Next.. Group Marriage

[RKMBrown]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.


Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

no one is trying to do that but the supporters of gay marriage. their mantra "I think its right so you MUST accept it" you have the whole thing backwards.

Do I? DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act., "barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as spouses for purposes of federal laws, or receiving federal marriage benefits."

Translation..
Gays want to get married.
Religious right does not want gays to get married.
Gays argue they are being persecuted by the religious right.
Religious right argues the gays are persecuting their right to persecute the gays.

Huh? You believe you have the right to persecute and if they protest, you argue their protestation is forcing you to accept their pov?

By that twisted argument you could argue the right to murder people you don't like, such as unborn children, muslims, American muslim sympathizers, oh.. NVM.

 

[RKMBrown]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

So lets get rid of all laws based on morality...no murder, rape, theft, all of those are based on religious morality.

And yeah jesus was pro gay, pro drugs and a socialist, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously

Yeah cause gay consenting adults are no different than rapists, murderers, criminals.. WOW Just WOW.

How did you go from Jesus did not persecute gays to "jesus was pro gay, pro drugs and a socialist?" WOW just WOW.

 

[Lumpy 1]

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

So lets get rid of all laws based on morality...no murder, rape, theft, all of those are based on religious morality.

And yeah jesus was pro gay, pro drugs and a socialist, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously

Yeah cause gay consenting adults are no different than rapists, murderers, criminals.. WOW Just WOW.

How did you go from Jesus did not persecute gays to "jesus was pro gay, pro drugs and a socialist?" WOW just WOW.

..and he wanted extreme gun control laws..

 

[Seawytch]

OK, so muslim countries define it as a man and up to 4 women. how do you strech that to gay marriage? do you want muslim marriage to be legal in the USA?

Same-sex marriages existed in .....read all about it in the link.

Just like Mormons, Muslims must conform to the laws of the land. Can't marry your Camel/Sheep either. Of course that doesn't mean they can't live with four women and treat them like wives but that goes for anybody not just Muslims.

I don't care who lives together and whether they include animals or dead people. Just don't sanctify those relationships as marriages.

guys in prison hook up and stay together too, do you want the state to sanction those relationships as marriages? where does the foolishness end.

let two male or two female prisoners marry and then when they get out give them free legal services for their divorce? we have lost our minds in this country.

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Same-sex marriages existed in .....read all about it in the link.

Just like Mormons, Muslims must conform to the laws of the land. Can't marry your Camel/Sheep either. Of course that doesn't mean they can't live with four women and treat them like wives but that goes for anybody not just Muslims.

I don't care who lives together and whether they include animals or dead people. Just don't sanctify those relationships as marriages.

guys in prison hook up and stay together too, do you want the state to sanction those relationships as marriages? where does the foolishness end.

let two male or two female prisoners marry and then when they get out give them free legal services for their divorce? we have lost our minds in this country.

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage equality is marriage elasticity, leading to marriage extinction.

Masha Gessen, lesbian activist

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care who lives together and whether they include animals or dead people. Just don't sanctify those relationships as marriages.

guys in prison hook up and stay together too, do you want the state to sanction those relationships as marriages? where does the foolishness end.

let two male or two female prisoners marry and then when they get out give them free legal services for their divorce? we have lost our minds in this country.

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

Sounds great...for everyone. Take away the word marriage for legal civil unions, that'd be awesome! You can't do it to just the gays though.

 

[High_Gravity]

Lets just throw away marriage, so we can stop fighting.

 

[Redfish]

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

Sounds great...for everyone. Take away the word marriage for legal civil unions, that'd be awesome! You can't do it to just the gays though.

does your 'everyone' include Abdul and his 4 wives? thats really what this thread is about.

 

[RKMBrown]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Are you kidding? Family law seriously sucks. It's bad enough as it is without making it 5000 times more complicated with multiple partners and attorneys

I disagree. No different than any other contract. I don't want my government managing who can or can't get married based on sexual orientation, nor based on a plurality of said arrangements that one enters. After all, first amendment prohibits said regulations at the federal level, and by incorporation at the state level.

 

[Redfish]

Consenting adults..eh, why not..

Lawyers would love it..

Are you kidding? Family law seriously sucks. It's bad enough as it is without making it 5000 times more complicated with multiple partners and attorneys

I disagree. No different than any other contract. I don't want my government managing who can or can't get married based on sexual orientation, nor based on a plurality of said arrangements that one enters. After all, first amendment prohibits said regulations.

its not a legal debate, its a cultural debate. what is good and bad for a culture and a civilization.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lets just throw away marriage, so we can stop fighting.

How about we don't and just stop regulating who can or can't get married based on arbitrary religious beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you kidding? Family law seriously sucks. It's bad enough as it is without making it 5000 times more complicated with multiple partners and attorneys

I disagree. No different than any other contract. I don't want my government managing who can or can't get married based on sexual orientation, nor based on a plurality of said arrangements that one enters. After all, first amendment prohibits said regulations.

its not a legal debate, its a cultural debate. what is good and bad for a culture and a civilization.

So you are tossing out the first amendment? Or just the parts you don't like for the sake of forcing others to bend to what is good for your culture?

I would argue what is good for our culture is liberty.

 

[Redfish]

Lets just throw away marriage, so we can stop fighting.

How about we don't and just stop regulating who can or can't get married based on arbitrary religious beliefs.

5000 years of human history and culture is not "arbitrary".

 

[Redfish]

I disagree. No different than any other contract. I don't want my government managing who can or can't get married based on sexual orientation, nor based on a plurality of said arrangements that one enters. After all, first amendment prohibits said regulations.

its not a legal debate, its a cultural debate. what is good and bad for a culture and a civilization.

So you are tossing out the first amendment? Or just the parts you don't like?

freedom so speech does not equate to freedom to have group marriage. Thats really a strech, RK

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't care who lives together and whether they include animals or dead people. Just don't sanctify those relationships as marriages.

guys in prison hook up and stay together too, do you want the state to sanction those relationships as marriages? where does the foolishness end.

let two male or two female prisoners marry and then when they get out give them free legal services for their divorce? we have lost our minds in this country.

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

That is categorically false. There are quite literally thousands of laws and regulations on the books for marriages that do not legally apply to civil unions.

 

[Redfish]

"Sanctifying" a marriage is up to a church. We aren't talking about religious marriage.

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

That is categorically false. There are quite literally thousands of laws and regulations on the books for marriages that do not legally apply to civil unions.

If so, they should be changed. but how about listing just 4 or 5 of them.

 

[RKMBrown]

its not a legal debate, its a cultural debate. what is good and bad for a culture and a civilization.

So you are tossing out the first amendment? Or just the parts you don't like?

freedom so speech does not equate to freedom to have group marriage. Thats really a strech, RK

Not sure why you think the first amendment is just speech. Here is the text (Bold emphasis added):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[RKMBrown]

a civil union gets you all the rights and protections and equality that you say you want.

But, admit it, thats not really what this is about,is it? You want to force the majority of the country to accept your definition of marriage and have the govt force it on the rest of us.

For just once, tell the truth about this.

That is categorically false. There are quite literally thousands of laws and regulations on the books for marriages that do not legally apply to civil unions.

If so, they should be changed. but how about listing just 4 or 5 of them.

Are you just trolling? Here is the first link on google that has links to over a thousand:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

The main stuff is treatment for taxing, and regulatory purposes. Spousal benefits for SS etc. But just as importantly are the State regs that do not protect civil unions partners access to health care decisions and visiting in hospitals, ... things like that.

 

[g5000]

That is categorically false. There are quite literally thousands of laws and regulations on the books for marriages that do not legally apply to civil unions.

If so, they should be changed. but how about listing just 4 or 5 of them.

Are you just trolling? Here is the first link on google that has links to over a thousand:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

The main stuff is treatment for taxing, and regulatory purposes. Spousal benefits for SS etc. But just as importantly are the State regs that do not protect civil unions partners access to health care decisions and visiting in hospitals, ... things like that.

And there's the problem. There is way too much government involvement in marriage. The funny thing is that conservatives demand all that involvement as much as liberals do!