Gay Marriage Ruling

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want, assuming they are of legal age and mental capabilities.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want, assuming they are of legal age and mental capabilities.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want, assuming they are of legal age and mental capabilities.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want, assuming they are of legal age and mental capabilities.

[DWCAP]

zk,

I wasnt talking about seperating heterosexual and homosexual. I ment:
If I wanted to get married, I would take my girlfriend (with her consent obviously) to a church and get a religious blessing on my union. Today, commonly called a “marriage”.
If I was gay, I would take my boyfriend (with his consent obviously) to whatever institution accepted us, and get that institutions blessing.

In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties. In return for this, as a way of improving the lives of the people, the gov will give me certain, limited, perks and abilities. Like slightly lower taxes. Incentives for children would be tied directly to the actual presence of children, not the possibility of their existance.

In this way, Gov is not advocating gay marriage, nor is it taking away any of the “rights” gay people claim are being romoved from them.
It would also be a perfect way to force people to get prenups, which I think everyone should get and will not marry without(personally). It is an admendment to the contract spelling out how the contract will be disolved, if so desired. No fuss, no muss, and no bitter angry feuds that never end. ( I am not saying that anger and bitterness wont happen, only that we will know how to resolve the dispute someother way than a judge handing down judgements on some kind of misguided public policy like for example the woman always gets the kids.)

Live with and support whom ever you want, assuming they are of legal age and mental capabilities.

[PCinSD]

When I was in the military it was not unheard of for an enlisted man/woman to get married just so they would get increased benefits. This was always the guys idea. (you were paid more if you were married – go figure). The trick was, however, convincing a woman to go along with the plan. Women, as a general rule, are not willing to get “married” simply so someone can reap an economic benefit. Men, to a certain degree, do not have such a hang-up.

If all one has to do is produce a marriage certificate and automatically receive more money/benefits, I would anticipate more people (men) getting married to each other just for this reason. For that matter, do you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Is there a test? Do you have to show proof? Can I produce a marriage certificate showing that I married my friend who works for a local firm and then get the awesome full medical benefits their firm provides?

Maybe the “civil unions” already allow this to happen – not an area I’ve ever researched.

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

[PCinSD]

When I was in the military it was not unheard of for an enlisted man/woman to get married just so they would get increased benefits. This was always the guys idea. (you were paid more if you were married – go figure). The trick was, however, convincing a woman to go along with the plan. Women, as a general rule, are not willing to get “married” simply so someone can reap an economic benefit. Men, to a certain degree, do not have such a hang-up.

If all one has to do is produce a marriage certificate and automatically receive more money/benefits, I would anticipate more people (men) getting married to each other just for this reason. For that matter, do you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Is there a test? Do you have to show proof? Can I produce a marriage certificate showing that I married my friend who works for a local firm and then get the awesome full medical benefits their firm provides?

Maybe the “civil unions” already allow this to happen – not an area I’ve ever researched.

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

[PCinSD]

When I was in the military it was not unheard of for an enlisted man/woman to get married just so they would get increased benefits. This was always the guys idea. (you were paid more if you were married – go figure). The trick was, however, convincing a woman to go along with the plan. Women, as a general rule, are not willing to get “married” simply so someone can reap an economic benefit. Men, to a certain degree, do not have such a hang-up.

If all one has to do is produce a marriage certificate and automatically receive more money/benefits, I would anticipate more people (men) getting married to each other just for this reason. For that matter, do you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Is there a test? Do you have to show proof? Can I produce a marriage certificate showing that I married my friend who works for a local firm and then get the awesome full medical benefits their firm provides?

Maybe the “civil unions” already allow this to happen – not an area I’ve ever researched.

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

[PCinSD]

When I was in the military it was not unheard of for an enlisted man/woman to get married just so they would get increased benefits. This was always the guys idea. (you were paid more if you were married – go figure). The trick was, however, convincing a woman to go along with the plan. Women, as a general rule, are not willing to get “married” simply so someone can reap an economic benefit. Men, to a certain degree, do not have such a hang-up.

If all one has to do is produce a marriage certificate and automatically receive more money/benefits, I would anticipate more people (men) getting married to each other just for this reason. For that matter, do you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Is there a test? Do you have to show proof? Can I produce a marriage certificate showing that I married my friend who works for a local firm and then get the awesome full medical benefits their firm provides?

Maybe the “civil unions” already allow this to happen – not an area I’ve ever researched.

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

[PCinSD]

When I was in the military it was not unheard of for an enlisted man/woman to get married just so they would get increased benefits. This was always the guys idea. (you were paid more if you were married – go figure). The trick was, however, convincing a woman to go along with the plan. Women, as a general rule, are not willing to get “married” simply so someone can reap an economic benefit. Men, to a certain degree, do not have such a hang-up.

If all one has to do is produce a marriage certificate and automatically receive more money/benefits, I would anticipate more people (men) getting married to each other just for this reason. For that matter, do you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Is there a test? Do you have to show proof? Can I produce a marriage certificate showing that I married my friend who works for a local firm and then get the awesome full medical benefits their firm provides?

Maybe the “civil unions” already allow this to happen – not an area I’ve ever researched.

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

[zk]

“It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.”

First of all, I didn’t concede almost all of your points.

And if incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy were the issues being debated here, perhaps I would be a cheerleader for them. But they’re not.

“Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.”

No, but they do have the enlightened portion of the population on their side.

“As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.”

If that’s what you want to argue, then argue it and we’ll go from there. But I think you also think they were brainwashed and I don’t think you’re ready to say that they weren’t.

“your liberal idealogues.”
I don’t have any liberal idealogues. I come up with my own ideas.

“Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.”

Meet meadandale. And welcome to the 1950’s. Just because something doesn’t conform doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

“Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?”

We as a society have fortunately moved to a place where doing things that harm others is usually illegal. We frown upon human sacrifice because it causes harm to an innocent person. Do you really need me to answer that for you?

[zk]

“It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.”

First of all, I didn’t concede almost all of your points.

And if incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy were the issues being debated here, perhaps I would be a cheerleader for them. But they’re not.

“Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.”

No, but they do have the enlightened portion of the population on their side.

“As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.”

If that’s what you want to argue, then argue it and we’ll go from there. But I think you also think they were brainwashed and I don’t think you’re ready to say that they weren’t.

“your liberal idealogues.”
I don’t have any liberal idealogues. I come up with my own ideas.

“Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.”

Meet meadandale. And welcome to the 1950’s. Just because something doesn’t conform doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

“Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?”

We as a society have fortunately moved to a place where doing things that harm others is usually illegal. We frown upon human sacrifice because it causes harm to an innocent person. Do you really need me to answer that for you?

[zk]

“It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.”

First of all, I didn’t concede almost all of your points.

And if incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy were the issues being debated here, perhaps I would be a cheerleader for them. But they’re not.

“Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.”

No, but they do have the enlightened portion of the population on their side.

“As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.”

If that’s what you want to argue, then argue it and we’ll go from there. But I think you also think they were brainwashed and I don’t think you’re ready to say that they weren’t.

“your liberal idealogues.”
I don’t have any liberal idealogues. I come up with my own ideas.

“Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.”

Meet meadandale. And welcome to the 1950’s. Just because something doesn’t conform doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

“Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?”

We as a society have fortunately moved to a place where doing things that harm others is usually illegal. We frown upon human sacrifice because it causes harm to an innocent person. Do you really need me to answer that for you?

[zk]

“It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.”

First of all, I didn’t concede almost all of your points.

And if incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy were the issues being debated here, perhaps I would be a cheerleader for them. But they’re not.

“Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.”

No, but they do have the enlightened portion of the population on their side.

“As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.”

If that’s what you want to argue, then argue it and we’ll go from there. But I think you also think they were brainwashed and I don’t think you’re ready to say that they weren’t.

“your liberal idealogues.”
I don’t have any liberal idealogues. I come up with my own ideas.

“Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.”

Meet meadandale. And welcome to the 1950’s. Just because something doesn’t conform doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

“Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?”

We as a society have fortunately moved to a place where doing things that harm others is usually illegal. We frown upon human sacrifice because it causes harm to an innocent person. Do you really need me to answer that for you?

[Author]

Posts