So if government gets out of marriage.. Who issues survivor benefits, green cards, regulates divorce proceedings, makes rules about testifying in court... Like it or not, marriage is entrenched with many government programs and laws.
And the whole "if I have to share the court with you, I'm taking my ball and going home" schtick is pretty juvenile.
Don't give me the shit that marriage is for procreation... If that was the case, seniors or infertile people wouldnt be able to get married. This is about treating my family equally to every one else's.
Unfortunately the majority in the country here don't feel the same way. If they did...it would already be done.
And a lot of people believe horse meat is an important political issue.
I'm still waiting for your definition of the word. :corn: Either you don't know the definition or you just don't want to disclose what you feel the word means. As soon as you give me that...I'll gladly give you an answer.
And you'll be waiting....forever. You can and did define it for yourself and answered by telling me about the rights of your wallet. So again...thanks for the non-answer
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
And you'll be waiting....forever. You can and did define it for yourself and answered by telling me about the rights of your wallet. So again...thanks for the non-answer
Well earlier in this thread you said I didn't answer it? :? Even after I made that post about my wallet(which i stand by). :? You can try all of your pycho BS that was taught to you in college all you want but until you actually tell me what you mean by that word I can't answer you? Just simply tell me your definition of the word...and as represented in this forum...I'll tell you what I mean. The balls in your court. :corn:
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
I also don't like the idea of the lgbt community having to settle for a different name. We don't give a different name to unions between people of different religions or to interracial marriages. At one time those unions weren't widely accepted either. Acceptance has grown by leaps and bounds; being legalized is a huge help. I also think language has a lot of power. Words are used to dehumanize, belittle, injure...and they can be used to support and build up.
Sometimes things aren't the same, but they are equal
8+3=11
6+5=11
Both made up of different parts, but the outcome is the same.
Let's break it down... 1+1 (if different sex) has potential to = 3, with no help from anyone else. Whereas, 1+1 (if same sex) has No potential whatsoever to =3, with no help from anyone else.
If you can't admit there's a difference in potential "outcomes" from between uniting of two different sexes, which biologically has the potential to procreate, and two of the same sex, which biologically can't on their own... I kinda don't know what to say other than you're just wrong. The potential outcomes are different.
And since it's different from the definition which was used for thousands of years, it should be OK to have another name. Unless, of course, the agenda is deeper than "rights". Because if it's just about the word, it seems about trying to force-feed morals. I'm simply saying - it won't work.
But, to each his own, I don't really care. Like I said, I don't think government should be involved at all - in any marriage. It makes no sense that our moral compass is being defined by government - whether that's pro-gay marriage or not.
And you'll be waiting....forever. You can and did define it for yourself and answered by telling me about the rights of your wallet. So again...thanks for the non-answer
Well earlier in this thread you said I didn't answer it? :? Even after I made that post about my wallet(which i stand by). :? You can try all of your pycho BS that was taught to you in college all you want but until you actually tell me what you mean by that word I can't answer you? Just simply tell me your definition of the word...and as represented in this forum...I'll tell you what I mean. The balls in your court. :corn:
I'm accepting the answer you provided. You hit the ball out of bounds and that's where I'll leave it.
If you'd like to have another conversation about what I learned in college or whether I can define words we do that through PM. That's where we can also discuss whether or not you have the right to sleep in on Mondays, have $800 in your wallet or eat horse meat. There has been too much distraction and diversion from the questions people have asked of you and I'm not going to engage in that. Enjoy the rest of your day DS.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I'm accepting the answer you provided. You hit the ball out of bounds and that's where I'll leave it.
If you'd like to have another conversation about what I learned in college or whether I can define words we do that through PM. That's where we can also discuss whether or not you have the right to sleep in on Mondays, have $800 in your wallet or eat horse meat. There has been too much distraction and diversion from the questions people have asked of you and I'm not going to engage in that. Enjoy the rest of your day DS.
So you are changing your mind then? I mean, you posted that my answer wasn't really an answer to your question? :? :corn: I'm just waiting on clarification of the question...I guess something you're not willing to provide. :corn:
I'm accepting the answer you provided. You hit the ball out of bounds and that's where I'll leave it.
If you'd like to have another conversation about what I learned in college or whether I can define words we do that through PM. That's where we can also discuss whether or not you have the right to sleep in on Mondays, have $800 in your wallet or eat horse meat. There has been too much distraction and diversion from the questions people have asked of you and I'm not going to engage in that. Enjoy the rest of your day DS.
So you are changing your mind then? I mean, you posted that my answer wasn't really an answer to your question? :? :corn: I'm just waiting on clarification of the question...I guess something you're not willing to provide. :corn:
Jeeza louisa, DS. She's taking the high road. Could you do the same?
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
I also don't like the idea of the lgbt community having to settle for a different name. We don't give a different name to unions between people of different religions or to interracial marriages. At one time those unions weren't widely accepted either. Acceptance has grown by leaps and bounds; being legalized is a huge help. I also think language has a lot of power. Words are used to dehumanize, belittle, injure...and they can be used to support and build up.
Sometimes things aren't the same, but they are equal
8+3=11
6+5=11
Both made up of different parts, but the outcome is the same.
Let's break it down... 1+1 (if different sex) has potential to = 3, with no help from anyone else. Whereas, 1+1 (if same sex) has No potential whatsoever to =3, with no help from anyone else.
If you can't admit there's a difference in potential "outcomes" from between uniting of two different sexes, which biologically has the potential to procreate, and two of the same sex, which biologically can't on their own... I kinda don't know what to say other than you're just wrong. The potential outcomes are different.
And since it's different from the definition which was used for thousands of years, it should be OK to have another name. Unless, of course, the agenda is deeper than "rights". Because if it's just about the word, it seems about trying to force-feed morals. I'm simply saying - it won't work.
But, to each his own, I don't really care. Like I said, I don't think government should be involved at all - in any marriage. It makes no sense that our moral compass is being defined by government - whether that's pro-gay marriage or not.
I do understand that there are different outcomes with regard to procreation, but I also don't believe that's the reason many people marry. As PoD wrote in his post, if that were the case, the elderly and the infertile wouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriages without procreation would be void. The concept of marriage has evolved and not everyone is on board with that. I think that's to be expected.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Let's break it down... 1+1 (if different sex) has potential to = 3, with no help from anyone else. Whereas, 1+1 (if same sex) has No potential whatsoever to =3, with no help from anyone else.
If you can't admit there's a difference in potential "outcomes" from between uniting of two different sexes, which biologically has the potential to procreate, and two of the same sex, which biologically can't on their own... I kinda don't know what to say other than you're just wrong. The potential outcomes are different.
And since it's different from the definition which was used for thousands of years, it should be OK to have another name. Unless, of course, the agenda is deeper than "rights". Because if it's just about the word, it seems about trying to force-feed morals. I'm simply saying - it won't work.
But, to each his own, I don't really care. Like I said, I don't think government should be involved at all - in any marriage. It makes no sense that our moral compass is being defined by government - whether that's pro-gay marriage or not.
I do understand that there are different outcomes with regard to procreation, but I also don't believe that's the reason many people marry. As PoD wrote in his post, if that were the case, the elderly and the infertile wouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriages without procreation would be void. The concept of marriage has evolved and not everyone is on board with that. I think that's to be expected.
Do you think you should be allowed to marry more than one person?
Let's break it down... 1+1 (if different sex) has potential to = 3, with no help from anyone else. Whereas, 1+1 (if same sex) has No potential whatsoever to =3, with no help from anyone else.
If you can't admit there's a difference in potential "outcomes" from between uniting of two different sexes, which biologically has the potential to procreate, and two of the same sex, which biologically can't on their own... I kinda don't know what to say other than you're just wrong. The potential outcomes are different.
And since it's different from the definition which was used for thousands of years, it should be OK to have another name. Unless, of course, the agenda is deeper than "rights". Because if it's just about the word, it seems about trying to force-feed morals. I'm simply saying - it won't work.
But, to each his own, I don't really care. Like I said, I don't think government should be involved at all - in any marriage. It makes no sense that our moral compass is being defined by government - whether that's pro-gay marriage or not.
I do understand that there are different outcomes with regard to procreation, but I also don't believe that's the reason many people marry. As PoD wrote in his post, if that were the case, the elderly and the infertile wouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriages without procreation would be void. The concept of marriage has evolved and not everyone is on board with that. I think that's to be expected.
Do you think you should be allowed to marry more than one person?
You know I don't know. Aside from my friend and I joking about how we could benefit from being sister wives, it's not something I've really thought about. At this point a support one adult marrying another adult regardless of sex.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
So if government gets out of marriage.. Who issues survivor benefits, green cards, regulates divorce proceedings, makes rules about testifying in court... Like it or not, marriage is entrenched with many government programs and laws.
And the whole "if I have to share the court with you, I'm taking my ball and going home" schtick is pretty juvenile.
Don't give me the shit that marriage is for procreation... If that was the case, seniors or infertile people wouldnt be able to get married. This is about treating my family equally to every one else's.
The government doesn't get out of the union of two people, all unions become civil unions,
with the equal civil rights for all. Man + woman, woman + woman, man + man
are joined as life partners. With a civil union license. The term husband and wife do not exist
in civil unions, joined are civil partners.
If someone chooses to marry within the church then individual churches will marry them
as a ritual separate from the law. This may not be important to some as they do not
believe in God, or marriage, or belonging to a church. For others it will be based
in tradition whatever the union.
Do you think you should be allowed to marry more than one person?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can never resist answering this question for some reason
Yes. Unequivocally yes. You should be able to marry anyone and anything you want. Because there should be no legal benefits associated with marriage alone, if someone is willing to perform the ceremony people should be able to be married to whatever and whoever they want.
If someone wants to deal with two wives or husbands I say go nuts. If someone wants to marry a carrot there should be no reason not to...since there won't be anything legally binding I don't see the harm.
It isn't without its possible downsides, but it is none of my business what my neighbor does.
What is the point of limiting it to just one person?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You know I don't know. Aside from my friend and I joking about how we could benefit from being sister wives, it's not something I've really thought about. At this point a support one adult marrying another adult regardless of sex.
I think once we start having the government redefine words (because if we're honest, we kinda went through the fact that this plight is more than monetary/legal rights [i don't think it's about that at all personally], it's about pushing for a new definition of a word - marriage to include two men and two women), this method will broaden. And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?
Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.
Do you think you should be allowed to marry more than one person?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can never resist answering this question for some reason
Yes. Unequivocally yes. You should be able to marry anyone and anything you want. Because there should be no legal benefits associated with marriage alone, if someone is willing to perform the ceremony people should be able to be married to whatever and whoever they want.
If someone wants to deal with two wives or husbands I say go nuts. If someone wants to marry a carrot there should be no reason not to...since there won't be anything legally binding I don't see the harm.
It isn't without its possible downsides, but it is none of my business what my neighbor does.
What is the point of limiting it to just one person?
In a way, I agree. If the public is really are trying to broaden this definition from one man plus one woman - legally, then why not two men plus one woman, etc.
The problem is it's obvious that the word loses it's original non-legal meaning (at some point - each person differs where this occurs exactly). That's pretty much why there's a fight about - that word.
I still see the solution, as I'm sure you do, get the government out. Freedom of speech already allows Bob to say he's married to his tree. Yet, Jim and Bev can still think their marriage is sacred because they got married at X, Y or Z religious or non-religious institution.
You know I don't know. Aside from my friend and I joking about how we could benefit from being sister wives, it's not something I've really thought about. At this point a support one adult marrying another adult regardless of sex.
I think once we start having the government redefine words (because if we're honest, we kinda went through the fact that this plight is more than monetary/legal rights [i don't think it's about that at all personally], it's about pushing for a new definition of a word - marriage to include two men and two women), this method will broaden. And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?
Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.
I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.
Why not polygamists? They are consensual. They could have a "union of love". Why even draw the line there? Why can't Jim marry his robot Betty? How's that hurt you? Let's say Jim has the robot programed to consent.
All this debate over less than 4% of the population. I wish the Demo's would actually discuss something that affects 100% of the population.
You think GOP is any better? They spend plenty of time on this subject, abortion, tax cuts for a small percentage of the population. What's the difference? Besides being a civil rights issue.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.
Why not polygamists? They are consensual. They could have a "union of love". Why even draw the line there? Why can't Jim marry his robot Betty? How's that hurt you? Let's say Jim has the robot programed to consent.
Hmmmm...if Jimmy programs her to consent, is that really consent? Like I said, I'm not saying no to polygamists, nor to hetero or same sex adults. I don't think marriage should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate between two adults.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
Unfortunately the majority in the country here don't feel the same way. If they did...it would already be done.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well earlier in this thread you said I didn't answer it? :? Even after I made that post about my wallet(which i stand by). :? You can try all of your pycho BS that was taught to you in college all you want but until you actually tell me what you mean by that word I can't answer you?
Let's break it down... 1+1 (if different sex) has potential to = 3, with no help from anyone else. Whereas, 1+1 (if same sex) has No potential whatsoever to =3, with no help from anyone else.
If you can't admit there's a difference in potential "outcomes" from between uniting of two different sexes, which biologically has the potential to procreate, and two of the same sex, which biologically can't on their own... I kinda don't know what to say other than you're just wrong. The potential outcomes are different.
And since it's different from the definition which was used for thousands of years, it should be OK to have another name. Unless, of course, the agenda is deeper than "rights". Because if it's just about the word, it seems about trying to force-feed morals. I'm simply saying - it won't work.
But, to each his own, I don't really care. Like I said, I don't think government should be involved at all - in any marriage. It makes no sense that our moral compass is being defined by government - whether that's pro-gay marriage or not.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
If you'd like to have another conversation about what I learned in college or whether I can define words we do that through PM. That's where we can also discuss whether or not you have the right to sleep in on Mondays, have $800 in your wallet or eat horse meat. There has been too much distraction and diversion from the questions people have asked of you and I'm not going to engage in that. Enjoy the rest of your day DS.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
So you are changing your mind then? I mean, you posted that my answer wasn't really an answer to your question? :? :corn: I'm just waiting on clarification of the question...I guess something you're not willing to provide. :corn:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Do you think you should be allowed to marry more than one person?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG804t0WG-c
High road about what? Someone wanted an answer to a question...I provided one...I was told it wasn't good enough...just looking for clarificaton.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-hab ... 33091.html
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
with the equal civil rights for all. Man + woman, woman + woman, man + man
are joined as life partners. With a civil union license. The term husband and wife do not exist
in civil unions, joined are civil partners.
If someone chooses to marry within the church then individual churches will marry them
as a ritual separate from the law. This may not be important to some as they do not
believe in God, or marriage, or belonging to a church. For others it will be based
in tradition whatever the union.
This should satisfy everyone.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can never resist answering this question for some reason
Yes. Unequivocally yes. You should be able to marry anyone and anything you want. Because there should be no legal benefits associated with marriage alone, if someone is willing to perform the ceremony people should be able to be married to whatever and whoever they want.
If someone wants to deal with two wives or husbands I say go nuts. If someone wants to marry a carrot there should be no reason not to...since there won't be anything legally binding I don't see the harm.
It isn't without its possible downsides, but it is none of my business what my neighbor does.
What is the point of limiting it to just one person?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think once we start having the government redefine words (because if we're honest, we kinda went through the fact that this plight is more than monetary/legal rights [i don't think it's about that at all personally], it's about pushing for a new definition of a word - marriage to include two men and two women), this method will broaden. And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?
Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Sister wives or married and dissolved?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
In a way, I agree. If the public is really are trying to broaden this definition from one man plus one woman - legally, then why not two men plus one woman, etc.
The problem is it's obvious that the word loses it's original non-legal meaning (at some point - each person differs where this occurs exactly). That's pretty much why there's a fight about - that word.
I still see the solution, as I'm sure you do, get the government out. Freedom of speech already allows Bob to say he's married to his tree. Yet, Jim and Bev can still think their marriage is sacred because they got married at X, Y or Z religious or non-religious institution.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Well, there we have it. He bit the bullet and lumped himself in with the crazies.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Why not polygamists? They are consensual. They could have a "union of love". Why even draw the line there? Why can't Jim marry his robot Betty? How's that hurt you? Let's say Jim has the robot programed to consent.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You think GOP is any better? They spend plenty of time on this subject, abortion, tax cuts for a small percentage of the population. What's the difference? Besides being a civil rights issue.
a lot of people tend to gloss over that 'where all men are created equal' part of the declaration of independence
I agree, cause that's a whole other thread about forcible rape on a carrot.
A very unfortunate truth.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"