Solving the "Gay Marriage" issue.

It's who we are as a culture, ask the Mormons.

Do we re-instate polygamy?

If sex doesn't matter, then numbers don't matter.

I still submit, it's nothing more than an assault on the institutions that have bound us together.

The people who champion same-sex marriage are also the ones proclaiming marriage as a form of slavery where a man gets to own and rape a woman. This leads me to believe it's not them wanting to make marriage more stable, but just the opposite.

Marriage is not, nor has ever been, a right. It's a rite and rites do not have to be equal under the law. You might as well say girls have a right to be an Eagle Scout.

It's also an Islamic and Jewish-based argument, but at least we know now who you think the enemy is...

;) ;) :kiss:
 
Last edited:
Any contract is binding, even a verbal contract, one doesn't need to obtain a permit to make it binding.

Some states don't recognize common law marriage, i.e. we've been living together for a really long time but just haven't "tied the knot." Some states do.

While I'm rusty on my business law, there are some contracts that require a piece of paper. I don't suggest you buy a piece of land with a verbal contract. (Disclaimer: that is not legal advice. Don't want any lawyers to get me for giving legal advice. ;) )

The license is a form of revenue, too.
 
It's who we are as a culture, ask the Mormons.

Do we re-instate polygamy?

If sex doesn't matter, then numbers don't matter.

I still submit, it's nothing more than an assault on the institutions that have bound us together.

The people who champion same-sex marriage are also the ones proclaiming marriage as a form of slavery where a man gets to own and rape a woman. This leads me to believe it's not them wanting to make marriage more stable, but just the opposite.

Marriage is not, nor has ever been, a right. It's a rite and rites do not have to be equal under the law. You might as well say girls have a right to be an Eagle Scout.

It's also an Islamic and Jewish-based argument, but at least we know now who you think the enemy is...

;) ;) :kiss:


If there is found to be a legal 'right' to one form of marriage, then there is no bar to any other form.

Ishmael
 
But girls have a right to play little league ball on the boy's teams but not visa versa. It's all equal in the liberal mind.

Wrong word.


It's all "fair" in the Liberal mind.


Some animals are simply more equal than others, right now, it's gay sheeple...
 
Most contracts are written and enforceable in court, no permit from the government is needed to give them any more legal weight.

It's not really a permit. It's more of a recording on the books down at the register of deeds (or whatever it is called by your state). The "license" or "permit" you get is proof that it was recorded.
 
It's who we are as a culture, ask the Mormons.

Do we re-instate polygamy?

If sex doesn't matter, then numbers don't matter.

I still submit, it's nothing more than an assault on the institutions that have bound us together.

The people who champion same-sex marriage are also the ones proclaiming marriage as a form of slavery where a man gets to own and rape a woman. This leads me to believe it's not them wanting to make marriage more stable, but just the opposite.

Marriage is not, nor has ever been, a right. It's a rite and rites do not have to be equal under the law. You might as well say girls have a right to be an Eagle Scout.

It's also an Islamic and Jewish-based argument, but at least we know now who you think the enemy is...

;) ;) :kiss:

Emoticon chains, explanatory edit, and perpetual rolls-eyes attitude towards liberal opinions. Ha, I know who you are now! Hi, you. Nice costume change. :)

I truly and wholly support gay marriage. Not because of any party affiliation, not because I'm protecting the interests of people I care about, but because I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. I think there's a much, much wider gap between "marriage is between two people" and "marriage is between a thirteen people and a few of the more anthropomorphic primates" than there is between "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "marriage is between two people."

I don't think it's an attack. It's a shift to accommodate a changing society, and I think that's one of the intended purposes of democracy (arguably the most identifying American institution), to remain fluid and accessible to the needs and climates of current times.

That's a fringe opinion, and hardly synonymous with support of gay marriage.

There are rights associated with legally recognized marriages, and those should certainly be available to everyone. Personally, I'd be happy if it comes to something like civil unions instead of marriage, because my issue really is with equal rights. As a heterosexual, I'm perfectly happy getting civilly united instead of married if marriage comes to be an exclusionary, religion-based ideal. I know that the equality issue of it can go deeper than that, though, so I don't speak for anyone but myself.

And yeah, I'm pretty much a lost cause, eh? My own worst enemy, probably. ;)
 
Marriage is not, nor has ever been, a right. It's a rite and rites do not have to be equal under the law.

Marriage is a religious rite, but it also has legal rights. There is no getting around that marriage does have legal ramifications with it, despite the fact that our culture wants to make it all about love. Why do you think so many folks want to do a pre-nuptial agreement?

The religious and the legal need to be separated. The lines have become blurred. If a change in terms, such as legally calling it a "civil union" or whatever, would accomplish this, I'm all for it.

If a gay couple wants their union blessed by the church, then they need to take it up with their church. But if a gay person wants his/her partner covered under his health insurance family plan, that is a legal issue.
 
Phelia, those aren't "rights" conferred upon married couples, they are privileges granted for votes by Congress...


If gays want to be "equal," then make Congress vote them some bennies.

;) ;)

Marriage is thousands of years old, not some recent repression or oppression designed to deny rights or discriminate. Your beef is with Congress for its "positive" discrimination towards marriage, just like the positive discrimination for homeowners.

Another good example. When the non-homeowners screamed "not fair", instead of ending the positive discrimination, Congress just passed laws to make people who could not afford homes homeowners and damn the consequences. The mantra was, “everyone has a ‘right’ to be a homeowner.” That led to the corruption and collapse of Fannie Mae and the banks.

We have no idea what elevating gay marriage will collapse, so the prudent thing to do is to end the positive discrimination for marriage...

... until such a time as you can actually win the hearts and minds with reason and not scream about prejudice and hate and narrow-mindedness among the majority that simply don't see your point of view.

Most people would, if given the choice, eliminate the special privilege much more readily than to turn the world upside down on a whim, or a fantasy of social utopia.
 
Legally, marriage is a contract, hence the need for a license. It used to be a way to protect women, among other things, when a married woman was unable to own property. It's also one of the reasons a person can sue for loss of consortium.

Most folks think I am crazy when I say marriage is a contract. The concept of marriage has become homogenized, and we can't seem to separate the legal from the religious. Maybe changing the legal term would work.

Any contract is binding, even a verbal contract, one doesn't need to obtain a permit to make it binding.

Some states don't recognize common law marriage, i.e. we've been living together for a really long time but just haven't "tied the knot." Some states do.

While I'm rusty on my business law, there are some contracts that require a piece of paper. I don't suggest you buy a piece of land with a verbal contract. (Disclaimer: that is not legal advice. Don't want any lawyers to get me for giving legal advice. ;) )

The license is a form of revenue, too.

There is a lot more involved in marriage than just a few monetary issues.
Although the monetary issues are great.
Think about health insurance for your spouse. You wife or husband can be included on the company plan, but not a gay partner.
And how about this one. If you are sick and dying in the hospital, and the doctor says only family can visit, this leaves out your lifelong partner from seeing you. If your family never approved of your living arrangements, they can stop this person fron visiting. They can take all your property and fight any will.
Why should a man and woman have all the rights. The real question is, why should you even get a say in what 2 people decide to do, man or woman.
 
Gay marriage is fine by me.

Why should straights be the only ones that are miserable, and lose half their stuff in a divorce? :D
 
Marriage is a religious rite, but it also has legal rights. There is no getting around that marriage does have legal ramifications with it, despite the fact that our culture wants to make it all about love. Why do you think so many folks want to do a pre-nuptial agreement?

The religious and the legal need to be separated. The lines have become blurred. If a change in terms, such as legally calling it a "civil union" or whatever, would accomplish this, I'm all for it.

If a gay couple wants their union blessed by the church, then they need to take it up with their church. But if a gay person wants his/her partner covered under his health insurance family plan, that is a legal issue.

Here's the problem, which leads me to believe it's more about culture war than anything else...

In the states where civil unions have been granted, it placted the movement not one wit; it wasn't good enough, it's a second-class demotion...

What's reason got to do, got to do with it?
What's reason, but a second-hand emotion...
 
Solve it like Canada did.

Anybody that wants to can get married.

Done, problem solved, end of argument.
On to something that really matters.
 
Most folks think I am crazy when I say marriage is a contract.

You aren't alone. American jurist Joseph Story, in 1841, noted that marriage is something more than a mere contract. "More than a mere contract" implies contract.
 
If my parents get a Cancellation of Legitimization would that make me a retroactive bastard?
 
Solve it like Canada did.

Anybody that wants to can get married.

Done, problem solved, end of argument.
On to something that really matters.

Can three people get married or has Canada simply established a different line of tolerance?
 
Back
Top