Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
Marriage isn't about the government saying its okay to fuck any more. It certainly isn't about God saying its okay to fuck. The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Marriage isn't about the government saying its okay to fuck any more. It certainly isn't about God saying its okay to fuck. The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Why just for raising kids? It legally defines a support unit between two people. Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated. Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Oakman wrote:
The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Why just for raising kids? It legally defines a support unit between two people. Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated. Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Oakman wrote:
The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Why just for raising kids? It legally defines a support unit between two people. Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated. Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated.
And right now, my sister holds my power of attorney. If for some reason I wanted to revoke it, 'twould be much cheaper than a divorce. However your point is larger than that, methinks. And I agree that there are advantages granted by the state and by custom to married couples from having automatic access to each other in hospitals to being able to insure each other at work to having a readily available sexual partner. But they are not the point of marriage. Take this advantage away, or that, or all, and marriage would still have its raison d'etre.
Tim Craig wrote:
Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Not if my opinion were to count - which it doesn't. ;) One of the really cool things about humans is that they can invent purposes to give meaning to their own lives. I'm talking about the societal purpose of marriage only. Even if a couple has children, these days, they will, if they stay married, spend many years together after the children are grown. They'll need to invent their own purpose, too I would note that in many societies, the inability to have conceive is grounds for divorce, although in the U.S. there's been a change in the last 30 years so its more likely to be failure to notify the partner before the marriage, of the inability to conceive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
In Australia if you are a hetro couple and you live together for two years the legal situation is the same as if you were married
Josh Gray wrote:
In Australia if you are a hetro couple and you live together for two years the legal situation is the same as if you were married
Most, if not all, states have some form of common law marriage. It may be more trouble to prove than just going in and waving around a marriage license. Some more enlightened states are setting up benefits for domestic partnerships.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated.
And right now, my sister holds my power of attorney. If for some reason I wanted to revoke it, 'twould be much cheaper than a divorce. However your point is larger than that, methinks. And I agree that there are advantages granted by the state and by custom to married couples from having automatic access to each other in hospitals to being able to insure each other at work to having a readily available sexual partner. But they are not the point of marriage. Take this advantage away, or that, or all, and marriage would still have its raison d'etre.
Tim Craig wrote:
Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Not if my opinion were to count - which it doesn't. ;) One of the really cool things about humans is that they can invent purposes to give meaning to their own lives. I'm talking about the societal purpose of marriage only. Even if a couple has children, these days, they will, if they stay married, spend many years together after the children are grown. They'll need to invent their own purpose, too I would note that in many societies, the inability to have conceive is grounds for divorce, although in the U.S. there's been a change in the last 30 years so its more likely to be failure to notify the partner before the marriage, of the inability to conceive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
My take is that the objection to gay marriage is religious which means they're using religion to define marriage. If that's the case, it's automatically excluded from governmental influence. States just get out of the marriage business altogether. If they decide stable unions are an advantage, then they go the civil union route and tell the churches to mind their own business. Churches are free to perform marriages but they carry no weight with the state unless you register them as a civil union. You want a ceremony to go with the civil union, get it at city hall.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
My take is that the objection to gay marriage is religious which means they're using religion to define marriage. If that's the case, it's automatically excluded from governmental influence. States just get out of the marriage business altogether. If they decide stable unions are an advantage, then they go the civil union route and tell the churches to mind their own business. Churches are free to perform marriages but they carry no weight with the state unless you register them as a civil union. You want a ceremony to go with the civil union, get it at city hall.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
States just get out of the marriage business altogether
Back when Romney and I both lived in Massachusetts and he was trying to amend the state Constitution to make gay marriage illegal, I proposed much the same thing. There is certainly no reason to tell some old parish priest that he has to marry two men, or two divorced heteros or whatever makes him think he'll burn in hellfire forever. (Why any God worth the name would give a damn is a thread in its own right, but there are plenty of well-meaning folk who have convinced themselves they know He would.) All that has to happen is that we remove any "power invested in me by the state" from the windup of his spiel and he can marry only those he feels like doing. But, as you say, the state would consider them shacking up until they registered at City Hall - which wouldn't be all that different than getting a license today, except that it would immediately convey all the benefits that right now are associated with the word "Marriage" without benefit of clergy: bada-bing, bada-bang. Funny thing is that is exactly the way I got married. My blushing, beautiful and buxom bride-to-be and I were supposed to take a plane from Boston to Orlando on a Tuesday night and get the marriage license on Wednesday so we could be married on Saturday (3 day waiting period). Unfortunately, Boston got snowed in and we didn't arrive until Friday. :omg: Since about half the retired air force colonels and generals in the state of Florida were planning on attending, the schedule did not change. We were still "married" by her parents' favorite Baptist minister on Saturday, still went to Disneyworld for our "honeymoon," but then, when we came back, we went through a quickie ceremony with same minister who this time added the words about "invested by the state," thus making us legal. As far as I know, God did not strike him dead for faking it earlier. Essentially we got married one week and contracted a civil union the following week.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
Traditional marriage exists to chain a man down and make him a responsible tax paying member of society. Quite how this is relevant to gays I dont know, since they dont have the responsibility of family, so why on earth would they want it other than to have the same tax breaks and protection in law.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
Who the hell cares if 2 people (of whatever sex) choose to get married? Why is it anyone else's business? What harm are they doing? Once again one person trying to tell another how to live based on their own narrow world view.
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life. The first one is 'Brahmacharya', 'Grihasta'. Wedding indicates joining into the second stage of life. The other two stages ('Vanaprastha' and 'Sanyasa') come during older age. I also would like to share an article which speaks about the good facts about marriage and about restricted and religiously-allowed sex habits: www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life. The first one is 'Brahmacharya', 'Grihasta'. Wedding indicates joining into the second stage of life. The other two stages ('Vanaprastha' and 'Sanyasa') come during older age. I also would like to share an article which speaks about the good facts about marriage and about restricted and religiously-allowed sex habits: www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life.
Very well said VDK. :) It is a holy function for human in "Grihastashram". I think marriage makes two souls together forever. :-O Five from me.... Regards.
"Save water,It's precious" :) "Don't forget to vote" ;) ;P ;)
-
Tim Craig wrote:
States just get out of the marriage business altogether
Back when Romney and I both lived in Massachusetts and he was trying to amend the state Constitution to make gay marriage illegal, I proposed much the same thing. There is certainly no reason to tell some old parish priest that he has to marry two men, or two divorced heteros or whatever makes him think he'll burn in hellfire forever. (Why any God worth the name would give a damn is a thread in its own right, but there are plenty of well-meaning folk who have convinced themselves they know He would.) All that has to happen is that we remove any "power invested in me by the state" from the windup of his spiel and he can marry only those he feels like doing. But, as you say, the state would consider them shacking up until they registered at City Hall - which wouldn't be all that different than getting a license today, except that it would immediately convey all the benefits that right now are associated with the word "Marriage" without benefit of clergy: bada-bing, bada-bang. Funny thing is that is exactly the way I got married. My blushing, beautiful and buxom bride-to-be and I were supposed to take a plane from Boston to Orlando on a Tuesday night and get the marriage license on Wednesday so we could be married on Saturday (3 day waiting period). Unfortunately, Boston got snowed in and we didn't arrive until Friday. :omg: Since about half the retired air force colonels and generals in the state of Florida were planning on attending, the schedule did not change. We were still "married" by her parents' favorite Baptist minister on Saturday, still went to Disneyworld for our "honeymoon," but then, when we came back, we went through a quickie ceremony with same minister who this time added the words about "invested by the state," thus making us legal. As far as I know, God did not strike him dead for faking it earlier. Essentially we got married one week and contracted a civil union the following week.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
and contracted a civil union
When I first read that, my thought was you were talking about contracting as in a disease. :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
When I first read that, my thought was you were talking about contracting as in a disease
I have been veddy, veddy lucky. The only contracting I've done has required a signature, not a hypodermic. . . . Well, except for the Asian Flu. I think her name was Su Lee. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote:
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life.
Very well said VDK. :) It is a holy function for human in "Grihastashram". I think marriage makes two souls together forever. :-O Five from me.... Regards.
"Save water,It's precious" :) "Don't forget to vote" ;) ;P ;)
Cosmo Thought wrote:
I think marriage makes two souls together forever. Five from me....
Then why do get people divorced? As they get divorced, do their souls too get divorced? One from me...
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life. The first one is 'Brahmacharya', 'Grihasta'. Wedding indicates joining into the second stage of life. The other two stages ('Vanaprastha' and 'Sanyasa') come during older age. I also would like to share an article which speaks about the good facts about marriage and about restricted and religiously-allowed sex habits: www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord.
Marriage is in service to the lord? Just WTF VDK? It becomes very difficult to understand you at times.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life. The first one is 'Brahmacharya', 'Grihasta'. Wedding indicates joining into the second stage of life. The other two stages ('Vanaprastha' and 'Sanyasa') come during older age. I also would like to share an article which speaks about the good facts about marriage and about restricted and religiously-allowed sex habits: www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonWhat utter nonsense. People get married for all sorts of reasons and they are not always religious in nature and not everyone who gets married is Hindu or even believes in a god. And then the bitch leaves and... oh shit, wrong thread... :laugh:
-
Cosmo Thought wrote:
I think marriage makes two souls together forever. Five from me....
Then why do get people divorced? As they get divorced, do their souls too get divorced? One from me...
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
because their love for each other is no more. so they get divorced. And I think marriage is only for that people who can love someone. Not just give and take relationship....
"Save water,It's precious" :) "Don't forget to vote" ;) ;P ;)