Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness

Oh I have no doubt about that Cereal.

[Marx]

If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o

Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.



Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

I honestly cannot see any judge overturning the marriages that we conducted prior to the ban.

[Marx]

If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o

Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.



Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

I honestly cannot see any judge overturning the marriages that we conducted prior to the ban.

[Marx]

If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?

I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o

Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.



Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

I honestly cannot see any judge overturning the marriages that we conducted prior to the ban.

[BlackLantern]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

[BlackLantern]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

[BlackLantern]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html

The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

Wow. :eek:

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html

The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

Wow. :eek:

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html

The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

Wow. :eek:

[Gilpesh]

Wow. :eek:

He's probably gay... that's why he came to that conclusion... stupid gays [/Yes on Prop 8 voter]




On a more serious note.... take that bigots! WOO HOO!

[Gilpesh]

Wow. :eek:

He's probably gay... that's why he came to that conclusion... stupid gays [/Yes on Prop 8 voter]




On a more serious note.... take that bigots! WOO HOO!

[Gilpesh]

Wow. :eek:

He's probably gay... that's why he came to that conclusion... stupid gays [/Yes on Prop 8 voter]




On a more serious note.... take that bigots! WOO HOO!

[wiegeabo]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he was very liberal in the 80's when the country was on a conservative swing. Now with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

[wiegeabo]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he was very liberal in the 80's when the country was on a conservative swing. Now with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

[wiegeabo]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he was very liberal in the 80's when the country was on a conservative swing. Now with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

[Marx]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he's very liberal. And with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

[Marx]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he's very liberal. And with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

[Marx]

Jerry Brown is the man. A lot of people hate him, but I think it's because he's very liberal. And with the liberal swing this country has taken, I think he's got a real shot at winning in 2010. I'll probably vote for him.

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

[cerealkiller182]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html



Wow. :eek:

very cool

[cerealkiller182]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html



Wow. :eek:

very cool

[cerealkiller182]

I'm the furthest thing from a Judge, but if I'm sitting in my courtroom and this comes across the docket the first words out of my mout at the petitioners are "Are you ****ing serious....?? Is this what you've spent months and months doing?...get the **** out of here before I have my 6'2 240lbs bailiff, who is gay, beat you retarded"

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES REPEAL OF PROP 8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/california-attorney-gener_0_n_152525.html



Wow. :eek:

very cool

[wiegeabo]

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

He didn't.


Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.



It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

[wiegeabo]

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

He didn't.


Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.



It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

[wiegeabo]

I'm not too familiar with him. If he's so liberal then why did he vote in favor of Prop 8?

He didn't.


Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.



It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

[Marx]

He didn't.




It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

Nevermind. I must have read that part of the article wrong. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[Marx]

He didn't.




It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

Nevermind. I must have read that part of the article wrong. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[Marx]

He didn't.




It's just that, as the state's top attorney, he's professionally required to uphold the law. Even if he doesn't agree with it. But that doesn't mean he can't work to change the law.

Nevermind. I must have read that part of the article wrong. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[Marx]

KENNEDY COMES OUT FOR GAY RIGHTS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16769.html

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

KENNEDY COMES OUT FOR GAY RIGHTS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16769.html

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

KENNEDY COMES OUT FOR GAY RIGHTS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16769.html

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[deathfromabove]

Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

agreed.

[deathfromabove]

Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

agreed.

[deathfromabove]

Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".

How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?

I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.

agreed.

[Kelly]

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.



very cool


That would be nice, but many judges are voted into office and trial lawyes are a huge, rich, voting block that also has influence other places. They do that very often, they won't be a judge for long. The laws on these types of suits have to change and not ever make it to the judge, BUT the trial lawyer's lobby is hugew So, I wouldn't see this type of thing happening anytime soon....:csad:

[Kelly]

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.



very cool


That would be nice, but many judges are voted into office and trial lawyes are a huge, rich, voting block that also has influence other places. They do that very often, they won't be a judge for long. The laws on these types of suits have to change and not ever make it to the judge, BUT the trial lawyer's lobby is hugew So, I wouldn't see this type of thing happening anytime soon....:csad:

[Kelly]

LOL, yeah, if i was a judge that and pretty much any frivolous suing would get tossed right out the window.



very cool


That would be nice, but many judges are voted into office and trial lawyes are a huge, rich, voting block that also has influence other places. They do that very often, they won't be a judge for long. The laws on these types of suits have to change and not ever make it to the judge, BUT the trial lawyer's lobby is hugew So, I wouldn't see this type of thing happening anytime soon....:csad:

[Scarlet spidey]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the Government out of marriage completely. :o

[Scarlet spidey]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the Government out of marriage completely. :o

[Scarlet spidey]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the Government out of marriage completely. :o

[Gilpesh]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the CHURCH out of marriage completely. :o

Fixed.

[Gilpesh]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the CHURCH out of marriage completely. :o

Fixed.

[Gilpesh]

I still say the best way to solve this problem is to just get the CHURCH out of marriage completely. :o

Fixed.

[XpunkRocker]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

[XpunkRocker]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

[XpunkRocker]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

[Gilpesh]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

The government marries you... the church is just a nice place to have a ceremony. :oldrazz:

[Gilpesh]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

The government marries you... the church is just a nice place to have a ceremony. :oldrazz:

[Gilpesh]

haha. kinda hard to keep church out of marraige when religion is a right that is very much protected ;)

Religion should stay out of government affairs and vica versa. seperation of church and state all the way

The government marries you... the church is just a nice place to have a ceremony. :oldrazz:

[XpunkRocker]

well, not exactly.

they both marry you. just one is a legal partnership and one is a religious partnership ;)

[XpunkRocker]

well, not exactly.

they both marry you. just one is a legal partnership and one is a religious partnership ;)

[XpunkRocker]

well, not exactly.

they both marry you. just one is a legal partnership and one is a religious partnership ;)

[Gilpesh]

And the one that is legal and counts.... is the government's.

FACE!

[Gilpesh]

And the one that is legal and counts.... is the government's.

FACE!

[Gilpesh]

And the one that is legal and counts.... is the government's.

FACE!

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, but it isn't a relgious thing. it is a "civil union" deal.

They should make it more clear

Civil unions are for the courts

and marraige is for the churches.

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, but it isn't a relgious thing. it is a "civil union" deal.

They should make it more clear

Civil unions are for the courts

and marraige is for the churches.

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, but it isn't a relgious thing. it is a "civil union" deal.

They should make it more clear

Civil unions are for the courts

and marraige is for the churches.

[cerealkiller182]

Semantics. I could really care less what the government calls it.

[cerealkiller182]

Semantics. I could really care less what the government calls it.

[cerealkiller182]

Semantics. I could really care less what the government calls it.

[Gilpesh]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

[Gilpesh]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

[Gilpesh]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

[XpunkRocker]

it doesnt matter what you call it, but it should be more clearly seperated.

a church union is nothing like a court union. trust me. they are nothing alike.

[XpunkRocker]

it doesnt matter what you call it, but it should be more clearly seperated.

a church union is nothing like a court union. trust me. they are nothing alike.

[XpunkRocker]

it doesnt matter what you call it, but it should be more clearly seperated.

a church union is nothing like a court union. trust me. they are nothing alike.

[XpunkRocker]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

They didn't steel it. the indians lost it in a game of checkers ;)

then they discovered black jack and opened a casino :P

[XpunkRocker]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

They didn't steel it. the indians lost it in a game of checkers ;)

then they discovered black jack and opened a casino :P

[XpunkRocker]

Um.... marriage isn't a religious thing... they stole it like the white man stole land from the Indians.

They didn't steel it. the indians lost it in a game of checkers ;)

then they discovered black jack and opened a casino :P

[Gilpesh]

Alright. The church should come up with a new name for it... and the state will continue to call them marriages and allow gays to marry.

[Gilpesh]

Alright. The church should come up with a new name for it... and the state will continue to call them marriages and allow gays to marry.

[Gilpesh]

Alright. The church should come up with a new name for it... and the state will continue to call them marriages and allow gays to marry.

[XpunkRocker]

haha, the church wont call it anything new. they are allowed to call it whatever they want. it is their church.

[XpunkRocker]

haha, the church wont call it anything new. they are allowed to call it whatever they want. it is their church.

[XpunkRocker]

haha, the church wont call it anything new. they are allowed to call it whatever they want. it is their church.

[cerealkiller182]

well its their government too

[cerealkiller182]

well its their government too

[cerealkiller182]

well its their government too

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, so the government can call it whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage, it is fine. but the legal form of marraige should be clearly seperated from the church's.

even if you call them the same thing, they are two very different things.

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, so the government can call it whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage, it is fine. but the legal form of marraige should be clearly seperated from the church's.

even if you call them the same thing, they are two very different things.

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, so the government can call it whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage, it is fine. but the legal form of marraige should be clearly seperated from the church's.

even if you call them the same thing, they are two very different things.

[cerealkiller182]

they are both a union of 2 people who supposedly love each other being recognized as one entity by a ruling body. Thats enough similarity for me to call them the same thing.

[cerealkiller182]

they are both a union of 2 people who supposedly love each other being recognized as one entity by a ruling body. Thats enough similarity for me to call them the same thing.

[cerealkiller182]

they are both a union of 2 people who supposedly love each other being recognized as one entity by a ruling body. Thats enough similarity for me to call them the same thing.

[XpunkRocker]

not at all. they are not the same thing. the church believes that maraige is between a man and a woman (i don't agree, but this is what they believe in and it is their right to believe in this). The church believes marraige is forever. In the church, you cannot get a divorce. Divorces do not exist. You can not get married more than once. You cannot have sex before you are married. and so on and so on.

Then there is the court's version of "marriage." It has to between two people to agree and sign a paper. they have to agree to share their fortune and to all the other legal things that come with marraige. They can see eachother in the hospital when they are sick. they can include eachother for their health insurance. and so on.

there is a legal form of marraige and there is the church's form of marraige. If we use the church version, we would be making all these laws that are illegal for the the government to pass. the government can't make people not get a divorce or make people save sex for marraige. That is completly illegal to make someone do that. If we follow the church's model, gays can't be married. That is illegal for the government to do (in my opinion). the government shouldn't limit marraige to a man and a woman.

[XpunkRocker]

not at all. they are not the same thing. the church believes that maraige is between a man and a woman (i don't agree, but this is what they believe in and it is their right to believe in this). The church believes marraige is forever. In the church, you cannot get a divorce. Divorces do not exist. You can not get married more than once. You cannot have sex before you are married. and so on and so on.

Then there is the court's version of "marriage." It has to between two people to agree and sign a paper. they have to agree to share their fortune and to all the other legal things that come with marraige. They can see eachother in the hospital when they are sick. they can include eachother for their health insurance. and so on.

there is a legal form of marraige and there is the church's form of marraige. If we use the church version, we would be making all these laws that are illegal for the the government to pass. the government can't make people not get a divorce or make people save sex for marraige. That is completly illegal to make someone do that. If we follow the church's model, gays can't be married. That is illegal for the government to do (in my opinion). the government shouldn't limit marraige to a man and a woman.

[XpunkRocker]

not at all. they are not the same thing. the church believes that maraige is between a man and a woman (i don't agree, but this is what they believe in and it is their right to believe in this). The church believes marraige is forever. In the church, you cannot get a divorce. Divorces do not exist. You can not get married more than once. You cannot have sex before you are married. and so on and so on.

Then there is the court's version of "marriage." It has to between two people to agree and sign a paper. they have to agree to share their fortune and to all the other legal things that come with marraige. They can see eachother in the hospital when they are sick. they can include eachother for their health insurance. and so on.

there is a legal form of marraige and there is the church's form of marraige. If we use the church version, we would be making all these laws that are illegal for the the government to pass. the government can't make people not get a divorce or make people save sex for marraige. That is completly illegal to make someone do that. If we follow the church's model, gays can't be married. That is illegal for the government to do (in my opinion). the government shouldn't limit marraige to a man and a woman.

[Scarlet spidey]

Fixed.No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

[Scarlet spidey]

Fixed.No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

[Scarlet spidey]

Fixed.No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

[Gilpesh]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

:whatever:

[Gilpesh]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

:whatever:

[Gilpesh]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.

:whatever:

[XpunkRocker]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

[XpunkRocker]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

[XpunkRocker]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

[Scarlet spidey]

:whatever:
Your very intelligent well thought out point has made my change my opinion.
Government invented marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

:whatever:
Your very intelligent well thought out point has made my change my opinion.
Government invented marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

:whatever:
Your very intelligent well thought out point has made my change my opinion.
Government invented marriage.

[XpunkRocker]

i think Gilpesh was only being half serious and joking around a little.

[XpunkRocker]

i think Gilpesh was only being half serious and joking around a little.

[XpunkRocker]

i think Gilpesh was only being half serious and joking around a little.

[Gilpesh]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.

[Gilpesh]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.

[Gilpesh]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.

[wiegeabo]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.

Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.


I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

[wiegeabo]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.

Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.


I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

[wiegeabo]

this is why the two should be seperated. people get them confused thinking they are the same thing and they are not.

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.

Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.


I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

[Scarlet spidey]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.
Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

[Scarlet spidey]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.
Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

[Scarlet spidey]

Seriously. Just cause people automatically think CHURCH and RELIGION... doesn't mean that they invented marriage and that marriage is patented by the church.
Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

[XpunkRocker]

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.



Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.

I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

That is pretty much it. They are called the same thing, but they are not. If the government did everything the church did, the government would violate human rights. If the church did everything that the government did, their beliefs would be violated.

i am a big believe in seperation of church and state. the two should not be mixed.

[XpunkRocker]

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.



Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.

I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

That is pretty much it. They are called the same thing, but they are not. If the government did everything the church did, the government would violate human rights. If the church did everything that the government did, their beliefs would be violated.

i am a big believe in seperation of church and state. the two should not be mixed.

[XpunkRocker]

Exactly. It's a semantics thing.



Legal marriage is essentially a contract that says, in the eyes of the law, you share everything (like property) and automatically have certain rights when it comes to the other person that no one else gets automatically.

Religious marriage is a union in the eyes of whatever god is involved. It may have some legal bindings within the religion (no divorce for Catholics, divorce allowed in other religions), but not necessarily in the eyes of the law.

I think the confusion comes in because we allow one ceremony to counts as both. So people try to force both marriages into being one type of marriage because we don't really make that distinction (even though you could just go to a justice of the peace and get married with no religious involvement).

That is pretty much it. They are called the same thing, but they are not. If the government did everything the church did, the government would violate human rights. If the church did everything that the government did, their beliefs would be violated.

i am a big believe in seperation of church and state. the two should not be mixed.

[wiegeabo]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

From wiki
"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[10] In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin[citation needed]. Stress about the necessity of marriage has historically been a nearly universal source of stress.[11]"

Not necessarily true for the origins of all marriage, obviously.

[wiegeabo]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

From wiki
"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[10] In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin[citation needed]. Stress about the necessity of marriage has historically been a nearly universal source of stress.[11]"

Not necessarily true for the origins of all marriage, obviously.

[wiegeabo]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

From wiki
"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[10] In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin[citation needed]. Stress about the necessity of marriage has historically been a nearly universal source of stress.[11]"

Not necessarily true for the origins of all marriage, obviously.

[Gilpesh]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

[Gilpesh]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

[Gilpesh]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

[wiegeabo]

but you have to admit, the church's marraige is not the same as the legal marraige.

they are two seperate things. The church has every right to have marraige the way they want it. It just doesn't have any real legallity.

the catholic church isnt the only religion that has something silimlar to marriage. each relgion has their own beliefs on marraige.

I agree. If a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they don't have to. And government shouldn't be able to force them to do so. There are plenty of other churches that will provide a religious marriage.

As for legal marriage in the eyes of the law, government should not be allowed to discriminate between marriages for two consenting adults.

[wiegeabo]

but you have to admit, the church's marraige is not the same as the legal marraige.

they are two seperate things. The church has every right to have marraige the way they want it. It just doesn't have any real legallity.

the catholic church isnt the only religion that has something silimlar to marriage. each relgion has their own beliefs on marraige.

I agree. If a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they don't have to. And government shouldn't be able to force them to do so. There are plenty of other churches that will provide a religious marriage.

As for legal marriage in the eyes of the law, government should not be allowed to discriminate between marriages for two consenting adults.

[wiegeabo]

but you have to admit, the church's marraige is not the same as the legal marraige.

they are two seperate things. The church has every right to have marraige the way they want it. It just doesn't have any real legallity.

the catholic church isnt the only religion that has something silimlar to marriage. each relgion has their own beliefs on marraige.

I agree. If a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they don't have to. And government shouldn't be able to force them to do so. There are plenty of other churches that will provide a religious marriage.

As for legal marriage in the eyes of the law, government should not be allowed to discriminate between marriages for two consenting adults.

[XpunkRocker]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

in medieval europe, yes.

but marraige actually predates most written history.

[XpunkRocker]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

in medieval europe, yes.

but marraige actually predates most written history.

[XpunkRocker]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.

in medieval europe, yes.

but marraige actually predates most written history.

[Scarlet spidey]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.
And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.
And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

I'm no historical scholar but from what I've read... procreation, economics, and politics of joining families together.
And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

[XpunkRocker]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

[XpunkRocker]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

[XpunkRocker]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

[Gilpesh]

You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either.

Then how about quoting what you were talking about! :o:cmad::o:cmad::o

My bad.

I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

For the legal issues that marriage deals with? It's easier to take the Jeezus out of marriage and allow gay people to get married... than take the Man out of marriage.

[Gilpesh]

You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either.

Then how about quoting what you were talking about! :o:cmad::o:cmad::o

My bad.

I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

For the legal issues that marriage deals with? It's easier to take the Jeezus out of marriage and allow gay people to get married... than take the Man out of marriage.

[Gilpesh]

You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either.

Then how about quoting what you were talking about! :o:cmad::o:cmad::o

My bad.

I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

For the legal issues that marriage deals with? It's easier to take the Jeezus out of marriage and allow gay people to get married... than take the Man out of marriage.

[wiegeabo]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

[wiegeabo]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

[wiegeabo]

so when two people seperate, they can argue who gets the couch and who gets the tv... and use lawyers.

that, and it will grant a couple legal rights that they wouldn't have if they weren't legally married.

Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

[The Senator]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

Some folks would say Jebus and the all-mighty sky finger.

I, on the other hand, believe that the concept of marriage comes from man, and since it is a man-made concept, man has the ability to redefine it. So while marriage may have traditionally began as a union between one man and one woman, I believe that our society will progress socially enough to allow all people the ability to marry, as long as it is consensual between adults.

Hell, we already have, in two states... hopefully it won't be long before the entire country reflects this...

[The Senator]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

Some folks would say Jebus and the all-mighty sky finger.

I, on the other hand, believe that the concept of marriage comes from man, and since it is a man-made concept, man has the ability to redefine it. So while marriage may have traditionally began as a union between one man and one woman, I believe that our society will progress socially enough to allow all people the ability to marry, as long as it is consensual between adults.

Hell, we already have, in two states... hopefully it won't be long before the entire country reflects this...

[The Senator]

Where did the concept of marriage come from, then?

Some folks would say Jebus and the all-mighty sky finger.

I, on the other hand, believe that the concept of marriage comes from man, and since it is a man-made concept, man has the ability to redefine it. So while marriage may have traditionally began as a union between one man and one woman, I believe that our society will progress socially enough to allow all people the ability to marry, as long as it is consensual between adults.

Hell, we already have, in two states... hopefully it won't be long before the entire country reflects this...

[The Senator]

And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.

[The Senator]

And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.

[The Senator]

And that's not the Government, right.
You might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I want religion to dictate what marriage is, or should be either. I just don't want Government to have anything to do with marriage. I don't see why they need to recognize something like marriage.

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.

[Hotwire]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.
So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

And besides, marriage has always been a sort of binding contract between two individuals. This is where the government steps in. Should the marriage end, there need to be rules in how to distribute the estate.

[Hotwire]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.
So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

And besides, marriage has always been a sort of binding contract between two individuals. This is where the government steps in. Should the marriage end, there need to be rules in how to distribute the estate.

[Hotwire]

No, you broke it.
Why should the government be involved in your personal life?
Marriage is a religious thing. If you don't like religion don't get married. If you still want to have some sort of ceremony to show your love and commitment for your partner find a new ceremony to have.
So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

And besides, marriage has always been a sort of binding contract between two individuals. This is where the government steps in. Should the marriage end, there need to be rules in how to distribute the estate.

[XpunkRocker]

no. it means you are goddless and jesus is coming for you :p

[XpunkRocker]

no. it means you are goddless and jesus is coming for you :p

[XpunkRocker]

no. it means you are goddless and jesus is coming for you :p

[The Senator]

So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

Of course it doesn't. Didn't you know that you have to be religious in order to express your love? People who refuse to live their lives based on religious theology are evil, sinful people who shouldn't be able to marry, reproduce, or live meaningful lives.

[The Senator]

So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

Of course it doesn't. Didn't you know that you have to be religious in order to express your love? People who refuse to live their lives based on religious theology are evil, sinful people who shouldn't be able to marry, reproduce, or live meaningful lives.

[The Senator]

So, since my wife and I were married in a courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, it doesn't count because it wasn't religious?

Of course it doesn't. Didn't you know that you have to be religious in order to express your love? People who refuse to live their lives based on religious theology are evil, sinful people who shouldn't be able to marry, reproduce, or live meaningful lives.

[Scarlet spidey]

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.
Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

[Scarlet spidey]

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.
Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

[Scarlet spidey]

Because marriage shouldn't be confined to the religious? :huh:

I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry. Our society made heterosexual marriage secular, I don't see a reason why we should throw the whole system on its head because gays want to be able to marry.
Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

[XpunkRocker]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.

[XpunkRocker]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.

[XpunkRocker]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.

[Scarlet spidey]

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.
What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?

[Scarlet spidey]

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.
What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?

[Scarlet spidey]

the government needs to have some sort of system to keep things organized. people who are married should have legal rights.
What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?

[The Senator]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

Because marriage is a legal contract which involves certain rights and benefits, and those rights and benefits are recognized by both the state and federal government. Marriage has been a legal institution just as long as it has been a religious institution. Moreover, a simple party won't take care of being able to visit my ill partner in the hospital, or place him under the care of my health insurance provider, or allow him access to my federal employment benefits in case something awful happens in which he needs to access my funds without having to go through me.

Once the federal government decides to stop recognizing all marriages (which it won't, because religion has its hands in the government's pocket more than corporations or interest groups), maybe a simple party will suffice. But until these benefits are retracted from couples who are married altogether, I refuse to pour money into a lavish party which won't mean anything the moment the fancy decorations and attire get put away.

[The Senator]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

Because marriage is a legal contract which involves certain rights and benefits, and those rights and benefits are recognized by both the state and federal government. Marriage has been a legal institution just as long as it has been a religious institution. Moreover, a simple party won't take care of being able to visit my ill partner in the hospital, or place him under the care of my health insurance provider, or allow him access to my federal employment benefits in case something awful happens in which he needs to access my funds without having to go through me.

Once the federal government decides to stop recognizing all marriages (which it won't, because religion has its hands in the government's pocket more than corporations or interest groups), maybe a simple party will suffice. But until these benefits are retracted from couples who are married altogether, I refuse to pour money into a lavish party which won't mean anything the moment the fancy decorations and attire get put away.

[The Senator]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

Because marriage is a legal contract which involves certain rights and benefits, and those rights and benefits are recognized by both the state and federal government. Marriage has been a legal institution just as long as it has been a religious institution. Moreover, a simple party won't take care of being able to visit my ill partner in the hospital, or place him under the care of my health insurance provider, or allow him access to my federal employment benefits in case something awful happens in which he needs to access my funds without having to go through me.

Once the federal government decides to stop recognizing all marriages (which it won't, because religion has its hands in the government's pocket more than corporations or interest groups), maybe a simple party will suffice. But until these benefits are retracted from couples who are married altogether, I refuse to pour money into a lavish party which won't mean anything the moment the fancy decorations and attire get put away.

[XpunkRocker]

What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?


Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

get it now?

[XpunkRocker]

What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?


Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

get it now?

[XpunkRocker]

What kind of legal rights do married people deserve that single people do not deserve?


Like taxes, custody right, power of attorney, insurance benefits, pension and plan benefits,...

get it now?

[wiegeabo]

All government should need to do for marriage is have the two people sign a contract that spells out the state and federal rights they get as a couple. No ceremony necessary.

Then, if you want to have a ceremony, party, whatever for friends and family, you can.


And the church can do whatever they want if you want them to be involved in order to get a religiously recognized marriage.

[wiegeabo]

All government should need to do for marriage is have the two people sign a contract that spells out the state and federal rights they get as a couple. No ceremony necessary.

Then, if you want to have a ceremony, party, whatever for friends and family, you can.


And the church can do whatever they want if you want them to be involved in order to get a religiously recognized marriage.

[wiegeabo]

All government should need to do for marriage is have the two people sign a contract that spells out the state and federal rights they get as a couple. No ceremony necessary.

Then, if you want to have a ceremony, party, whatever for friends and family, you can.


And the church can do whatever they want if you want them to be involved in order to get a religiously recognized marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

get it now?
That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

[Scarlet spidey]

get it now?
That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

[Scarlet spidey]

get it now?
That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

[The Senator]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Because they aren't married?

Surely you're smart enough to figure that one out... otherwise, you should consider reading up on the legality of marriage...

[The Senator]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Because they aren't married?

Surely you're smart enough to figure that one out... otherwise, you should consider reading up on the legality of marriage...

[The Senator]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Because they aren't married?

Surely you're smart enough to figure that one out... otherwise, you should consider reading up on the legality of marriage...

[cerealkiller182]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves. (on paper anyway)

[cerealkiller182]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves. (on paper anyway)

[cerealkiller182]

Call it whatever you want, but the Government doesn't need to be involved with it.
If you and your wife (or another dude)want to be joined in a union go for it. Why does the Government need to give you the okay, or even recognize it? What you do in your house is your own property, nobody has to acknowledge it.
If you want a traditional religious marriage that's recognized by the church go for it. If not, invite your friends and family over and have a party. Why do you need the state involved?

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves. (on paper anyway)

[cerealkiller182]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Same reason why people without kids dont get childcare

[cerealkiller182]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Same reason why people without kids dont get childcare

[cerealkiller182]

That doesn't explain why single people don't deserve those rights too.

Same reason why people without kids dont get childcare

[The Senator]

And actually, to expand on that last point... the reason why married couples get those benefits in the first place is because it is assumed that the couples who are willing to take on the responsibilities associated with marriage should have access to certain legal benefits... marriage is all about responsibility... singles don't deserve some of these rights because they have proven legally that they are ready to take on those responsibilities. Plus, it should be common sense that a single person shouldn't have access to someone's benefits after they've only been dating for a week...

For me and most others, marriage is a ceremony which proves that a couple is willing to be with each other for a very long time-- presumably until death-- and the legal benefits consecrate that.

[The Senator]

And actually, to expand on that last point... the reason why married couples get those benefits in the first place is because it is assumed that the couples who are willing to take on the responsibilities associated with marriage should have access to certain legal benefits... marriage is all about responsibility... singles don't deserve some of these rights because they have proven legally that they are ready to take on those responsibilities. Plus, it should be common sense that a single person shouldn't have access to someone's benefits after they've only been dating for a week...

For me and most others, marriage is a ceremony which proves that a couple is willing to be with each other for a very long time-- presumably until death-- and the legal benefits consecrate that.

[The Senator]

And actually, to expand on that last point... the reason why married couples get those benefits in the first place is because it is assumed that the couples who are willing to take on the responsibilities associated with marriage should have access to certain legal benefits... marriage is all about responsibility... singles don't deserve some of these rights because they have proven legally that they are ready to take on those responsibilities. Plus, it should be common sense that a single person shouldn't have access to someone's benefits after they've only been dating for a week...

For me and most others, marriage is a ceremony which proves that a couple is willing to be with each other for a very long time-- presumably until death-- and the legal benefits consecrate that.

[The Senator]

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves.

We all know the government's only purpose should be to invade countries and, um... well, I'm not even sure I know what conservatives believe government should be anymore, except for a scapegoat for all the country's problems...

[The Senator]

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves.

We all know the government's only purpose should be to invade countries and, um... well, I'm not even sure I know what conservatives believe government should be anymore, except for a scapegoat for all the country's problems...

[The Senator]

THe government isnt really saying "you can," to gays, but "they can," to everyone else. Without that then there is no way for the government to protect gays right to marriage when protestors tell them to go **** themselves.

We all know the government's only purpose should be to invade countries and, um... well, I'm not even sure I know what conservatives believe government should be anymore, except for a scapegoat for all the country's problems...

[XpunkRocker]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

[XpunkRocker]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

[XpunkRocker]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

[wiegeabo]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

Where else are they going to get $10 billion to give out as bonuses?

[wiegeabo]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

Where else are they going to get $10 billion to give out as bonuses?

[wiegeabo]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

Where else are they going to get $10 billion to give out as bonuses?

[asimplegirl]

I think that the government should stay out of marriages.

It can be done now. You can enter a church, say your vows, write out a contract for exactly what you expect, and exactly what you will not tolerate. While you are not mad, write out exactly how your life will be divided if the relationship should end, including how custody should be separated in the event that you have children. You then have 2 witnesses sign, get it notarized, and bring it to two separate lawyers to be filed. You can then change your name legally if you want.

You completely take responsibility for your marriage, bypass the divorce courts, family courts, and there is no reason to involve the government. The price is less that quadruple what it would be if you went the "traditional" route.

I have done this. It is not hard.

If you realize why you must go through the government to be "married" nowadays, you may not be too keen on doing it through the state.

They began requiring people to register for marriage licenses, and get blood tests so that if they were diseased, they could prevent people from marrying, and prevent them from receiving certain benefits from the government if they were. They also wanted to keep up with people's blood lines. I am not that happy to support this invasion of privacy.

If marriage MUST go through the federal government, then EVERY person should get the same rights. After all, heterosexual is just the sexual preference of a group of people also. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the federal government thought that blacks were not equals either, and were not allowed to marry, either.

Just answer this:

How does it affect your everyday life for some person you don't know to be married to someone else you don't know?

Why are we not rallying the troops for taking away these rights from child molesters and violent offenders? Why innocent people that are just interested in a different type of person than you?

[asimplegirl]

I think that the government should stay out of marriages.

It can be done now. You can enter a church, say your vows, write out a contract for exactly what you expect, and exactly what you will not tolerate. While you are not mad, write out exactly how your life will be divided if the relationship should end, including how custody should be separated in the event that you have children. You then have 2 witnesses sign, get it notarized, and bring it to two separate lawyers to be filed. You can then change your name legally if you want.

You completely take responsibility for your marriage, bypass the divorce courts, family courts, and there is no reason to involve the government. The price is less that quadruple what it would be if you went the "traditional" route.

I have done this. It is not hard.

If you realize why you must go through the government to be "married" nowadays, you may not be too keen on doing it through the state.

They began requiring people to register for marriage licenses, and get blood tests so that if they were diseased, they could prevent people from marrying, and prevent them from receiving certain benefits from the government if they were. They also wanted to keep up with people's blood lines. I am not that happy to support this invasion of privacy.

If marriage MUST go through the federal government, then EVERY person should get the same rights. After all, heterosexual is just the sexual preference of a group of people also. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the federal government thought that blacks were not equals either, and were not allowed to marry, either.

Just answer this:

How does it affect your everyday life for some person you don't know to be married to someone else you don't know?

Why are we not rallying the troops for taking away these rights from child molesters and violent offenders? Why innocent people that are just interested in a different type of person than you?

[asimplegirl]

I think that the government should stay out of marriages.

It can be done now. You can enter a church, say your vows, write out a contract for exactly what you expect, and exactly what you will not tolerate. While you are not mad, write out exactly how your life will be divided if the relationship should end, including how custody should be separated in the event that you have children. You then have 2 witnesses sign, get it notarized, and bring it to two separate lawyers to be filed. You can then change your name legally if you want.

You completely take responsibility for your marriage, bypass the divorce courts, family courts, and there is no reason to involve the government. The price is less that quadruple what it would be if you went the "traditional" route.

I have done this. It is not hard.

If you realize why you must go through the government to be "married" nowadays, you may not be too keen on doing it through the state.

They began requiring people to register for marriage licenses, and get blood tests so that if they were diseased, they could prevent people from marrying, and prevent them from receiving certain benefits from the government if they were. They also wanted to keep up with people's blood lines. I am not that happy to support this invasion of privacy.

If marriage MUST go through the federal government, then EVERY person should get the same rights. After all, heterosexual is just the sexual preference of a group of people also. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the federal government thought that blacks were not equals either, and were not allowed to marry, either.

Just answer this:

How does it affect your everyday life for some person you don't know to be married to someone else you don't know?

Why are we not rallying the troops for taking away these rights from child molesters and violent offenders? Why innocent people that are just interested in a different type of person than you?

[wiegeabo]

Only 8 states require blood tests, including District of Columbia (not sure if they counts as 8 or 9). In one respect, blood tests are still a good idea since if the RH factors of the parents' blood are incompatible (one is Rh- while the other is Rh+), then it's almost a certainly that they will be unable to have children and miscarry every time.

[wiegeabo]

Only 8 states require blood tests, including District of Columbia (not sure if they counts as 8 or 9). In one respect, blood tests are still a good idea since if the RH factors of the parents' blood are incompatible (one is Rh- while the other is Rh+), then it's almost a certainly that they will be unable to have children and miscarry every time.

[wiegeabo]

Only 8 states require blood tests, including District of Columbia (not sure if they counts as 8 or 9). In one respect, blood tests are still a good idea since if the RH factors of the parents' blood are incompatible (one is Rh- while the other is Rh+), then it's almost a certainly that they will be unable to have children and miscarry every time.

[asimplegirl]

I said that is how it started.


AND, you think it is a good idea for THE GOVERNMENT to tell you if you should not even try to have kids?

[asimplegirl]

I said that is how it started.


AND, you think it is a good idea for THE GOVERNMENT to tell you if you should not even try to have kids?

[asimplegirl]

I said that is how it started.


AND, you think it is a good idea for THE GOVERNMENT to tell you if you should not even try to have kids?

[wiegeabo]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.

[wiegeabo]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.

[wiegeabo]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.

[Scarlet spidey]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.Then the parents should do that on their own time.
It shouldn't be mandatory.

[Scarlet spidey]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.Then the parents should do that on their own time.
It shouldn't be mandatory.

[Scarlet spidey]

Never said they should be required. Just that they're a good idea.. The parents should know if every time they're going to try and have kids, there's a very, very good chance it will die. It gives them the opportunity to avoid that pain and look at other options like adoption.Then the parents should do that on their own time.
It shouldn't be mandatory.

[asimplegirl]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

[asimplegirl]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

[asimplegirl]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

[Marx]

Wow. It looks like I've missed quite the conversation!

[Marx]

Wow. It looks like I've missed quite the conversation!

[Marx]

Wow. It looks like I've missed quite the conversation!

[XpunkRocker]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.


yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

[XpunkRocker]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.


yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

[XpunkRocker]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.


yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

[asimplegirl]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.

[asimplegirl]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.

[asimplegirl]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards asimplegirl! :yay:

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards asimplegirl! :yay:

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards asimplegirl! :yay:

[wiegeabo]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

WTF?

Besides not even following the same logic, I still said nothing about it being required. Just that it's a good idea. If the parents want to go ahead and try to have kids knowing the potential outcome, fine. But don't you think they should at least know what they're getting into?

And as far as I can find, no state can deny you a marriage license based on the results of the test. You just have to show the clerk proof that you took one.

So, if the results have no bearing on the marriage being allowed, and no one needs to even know the results except the two getting married, then all the blood test does is show the couple an insight into their medical histories. Something they should know anyway.

[wiegeabo]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

WTF?

Besides not even following the same logic, I still said nothing about it being required. Just that it's a good idea. If the parents want to go ahead and try to have kids knowing the potential outcome, fine. But don't you think they should at least know what they're getting into?

And as far as I can find, no state can deny you a marriage license based on the results of the test. You just have to show the clerk proof that you took one.

So, if the results have no bearing on the marriage being allowed, and no one needs to even know the results except the two getting married, then all the blood test does is show the couple an insight into their medical histories. Something they should know anyway.

[wiegeabo]

Okay then, I say that I think it is "a good idea", that because you cannot be a superhero, to save you the pain of being let down, the government can prevent you from ever seeing anything about one ever again...You know...save you that pain.

See how that works? My opinion is different than yours, so because I am in charge and think that, I will get to decide who is okay to do what ever I think they are okay to do....even if you don't agree, and it is your life.

WTF?

Besides not even following the same logic, I still said nothing about it being required. Just that it's a good idea. If the parents want to go ahead and try to have kids knowing the potential outcome, fine. But don't you think they should at least know what they're getting into?

And as far as I can find, no state can deny you a marriage license based on the results of the test. You just have to show the clerk proof that you took one.

So, if the results have no bearing on the marriage being allowed, and no one needs to even know the results except the two getting married, then all the blood test does is show the couple an insight into their medical histories. Something they should know anyway.

[XpunkRocker]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.


as far as human rights go, we have been going in the right direction and the government has been giving the people the rights they should have. abolishing slavery, women's sufferage, etc.

but there needs to be a legal civil union. married people have legal rights they need to protect themselves. if a guy and girl are together for 10 years, and the girl is just a housewife, and the guy kicks her out and leaves her with nothing, she is screwed without the governments help. and the government can't help her unless there is a legal document that says they were married.

[XpunkRocker]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.


as far as human rights go, we have been going in the right direction and the government has been giving the people the rights they should have. abolishing slavery, women's sufferage, etc.

but there needs to be a legal civil union. married people have legal rights they need to protect themselves. if a guy and girl are together for 10 years, and the girl is just a housewife, and the guy kicks her out and leaves her with nothing, she is screwed without the governments help. and the government can't help her unless there is a legal document that says they were married.

[XpunkRocker]

And that is exactly my point..though you scare me with the whole killin people thing.

See, once you give the government that control, there is no getting it back...what else do they get control of because of a certain group of people's beliefs that overstep the rights of another?? And once it goes through.....it doesn't matter WHAT side you are on.


as far as human rights go, we have been going in the right direction and the government has been giving the people the rights they should have. abolishing slavery, women's sufferage, etc.

but there needs to be a legal civil union. married people have legal rights they need to protect themselves. if a guy and girl are together for 10 years, and the girl is just a housewife, and the guy kicks her out and leaves her with nothing, she is screwed without the governments help. and the government can't help her unless there is a legal document that says they were married.

[deathfromabove]

yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

did you really just compare murder to gay marriage?

[deathfromabove]

yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

did you really just compare murder to gay marriage?

[deathfromabove]

yeah, that is how government works. the government thinks you shouldn't kill people. if you disagree and kill someone, you go to jail for murder because the government is in charge. even if you think you should kill someone, it doesn't matter

see how that works?

did you really just compare murder to gay marriage?

[The Senator]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

[The Senator]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

[The Senator]

the government is also supposed to bail out companies that don't deserve it :up:

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

[Marx]

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

[Marx]

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

[Marx]

With imaginary money we don't have, too :up:

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

[The Senator]

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

[The Senator]

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

[The Senator]

I'm sure we could just turn the printers on or borrow more from the Chinese. :whatever:

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

[XpunkRocker]

i say we just forge and print currency from other countries. particularly the ones i don't like.

[XpunkRocker]

i say we just forge and print currency from other countries. particularly the ones i don't like.

[XpunkRocker]

i say we just forge and print currency from other countries. particularly the ones i don't like.

[Addendum]

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

When this country was founded, it was already in debt. I think France is still waiting to be repaid for their assistance in the Revolutionary War

[Addendum]

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

When this country was founded, it was already in debt. I think France is still waiting to be repaid for their assistance in the Revolutionary War

[Addendum]

Considering we've completely destroyed the monetary system here in this country alone, we might as well propose eliminating all of our debts and resetting the debt clock to zero... you know, since all money is in this country is paper...

When this country was founded, it was already in debt. I think France is still waiting to be repaid for their assistance in the Revolutionary War