Homosexual marriage

[Sunni Man]

how bout no law's regarding marriage???

no

 

[xotoxi]

How bout no Law's regarding marriage???

Yes.

 

[necritan]

how bout no law's regarding marriage???

no

Define "no".....

 

[Sunni Man]

how bout no law's regarding marriage???

no

define "no".....

"n" & "o"

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes, you should burn faggots, that's what twigs are good for when bundled up.

Being gay doesn't grant you any extra rights, but having rights can make you very gay.

I smoke fags all the time myself ... roll my own even, menthol is my preferred tobacco flavor though.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Interpersonal conduct becomes the government's business when somebody is harmed against their consent. Pretty tough to make the case that gay marriage tangibly hurts somebody not consenting. Why can't Christians be content with their religious delusion that the gays will burn forever after? These social conservatives don't seem to understand their own morality. How can morality have any meaning if the state forces you to live a moral lifestyle? For a more extreme example to help illustrate how coercion negates meaningful morality consider this: What did it mean to be a Christian when the choice was to convert or die? Absolutely nothing. Outlawing gay marriage makes not choosing gay marriage a meaningless choice.

 

[xotoxi]

These social conservatives don't seem to understand their own morality.

It's because it doesn't exist.

 

[necritan]

Interpersonal conduct becomes the government's business when somebody is harmed against their consent. Pretty tough to make the case that gay marriage tangibly hurts somebody not consenting. Why can't Christians be content with their religious delusion that the gays will burn forever after? These social conservatives don't seem to understand their own morality. How can morality have any meaning if the state forces you to live a moral lifestyle? For a more extreme example to help illustrate how coercion negates meaningful morality consider this: What did it mean to be a Christian when the choice was to convert or die? Absolutely nothing. Outlawing gay marriage makes not choosing gay marriage a meaningless choice.

I have to say....I dont believe it is exclusively Christians that attack gay Marriage.

Wasn't Prop 8 funded by the Mormon church by a huge margin???

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you suggesting that we determine our laws based on the writings of Merriam & Webster?

No, I'm stating emphatically that we determine our laws based on what things actually are, which is reflected in the definitions of the words which represent them.

Marriage is what it is and always has been for a reason, ie. the cumulative wisdom of centuries of human history and experience. That reason is also why our laws up until now regarding marriage have been written the way they were, AND it is the reason that the dictionary defines "marriage" the way it does.

Why is it that any reference source, no matter how reliable and definitive it has been considered in the past, is dismissed as trivial and inconsequential by leftists the second it conflicts with how they want to view the world? Do they honestly want to live in a world where there is no reality and language is reduced to meaningless grunts?

And therefore, you determine what "marriage" is based on a definition from a 1950s dictionary, because that definition is more correct then a dictionary printed in 2009. Correct?

How about the definition of marriage from the middle ages, when the woman was the property of the man? That definition should be even more correct.

Actually, Chuckles, I update my dictionary every couple of years, but thank you so much for outting yourself as the close-minded bigot you really are with this cute little backhanded insult. Now that I have you pegged, I can accord you and your posts the level of respect deserved.

The definition of marriage was exactly the same in medieval times as it is today, hence my reference to "centuries of cumulative human wisdom and experience". I'm not surprised, though, at the dearth of knowledge about medieval history exhibited by someone as narrow-minded and blinkered to anything outside of your preferred worldview. Call me when you become courageous enough to hear opposing viewpoints from people who hold them, rather than from the voices in your own head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How bout no Law's regarding marriage???

You want the legal system and the government to have no recognition whatsoever of marital relationships and contracts? Would you care to tell me how that will even work, much less benefit society? Just off the top of my head, I can see it creating a massive train wreck in the areas of child custody and inheritance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interpersonal conduct becomes the government's business when somebody is harmed against their consent. Pretty tough to make the case that gay marriage tangibly hurts somebody not consenting. Why can't Christians be content with their religious delusion that the gays will burn forever after? These social conservatives don't seem to understand their own morality. How can morality have any meaning if the state forces you to live a moral lifestyle? For a more extreme example to help illustrate how coercion negates meaningful morality consider this: What did it mean to be a Christian when the choice was to convert or die? Absolutely nothing. Outlawing gay marriage makes not choosing gay marriage a meaningless choice.

I have to say....I dont believe it is exclusively Christians that attack gay Marriage.

Wasn't Prop 8 funded by the Mormon church by a huge margin???

I think Mormons actually consider themselves Christians. However, you are correct that there are other religions, and also non-religious people, which oppose legalized homosexual "marriage".

 

[necritan]

How bout no Law's regarding marriage???

You want the legal system and the government to have no recognition whatsoever of marital relationships and contracts? Would you care to tell me how that will even work, much less benefit society? Just off the top of my head, I can see it creating a massive train wreck in the areas of child custody and inheritance.

Off the top of my head ....no....not this government.

Jeez.....I wonder how they did all that stuff before we had a nanny state to help us.

My wife and I die......the family works it out....done. Many people have wills...and trusts filed privately with a lawyer....when death occurs....out comes the will.

Have we had such an all encompassing government for so long that we really cant see the forest for the trees???

 

[necritan]

I think Mormons actually consider themselves Christians. However, you are correct that there are other religions, and also non-religious people, which oppose legalized homosexual "marriage".

I'll give you the fact that they consider themselves as such.

 

[necritan]

Oh....and by the way....speaking of religious things , I believe your little kitty there has taken on a lesser demon....possibly Lucifer himself. You might wanna have him checked out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How bout no Law's regarding marriage???

You want the legal system and the government to have no recognition whatsoever of marital relationships and contracts? Would you care to tell me how that will even work, much less benefit society? Just off the top of my head, I can see it creating a massive train wreck in the areas of child custody and inheritance.

Off the top of my head ....no....not this government.

Jeez.....I wonder how they did all that stuff before we had a nanny state to help us.

My wife and I die......the family works it out....done. Many people have wills...and trusts filed privately with a lawyer....when death occurs....out comes the will.

Have we had such an all encompassing government for so long that we really cant see the forest for the trees???

I don't think the solution to "this government" is to have it utterly ignore the legal ramifications of nuclear families. The solution would be to fix this government.

Fine. You have a will. What happens if someone decides to contest it? How does the court decide the case if it's legally obligated to ignore the importance and significance of the marital relationship because legally, it doesn't exist? At the very least, you've just complicated and lengthened the case, increasing the amount it's costing everyone.

And we've never had a government that didn't recognize the legal ramifications of the marital relationship. In fact, marriage has been a legal contract akin to a business partnership a lot longer than it's been a smooshy, soppy romantic entanglement. Once upon a time, that was its primary purpose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think Mormons actually consider themselves Christians. However, you are correct that there are other religions, and also non-religious people, which oppose legalized homosexual "marriage".

I'll give you the fact that they consider themselves as such.

I'm no expert on Mormon beliefs, but I think they believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which would technically make Mormonism a Christian religion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh....and by the way....speaking of religious things , I believe your little kitty there has taken on a lesser demon....possibly Lucifer himself. You might wanna have him checked out.

I take it you haven't seen "Ghostbusters".

 

[necritan]

You want the legal system and the government to have no recognition whatsoever of marital relationships and contracts? Would you care to tell me how that will even work, much less benefit society? Just off the top of my head, I can see it creating a massive train wreck in the areas of child custody and inheritance.

Off the top of my head ....no....not this government.

Jeez.....I wonder how they did all that stuff before we had a nanny state to help us.

My wife and I die......the family works it out....done. Many people have wills...and trusts filed privately with a lawyer....when death occurs....out comes the will.

Have we had such an all encompassing government for so long that we really cant see the forest for the trees???

I don't think the solution to "this government" is to have it utterly ignore the legal ramifications of nuclear families. The solution would be to fix this government.

Fine. You have a will. What happens if someone decides to contest it? How does the court decide the case if it's legally obligated to ignore the importance and significance of the marital relationship because legally, it doesn't exist? At the very least, you've just complicated and lengthened the case, increasing the amount it's costing everyone.

And we've never had a government that didn't recognize the legal ramifications of the marital relationship. In fact, marriage has been a legal contract akin to a business partnership a lot longer than it's been a smooshy, soppy romantic entanglement. Once upon a time, that was its primary purpose.

Understood......true...it is a financial agreement. But this should be a finacial agreement between the couple only.....not all the tax payers in the country. As soon as that happens....your life isnt really "Your" life.

The government needs an over-haul....a big one. Its just not working for us anymore.....its tripping us up...and flattening us down. Its holding back everyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Off the top of my head ....no....not this government.

Jeez.....I wonder how they did all that stuff before we had a nanny state to help us.

My wife and I die......the family works it out....done. Many people have wills...and trusts filed privately with a lawyer....when death occurs....out comes the will.

Have we had such an all encompassing government for so long that we really cant see the forest for the trees???

I don't think the solution to "this government" is to have it utterly ignore the legal ramifications of nuclear families. The solution would be to fix this government.

Fine. You have a will. What happens if someone decides to contest it? How does the court decide the case if it's legally obligated to ignore the importance and significance of the marital relationship because legally, it doesn't exist? At the very least, you've just complicated and lengthened the case, increasing the amount it's costing everyone.

And we've never had a government that didn't recognize the legal ramifications of the marital relationship. In fact, marriage has been a legal contract akin to a business partnership a lot longer than it's been a smooshy, soppy romantic entanglement. Once upon a time, that was its primary purpose.

Understood......true...it is a financial agreement. But this should be a finacial agreement between the couple only.....not all the tax payers in the country. As soon as that happens....your life isnt really "Your" life.

The government needs an over-haul....a big one. Its just not working for us anymore.....its tripping us up...and flattening us down. Its holding back everyone.

One problem with financial agreements is that they sometimes come into dispute and need to be mediated or settled by a third party. For all other financial agreements, that third party is the legal system, and so it is with marriage. Also, you only mentioned wills and inheritance. How about child custody, or any of a number of other situations where it doesn't work to leave it just to the couple?

Your life is never "just your life". It always affects other people. That's what being a social animal means. Like it or not, the institution of marriage and all of the people living in that institution affect society as a whole. That's why society recognizes marital contracts of a certain type and tries to encourage them, or at least facilitate them.

I'll agree with you on the government. We could use whole lots less of it in any number of areas.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I don't think the solution to "this government" is to have it utterly ignore the legal ramifications of nuclear families. The solution would be to fix this government.

Fine. You have a will. What happens if someone decides to contest it? How does the court decide the case if it's legally obligated to ignore the importance and significance of the marital relationship because legally, it doesn't exist? At the very least, you've just complicated and lengthened the case, increasing the amount it's costing everyone.

And we've never had a government that didn't recognize the legal ramifications of the marital relationship. In fact, marriage has been a legal contract akin to a business partnership a lot longer than it's been a smooshy, soppy romantic entanglement. Once upon a time, that was its primary purpose.

Understood......true...it is a financial agreement. But this should be a finacial agreement between the couple only.....not all the tax payers in the country. As soon as that happens....your life isnt really "Your" life.

The government needs an over-haul....a big one. Its just not working for us anymore.....its tripping us up...and flattening us down. Its holding back everyone.

One problem with financial agreements is that they sometimes come into dispute and need to be mediated or settled by a third party. For all other financial agreements, that third party is the legal system, and so it is with marriage. Also, you only mentioned wills and inheritance. How about child custody, or any of a number of other situations where it doesn't work to leave it just to the couple?

Your life is never "just your life". It always affects other people. That's what being a social animal means. Like it or not, the institution of marriage and all of the people living in that institution affect society as a whole. That's why society recognizes marital contracts of a certain type and tries to encourage them, or at least facilitate them.

I'll agree with you on the government. We could use whole lots less of it in any number of areas.

Child custody needs to be considered separately though. Being married does not make somebody a "fit parent." Even sex offenders can get married, that doesn't mean the state would allow them to care for a child just because he/she is married.