Remster 30 #26 May 15, 2008 Nice cross-forum joke!! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 May 15, 2008 Quote Another sad day for those who value morals.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I value morals, and it's not a sad day for me. I think for most people this has no effect on them and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on my life.. For those who want to legislate morality .. usually the hypocritical religious right who want to control how others live their lives and will not listen to their lord and savior who pointed out that people were given free will and will be judged accordingly... its a dark dark day for them. I think they will have a lot more dark days coming in their control freak existences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #28 May 15, 2008 I swear people never look at the brighter side of things. Just think. now they'll all be registered! And all for what? A tax break,a certificate, and potential to lose half of one's wealth? And no I'm not cynical at all about marriage. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 May 15, 2008 QuoteI think for most people this has no effect on them and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on my life.. Absolutely! Look folks, there are enough marriage licenses in California to keep everyone happy (or unhappy depending on your personal viewpoint). QuoteFor those who want to legislate morality Jeanne, Jeanne. You are now ruining your solid ground. ALL FUCKING LEGISLATION IS REFLECTIVE OF THE MORALITY OF THE LEGISLATOR!!!!!! Quoteusually the hypocritical religious right who want to control how others live their lives Much like the left who seek to ensure that you can live your life however you want, as long as you don't offend anyone. Well, anyone that they agree with. Jeanne - we are in agreement that this is a good thing. Let us keep the high ground. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 May 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. Well said. I have two problems with this line of thought. 1) Expanding the definition to include animal, small children and multiple spouses leads to an inference that you believe that an action like this is similar in nature to granting those rights to animals, etc. 2) So what if a guy wants to marry his alpaca? So what if a guy wants to have ten wives. Kids? Okay. I draw the line there. But what the hell does that have to do with you and your marriage? I am hetero. I am married. I consider my marriage sacred and I hope that my wife feels the same. But I know plenty of heteros who view marriage as nothing more than a way toward two incomes. If other people are looking for their beeswax they won't find it in my relationship with my wife. It's mine and hers. And nobody else's. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #31 May 15, 2008 QuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. seriously, why do you care who marries who? what is immoral about two consenting adults entering willingly into this agreement? how does it effect you in any way? we heteros don't have a very good track record when it comes to marriage, so who the hell are we to keep homos they can't do it? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #32 May 15, 2008 QuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... I feel exactly the opposite. I see it as a victory against the homophobes. I've yet to hear a credible argument for a double standard for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. For the record, I'm a straight white guy that supports gay rights and opposes racism and sexism. A dog, a dog, a cat, a cat, a human is a human. -Pato BantonMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #33 May 15, 2008 Quote Another sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. Right- because animals and small children are EXACTLY the same as consenting adults! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #34 May 15, 2008 >What is changed by calling it a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"? Nothing; you can use whatever words you like. I would just prefer government not be involved in whatever vows/promises two people make to each other, and concentrate only on the legal side of things. We're almost there now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #35 May 15, 2008 Quoteso what do you all think? It's pretty much exactly what I've been advocating for years. The government should never ask nor care who is "married". Responsibilities, privileges, taxes, and benefits assigned or recognized by the government should not differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals, nuns and priestesses, or anything else of the sort. Marriage should be whatever the parties involved want it to be (most commonly a religous ritual) and none of the government's business. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #36 May 15, 2008 QuoteAnother sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. To whose morals do you refer? I'm fairly certain there are more than a few moral muslims with more than one wife. In any case, nobody is changing the definition of *your* marriage. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 May 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteI think for most people this has no effect on them and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on my life.. Absolutely! Look folks, there are enough marriage licenses in California to keep everyone happy (or unhappy depending on your personal viewpoint). More business for you too! Though early on, it's a total crapshoot predicting how the courts might handle the child custody issues for a gay divorce. Do juries ever get involved in family court, or is it always just the judge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 May 15, 2008 Quote We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. The slope could go as far as bigamy- there's no valid reason to preclude this, other than to restrict the financial benefits to a single parter. But the rest aren't consenting adult humans and therefore just a load of bullshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #39 May 15, 2008 Quote>What is changed by calling it a "civil union" instead of a "marriage"? Nothing; you can use whatever words you like. I would just prefer government not be involved in whatever vows/promises two people make to each other, and concentrate only on the legal side of things. We're almost there now. How is the government currently involved in whatever vows/promises two people make to each other? (Other than the legal side of things, like taxes, child custody, property rights, etc?) They can't force two people to love each other forever just because those two people promised each other that they would. And we certainly don't need to take any legal action to make vows/promises to each other, so it seems to me that the government is already only involved in the legal part of marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LisaH 0 #40 May 15, 2008 My first post in Speakers Corner. All I have to say is, "YAY." Be yourself! MooOOooOoo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #41 May 15, 2008 Quote Quote We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. Don't forget real dolls. Na. Get w/ the times.> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robot-sex/people-of-massachusetts-to-be-having-sex-with-robots-by-2012-310568.phpAnd Moaning Lisa is HOT>http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/sex-dolls/moaning-lisa-has-seven-spots-that-get-her-hot-plus-nsfw-gallery-308176.phpI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #42 May 15, 2008 That's so gay. Does that mean that we'll have a whole new chapter to Jerry Springer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #43 May 15, 2008 While the issue of marriage is obviously of some importance, the bigger stride here is that the law recognizes that people cannot be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. THAT is a great big step forward imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #44 May 15, 2008 Quote When we got married in NY, we visited town hall to get a 'marriage license' that was valid once signed by the priest. Have exactly the same process, just separate the two events. Go to town hall, get a "civil union" license and you are united in the eyes of the law. Then go to your favorite church and get married however you like. Or do it in the opposite order if you like. Or get married in a church but don't legalize it. Or get a legal union and don't get married. Or just shack up until you figure out that you hate each other's guts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #45 May 16, 2008 Quote nuns and priestesses If all the churches and clergy in this country paid the same taxes the rest of us do... on what they earn.. and what they own ..etc... I think we would no longer have a deficit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #46 May 16, 2008 Quote Thats where the slippery slope started: allowing women to marry... ...men that their father's didn't choose for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #47 May 16, 2008 I'm all for this, and I can't wait for the US to catch up with other progressive nations on this planet to ensure that two committed same-sex couples enjoy the same equality to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage that only christian heterosexual couples in the US have been able to exploit at a 50% rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aliveboy2004 0 #48 May 16, 2008 Quote Another sad day for those who value morals.... We might as well expand the definition of marriage to include animals, small children, and multiple spouses. you probably would have made the same irrational statement if you had been around when it was ruled legal for blacks and whites to marry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #49 May 16, 2008 >How is the government currently involved in whatever vows/promises >two people make to each other? (Other than the legal side of things, like >taxes, child custody, property rights, etc?) That's it; basically the legal side of things. "To death do us part" is a pledge made in a church (or some other place) to the other person, not part of a government marriage contract. >so it seems to me that the government is already only involved in >the legal part of marriage. Yep. We're almost there now. Once they stop telling people who they can and can't marry, then your view will be true in all but name only. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #50 May 16, 2008 >Does that mean that we'll have a whole new chapter to Jerry Springer? Heck, Jerry might have a whole new show! But don't worry; it will be on the gay channel, and you probably don't get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
