are out. I'm not mentioning them any more.

Fair enough.

(4) Let me rephrase this one - if you argue that polygamy is morally wrong (not you Woodruff, others, including the US Supreme Court), it is not okay for you to blast someone who thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. You must be consistent with this, in my opinion.

I agree completely.

(5) You have not disrespected people who are against gay marriage. Others have. Not every post I type out is directed towards you.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, DAMMIT! (I do make that presumption when you're responding TO ME and use the term "you" though...I think it's a reasonable misunderstanding.)

To Woodruff (I couuldn't help myself... seriously, I have a problem... help me):

(1) Catholics would argue that persons engaging in homosexual relations are committing a sin and thus harming themselves. Further, Catholics would argue that permitting homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriages. THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT SO PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY, DO NOT ATTACK ME ON THIS.

If it isn't your position, don't use it as an argument, to be on the safe side, don't even mention it but let someone who actually thinks it's valid use it.

I tend to disagree with that stance...here's why. One of the things I actually enjoy doing is "putting myself in that place". I feel it very much strengthens my own views about what is right and what is wrong. By becoming the "devil's advocate", I find that I end up understanding the issue far better. As well, many times by doing this, I will find that I can explain a differing perspective better than those that even agree with the stance but perhaps don't explain themselves very clearly. Plus, I'm an arrogant know-it-all. Mostly that last thing.

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

I'll be damned...I'd never heard of polyandry...I have always assumed that polygamy was a "gender neutral" term for having more than one spouse. I HAVE LEARNED!

[PLAYER57832]

Here we have a person who is pro gay marriage who is also anti-polygamy because he/she has a moral problem with it.

I have not once stated a moral opposition to polygamy.

a. I am supporting same-sex marriage, that's where the argument lies, polygamy is not currently relevant.

b. Many legal difficulties are presented with regards to polygamy that have nothing to do with morals.

Polygamy is relevant because the United States Supreme Court has deemed (albeit in the early 20th century) that the dangers of polygamy (having nothing to do with child abuse or consent by the way) outweigh the religious freedom of Mormons. In other words, the Supreme Court took a moral stand to say that laws against polygamy were constitutional with respect to the freedom of religion clause.

The date is the most significant part here in these arguments. At this time, even married heterosexuals could be prosecuted for er .. other than the "missionary position" in some areas, women did not have full rights (techincally perhaps, but not in reality), etc.

In other words, the Supreme Court did take various moral positions, did consider such things a matter of general safety, if you will, or just a societal level of right and wrong. Much of that has since been reversed or corrected. Polygamy has not been taken up again, for a lot of reasons. I agree that the biggest reason is that it does face more opposition than homosexuality.

However, I still say the arguments I put forth above are valid. Polygamy is not the same as homosexuality when it comes to state concerns or even safety. (I mean the children of those unions mostly, not underage marriages which are just a different thing).

[Gay marriage is, arguably, not covered by the Constitution (maybe right to privacy, maybe contracts, maybe free speech, I don't know). Anyway, many people find polygamy to be morally outrageous (mostly because of your b. and consent issues), much as some people find gay marriage to be morally outrageous. I find this to be hypocritical (although, at least three people have acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with consenting polygamy).

The biggest problem with homosexuality is that it is harder to have children. In societies that need, heavily "demand" more children, it can be a "threat". It also can be said to lead to further separation of the sexes. Men and women are different, we are united in marriage.

The issues with polygamy have more to do with power. Polygamist societies are, by necessity, very unbalanced power societies. If one man can have multiple women, then there are going to be a lot more young men without any women. This causes inherent problems in a society. It leads to more conflict, war, etc.

In the balance, in our modern world, most of the problems with homosexuality are either no longer real issues or just don't matter to people any more. The polygamist issues absolutely do matter and probably will throughout humanity. As long as polygamy is confined to a few small groups, it is not a big problem, except, perhaps for people within those groups. However, unlike homosexuality, which, should it spread, presents no inherent threat to society, Polygamy does present a clear and inherent danger.

Regarding your b. above, I would say that there are no legal difficulties with polygamy that do not also exist with homosexuality or heterosexuality. In other words, if I have homosexual relations with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I have heterosexual sex with a person under the age of consent, I go to jail. If I marry three people under the age of consent, I go to jail.

Agreed, the topic is adult consentual relations. Kids, other non-consentual sex are something else entirely.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

I'll be damned...I'd never heard of polyandry...I have always assumed that polygamy was a "gender neutral" term for having more than one spouse. I HAVE LEARNED!

One more small bit of information to add to your know-it-all brain.

[BigBallinStalin]

Men and women are different, we are united in marriage.

What exactly do you mean by this? Because in many ways, there really aren't any differences between the marriage/union of a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple--aside from the obvious discrimination and hate.

The issues with polygamy have more to do with power. Polygamist societies are, by necessity, very unbalanced power societies. If one man can have multiple women, then there are going to be a lot more young men without any women. This causes inherent problems in a society. It leads to more conflict, war, etc.

By allowing polygamy to become legal, our society wouldn't turn into a polygamist one, so I highly doubt we'd see more conflicts and wars over this issue within our own country.

In the balance, in our modern world, most of the problems with homosexuality are either no longer real issues or just don't matter to people any more. The polygamist issues absolutely do matter and probably will throughout humanity. As long as polygamy is confined to a few small groups, it is not a big problem, except, perhaps for people within those groups. However, unlike homosexuality, which, should it spread, presents no inherent threat to society, Polygamy does present a clear and inherent danger.

Or perhaps a Clear and Present Danger?

But seriously, I highly doubt that polygamy would spread and cause all these terrible problems to the degree that you think it will. If a polygamist household commits any crimes, they should be dealt with properly by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Besides, I don't think most people would find polygamy too attractive. There are already very loose couples that have multiple girlfriends or boyfriends--which both know about, but are fine with. Polygamy sounds unattractive because it's legally binding. Who the hell would want to deal with that headache? Not many. But this is all speculation... In my opinion, I don't think we'd see a substantial enough rise in polygamists to negatively affect much of a society to a large degree.

[PLAYER57832]

Men and women are different, we are united in marriage.

What exactly do you mean by this? Because in many ways, there really aren't any differences between the marriage/union of a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple--aside from the obvious discrimination and hate.

First, I was talking the historical perspective, not saying this is reason to deny homosexual unions legal status.

It is biologic fact that men and women are fundamentally different. Beyond that, I believe that men and women are intended to be together. I believe uniting and taking advantages of our differences are our greatest strengths as human beings. I don't see homosexuality as ever being pervasive. However, if it ever were, it would cause some pretty fundamental problems in our society. That said, when we, as human beings try to draw these artificial lines for anything but "curiousity" or such. we err. You will find at least as many exceptions to various stereotypes as people who follow them. Fifty years ago, men who cooked were either in the army, in a restaurant, outdoors or and anomoly (see already the exceptions ... lol) Now, I know few men who don't cook. Etc. (just to pick a purely superficial issue)

The issues with polygamy have more to do with power. Polygamist societies are, by necessity, very unbalanced power societies. If one man can have multiple women, then there are going to be a lot more young men without any women. This causes inherent problems in a society. It leads to more conflict, war, etc.

By allowing polygamy to become legal, our society wouldn't turn into a polygamist one, so I highly doubt we'd see more conflicts and wars over this issue within our own country.

Its basic math. There is a limit to the number of kids any one woman can have. There is almost no limit to the number of children a man can have. I have heard estimates that Brigham Young, for example had around 200 children.

A much higher percentage of those kids will grow up believing polygamy is OK. So... it will spread unless there are other constraints.

In the balance, in our modern world, most of the problems with homosexuality are either no longer real issues or just don't matter to people any more. The polygamist issues absolutely do matter and probably will throughout humanity. As long as polygamy is confined to a few small groups, it is not a big problem, except, perhaps for people within those groups. However, unlike homosexuality, which, should it spread, presents no inherent threat to society, Polygamy does present a clear and inherent danger.

Or perhaps a Clear and Present Danger?

But seriously, I highly doubt that polygamy would spread and cause all these terrible problems to the degree that you think it will. If a polygamist household commits any crimes, they should be dealt with properly by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Besides, I don't think most people would find polygamy too attractive. There are already very loose couples that have multiple girlfriends or boyfriends--which both know about, but are fine with. Polygamy sounds unattractive because it's legally binding. Who the hell would want to deal with that headache? Not many. But this is all speculation... In my opinion, I don't think we'd see a substantial enough rise in polygamists to negatively affect much of a society to a large degree.

I am not trying to predict the future. I am just saying that there are legitimate reasons why polygamy should be considered apart from homosexuality. That's all.

As I have already said, anytime someone "sleeps around", it is, in a sense "polygamy". So, we already have it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Men and women are different, we are united in marriage.

What exactly do you mean by this? Because in many ways, there really aren't any differences between the marriage/union of a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple--aside from the obvious discrimination and hate.

First, I was talking the historical perspective, not saying this is reason to deny homosexual unions legal status.

It is biologic fact that men and women are fundamentally different. Beyond that, I believe that men and women are intended to be together. I believe uniting and taking advantages of our differences are our greatest strengths as human beings. I don't see homosexuality as ever being pervasive. However, if it ever were, it would cause some pretty fundamental problems in our society. That said, when we, as human beings try to draw these artificial lines for anything but "curiousity" or such. we err. You will find at least as many exceptions to various stereotypes as people who follow them. Fifty years ago, men who cooked were either in the army, in a restaurant, outdoors or and anomoly (see already the exceptions ... lol) Now, I know few men who don't cook. Etc. (just to pick a purely superficial issue)

Sure, it's a biological FACT that men and women are different, but as soon as we mention hermaphrodites or full-fledged women with XY chromosomes, then MY GOD WHAT'S GOIGN ON HERE!@$$@! People need to stop perceiving homosexuals and heterosexuals as an "either this or a that" idea--human beings are much more complex than the mere labels placed upon them. There's many people who are in-between, or bisexual. When one simply labels something as one thing, then one completely covers the many complexities within it with just a single idea. Let's not forget about the gender component. Men, women, and those few in between are intended to be with whomever they please. Differences from one another are not solely based on biological sex; the differences are based on one's gender as well as experiences,personality, behavior, etc. When people starting talking about homosexuality, they tend to forget also about the similarities between these types of relationships and heterosexual ones. Aside from the biological difference, there's hardly any difference at all (except of course the external negativity from the nasty buggers out there, and the impossibility of a guy giving birth to a child, and other obvious differences).

If homosexuality were to be pervasive in our society, there would be no problems; however, that would take a very long time to happen. If the negative social consequences of dating another of the same sex were to be nonexistent, you'd certainly see a lot more people dating the same sexes. For the above to happen on a large scale, we would have to have a society that is very open-minded and understanding, and that would not at all a problem.

The issues with polygamy have more to do with power. Polygamist societies are, by necessity, very unbalanced power societies. If one man can have multiple women, then there are going to be a lot more young men without any women. This causes inherent problems in a society. It leads to more conflict, war, etc.

By allowing polygamy to become legal, our society wouldn't turn into a polygamist one, so I highly doubt we'd see more conflicts and wars over this issue within our own country.

Its basic math. There is a limit to the number of kids any one woman can have. There is almost no limit to the number of children a man can have. I have heard estimates that Brigham Young, for example had around 200 children.

A much higher percentage of those kids will grow up believing polygamy is OK. So... it will spread unless there are other constraints.

OR, those kids will think, "God damn, it's such headache having so many wives, and I for sure am not going to do what my father did." But if they do the same as their father, then so be it. Besides, I'd really find it hard to believe that if the gates were lifted, then we'd see a large percentage of the population and also later generations engaging it. I don't think we'd see a high rate of increase, or even a rate that would have a large significance. Either way, it's fine. As long as both the man and woman agree, then it's fine. And if another wife has an issue with his marrying another woman, then she will have the legal option available. They'll be laws dealing with whatever problem may internally arise from polygamy. In my opinion, the government really shouldn't be dictating how we live our lives in this regard. It's a religious and a two-sided moral issue that shouldn't be up to the decision of the government, nor should some other group be allowed to impose their version of morality/religion upon another group in this situation.

This is something that should be allowed to run its course and later corrected if it causes any serious problems like a WAARR!!--which I highly doubt. Besides, I don't see many women agreeing to being and also remaining in a polygamist relationship, so I seriously doubt there will be an shortage of available women in a country where polygamy is acceptable.

[MeDeFe]

I checked up on the terminology. "Polygamy" means that one person has several spouses, not that one man has several wives. That's called "polygyny".

Personally I think all partners of a polygamic marriage would have to be married to each other. That could also resolve some legal problems regarding divorces and so forth.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fuck you PLAYER! Hatred is the answer!

Tim why are you so upset that you would misquote me? Is it because I don't believe that you and your "significant other" should be allowed to marry? Calm down, you will get what you desire in time I'm sure.

So your response to people pointing out your ignorant and backwards views is ad hominem attacks?


Awesome.

I thought that his response to the post was appropriate.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=100828

Like Jay or not, or even agree with him or not; he is still one of the most respectful poster here. I have a feeling that his internet identity is pretty consistent with his real life person. That is, he respects his elders, and his peers/strangers. Until he finds out that they act like dumb asses at least. I don't think that any of us would F with him if we ever actually met him...

[bradleybadly]

That's a guarantee that I feel very comfortable in thinking it holds no water at all. I am certainly no liberal Democrat, though I did vote for Barack Obama (John McCain's voting record against military veterans is reprehensible). I'm certainly no European, though I did enjoy my time stationed in Germany.

What part of most people on this website don't you understand? Besides, you admit that you voted for Barack Obama.

Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes.

And your side tries to pretend like there is no slippery slope.

Those who want to marry children? It's ridiculous that you believe this belongs in the same discussion, but it does show the depth of desperation you're feeling in trying to persuade the argument in your preferred direction. Unfortunately for you, it has the opposite effect, as rational folks recognize it for what it is.

Who are you to say that this expression of love between adults and children isn't genuine? They have just as much of a right to express their legitimate affections towards each other as homosexuals. Let them marry and stop being a bigot.

So THAT'S why you don't use rational arguments - you just want a meltdown. I was wondering why you were doing that.

I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does. If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships? If it's based on ending discrimination then why aren't other groups of people continually stigmatized while homosexuals get a free pass? Liberals pick and choose which groups they support and get upset when their supposed rationale is scrutinized.

But the meltdowns are pretty cool to watch.

[spurgistan]

I'd like to apologize for conflating polygamy and polygyny. My sincerest apologies to all I may have led astray.

[Woodruff]

I'd probably be OK with consenting polygamy if polyandry was also socially acceptable. Saying men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands does smack of sexual discrimination.

I'll be damned...I'd never heard of polyandry...I have always assumed that polygamy was a "gender neutral" term for having more than one spouse. I HAVE LEARNED!

One more small bit of information to add to your know-it-all brain.

See...NOW I know everything. I only THOUGHT I knew everything before, but now I know I do. <laughing out loud>

I checked up on the terminology. "Polygamy" means that one person has several spouses, not that one man has several wives. That's called "polygyny".

Personally I think all partners of a polygamic marriage would have to be married to each other. That could also resolve some legal problems regarding divorces and so forth.

Ah ha! So I was wrong...I knew I was right. Waitaminute...heh.

Now, I know few men who don't cook.

I once burned hot dogs. While boiling them. I'm not kidding...and yeah, my wife keeps me well away from the kitchen. <grin>

[pimpdave]