Gay Marriage Ruling

[sd_bear]

The slippery slope argument is baseless.

Can a dog/goat/cow consent to marriage with an adult? No.

Can a child consent to marriage with an adult? No.

Can two male adults consent to marriage? Yes.

Can two female adults consent to marriage? Yes.

Can one female and one male adult consent to marriage? Yes.

What’s the argument here? How does this open up anything that isn’t opened up already?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“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.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“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.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“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.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“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.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“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.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[Anonymous]

I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

[Anonymous]

I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

[Anonymous]

I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

[Anonymous]

I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

[Author]

Posts