Gay Marriage Ruling

[Anonymous]

There is no need for you to feel sorry, zk. My kids are just fine.

[sdduuuude]

Marriage means several different things to several different groups. By my count, there are 5 meanings and they are totally independent:

1) A personal commitment to remain faithful and/or declaration of love.
– requires no intervention by government, religious instututions or lawyers.

2) A personal commitment to remain faithful with legal repercussions.
– requires lawyers only.

3) A financial agreement
– requires lawyers only.

4) A religious ritual / status
– requires acceptance by a religious institution.

5) A change in taxable situation.
– requires acceptance by a government institution.

The gays don’t need any government ruling to implement #1-3 on their own.

They typically don’t really care what religious groups say and really have no right to tell a religious group what kind of marriage that religious group should accept.

Strangely, our society groups all these together in one “deal” called marriage.

I have no clue why this is such an emotional issue. Do gay people really care that much about how the IRS views their love life ?

I have to assume they are touched deeply by now being able to file jointly.

[sdduuuude]

Marriage means several different things to several different groups. By my count, there are 5 meanings and they are totally independent:

1) A personal commitment to remain faithful and/or declaration of love.
– requires no intervention by government, religious instututions or lawyers.

2) A personal commitment to remain faithful with legal repercussions.
– requires lawyers only.

3) A financial agreement
– requires lawyers only.

4) A religious ritual / status
– requires acceptance by a religious institution.

5) A change in taxable situation.
– requires acceptance by a government institution.

The gays don’t need any government ruling to implement #1-3 on their own.

They typically don’t really care what religious groups say and really have no right to tell a religious group what kind of marriage that religious group should accept.

Strangely, our society groups all these together in one “deal” called marriage.

I have no clue why this is such an emotional issue. Do gay people really care that much about how the IRS views their love life ?

I have to assume they are touched deeply by now being able to file jointly.

[sdduuuude]

Marriage means several different things to several different groups. By my count, there are 5 meanings and they are totally independent:

1) A personal commitment to remain faithful and/or declaration of love.
– requires no intervention by government, religious instututions or lawyers.

2) A personal commitment to remain faithful with legal repercussions.
– requires lawyers only.

3) A financial agreement
– requires lawyers only.

4) A religious ritual / status
– requires acceptance by a religious institution.

5) A change in taxable situation.
– requires acceptance by a government institution.

The gays don’t need any government ruling to implement #1-3 on their own.

They typically don’t really care what religious groups say and really have no right to tell a religious group what kind of marriage that religious group should accept.

Strangely, our society groups all these together in one “deal” called marriage.

I have no clue why this is such an emotional issue. Do gay people really care that much about how the IRS views their love life ?

I have to assume they are touched deeply by now being able to file jointly.

[sdduuuude]

Marriage means several different things to several different groups. By my count, there are 5 meanings and they are totally independent:

1) A personal commitment to remain faithful and/or declaration of love.
– requires no intervention by government, religious instututions or lawyers.

2) A personal commitment to remain faithful with legal repercussions.
– requires lawyers only.

3) A financial agreement
– requires lawyers only.

4) A religious ritual / status
– requires acceptance by a religious institution.

5) A change in taxable situation.
– requires acceptance by a government institution.

The gays don’t need any government ruling to implement #1-3 on their own.

They typically don’t really care what religious groups say and really have no right to tell a religious group what kind of marriage that religious group should accept.

Strangely, our society groups all these together in one “deal” called marriage.

I have no clue why this is such an emotional issue. Do gay people really care that much about how the IRS views their love life ?

I have to assume they are touched deeply by now being able to file jointly.

[sdduuuude]

Marriage means several different things to several different groups. By my count, there are 5 meanings and they are totally independent:

1) A personal commitment to remain faithful and/or declaration of love.
– requires no intervention by government, religious instututions or lawyers.

2) A personal commitment to remain faithful with legal repercussions.
– requires lawyers only.

3) A financial agreement
– requires lawyers only.

4) A religious ritual / status
– requires acceptance by a religious institution.

5) A change in taxable situation.
– requires acceptance by a government institution.

The gays don’t need any government ruling to implement #1-3 on their own.

They typically don’t really care what religious groups say and really have no right to tell a religious group what kind of marriage that religious group should accept.

Strangely, our society groups all these together in one “deal” called marriage.

I have no clue why this is such an emotional issue. Do gay people really care that much about how the IRS views their love life ?

I have to assume they are touched deeply by now being able to file jointly.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

meadandale:
“The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.”

That’s right. And there’s reasons for it. Unlike the “reasons” against gay marriage. And I’m not using “marriage” in the religious usage. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “marriage as defined by christians.” It can be a civil affair. Several of your arguments, meadandale, revolve around marriage as a religious event. It isn’t necessarily a religious union. Can you tell me why you think it always is?

“In most places, I can’t marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it’s not my fault she’s younger than me and I don’t want to have to wait for her to be 18).”

The reason for that is that people of that age aren’t considered ready to marry. Whether 18 is the correct age or not is certainly open to debate. I personally think it should be a bit younger. But it shouldn’t be 4. What should it be? I don’t know. But there should be a limit.

“In most places, I can’t marry my sister (I love her, it’s not my fault we are related).”

If you have children with your sister, the odds of them having genetic defects are very high, and they shouldn’t be subjected to that. Now, if one of you were not fertile, that would be different, and I think you should be able to marry her. Or maybe it should just be illegal to have children with a sibling.

“In most places I can’t have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can’t I marry them both).”

That one’s tricky. I’m not sure I agree with it. I did a little research and saw some of the justifications for it being illegal. I don’t think they made much sense. Maybe it should be legal.

“I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?”

Those women and children have been brainwashed since birth to go along with whatever the men say. And you think that’s okay? I think that’s scary.

“You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.”

I don’t think that “social norm” should enter into it. Whatever form of marriage doesn’t hurt other people should be allowed whether society thinks it’s “normal” or not.

[zk]

“liberals are intolerantly tolerant

and I got nothing better to do today.”

Your sparkling logic and infallible reasoning have left me with no reply.

[zk]

“liberals are intolerantly tolerant

and I got nothing better to do today.”

Your sparkling logic and infallible reasoning have left me with no reply.

[zk]

“liberals are intolerantly tolerant

and I got nothing better to do today.”

Your sparkling logic and infallible reasoning have left me with no reply.

[zk]

“liberals are intolerantly tolerant

and I got nothing better to do today.”

Your sparkling logic and infallible reasoning have left me with no reply.

[Author]

Posts