LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Prop 8 struck down.

There's progress going on, in several areas.

I wonder how it feels to be a shitwad like vette or koalabear, and watch all of your shitty ideals being pissed on while you're growing old and preparing to die? To know that you were wrong all along? I wonder if that makes them even more cranky?

Let's watch... :cool:
 
Colonel Hogan said:
It seems to me that protecting individual liberties, even those that we might find unseemly or repugnant, is a cause that conservatives and libertarians would naturally advocate -- especially if it does not inhibit our right to condemn homosexuality generally and within our own social and religious circles. There is all manner of legal depravity that people of a given moral persuasion forego.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the morally reprobate at best presents the illusion of victory by the mere binding of their hands and feet.
Click to expand...
But, but, but, we're talking about the queers!

And next them other queers is gonna want more than one wife. And more than one species of wife!
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
Same sex marriage opens the door to every combination and permutation of human coupling.
Click to expand...

...because people don't have anything but vanilla, hetero, one-on-one sex now? This is truly the dumbest argument of all against gay marriage.
 
I hope that the SCOTUS does strike down the decision by the ninth. Although my reasons for that hope are a little different.

I would like to see ALL governmental bodies to cease issuance of "Marriage Licenses." I would rather see them require "Partnership Certificates." These 'certificates' would carry with them the same legal requirements and protections normally associated with marriage. The various government bodies have no business being in the marriage business to begin with.

The first instance I could find of Marriage Licenses being issued/required was in certain counties in Nebraska during the Mormon migrations to Utah. They were issued to prevent those pesky Mormons from practicing polygamy. In other words they were issued as a discriminatory practice. The practice of issuance spread for differing reasons in differing jurisdictions, revenue, health, etc. With the increased prevalence of divorce in our society they became more important as a legal tool. In reality they are nothing more than a cheap way of forming a partnership with certain other benefits in the formation and deficits in the dissolution.

Marriage has almost always been a religious sacrament and as such has been the province of the various religions. One of the reasons that marriages were traditionally recorded in the family Bible within the Christian community. Other religions have other means of recording same. And if some church, or other independent entity, wants to issue "Marriage Certificates" upon completion of some ceremony, same sex couples or not, then sobeit.

Rys, when he was still posting (and I hope he's doing well), and I had a protracted discussion on this subject and it all boiled down to the word 'marriage' with both the gay and the straight community. The gays, generally speaking, were not at all receptive to measures such as 'domestic partnership', while the straight community, the religious portion thereof, were not going to surrender the term marriage to the gays. The solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

If the gays can find someone to issue them a marriage certificate they can wave it around and the religious can scoff at it. And the government can sit back and say, "we have nothing to do with marriages."

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
I hope that the SCOTUS does strike down the decision by the ninth. Although my reasons for that hope are a little different.

I would like to see ALL governmental bodies to cease issuance of "Marriage Licenses." I would rather see them require "Partnership Certificates." These 'certificates' would carry with them the same legal requirements and protections normally associated with marriage. The various government bodies have no business being in the marriage business to begin with.

The first instance I could find of Marriage Licenses being issued/required was in certain counties in Nebraska during the Mormon migrations to Utah. They were issued to prevent those pesky Mormons from practicing polygamy. In other words they were issued as a discriminatory practice. The practice of issuance spread for differing reasons in differing jurisdictions, revenue, health, etc. With the increased prevalence of divorce in our society they became more important as a legal tool. In reality they are nothing more than a cheap way of forming a partnership with certain other benefits in the formation and deficits in the dissolution.

Marriage has almost always been a religious sacrament and as such has been the province of the various religions. One of the reasons that marriages were traditionally recorded in the family Bible within the Christian community. Other religions have other means of recording same. And if some church, or other independent entity, wants to issue "Marriage Certificates" upon completion of some ceremony, same sex couples or not, then sobeit.

Rys, when he was still posting (and I hope he's doing well), and I had a protracted discussion on this subject and it all boiled down to the word 'marriage' with both the gay and the straight community. The gays, generally speaking, were not at all receptive to measures such as 'domestic partnership', while the straight community, the religious portion thereof, were not going to surrender the term marriage to the gays. The solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

If the gays can find someone to issue them a marriage certificate they can wave it around and the religious can scoff at it. And the government can sit back and say, "we have nothing to do with marriages."

Ishmael
Click to expand...


Until some looney clan starts marrying off 13 year old girls.
 
vetteman said:
Why should I? What does gay marriage offer the nation? What stake in the future do they have? If most people want it, why didn't most people vote for it?
Click to expand...

So if 51% of people in California voted to outlaw guns, you'd be OK with that?
 
If people don't like it, they should change the verbage associated with their state constitutions to not include all people. Otherwise, this is open and shut. Always has been...always will be.
 
Ishmael said:
Still wouldn't be legal. Unless you think the government(s) are going to eliminate age considerations from legal contracts.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

& that's my point. So long as the government has restrictions on when one can get married, the government has a place in the marriage business.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
& that's my point. So long as the government has restrictions on when one can get married, the government has a place in the marriage business.
Click to expand...

It is a contract with legal standing. If some clown wants to perform a ceremony with a 13 yr old, or a sheep for that matter, they can. They can now, still would be illegal under all sorts of statutes that have nothing to do with marriage.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
It is a contract with legal standing. If some clown wants to perform a ceremony with a 13 yr old, or a sheep for that matter, they can. They can now, still would be illegal under all sorts of statutes that have nothing to do with marriage.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

So do you want government out of marriage or not? You can't have it both ways.

Either the government sets restrictions on when one is of legal age to get married, or the religious institution does.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
So do you want government out of marriage or not? You can't have it both ways.

Either the government sets restrictions on when one is of legal age to get married, or the religious institution does.
Click to expand...

Pretty much showing yourself to be a fucking idiot, again, aren't you?

The government has all sorts of prerogatives to protect minors and has a vested interest in contract law. You are trying to make the case that by restricting themselves to legal contract only that they have to abandon all other barriers, barriers that have little to do with marriage.

Taking your argument and turning it around, if same sex marriages are to be allowed then why not polygamy and/or polyandry? After all these are nothing more than alternate combinations of the same principle? How can the state legitimately define one form of marriage, the union of two and only two people regardless of sex, to be legitimate while disallowing all other combinations?

What I am suggesting is nothing more than a special form of a business partnership, restricted to two partners, which the state has full authority to sanction and regulate and it matters not whether the partners are of the same sex or not. By removing from the table the debate over what the definition of marriage is the debate is ended to the equal satisfaction/dissatisfaction of all parties. And to achieve this requires no profound changes to the law or the intervention of the courts.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
Pretty much showing yourself to be a fucking idiot, again, aren't you?

The government has all sorts of prerogatives to protect minors and has a vested interest in contract law. You are trying to make the case that by restricting themselves to legal contract only that they have to abandon all other barriers, barriers that have little to do with marriage.

Taking your argument and turning it around, if same sex marriages are to be allowed then why not polygamy and/or polyandry? After all these are nothing more than alternate combinations of the same principle? How can the state legitimately define one form of marriage, the union of two and only two people regardless of sex, to be legitimate while disallowing all other combinations?

What I am suggesting is nothing more than a special form of a business partnership, restricted to two partners, which the state has full authority to sanction and regulate and it matters not whether the partners are of the same sex or not. By removing from the table the debate over what the definition of marriage is the debate is ended to the equal satisfaction/dissatisfaction of all parties. And to achieve this requires no profound changes to the law or the intervention of the courts.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

Dude, you've completely missed the point.

I'm not making any argument, I was asking you a question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
How the Supreme Court Screwed Up The Idaho Abortion Case
Replies
3
Views
300
SmokingFap
SmokingFap
THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
8K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
3113
Prop. 8 Unconstitutional!
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Stella_Omega
Stella_Omega
W
Gay judge targeted for same-sex marriage ruling
Replies
15
Views
695
Stella_Omega
Stella_Omega
fgarvb1
Separation Of Powers Between President And Congress
Replies
7
Views
983
Gunner70
Gunner70
Back
Top