Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[OCA]

What special status do they want?

The right to break current laws without repercussion.

 

[Dr Grump]

The right to break current laws without repercussion.

If it becomes a right it is no longer breaking the law..duh!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ever hear of durable power of attorney? It's a legal declaration which allows the designee to make decisions for the authorizing party even if the authorizing party has become incapacitated. Since homosexuals can easily utilize a durable power of attorney, the claim that homosexual marriage requires 14th Ammendment protection is nonsense.

If a family member challenges the POA, it isn't worth the paper it's written on. I've seen it happen at the bedsides of patients dying in the hospital.

Why don't you show us the citations which support this statement? Could it be perhaps, that you know full well that the study shows that family finances are the primary reason that most marriages fail? Might it be that you know that you are reaching to try to say that homosexuals have more stable relationships than heterosexuals? I'd say so. This is typical of the librulls in America - take the results of a study and try to surreptitously claim the study validates an unrelated fact. But hey! Present your citations of evidence, and I'll take them on directly.

Red States Divorce rate
State # divorces per 1,000
Utah 4.7
Wyoming 6.5
Idaho 6
Nebraska 3.8
Oklahoma 5.9
North Dakota 3.2
Alabama 5.8
Kansas 4.1
Alaska 4.9
Texas 5
Average 5

Compare to the Blue States, with the lowest rates.

State # divorces
Massachusetts 2.5
Rhode Island 3.6
Vermont 4.4
New York 3.1
Maryland 3.1
Connecticut 3
California 4.3
Illinois 3.4
Maine 4.2
Hawaii 4.3
Average 3.6

Source: http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Still holding onto your Fitzmas dreams, eh? Tell ya what, since you already have the facts, perhaps you should volunteer to help Patrick Fitzgerald do his job. As to the first part of your statement, I'd be interested in knowing how you arrive at the conclusion that GWB cut funding for intelligence related to nuclear-proliferation. If you have facts to back up your statements of course.

Ever hear of the Nunn-Lugar Act? It's a program designed to help Russia and the other republics that made up the former Soviet Union secure their nuclear sites. Chimpy cut finding for that program by 10% in his 2005 budget and the DOE's Russian nuclear security funding by 8%.

 

[OCA]

If it becomes a right it is no longer breaking the law..duh!

Lol, simpleton!

 

[CockySOB]

If it becomes a right it is no longer breaking the law..duh!

And if it is not currently a right, then you are effectively arguing for the judiciary to create that right, rather than abiding by the in-place legislative process for enacting law. Why is this? Perhaps because the activists pushing this agenda know that they cannot hope to affect such a change through Congress any time in the near future, and that trying to use the judiciary to "create" a new right is their only hope?

BTW, one of the first hurdles the pro-homosexual-marriage activists need to do is work to get DOMA (signed by WJC) declared un-Constitutional. As it stands, DOMA clarifies "marriage" and the legal union of a man and a woman. Until that existing law is declared un-Constitutional, the Federal judiciary is bound to either refuse to review related cases, or to rule that "marriage" is according to the DOMA guidelines.

 

[CockySOB]

Bully,

I kept looking through your referenced link to find evidence that homosexuals had more stable relationships than heterosexuals and y'know? I just can't seem to find that anywhere. I did however notice that neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay" were anywhere in your reference. So I guess you pulled your conclusion out of your ass-crack? As I said, librulls tend to flout a study or a set of statistics which are unrelated to the topic at hand, and then try to say their "evidence" supports their conclusion.

You also say that in your experience, the durable power of attorney is limited to what the state has proscribed, just as the rights of parents/spouses have limits under various state laws. You did neglect to mention the reasons that a POA coudl be legally challenged, as well as specifics on why those which were challenged (and removed) in your experience. For example, which type of POA have you seen challenged, and what was the legal basis for the challenge? Please feel free to provide citation to case law used as it will certainly make discussing the issue easier and more accurate. Thanks.

 

[CockySOB]

Ever hear of the Nunn-Lugar Act? It's a program designed to help Russia and the other republics that made up the former Soviet Union secure their nuclear sites. Chimpy cut finding for that program by 10% in his 2005 budget and the DOE's Russian nuclear security funding by 8%.

Y'know, I waited to post on this until I could bring some evidence to the table. You remember evidence right, Bully?

Link

n 2003, President Bush signed the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which authorized Nunn-Lugar to operate outside the former Soviet Union. My new bill will provide more flexibility to pursue Nunn-Lugar projects outside the former Soviet Union, and it will eliminate congressionally imposed conditions on legislation that have impeded time-sensitive projects. We need to cut the red tape and friction within the U.S. government that hinder speedy responses to nonproliferation opportunities.

Despite these achievements and the success at Bratislava, there is much more to do. The world is awash with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials. Fortunately, the Bush administration is moving on several fronts. In the area of cooperative threat reduction, the president's fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget proposal seeks $415.5 million for Nunn-Lugar, an increase from FY 2005 and enough to carry out all scheduled activities.

Read that again will ya Bully-boy? Pay attention to the highlighted section, because it would seem to contradict your assertion that GWB has done nothing but cut funding for the project.

But wait, there's more! Under the current Administration and perhaps more importantly under the current Congress, we have seen the original CTR program suceed in its original mission, grow to encompass new threats, and expand to areas beyond the original Soviet Union. Holy crap! Even the new Lugar Disarmament Initiative was passed in 2005 which has been added into the budgets for FY2006 & FY2007.

C'mon Bully, at least TRY to make this difficult would ya? Leave the sound bites and faulty logic at home next time, m'kay? Peace!

 

[CockySOB]

Um... is that crickets I hear? Heh-heh-heh.

Sigh. I guess I expected more, although I don't know why.

:halo:

 

[sitarro]

Um... is that crickets I hear? Heh-heh-heh.

Sigh. I guess I expected more, although I don't know why.

:halo:

Why expect more from an ass that is nothing but a retarded parrot for the DU. I would guess that he is on that joke of a board right know trying to find some more assinine insults for our President. My guess would also be that the man he refers to as a chimp has an academic record that dwarfs his, that is if he even has one. If President Bush, that he repeatedly refers to as a chimp, easily outclasses him in education, skills, ability and most certainly achievement, what does that make Bully? A subchimp, a chimp wanna be, a sloth, snake, hemmeroid? Don't waste time arguing with this dick he doesn't have the capacity to understand what you are saying.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The same argument could be made against inter racial marriage. Certainly they can use existing legal procedures to get the same benefits of marriage, just without the term right? How come then bans on interracial marriage were deemed to be unconstitutional? Why should one group of people have to go through hoops in order to get the same benefits that another group has by simply saying "I do?"

Hmm?

All of the usual liberal talking head points, I see, are being used in this thread.

NOTHING new has been introduced by that bastion of progressive thinkers !!

Comparing interracial marriage to same sex marriage is ludicrous at best. Homesexuality is a BEHAVIOR,,,,,,,,being black or asian or whatever, ISNT.

Marriage is a privledge, introduced so that the society and/or government can help encourage, and hence create enviorments that are healthier for kids to grow up in. Just as business licenses are granted to those showing an ability to conduct a business that is helpful in our society, marriage licenses are granted to those who will use it to help our society by hopefully raising kids in a more stable enviorment than if the father was not there. (You do realize that over 90% of persons in prison grew up without full time fathers in the household).

The arguements for same sex marraige.

"Many hetero couples cant have kids either."
Simply because it would be difficult and at times impossible, to ditstinguish fertile couples from non fertile couples, does not preclude that we should and could eliminate groups of couples that under no circumstances can produce kids.

"Equal protection under the Constitution"
This silly attempted extension of the 14th amendment has been refuted over and over and over by judges. This attempt has simply failed.

The majority doesnt have the right to excercise its will over others, that the Constitution protects monority groups.
The majority simply does have that right, we are a form of a democracy which means majority rules. The protections afforded minorities that we currently have are only established because a MAJORITY of people have had them instituted.
The MAJORITY has instituted laws that make it illegal to descrimate in areas such as housing, employment and education. That SAME MAJORITY has spoken loud and clear, and in an alarmingly high percentage, that discrimantion in granting marriage rights is perfectly fine and in fact desired.

As for acts of judiciary that gave minorities rights, the judiciary didnt create those rights, they only stated that the time had come to grant rights to all individuals as was written hundreds of years before. However, because the majority didnt conclude that those rights extended to minorities, they in fact didnt. However, when the time came where society at large recognized that those rights should extend to all individuals, the judiciary was able to carry out the extending of those rights to all, by rulings, instead of waiting for what would have been the inevitable, legistlation. And in fact, the legislation did follow.

ALL RIGHTS, invariably, are granted to persons, whether minorities or not, ONLY because the majority allows it. Every process that grants rights is one way or another supported by the majority. Judges are appointed by a person voted in by majorities, the Constitution was signed by the majority, laws are establised by persons voted in by a majority.

As for POA, anyone with half a brain can find ways to make sure the persons "partner" will be the recipient of the other partners goods and wealth in the even of a death.

As for benefits that homesexuals cannot receive that other married couples do, why should homosexual couples have those benefits and not single persons? Why should a homosexual couple have a tax benefit because they are a couple, that a single man or woman wouldnt get? A married couple should get those, either to encourage them to have children and a family, or to help compensate for the existing costs of children they already have.

Divorce rates of any groups in any states is irrelevant and is simply a red herring.

The notion that we are attacking homosexuals and their lifestyles and not allowing same sex marriage is pathetic. Nobody who is opposed to same gender marriages brought up this issue, it was the homosexual lobby that created it. Had they not raised the issue, we that oppose same gender marriage wouldnt be making any noise about it at all.
If they hadnt started sticking the issue in our face, via judicail activism or outright lawbreaking, we wouldnt be passing laws banning same gender marriages.

The idea that if we protest too much, it means we must be homos also, HAHHAHAH, BWAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH,,,,,,,,,,BWHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

As for anyone who calls any President "chimpy" simply shows that they are basically very angry and unhappy. Showing no respect for the office of the Presidency is simply sad.
And if they wished to call PRESIDENT Bush, such a term, what shall we apply to Carter or LBJ? The two worst Presidents of our times. And dont bring up Nixon, as for character he was obviously extremely flawed (can anyone say "CLINTON"??), but as for carrying out his duties as President, history has shown he was basically average, and not really a Repub, more more of a centrist.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I believe we were being tongue in cheek. I have a dollar here, perhaps you can buy a sense of humor with it?

It's not about what's right and wrong because it ISN'T your place to say what's wrong or right between ... now read carefully... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS (not sheep, not children).... .

Wrong. Prostitution is between two consenting adults, yet it is illegal in some locations.

It IS, however, about giving people the right to marry the other consenting adult of their choosing. By the by, again (and I know I've said this before) I don't think gay couples really care about the term "marriage" per se, if they have all the legal rights that attach to a stable, long term relationship..

Marriage is not a right, it is a privledge. ANd according to your standards, I should be able to marry, lets say, seven women?

And before you talk about the "sanctity of marriage", the average marriage lasts 7 years. I figure gays won't do any better or any worse.

RED HERRING. Besides, your figure is misleading at best, if even accurate.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As for the "war", it seems that good police work and international intelligence co-operation did more to thwart this airliner plot than any military action yet initiated by Chimpy's administration. And those are the appropriate tools to use against terrorism, not the blunt tool of military force.

Ok now, this gets a bit complicated, but please try to follow.
Saudi Arabia is one of the top three countries with information about Al Quiada and other terrorist groups. Until PRESIDENT Bush invaded and ousted the despot saddam hussein, they were unwilling to share any of this information. Threats from the US (Clinton) didnt faze them. Once PRESIDENT Bush carried out the military action in Iraq, Saudi Arabia realized that PRESIDENT Bush was serious about terrorism, and suddenly information started flowing. This information trail is part of the international intelligence co-operation you are talking about that thwarted the terrorist plot, so thanks for giving PRESIDENT Bush so much credit on this one !!

And yes, we do need to worry about, "...fascistic elements that want to take our freedoms, our lives and our way of life away...", but they are not over seas. They are here...now...in America's halls of power. They will use the threat of Islamic, or any other, terrorism as a tool to secure their grip on power.

And again, those "precious rights" that you so valiantly defend, by opposing the NSA wire tapping and the Patriot act, SOME are rights the BRIT citizens dont have so the British Intelligence agencies can fight the terrorism at, once again, the international and internal intelligence level. Those rights the Brits have given up, is what allowed the Brits to uncover the terrorist plot. But hey, go ahead and attack PRESIDENT Bush for wire tapping, after all, its more important that the government doesnt know what time you will be having your dirty panties, errrr, underwear cleaned, than to prevent terrorists from boarding planes with bombs.

But your very last statement is true. The liberals have been working for decades to prevent us from saying prayers in schools, from mentioning God in graduation speeches, from putting Christian symbols in public areas, from using the term "single parent' when I tried to run a classified ad for a room for rent. Or to make the owner of a bar, who lost his arm and leg fighting the nazis, to have to go OUTSIDE of his OWN BAR to smoke. EVEN though he and the other 7 patrons are all smokers and dont care if he smokes inside HIS OWN BAR.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong. Prostitution is between two consenting adults, yet it is illegal in some locations.

And in some places it is legal...

Marriage is not a right, it is a privledge. ANd according to your standards, I should be able to marry, lets say, seven women?

1) Why should that privilege only be for some?
2) If you want to marry seven women, and all eight of you consent, go for it. It would not impact on my life one iota...

RED HERRING. Besides, your figure is misleading at best, if even accurate.

How is it misleading?

 

[jillian]

Wrong. Prostitution is between two consenting adults, yet it is illegal in some locations.

True. But those laws are ridiculous, too. IMO, I'd rather they be taxed and have their healt monitored. But it would annoy the puritans too much. (Though I'm not certain why it's anyone's business).

Marriage is not a right, it is a privledge. ANd according to your standards, I should be able to marry, lets say, seven women?

Although the Courts have severely limited the distinction between a right and a privilege, I'll go with your assertion. So, yes, marriage is a right....hence it should be available to everyone, regardless of race, creed and sexual orientation so long as it is between consenting adults. And any law seeking to abridge it should be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as that accorded to limitation of any right

RED HERRING. Besides, your figure is misleading at best, if even accurate.

It is not a red herring. The point is that the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument fails. And the number is accurate and not misleading in any way.

 

[jillian]

All of the usual liberal talking head points, I see, are being used in this thread.

NOTHING new has been introduced by that bastion of progressive thinkers !!

As opposed to people on the flip side of the argument? At least the progressives have science on their side.

Comparing interracial marriage to same sex marriage is ludicrous at best. Homesexuality is a BEHAVIOR,,,,,,,,being black or asian or whatever, ISNT.

Again, the jury is out on that one, LuvR, ain't it?

Marriage is a privledge, introduced so that the society and/or government can help encourage, and hence create enviorments that are healthier for kids to grow up in. Just as business licenses are granted to those showing an ability to conduct a business that is helpful in our society, marriage licenses are granted to those who will use it to help our society by hopefully raising kids in a more stable enviorment than if the father was not there. (You do realize that over 90% of persons in prison grew up without full time fathers in the household).

Where'd ya get that from? Any of it? But mostly where'd ya get that marriage has anything to do with kids? Marriage was created for the orderly passing of property rights.

The arguements for same sex marraige.

"Many hetero couples cant have kids either."
Simply because it would be difficult and at times impossible, to ditstinguish fertile couples from non fertile couples, does not preclude that we should and could eliminate groups of couples that under no circumstances can produce kids.

"Equal protection under the Constitution"
This silly attempted extension of the 14th amendment has been refuted over and over and over by judges. This attempt has simply failed.

The majority doesnt have the right to excercise its will over others, that the Constitution protects monority groups.
The majority simply does have that right, we are a form of a democracy which means majority rules. The protections afforded minorities that we currently have are only established because a MAJORITY of people have had them instituted.
The MAJORITY has instituted laws that make it illegal to descrimate in areas such as housing, employment and education. That SAME MAJORITY has spoken loud and clear, and in an alarmingly high percentage, that discrimantion in granting marriage rights is perfectly fine and in fact desired.

As for acts of judiciary that gave minorities rights, the judiciary didnt create those rights, they only stated that the time had come to grant rights to all individuals as was written hundreds of years before. However, because the majority didnt conclude that those rights extended to minorities, they in fact didnt. However, when the time came where society at large recognized that those rights should extend to all individuals, the judiciary was able to carry out the extending of those rights to all, by rulings, instead of waiting for what would have been the inevitable, legistlation. And in fact, the legislation did follow.

ALL RIGHTS, invariably, are granted to persons, whether minorities or not, ONLY because the majority allows it. Every process that grants rights is one way or another supported by the majority. Judges are appointed by a person voted in by majorities, the Constitution was signed by the majority, laws are establised by persons voted in by a majority.

As for POA, anyone with half a brain can find ways to make sure the persons "partner" will be the recipient of the other partners goods and wealth in the even of a death.

As for benefits that homesexuals cannot receive that other married couples do, why should homosexual couples have those benefits and not single persons? Why should a homosexual couple have a tax benefit because they are a couple, that a single man or woman wouldnt get? A married couple should get those, either to encourage them to have children and a family, or to help compensate for the existing costs of children they already have.

Divorce rates of any groups in any states is irrelevant and is simply a red herring.

The notion that we are attacking homosexuals and their lifestyles and not allowing same sex marriage is pathetic. Nobody who is opposed to same gender marriages brought up this issue, it was the homosexual lobby that created it. Had they not raised the issue, we that oppose same gender marriage wouldnt be making any noise about it at all.
If they hadnt started sticking the issue in our face, via judicail activism or outright lawbreaking, we wouldnt be passing laws banning same gender marriages.

The idea that if we protest too much, it means we must be homos also, HAHHAHAH, BWAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH,,,,,,,,,,BWHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

As for anyone who calls any President "chimpy" simply shows that they are basically very angry and unhappy. Showing no respect for the office of the Presidency is simply sad.
And if they wished to call PRESIDENT Bush, such a term, what shall we apply to Carter or LBJ? The two worst Presidents of our times. And dont bring up Nixon, as for character he was obviously extremely flawed (can anyone say "CLINTON"??), but as for carrying out his duties as President, history has shown he was basically average, and not really a Repub, more more of a centrist.

Blah, blah, blah.... Oh...by the by, you were right in your latter post where you defined marriage as a right, not a privilege.

As for your complaints about our fellow poster's term of endearment for Bush, it's not disrespect for the office of the presidency, it's disrespect for BUSH! And believe it or not, BUSH does not equal the office. (He's not equal to it, either, but that's another thread). And do show me where your concern for the office of the presidency translated for respectful reference to PRESIDENT Clinton for the 8 years he was in office.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

The majority doesnt have the right to excercise its will over others, that the Constitution protects monority groups.
The majority simply does have that right, we are a form of a democracy which means majority rules. The protections afforded minorities that we currently have are only established because a MAJORITY of people have had them instituted.
The MAJORITY has instituted laws that make it illegal to descrimate in areas such as housing, employment and education. That SAME MAJORITY has spoken loud and clear, and in an alarmingly high percentage, that discrimantion in granting marriage rights is perfectly fine and in fact desired.

I wont even bother refuting the rest of her inane diatribe. Instead, I'll just quote this nugget of goodness whenever she attempts to debate this topic again. Oh... Oh the glory.

 

[OCA]

I wont even bother refuting the rest of her inane diatribe. Instead, I'll just quote this nugget of goodness whenever she attempts to debate this topic again. Oh... Oh the glory.

People discriminate against drug addicts in the workplace all the time, if you tell me you are a former drug addict but you are fucking Einstein, no job for you, whats the difference since both are a CHOICE? Why should society be forced to deal with people's bad choices?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And in some places it is legal...?

Typical STUPID liberal response.
All I have to do is who ONE place where prostitution is illegal, and it proves my point. The fact that it is legal in some places is irrelevant. If it is illegal in some places, shows it isnt unconstitutional. That DESTROYS the "two consenting adults" arguement.

1) Why should that privilege only be for some?

Go to dict.com, look up the word privledge, by definition, it means ONLY FOR SOME....

2) If you want to marry seven women, and all eight of you consent, go for it. It would not impact on my life one iota...

But its still illegal, thus laws restricting marriage are constitutional, plus many of the same sex proponents OPPOSE polygamy, making them hypocrites. And, dear sir, it would impact your life considerably, you just arent aware how. But thats how great cultures and societies eventually collapse, from within, like Rome, in decadence and lack of moral virtues which is a direct result from prosperity.

How is it misleading?

Because people who divorce, OFTEN wind up divorcing two or three times. So, you have three people, one divorces twice, the other two marry and stay married. Hence you have a 50% divorce rate, (4 marriages, two ending in divorce), yet 2 of 3 67% actually had succesful life long marriages.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

True. But those laws are ridiculous, too. IMO, I'd rather they be taxed and have their healt monitored. But it would annoy the puritans too much. (Though I'm not certain why it's anyone's business)..

Oddly enough, on prostitution and drugs, I agree, and I think making them illegal is unconstitutional, as I am more Libertarian than Republican, but pragmatism forces me to vote Repub.

However, making prostitution illegal only shows that the Constitution, as currently interpeted, does allow for making acts between consenting adults to be illegal, under some circumstances. A better example actually would be contracts, some contracts are simply illegal. For example, you cannot make a legal agreement to loan money at a 100% interest rate (usuary) SPELLING?. Thats why they have loan sharks.

Although the Courts have severely limited the distinction between a right and a privilege, I'll go with your assertion. So, yes, marriage is a right....hence it should be available to everyone, regardless of race, creed and sexual orientation so long as it is between consenting adults. And any law seeking to abridge it should be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as that accorded to limitation of any right.

Nope, as a privledge, the state is afforded the responsability to provide the guidelines in determining who should be afforded such a privledge based on the notion that said privledge will benefit society as a whole. Business licenses are not afforded to certain individuals and the State determines those guidelines. The State (NOT THE COURTS) hence has the right and responsability to determine the criteria for who shal marry, hence polygamy laws. The State, and individuals of the States have declared that marriage is to be reserved for heterosexual couples only. And I have bad news for the libs trying to change this, unlike civil rights of which it was inevitable that they should be granted to all, same sex marriage will NEVER be accepted in this nation,
until and if we are teetering on the brink of collapse and we have an openly gay married couple in the white house, with an army and marine corp dressed in pink. Our missles will all be unarmed with the message, "war is not the answer" and our national guard will carry flowers instead of rifles, and when the terrorists bomb the sears towers, we will simply hire psychiatrists to try to heal their psychological wounds.

It is not a red herring. The point is that the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument fails. And the number is accurate and not misleading in any way.

see my response to the good doctor.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As opposed to people on the flip side of the argument? At least the progressives have science on their side. .

Progressives? hahhahah, liberals are running from their own label. Fact is, liberalism used to have good intentions, but the modern liberal has distorted the liberal agenda so badly, they now run from even the term. Its why the Dems continue and will continue to be beaten so badly in the elections. It has been hijacked by the totally wacko far far left.

Fact is: We have refuted every arguement put forth by the liberals on why same sex marriage should be made legal, yet the libs dont come up with anything new and just keep on repeating the disproven reasons they think it should be made legal.

Again, the jury is out on that one, LuvR, ain't it? .

NO, the jury isnt out on that one. Homosexuality is a behavior. What causes it is in doubt, but to me thats irrelevant. What causes pedophilia? Because homosexuality is not as obviously detremental to society at whole as is pedophilia, we have come to accept it as unharmful to others, thus tolerable. That doesnt change the fact that its deviant, and perverted. Its so damn obvious, but the obvious often eludes the liberals.
Homosexuality is obviously detremental to the participants. However, as long as the obvious harm is limited to them, society will tolerate the behavior. What society at large doesnt understand is it is harmful to society in the whole. Homosexuals, by a vast majority, have had their first sexual encounter as a minor who was seduced by a homosexual adult. During the first stages of sexual arousal by teens, it is entirelly possible that their first sexual encounter could encourage or cause them to become homosexual. We know for a fact that homosexuals, for whatever reasons, have much higher rates of depression, suicide and not to mention all the physical ailments that go along with anal sex which is totally abnormal and physically detremental.
But, the jury is NOT out on if it is a behavior or not. I think you misread my original statement.

Where'd ya get that from? Any of it? But mostly where'd ya get that marriage has anything to do with kids? Marriage was created for the orderly passing of property rights..

Your source?
This is from Wickpedia:
"In one form or another, marriage is found in virtually every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom (now, note that many socieities, either didnt or dont have any property ownership, hence the purpose of those marriages cannot be for the passage of property rights. Examples are the very numerous cultures in the south Pacific)
Marriage remains important as the socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Marriage is usually understood as a male-female relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them.
Marriage has traditionally been a prerequisite for starting a family, which usually serves as the building block of a community and society. Thus, marriage not only serves the interests of the two individuals, but also the interests of their children and the society of which they are a part.

FROM: http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html
"Monogamous marriages rose to their peak during the Victorian period in British history. The Puritans moved marriage to a point where love counted and delighting in the state of marriage became commonplace, yet extremely committed"
So, I guess the Puritans werent so bad after all. .

Fact is, the history of marriage and its origins are not certain, but TODAY, marriage is for the most part to create stable family life for kids to grow up in so they can be more physically and psychologically healthy.

Blah, blah, blah.... Oh...by the by, you were right in your latter post where you defined marriage as a right, not a privilege..

If I did, it was a mistake. I will have to go back and check on that. It is a privledge, not a right, and you even were willing to agree to that. Activities that require a license are privledges, not rights. Drivers license, a privledge, voting, no license required, a right. Business, a privledge, license required, having a job, a right, no license required.

As for your complaints about our fellow poster's term of endearment for Bush, it's not disrespect for the office of the presidency, it's disrespect for BUSH! And believe it or not, BUSH does not equal the office. (He's not equal to it, either, but that's another thread). And do show me where your concern for the office of the presidency translated for respectful reference to PRESIDENT Clinton for the 8 years he was in office.

President Bush is the duly elected President of our country. By not affording him that title, our resident dickhead is not respecting the office. Plain and simple. Anyone who treated President Clinton in the same light as President Bush is treated by dickhead, was also not respecting the office of the PRESIDENCY OF THE US.