Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[P@triot]

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Maybe not, but I want video of the honeymoon......

LMAO! Well played sir, well played....

 

[bodecea]

this is a direct attack upon religion by the godless secular Left....

Religion has nothing to do with it. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

 

[peach174]

Equal protection under the law.
Yes they should have the same equal protection under the law.
Change the laws, that would include them not the definition of marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey their hot, let them get married.

Unfortunately more lesbians look like this

There was even a gov't funded study on why lesbians are more obese than the general population.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Religion has nothing to do with it. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

 

[Nosmo King]

Is all the fuss and feathers thrown up by the homophobes about "changing the definition of marriage" strictly about the definition as pertaining to ecclesiastical marriage? No one is calling for religious institutions to change a thing! The call for marriage equality is limited to how the states grant marriage licenses, not how ecclesiastical institutions perform or sanctify marriage.

As the state cannot mandate how religious services are conducted (with the exception of animal scarifice), the state cannot mandate churches to perform same sex wedding ceremonies.

The "redefinition" of marriage is exclusively one concerning the state license procedure. And that procedure should be open to any sober, responsible, tax paying citizens of the age of majority who are willing to enter a contract melding their fortunes and futures together in a committed relationship. Not very scary stuff, unless the opposition hinges on fear, suspicion, hatred and a lack of understanding and tolerance.

 

[Nosmo King]

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

 

[Nosmo King]

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

Polygamy is a totally seperate and unrelated issue. The marriage contract is between TWO people. It is exclusively between two people.

A multi-party contract is an incorporation and such licenses are not available under a marriage license.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

Polygamy is a totally seperate and unrelated issue. The marriage contract is between TWO people. It is exclusively between two people.

A multi-party contract is an incorporation and such licenses are not available under a marriage license.

you can spout all kinds of number nonsense....(much like you say we spout gender nonsense)

however you are redefining marriage on the basis of "civil rights".....

how can you discriminate.....?

 

[bodecea]

Hey their hot, let them get married.

Unfortunately more lesbians look like this

There was even a gov't funded study on why lesbians are more obese than the general population.

And? Your point?

 

[Seawytch]

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Actually if performed in a number of other countries or in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, or the District of Columbia ....

.........................Ya, it is marriage.



>>>>

And don't forget the 18,000 of us legally married in CA before the unconstitutional Prop 8

 

[NYcarbineer]

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

Why are you? You're arguing for marriage on traditional grounds and traditional definitions. Nothing is more traditional in the realm of marriage than polygamy. It predates monogamy as the traditional form of what constituted marriage among humans.

 

[bodecea]

And this is NOT a marriage:

And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Actually if performed in a number of other countries or in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, or the District of Columbia ....

.........................Ya, it is marriage.



>>>>

And don't forget the 18,000 of us legally married in CA before the unconstitutional Prop 8

Yep....while I am confident that Prop H8 is going down and that is good for my fellow gay citizens of CA, I'm watching DOMA for the federal rights and responsibilities we will get. (filing joint federal taxes, for example)

 

[NYcarbineer]

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

If you can draw the line at one man one woman, there's no reason you can't draw the line at one person one person.

Both cases are monogamy, and thus both cases effectively discriminate against polygamy. Any argument the polygamists think they can make against hetero and gay marriage they can make against hetero/opposite sex only marriage.

 

[bendog]

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

If you can draw the line at one man one woman, there's no reason you can't draw the line at one person one person.

Both cases are monogamy, and thus both cases effectively discriminate against polygamy. Any argument the polygamists think they can make against hetero and gay marriage they can make against hetero/opposite sex only marriage.

Tired old strong man argurment. Look at polygamists. You can base the rationale for not allowing it on the effect it has on minors. The males are culled from the herd, and the women subject to abuse and manipulation. Marriage between to homosexuals of either sex is no more likely to result in those same "bad" results and hetero marriage.

It's a small step up from the bestiality argument and really isn't worth responding to, aside from calling out the bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
And this is NOT a marriage:

It really is that simple

Anyone who objects to that should be horsewhipped.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I know the left prefers to be snarky, smug, and angry (because being on the wrong side of facts causes frustration) - but do you think for just once we could have a civilized and honest conversation?

All of you liberals have screamed for years "get government out of my bedroom" - but then you turn around and demand that government climb into bed with you and demand that they recognize the relationship between you and your partner . How does that make any sense?

Furthermore, please explain to me how this is anything more than your side looking to fuck they system for all it is worth? I'm married - and if the government had decided that they didn't want to recognize my marriage to my wife, I would have been thrilled with that. My love for my wife was not contingent upon Uncle Sam acknowledging our relationship. Had they said we could not get married, I would have saved the money on the marriage license, and then went and had a ceremony with my wife anyway. And we - along with all of our family & friends - would recognize our relationship, government be damned.

The fact that the gay community won't do that is glaring evidence of their motive. It's not about their relationship - it's about trying to work the system for as much perks, benefits, and money as they can.

We're still waiting for you to specifically describe the terrible consequences that will result from legalizing same sex marriage.

That's what I'm waiting for too.

Everyone predicting dire consequences should gay marriage pass has yet to specify what those consequences would be, including the lawyers arguing against gay marriage in the Supreme Court on Monday!! WTF?? They couldn't come up with a single thing.

 

[Samson]

Hey their hot, let them get married.

Unfortunately more lesbians look like this

There was even a gov't funded study on why lesbians are more obese than the general population.

And? Your point?

There really is no choice.

 

[bendog]

As long as there's no beastiality, I see no problem. This old fat asshat who walks with me is no damn prize, let me be clear on that.