ExiledInIllinois Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Going further, marriages were historically not institutionalized by the governments but were the privy of the clergy. So if you truly want to boil this argument into the legalese, marriages are unconstitutional because they would violate the separation clause, especially if same sex marriage is legal under a religion. I agree. I really do. I would rather see all marriage (with regard to the state) wiped out than allowing gay marriage to exist. Anybody else chime in on your comment GG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 And what I said above. By more arrangements of marriage being recognized, the whole institution of marriage as recognized by the state (US) will eventually be at risk... And rightly so. How hetero couples are being recognized by the state is technically not right. A sort of: Tragedy of Commons? ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I agree. I really do. I would rather see all marriage (with regard to the state) wiped out than allowing gay marriage to exist. Anybody else chime in on your comment GG? please clarify for people who take this as meaning I want everyone dead if I have to be- I don't believe that is what you really meant....at least not from your previous posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 please clarify for people who take this as meaning I want everyone dead if I have to be- I don't believe that is what you really meant....at least not from your previous posts As far as I know, when I die, so does everyone else. I mean, after I'm dead I can't empirically prove their existence, can I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 As far as I know, when I die, so does everyone else. I mean, after I'm dead I can't empirically prove their existence, can I? I would debate this but I leave it to DeLappele John or whateverthe!@#$ his name is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I would debate this but I leave it to DeLappele John or whateverthe!@#$ his name is. Let's just call him !@#$o. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 please clarify for people who take this as meaning I want everyone dead if I have to be- I don't believe that is what you really meant....at least not from your previous posts I am sorry... Wiped out as "recognized" by the state. I don't want people dead of course. What I am saying is that maybe all marriage should not be recognized. With the gays pushing for recognition, it calls into the legality of why hetereo marriage is even recognized by the state/gov't. Hetero marriage is given "favored" status over all others, it is recognized... Again, all marriage should not be recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 GG is right: "Going further, marriages were historically not institutionalized by the governments but were the privy of the clergy. So if you truly want to boil this argument into the legalese, marriages are unconstitutional because they would violate the separation clause, especially if same sex marriage is legal under a religion." Why in today's day and age is "marriage" even recognized by the gov't? I mean, I am Catholic and married... What does my sacrament of marriage have to do with the government? Do they recognize other sacraments? Why hasn't nobody commented on what GG said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Every time I see this thread subtitle 38-24, I think to myself... Maybe it was 31-24 late in the 4th quarter and they were in the redzone. But then they threw an endzone interception that went back the other way for a TD I've been watching too many Bills games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I am sorry... Wiped out as "recognized" by the state. I don't want people dead of course. What I am saying is that maybe all marriage should not be recognized. With the gays pushing for recognition, it calls into the legality of why hetereo marriage is even recognized by the state/gov't. Hetero marriage is given "favored" status over all others, it is recognized... Again, all marriage should not be recognized. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 How many lesbians does it take to change a light bulb? Two, one to put it in and one to write a folk song about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 What I am saying is that maybe all marriage should not be recognized. With the gays pushing for recognition, it calls into the legality of why hetereo marriage is even recognized by the state/gov't. Hetero marriage is given "favored" status over all others, it is recognized... Again, all marriage should not be recognized. Sooooo if no one is married, then EVERYONE is married! Y'know, I'm really starting to get the hang of this concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 How many lesbians does it take to change a light bulb?Two, one to put it in and one to write a folk song about it. What's the definition of confusion? Twenty blind lesbians in a fish market. When a man and woman get married they need a marriage license. What do Lesbians need?? A licker license. Wow totally mature, did you think of those by yourself or did someone help you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You're an idiot. Sometimes that's what it boils down to, doesn't it? Back to EII's argument, just in case he's not as much of an idiot as we give him credit for: Marriage is also a secular institution with secular legal meaning. If you want to call unions "unions" under law and not marraige, I don't care. Then the Catholics can "marry" only men and women. And the Episcopaleans can marry any two adults. And on and on. The point of the fight over "marriage" the word is that it carries with it certain legal status and rights taht are denied same-sex couples. Why should my gay neighbors, now together for 38 years (!) have to worry about who their property passes to when one of them dies? Why shouldn't they share benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Wow totally mature, did you think of those by yourself or did someone help you? Cleaned it up so as not to offend anybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Sometimes that's what it boils down to, doesn't it? Back to EII's argument, just in case he's not as much of an idiot as we give him credit for: Marriage is also a secular institution with secular legal meaning. If you want to call unions "unions" under law and not marraige, I don't care. Then the Catholics can "marry" only men and women. And the Episcopaleans can marry any two adults. And on and on. The point of the fight over "marriage" the word is that it carries with it certain legal status and rights taht are denied same-sex couples. Why should my gay neighbors, now together for 38 years (!) have to worry about who their property passes to when one of them dies? Why shouldn't they share benefits? Is it (marriage as a secular institution) really necessary in today's age? (Blue) Men and woman have the same equal protection now compared to other bygone eras. Isn't that what wills are for? (Green) Because gay marriage is off the societal baseline/norm and sharing more benefits costs society more. Deviant behavior and lifestyle's should pay more. (Red) Again... This whole issue is about defining a line and setting limits. But, I am an idiot... So who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Is it (marriage as a secular institution) really necessary in today's age? (Blue) Men and woman have the same equal protection now compared to other bygone eras. Marriage isn't always about protection. Some people like the formal commitment--also, there are a zillion laws constructed around marriage that you don't get the protection of unless you are. Isn't that what wills are for? (Green) Sometimes, but wills get set aside all the time for errors and when they do, the default inheritance and rights (like to raise children) usually goes to spouse, then relatives. A homosexual non-married (because of the law) survivor could lose their child and inheritance because of this stupidity. They could also lose the rights to have a say in medical treatment for their ill spouse. It makes no sense. Because gay marriage is off the societal baseline/norm and sharing more benefits costs society more. Deviant behavior and lifestyle's should pay more. (Red) Welcome to your world, but not America. We don't "charge" for people operating off the norm. Do you even think before you write? Again... This whole issue is about defining a line and setting limits. But, I am an idiot... So who cares. Not the government's job; yes you are. Once you and your ilk are dead, this issue will go away because the next generation will be ashamed of your behavior and right your wrongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 This explains the mindset of Gay Marriage opponents, perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 This explains the mindset of Gay Marriage opponents, perfectly. As good as that was, it was the last line that really cracked me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 As good as that was, it was the last line that really cracked me up. Now that I'd vote for. God (pun intended) forbid I walk into one of those by mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts