Dumb Move, GWB

[TheAnvil 0]

This is dumb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120160,00.html

Marriage, being a concept defined by most religions worldwide, has no business being intruded upon by any government. Perhaps if gay couples experience the evils of a marriage-tax penalty it will swing some left-wingers in the right direction on the issue....



Edited to add:
HE IS STILL 9 GOOGLEPLEX TIMES BETTER THAN sKERRY.
Didn't want to give any lefties delusions of grandeur.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nacmacfeegle 0]

" Didn't want to give any lefties delusions of grandeur. "
Most of us lefties are too busy coming to terms with the right wing's delusions of adequacy, to be concerned with our own grandeur.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Scratch 0]

Quote

delusions of adequacy

[base428 1]

I've got the solution:

Let gays get married, but tax the shit out of them. Basically, a gay marriage penalty. Everybody wins and the gov't can reduce the deficit.

[TheAnvil 0]

You've finally stumbled upon a tax the lefties WON'T like!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mailin 0]

Quote

Basically, a gay marriage penalty

haha - everyone wins?

Ya, thats the answer, more gov't in our lives


Jennifer

Arianna Frances

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Basically, a gay marriage penalty

haha - everyone wins?

Ya, thats the answer, more gov't in our lives


Jennifer

Isn't that what the "SinTax" is all about?

Wait that was Clinton's Idiom - oops sorry.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mailin 0]

Ya, well... there's a dimes worth of different between the republicans and democrats anyway

Jen

Arianna Frances

[billvon 3,068]

I still say the government should not be in the marriage business. Create a civil union that any two adults can enter into, and is valid for legal purposes of child custody, joint ownership, living wills etc. Then allow churches to marry anyone they please. Want to only have male-female marriages? Then get a civil union and get married in a church that only recognizes male-female marriages. That way your marriage won't be 'polluted' by having to accept gay marriages around you. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Then get a civil union and get married in a gay-friendly church. Want to marry your dog? Well, you can't get a civil union for that, but if you want to start the Church of the Big Pooch and marry your dog, go for it. It will have no legal standing whatsoever, but hey, you can print a cool certificate and put it on your wall.

[stuffit 0]

Quote

Bush said in a statement, "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges."

I know it has been said a hundred times but how the fuck can he call it a sacred institution when there are TV shows like "the Bachelor" and "Who wants to marry a millionaire".

I would much rather see two gay people be allowed to get married than handing out a license to some waste of space like Jennifer Lopez.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Perhaps if gay couples experience the evils of a marriage-tax penalty

But he got rid of that didn't he? It was one of his campaign promises.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Used to be letting people of different races intermarry was going to be the downfall of Western Civilization. Before that it was religion. Jeez, love is where you find it, and everybody needs to get their noses out of everyone else's marriages. I, for one, don't need any religion or church or government to tell me what my family should be, and they don't need to define anyones else's loving family, either.

[sundevil777 102]

Are you ready for father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, mother-daughter, brothers, sisters, and on?

I contend that most are not at all ready for that, and if same-sex marriage is OK, then there is no reason to deny the other variations.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,068]

>Are you ready for father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, mother
>-daughter, brothers, sisters, and on?

That's why I think there should be two separate issues - legally recognized civil unions and religious personal commitements (i.e. marriage.)

Any two consenting adults should be able to set up a civil union. It should have nothing to do with having sex with that person, or what color, religion, sex or size they are. It just establishes legal rights within the partnership.

Who you marry should be determined only by your beliefs and your church, and should have nothing to do with legal rights. Separation of church and state and all that.

>Are you ready for father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, mother
>-daughter, brothers, sisters, and on?

Why not? Why would you object to a civil union between a senile mother and a daughter who wants to care for her?

[freeflygoddess 0]

Quote

I still say the government should not be in the marriage business.

I agree. The government and court system should have no holds on marriages and divorces. If people want to get a divorce, make them ask their church, what do you think they will say? It sure would get rid of a lot of the fly by Vegas drunken weddings, when people actually have to go through church counseling and stuff. Now abuse and cheating are two major things that the church would allow a couple get divorced over, but not "He is just too lazy" and "She gained a lot of weight" and all the other stupid excuses people have no days. As far as child custody goes, well that is an issue that the churches can handle as well I think, if not better, because at least they know the families and the way each acts with their children. Let the church decide all of that and have them send ppwk to the government on support and have them regulate just that part of it.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Who you marry should be determined only by your beliefs and your church, and should have nothing to do with legal rights. Separation of church and state and all that.

Being married does change the way that the government treats you in many ways. If this were not true, this debate would not matter as much.

You might argue that there SHOULD be an absolute wall between govt and recognition of God, but the separation clause could not have been intended to mean this, given our founders actions/writings of the time. So I contend that the creation of such a wall should not use the separation clause as a justification for this position.

Quote

Why would you object to a civil union between a senile mother and a daughter who wants to care for her?

A power of attorney would take care of that, correct? That's a pretty bizarre example to argue the case for mother-daughter marriage.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

So what would you suggest if one of the couple wanted to switch to a different church? Which one decides?

[lot of churches promoting the 50s model of man and wife, not husband and wife]

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

I still say the government should not be in the marriage business.

I agree. The government and court system should have no holds on marriages and divorces. If people want to get a divorce, make them ask their church, what do you think they will say? It sure would get rid of a lot of the fly by Vegas drunken weddings, when people actually have to go through church counseling and stuff. Now abuse and cheating are two major things that the church would allow a couple get divorced over, but not "He is just too lazy" and "She gained a lot of weight" and all the other stupid excuses people have no days. As far as child custody goes, well that is an issue that the churches can handle as well I think, if not better, because at least they know the families and the way each acts with their children. Let the church decide all of that and have them send ppwk to the government on support and have them regulate just that part of it.

Government should not be in the marriage business and churches should not be in the civil contract business. Imagine the kind of things which could happen in the world you espouse... husband (episcopal) a and wife (southern baptist) b, apply for a divorce at the church where they were married (we'll say, wife's church)... they attempt to stipulate that children will be raised baptist. No no, this is bad bad bad. Bad idea.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 3,068]

>As far as child custody goes, well that is an issue that the churches
>can handle as well I think, if not better, because at least they know
> the families and the way each acts with their children.

Absolutely not! You can do any kooky think you want in a church - you can pray, or sacrifice frogs, or have a gay-bashing church social, or join a religious order. But you can NOT do whatever you want to children. They get full protection of the law, and that includes who in the civil union gets custody.

>Let the church decide all of that and have them send ppwk to the
>government on support and have them regulate just that part of it.

Would you be willing to give up your child because someone from the New Wiccan Church decided men were better at raising children than women were?

[pajarito 0]

Any two consenting adults should be able to set up a civil union. It should have nothing to do with having sex with that person, or what color, religion, sex or size they are. It just establishes legal rights within the partnership.

Assuming that discrimination is now implied with this issue, then your definition is discriminating. Why only two in a "partnership?" How can you now set new boundaries limiting the number of people who can enter into union/marriage? If we're going to open the doors, don't we now have to swing them wide open?

[billvon 3,068]

>Assuming that discrimination is now implied with this issue, then your
> definition is discriminating. Why only two in a "partnership?"

You can have as many as you want. It's called a corporation then.

[freeflygoddess 0]

Quote

So what would you suggest if one of the couple wanted to switch to a different church? Which one decides?

Well they would have the new church decide, because they are the ones who are currently in contact with the family.

If they are athiest then they really truelly wouldn't believe in marriage either, and just not get married. Marriage is a religous thing that somehow got spread around to everyone. If the do give the church the rights of marriage and divorce, then they would have to make a law that insurance companies and everyone else concered would have to "common law marriages" which really is when two people are living together and shareing household expenses and be able to cover each other on insurance and be able to take care of things if one were to pass away.

Quote

lot of churches promoting the 50s model of man and wife, not husband and wife

really? how? if you are talking about the wedding vows of "honor love and cherish" your wife and "honar, love and obey" your husband, that really isn't 50s model at all, because if a man honors loves and cherishes his wife, he will realize that a marriage is 50/50 and a wife will as well. If a husband is makeing his wife do all of the house work and all of the child rearing while she herself is working, then really he isn't following his vows. Just like if a wife who isn't working or doing her share of the chores and such then she isn't following her vows either.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Assuming that discrimination is now implied with this issue, then your
> definition is discriminating. Why only two in a "partnership?"

You can have as many as you want. It's called a corporation then.

That's funny but, to me, this is a sad issue.

[billvon 3,068]

>That's funny but, to me, this is a sad issue.

I'm serious. I am talking about splitting the civil/legal issues of a partnership away from the love/sex/religious ones. Two people can form a civil union; more than two people can form a corporation. I know a child that has three (legal) parents, and she has benefited from that arrangement. It would have been bad to have forced her to stay in an abusive household because of some religious guy saying "biological male and female parents only!"

Then, once the legal issues are out of the way, form any kind of marriage you want. If you so choose, get married in a church that bans gay marriages. You will never have to worry about your marriage being tarnished by having to see a gay couple being married in your church. Or get married in a more liberal church if you so choose. Completely up to you at that point, which is how it should be.

[freeflygoddess 0]

good point, I didn't think of that. However, I do think that people should have to go through a lot more when getting a divorce, unless there is abuse and cheating and neglate involved then really people should work out their issues, esp. if children are involved. I also think that someone should also enforce visitation more, and if one parent isn't comeing to see their child or even talk to them, should have some sort of punishment then nothing at all. Like my ex who wont even call or write his children let alone see them. Sure I am finally getting a child support check from the army, but that means nothing to them. I would much rather have him give up his rights as a father and not collect any money from him, in order for my boyfriend to leaglly adopt them because he is a great father, and loves them more that anything in this world, which is more than I can say for my ex, who obviously doesn't give a crap about them.