# Is banning same-sex marriage fair?



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why?  Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring _fair ain't got nothin' to do with it_ may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.


----------



## Madeline (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold, dear, if we are to ignore constitutional, legal, rights-based discussions in addressing the Op....perhaps you can tell me what is left?

Applying the "all I need to know I learned in kindergarten" standard...no, it is not fair to deny the status of married people to gays.  There is no rational basis for it, no one else's rights are impaired, and it hurts them.

Sorry, I said "rights".  I can't get any closer to what you may want here.


----------



## Sherry (Aug 6, 2010)

I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...


All the debate is about a state's position on same sex marriage.  What churches want to do about sanctifying same sex marriage is up to the governing body of that church, not the government.

That being said, once we accept what marriage is in the eyes of the state, we would most certainly have to agree that it is not fair to deny same sex couples the protections and benefits of marriage.

The state sees marriage as a contract.  The state even has special courts to dissolve that contract.  If a contract affords the parties entering that contract certain benefits and rights, why would it be 'fair' to deny all of the citizens of a state the access to those benefits and rights?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 6, 2010)

No. No one should ever be able to tell another person who they should marry.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.



As a single person, I would disagree.  The benefits of marriage include, but are not limited to, access to a spouse's health care benefits.  I should not be allowed to abuse my health care provider by enrolling a live-in girlfriend.  Another benefit of marriage is a tax-free assumption of property upon the death of a spouse.  When two folks are married and one dies, the property transfer to the surviving spouse is seamless.  A single person's estate could wind up in probate court for months or years if they die without a valid will.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 6, 2010)

Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...

Does this mean two heterosexual men or women can marry?


----------



## Modbert (Aug 6, 2010)

hjmick said:


> Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...
> 
> *Does this mean two heterosexual men *or women can marry?



Bromance.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.
> ...



Why should a significant other be denied health care benefits ? If you are aware of estate laws get a valid will. A much cleaner way of transferring property than getting married.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

hjmick said:


> Is it "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" we're talking about? Personally, I'm not bothered by "gay marriage," there are bigger things to worry about, in my opinion. Now, if we're defining it simply as "same sex marriage," I ask you...
> 
> Does this mean two heterosexual men or women can marry?



Sure-----anything to get the bennies.


----------



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Not any more unfair than it is to deny a single person all the rights and benfits that the state gives to married people.



such as?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



When they passed civil unions here, it included everyone. I think one of the reasons it passed was the 60+ crowd.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 6, 2010)

# The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
# Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
FactCheck.org: What Is a Civil Union?


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


A 'significant other' has no legal standing.  A marriage contract results in the creation of a new legal entity.

While it may be argued that a same sex couple may enjoy all the protections and benefits of marriage by jumping through all manner of legal hoops, a heterosexual couple can enjoy these benefits and protections by getting married.  Marriage contracts establish a new legal entity.  The protections of this contract should not be obstructed simply because the parties willing to establish this contract are of the same sex.


----------



## Jos (Aug 6, 2010)

Marriage is a contract between two people
Personaly I think the contract should be for a year, renewable by consent
Divorce lawyers wont like it


----------



## Madeline (Aug 6, 2010)

The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married.  For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property.  If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.  

I could go on and on.  Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married.  For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property.  If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.
> 
> I could go on and on.  *Point is, society at large has a need for formalized, ascertainable relationships between members of a family, especially partners in a marriage*.


Not only that, but I think everyone could agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution with roots deep in social history.

What great societal good can come from denying the stability of marriage to those who desire it?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Should the benefits that marriage NOW entitle people to be obstructed by anything at all ?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The existence or not of a valid marriage affects the rights of persons other than the two who are married.  For example, if a piece of real estate was taken as tenants by the entireties and the couple who bought it was not, in fact, legally married and one dies, the children of that decedent might have a valid claim to a portion of the property.  If I own an insurance company and you wish to enroll a "significant other", I need more proof of the relationship's beginning date and ending date than a "I took them off my facebook friends list" would provide.
> ...



anyone---any --age---no restrictions ?


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


No.  As with any other valid legal contract, *both* parties must be of the age of majority.  And, since it's marriage, any blood relatives should be excluded because legally, a new entity is being established.  There are other ties established by blood relationships.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



entity schmentity------you're getting all legal again. Why can't Joe blow marry his cousin ? ( let's say they have no interest in having sex or children ) Is it fair ?


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Because there are already legal ties established by Joe's relationship with his cousin.  Estates are usually settled by blood relationships.

And it's the legality of the whole marriage thing that makes discussion of same sex marriage pertinent.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



We're not discussing legality--we are discussing "fairness". How is it right to deny anyone the right to enter into a contract because they love that person and they want to share the benefits provided by the state sanctioned contract ?


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


It isn't.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



How come the whole benefit package that the state confers along with marriage isn't challenged for everyone ? This is unfair to way more people than just the gay community.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2010)

First they wanted to marry *******, now they want to marry faggots- soon they'll demand we let them marry the dog!


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2010)

Sherry said:


> I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.




We could just kill everyone and be done with it...


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



I always thought that went without saying.

I forget there are people as stupid as dilloduck


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.


Like ejaculating into dilloduck's coffee, since we're asking stupid questions in this thread?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.
> ...



Seems only fair-----as long as everyone gets to do it.


(hold it----no fair----women can't do that--no one should be able to)


----------



## Sherry (Aug 6, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > I think it depends on if a person views it as two people being joined under God. In that case, couples would find a church who supported that, but would some then complain about the churches who don't?? I used to think that if we had civil unions for legality purposes, and marriages for religious institutions, then everyone would be happy. Now I think people from both sides would complain no matter what.
> ...



Well that's a profound solution.


----------



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

So far not one single post for fair.

It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority.  Yet they support it anyway.

Interesting.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Sherry said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



probably easier than getting the entire religious world to change.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> So far not one single post for fair.
> 
> It appears that even those who support bans on same-sex marriage acknowledge that they support weilding majority power to impose unfair restrictions on the minority.  Yet they support it anyway.
> 
> Interesting.



It's not fair for anyone to tell anyone what they can or cannot do


----------



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > So far not one single post for fair.
> ...



So now you're implying that telling people they can't commit murder or robbery isn't fair???





Seriously dude, quit while you're...


oh wait, nevermind.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Female ejaculation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



but they passionately want to !


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



But it is not the "entire religious world" that objects. It is the most powerful, organized, and most vocal among them. There are Christian and Jewish churches that support gender equality in marriage, and some that would perform the ceremony if it came with a valid license from the state. How does (and I know I'm not supposed to here, sorry Mani) this preference for the wants of powerful church lobbies not fly in the face of establishment?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



sweet--bring it on


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Everyone should be able to do anything that makes them feel good.



Why thank you.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



because there are poweful union lobbies. The are powerful racist lobbies. There are powerful corporate lobbies etc etc


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



It's not the entire religous world that objects, I agree.  Opposition to marriage equality comes from the LDS in Utah, the RCC, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Coral Ridge Ministeries, and a number of other 'megachurches'.

Missionaries of hate: American Architects of Uganda's anti-gay bill
http://glaadblog.org/2010/05/24/missionaries-of-hate-american-architects-of-ugandas-anti-gay-bill/


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



It is their right to do so.


----------



## Madeline (Aug 6, 2010)

Perhaps, but it is not their right to claim they represent most christians or most Americans.  They don't have a right to lie.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Perhaps, but it is not their right to claim they represent most christians or most Americans.  They don't have a right to lie.



No right to lie? Now you are really heading into absurdoland. Of course they have a right to lie.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



And it's my right to oppose them.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...



It's fair in the respect that NO one gets everything they want. How many people in this world have accepted that fact already and moved on ?  Victimhood is a pitiful way to spend one's life.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> ...



A victim would be someone who accepted second class status.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I know---totally unable to sacrifice lower order freedoms for higher order freedoms. You prefer to piss and moan about people who think differently than you instead of enjoying what you have.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



no--a victim is convinced they should have everything they want and when they don't they blame others.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I am happy that my marriage continues to be legal.  I will advocate for marriage equality to be the law of the land.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


I enjoy being married.  I'd like to stay legal.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



And that statement can be turned right back to those who are apparently not enjoying what they have, and instead focus on denying others the enjoyment of same.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I don't think equal protection under the law is so much to demand. Would you settle for less? Why should any one else?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



dilloduck likes to piss and moan about gays and lesbians interest in marriage equality.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The question was, how does acquiescence to these powerful churches not fly in the face of establishment? There is supposed to be no preference to one religion (or sect, etc) in the making of our laws, or protection of those laws.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I think he just likes to pick a point and argue it. Clearly we disagree on this one. Could be an interesting pissing match though.


----------



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




The fact remains that it's fair to restrict passions that involve imposing said passion upon a non-consenting person, such as in the murder example.

No such element is present in same-sex marriage.

But at least we agree that banning same-sex marriage isn't fair.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



unfortunately it's just one of a million things in life that aren't fair-----fortunately there are also a million ways to get past it and live a perfectly contented life.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




But a "perfectly contented" life, for some, involves making it easier for others who, for whatever reasons, cannot "get past" or get over, through, around, or under to live with the same ease of (or even somewhat easier) use those of us who can take for granted. Those committed to social and economic justice use advocacy to "get past" life's inequities, for ourselves, others, our family, friends, or progeny. I would like to do a couple things before I die to make the world a better place for my taking up space in it, even if they are just little or undervalued things.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I'd love to make it easier for them myself. It's why I encourage them to quit wasting time by using the "word" marriage. Call it anything else and the resistance will dwindle to next to nothing.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



so let the state license use a word that is non discriminatory, and let the churches practice whatever ceremony they wish to officiate the unions with. Viola! Problem solved. 

Day um. I was hoping to have a fight.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



bingo-----easy !!


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

Nothing is _un_fair about maintaining and protecting traditional marriage. If you want to lead a homosexual life, you are free to do so, but in making that choice you are opting out of marriage.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...




No...and it's not fair that we can't marry more then one spouse...or marry anyone or anything we want.

I want to marry my car. It takes me where I want to go...doesn't give me a bunch of shit. It has AC and great gas mileage. Speeding down the highway with the wind blowing through my hair is a special feeling. It performs flawlessly. It doesn't get moody or bitchy....it doesn't want to watch chick flix when the Bears game is on. It's a match made in heaven.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Nothing is _un_fair about maintaining and protecting traditional marriage. If you want to lead a homosexual life, you are free to do so, but in making that choice you are opting out of marriage.



The only thing discriminatory law protects is exclusive privilege. You're marriage is between two people, you and your wife. Their marriage has NOTHING to do with yours, and yours has nothing to do with theirs. Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick. It really IS that simple.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is _un_fair about maintaining and protecting traditional marriage. If you want to lead a homosexual life, you are free to do so, but in making that choice you are opting out of marriage.
> ...



no--what is simple is that they could drop the word "marriage" and have everything that they claim to want. Why insist on a revolutionary change in a centuries old tradition ? Get the damn legal rights and see how it goes. Something wrong with baby steps ?


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



And here I thought we reached the agreement that the state should re-define the LICENSE for everyone, and the churches could define the "title" as they saw fit. 
Okay then, the fight is on.


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...


 
I'm convinced their cause has nothing to do with rights or discrimination. This is about undoing the traditional family and the values that go with it. It's a political and social engineering game.

Harvey H Milk on a popsicle stick - simple as that.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



fine---let the states issue a license to get hitched and leave marriage to religions. Happy ?


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



wanna bet on that?


----------



## Valerie (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...




What makes you so convinced exactly ?

Public sentiment can _want_ yet the constitution still stands.


Holy Portia de Rossi DeGeneres - Personal responsibility on a popsicle stick - simple as that.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You absolutely refuse to fight with me. 
But yeah, I do think that would solve most of it.


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



No i think it should be the other way around. If the church still wants to have their little  holy fingers in everyones life then THEY should call what THEY do 

Sanctified by god. 

Marriage is marriage. It is the union of two people.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



right--change the church !!


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...




For the sake of the agrument i will be assuming that ALL other LAWS regarding "marriage" still apply. This question is only about same sex marriages. 


My opinion is its no ones business who anyone else wants to marry.


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Why is that changing the church? It is what they are doing isnt it, sanctifying a marriage by god?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



oh please--does anyone get civil unionized in a church ?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...



If you had asked me back when I was a senior in high school, I would have said absolutely they have the right to marriage.  Once I had children, suddenly I didn't know everything anymore.  I just don't know.  When it came up on the ballot here, I didn't vote one way or the other.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Dan, if the state changes the title on the license for everyone, and the churches conduct the ceremony  under whatever title THEY, INDIVIDUALLY see fit, everyone is served fairly and with due process for all. YOUR church wouldn't be under any obligation to sanction anything they didn't see as fitting, and other churches would have the right to certify unions that they do.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I think we should leave Dillo's coffee alone.
I would want MY coffee left alone. I would, in fact, break the fingers of anyone who fucked with my most favored addiction. 
Unless they were to add some Bush mills to it, and in that case I would be most grateful.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> ...



Sweetie, as much as you love your kids, I gotta ask:
Would it be more important to you that they were happy, or socially accepted?


----------



## manifold (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



 All the church does it make you right with god. 


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is  BLESS the union and that's all.. 


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married.  You don't NEED the church to be married.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Tell it to the homos------fight for their legal rights with the state and leave the word marriage out of it. It's a sure bet.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I'm tired of the faux whining----trying to change the definition of a word to obtain civil rights is stupid. There are much easier ways that don't invite stiff resistence. Anyone who insists on getting things done the hard way really doesn't want em or has another agenda


----------



## syrenn (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Does the church hold some copyright to the word marriage? 

Tell the paranoid church to get a life that they don't OWN exclusive rights to words or the usage of words.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...



I have not read any of this thread yet.

No, it is not fair for the state to deny the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Again with the fucking "homos" shit.
WTF?!


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> ...


 
SSM activists _should_ disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by _eliminating_ marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The "stiff (a questionable qualifier) resistance" is dying off. Kids today don't really give a shit.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Neither do most adults if they would quit trying to change the English language.


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
Kids mature. And change their minds.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Why try to change the English language to get rights ?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



How is it a change to language? Accepted usage has more to do with culture, and in this respect culture is dictated by the church. Since churches are as diverse as people, and the establishment clause denies the STATE from establishing preference, the license should be respective of all the churches, not just some. 
I thought we settled this?
If we're going to fight, let's get it ON. If we're in agreement, let's get what we agree upon established.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



because they aren't being honest


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



I dunno.


----------



## Sherry (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I think all parents want their kids to be happy.  They all want grandchildren too.  I won't have them.  I just don't know anymore what's right or wrong about homosexual marriage.  Funny how I'm not getting any smarter as I'm getting older.  I was such a know it all in highschool, seems back then I knew everything.  But when you are looking at your baby in his crib, you love that child so much, you want nothing but the best for him and I seriously doubt the best for him is another man instead of a wife and kids.

Oh and my oldest was not accepted in highschool, not because he was homosexual, but because he's different.  Somehow, I don't think homosexuals have the corner of the market on being treated badly.

FYI, I get to see my great nephews tomorrow, the closest thing I'm ever gonna have to grandchildren.  I bought gifts for them, Tonka trucks.  I want to spoil them so they remember me, I haven't seen them in over a year.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.  

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I got you immie.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Oh come on, Immie.  We all feel clobbered in this.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Sherry said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



That's not true.

We want equal rights.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Bull.

I agreed to the civil union legal term as long as its the same for gays or straights.  We can have the churches confer the marriage title.  I'll get both.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



and have everyone call it marriage.


----------



## AquaAthena (Aug 6, 2010)

manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> ...



I don't feel any opposition to it. Live and let live? Who would they be hurting and I personally don't want this kind of power[to judge] over other's lives who are doing nothing to infringe upon mine....


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 
That's life on the fence, Immie. 

Let me suggest, respectfully and sincerely, that you reconsider exactly how much homosexuals are truly mistreated under current marriage laws, and then ask yourself if any solution is really necessary. 

The only sensible reply to the whole question of whether the definition of marriage should be changed... is laughter. 

That we are actually debating the idea as if it had any merit is a victory for the leftist social engineers. They haven't steered us right yet.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



I'm ok with the legal title of civil unions for everyone, gay or straight as long as the rights are the same.  The relgiious institutions can opt to marry whoever they wish.  Some Churches and in my case, my Buddhist Center have no problem giving us the beautiful ceremony and title marriage.


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



No, 
to have the STATE call it the same thing and convey the same rights as whatever the church calls it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Well, I'd like to do some of the clobbering for a change.  I'm black and blue all over.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Are you "ALL" people?  If not, you can't talk for "some" people.

Besides, I look at Sherry's statement and I see "some people" as people on both sides.  There are some gay activists that I believe won't stop at a simple compromise.  They will go after churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples, however, there are Religious Right idiots that won't give an inch the other way either.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Well, from personal experience I can say this, homosexual couples are not treated fairly when it comes to health insurance.  Many insurance companies and employers will not extend insurance benefits to unmarried, "significant others", some will not extend benefits to unmarried same sex "significant others". 

That is just one problem that I do know of and have seen happen.

My religious beliefs aside, I do not think that the government should play a part in allowing those kinds of things to happen.

Immie


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Ok I'll speak for myself.  I want equal rights.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Oh you enjoyed dilloduck clobbering me.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Define "equal".


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Works for me.  You have already agreed to take credit for my compromise and claim victory.  If it ends this issue, I'm glad to let you take the credit.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



He did?  When?  Where?  Link please?

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 6, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Has that NOT already been established over and over again?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


You can take the credit but I still get to have it all.  If I agree to the civil union with full rights label then I get to keep my beautiful Buddhist ceremony and vows and title too.


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 
That's a regulatory issue for state insurance boards to take up with the carriers in their states, so, yeah, governement would have to play a role in changing the law.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Thank you Barb.  I'm exhausted.

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Note that if you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the five states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) or a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I thought that was already established long ago.

I've no problem with that.

Immie


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It's all wishful thinking anyway.  It'll never happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



Yet it happens and it is unfair to same sex couples.

I have to say that I don't think Jesus would be associated with the thinking of the Religious Right on this issue, which is why I struggle with this issue so much.  I can say, that I am not certain what Jesus would do, but I can tell you that I do not believe that he would associate himself with the modern day Pharisees.

Immie


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 6, 2010)

Barb said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Not for me.  If equal means they have the right to force a Church to marry them in-spite of the Church's beliefs, then I'm against it.  If equal means they get to pay the marriage tax penalty as the rest of us do, then what the heck.....


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 7, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 
But you just said it also happens to opposite sex couples.

And remember it was the Pharisees who played the word games and kept the law. By that analogy, the only Pharisee I see in this little episode is Judge Walker.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 7, 2010)

Bless Judge Walker.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...





Sky Dancer said:


> Bless Judge Walker.



I had no idea who Judge Walker is.  Had to look him up.

He's not a modern day Pharisee.  The people that I see... oh shit, this is going to get me in a heck of a lot of trouble with some people, I can already feel it... are the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world.

Now, before you go hating on me, know this, I really, really used to like James Dobson, but then he went political and I feel like he has sold out his faith for political power.  It is a tragedy in my book.  

They are the "Holier than thou" crowd.  Always preaching law and seemingly forgetting the gospel.

Immie


----------



## LuckyDan (Aug 7, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 
Relax. I'm not hating on anybody. I just want to clarify the terms is all. Everybody should live and be well.


----------



## Barb (Aug 7, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Equal = the state issuing the same license to all. 
The individual churches get to decide which they deem to "bless" in ceremony. 

I don't even LIKE the idea of matrimony.
I'd rather find someone who hates me and buy them a house.
Cut out a lot of worthless stress that way.
Other people find matrimony to be a whole different thing.
I think all who do should be able to do SO.
Live and let, for chrissakes.
Or whatever ethical equivalent you can relate to.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



Actually, the "you" in there was the generic you, because I know some people out there that won't take too kindly to me dissing Father Pat or Brother James.  

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sky Dancer again.

I'm tired too. Good night everyone.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?
> ...




Print that out, find a mailbox that goes back in time, and mail that to the blacks


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




What 'higher freedom' are they getting by being denied equality before the law?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Nothing is _un_fair about maintaining and protecting traditional marriage.



Which tradition? 

Kidnapping a virgin and her becoming your bride if she can't escape for three days?

A woman being forced to marry her rapist?

A woman marrying her dead husband's brother?

Marrying your sister like Abraham?

Polygamy?

Selling your daughter to the highest bidder? (GET YOUR VIRGIN HERE! HER CHERRY GOES TO THE HIGHEST DOWRY!)

Or maybe we can choose the polyandrous traditions found in some societies?

Tell me, which tradition do you want to hearken back to? How 'bout we go back to just 1974, the year before the First U.S. State (South Dakota) outlawed spousal rape?

Maybe we go back to marrying girls off at thirteen or fourteen? Arranged marriages, perhaps?

 Which tradition is traditional traditional enough for you? It being practiced longer makes it more traditional, then you're going to end up with a system few would tolerate in a modern civilized society.



> If you want to lead a homosexual life, you are free to do so, but in making that choice you are opting out of marriage.



people used to say the same thing about choosing the miscegenationary lifestyle...


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Why insist on a revolutionary change in a centuries old tradition ?



You  mean like when we went from arranged marriages to letting women have a say? Or when monogamy became not only popular, but the only legally recognized form of marriage?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Or more.

Oft more.

Ask an anthropologist or historian. Or anyone who's actually read the old Testament.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Barb said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



No idea what his problem is...

*coughclosetcasecough*


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Dillo reminds me of


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...




Like saying 'men' includes women and 'citizens' includes blacks born to slaves inside the nation?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



:yawn:

You must so confused when you speak to anthropologists about marriage across cultures or during different periods of time.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

*Anthropologists Reject &#8220;Traditional&#8221; definition of Marriage*
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
A recent article from Focus on the Family&#8217;s CitizenLink  suggests that &#8220;anthropologists agree on traditional definition of  marriage.&#8221; This statement is true only if they reference what  anthropologists consider traditional, not the Focus on the Family  opinion that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.
 The article also states &#8220;There are two definitions of marriage in  today&#8217;s culture &#8211; one of them has been around for centuries; the other  is brand new.&#8221; Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on the  Family is confused as to which definition has been around for centuries  and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists all  recognize the &#8220;one man with one woman&#8221; definition of marriage to be very  recent and not representative of how marriage is or has been expressed  throughout the world. For example, in _Marriage, a History_  historian Stephanie Coontz documents the changes that occurred in  Western marriages over the last few centuries. Her research demonstrates  that what Focus on the Family calls &#8220;traditional marriage&#8221; developed  over the last 200 years, reaching its current form only in the middle of  the last century.
 Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or  economic contract between two individuals and their families &#8211; this does  not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate marriage  contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world&#8217;s cultures  view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore,  anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding  Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages. For  examples, the Azande of Africa used the same rituals and words for  same-sex marriages as they did opposite-sex marriages; three percent of  all marriages among the Nandi of Kenya were between two women; same-sex  marriages were common in Micronesian cultures with the married couple  often adopting children and raising them with no ill effects whatsoever.
 In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment, indicating:
The results of more than a century of anthropological  research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across  cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view  that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as  an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological  research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types,  including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to  stable and humane societies.
 The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association  strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to  heterosexual couples.​ Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family&#8217;s &#8220;traditional definition of marriage&#8221; is patently, unequivocally wrong.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Defining Marriage


----------



## Madeline (Aug 7, 2010)

Excellent post, JB.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3LHyrJKPj0[/ame]

NO-FATHERS DAY: Remote Group Has No Dads, And Never Did


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Bride kidnapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which tradition is 'traditional' enough?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Barb said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Evidently not.

I guess the FF, women, and blacks never quite explained what that  word meant.


No wonder the 60's were so crazy- noone knew what the hell they wanted!


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




The church shouldn't be acting as an agency of the state in the first damned place


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 7, 2010)

No, it is not fair. Everyone should love, argue, suffer, yell, keep their mouth shut, open their mouth, make up excuses, create reasons, enjoy physical intimacy, have sex both great and boring, go to bed happy, go to bed mad, be paranoid at times, have someone else drive, have someone else on top, have in-laws, have nuisance in-laws, laugh like crazy over stuff that was once not so funny, kiss, hug, have extended family to confirm you are nuts, not nuts, try to hide the fact you are admiring her boobs or his bottom, ask if you heard me, have someone interrupt you when the women/man looks too interested, tell you it's time to stop drinking, tell you are getting lazy fat or more insane, tell all you do is read sleep lie around, remind you to fix the back door, laugh at your dumb jokes, tell you you already told me that a thousand times, remind you to wash the car, remind you mother in law is coming over, tell you to be nice to her, tell you to stop talking politics, tell you to stop arguing with people, tell you your kids are just like you, tell you the kids never call, tell you we see the kids too much - I think I could go on and on but I'll stop here.

( and I know gays with kids )


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



As I recall, in the Bible, having more than one wive, always led to problems.  That's why we have Muslims today.  

Of course, is we want to allow more than one husband....hmmmm might be fun


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I'm not sure, but I believe marriages were originally only through the church.  The state got into it so they could tax it.


----------



## Madeline (Aug 7, 2010)

I doubt that was the case in the US, Againshelia.  In any event, no church, temple or mosque will be forced to perform weddings for couples they disapprove of, regardless.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I doubt that was the case in the US, Againshelia.  In any event, no church, temple or mosque will be forced to perform weddings for couples they disapprove of, regardless.



Nope, this was long before the US existed.  I have an ancestor that we can't prove because he never really got married.  See, in England it cost a lot of money to get married and he didn't approve of paying the government for such things.  So he just lived with his wife, I believe they had 14 kids in the end.  He came here before the revolutionary war and as the story goes, he fought for us and his older brother got killed fighting for England.  He was the 2nd son of an Earl, back then, in England, the first son got everything.  Which made me wonder what happened to everything in England.  Then I found out there was a 3rd son.  He inherited everything.  We've tried to contact them and invite them to our family reunions but they want nothing to do with us.  Me, if I ever go to England I'm gonna visit them.  See, they have a law there that if you inherit priceless paintings, you don't have to pay taxes on them if you are willing to show them to the public.  If I ever get to England, I intend to fight out what priceless paintings they have and ask for a show.  There's more than one way to get into a Castle.


----------



## Madeline (Aug 7, 2010)

You have a fascinating family history, Againshelia.  My family's story is that few people had reading skills and even fewer were independent of the RCC.  If your wedding or birth or death was not recorded by the local parish, you effectively did not exist.

I'm happy _we_  don't live in such a society.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You have a fascinating family history, Againshelia.  My family's story is that few people had reading skills and even fewer were independent of the RCC.  If your wedding or birth or death was not recorded by the local parish, you effectively did not exist.
> 
> I'm happy _we_  don't live in such a society.



I think everyone has fascinating family history.  Thanks to my Aunt and Uncle for researching it.  They were all gung ho when they researched it.  We had a family reunion and they had a Winnebago with a chart covering the entire side of it showing how we were all related.  My cousin brought  her boyfriend and before he could say anything my Aunt asked him his name and let him off to the chart to find out how we were related.  She didn't know he was a boyfriend...  After about 30 minutes of looking and asking him the name of his parents and grandparents, and never giving him a chance to say anything, she finally gave up and said, I don't see you on here.  He sheepishly explained he was just a boyfriend.  

Meanwhile the rest of us were just watching the show and having a good laugh.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 7, 2010)

The Genealogy Forum: Resource Center: How Many Ancestors Do You Have?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


Why are there virtually no polyandrous societies? | Psychology Today


----------



## Terral (Aug 7, 2010)

Hi Manifold:



manifold said:


> All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective.  Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?



Yes. Homosexuality is an abomination to our Creator and those practicing such things are '*worthy of death*' (Romans 1:32). Everyone has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex ...



manifold said:


> If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.
> 
> It's a very simple philosophical question:
> 
> Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?



The fact that you are asking for 'rights' from heterosexual married people is a great sign that something stinks in Denmark. No. *A True Homosexual Person Has NEVER Been Born* (my Topic). What we have going on right now in America is a bunch of degenerate people with '*depraved minds*' seeking extra rights for participating in deviant sexual behavior with people of the SAME SEX. Today they are Homosexuals, but tomorrow they change their minds and marry a woman to have kids. Then, years later, they relapse into deviant behavior and decide to be gay again. No sir. Bob can play house with Bill all he wants, but 'marriage' (male + female) has NOTHING to do with it. ZERO. 

You were born as the product of exactly one heterosexual male and exactly one heterosexual female making you one or the other. Your decision to lay down with a person of the same sex does not constitute extra rights for anyone ...



manifold said:


> PS: Please know that declaring _fair ain't got nothin' to do with it_ may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.



I am glad that we have the opportunity for these discussions over obvious deviant behavior, because then everyone can clearly see who belongs in the closet ...

GL,

Terral


----------

