Stumpy 284 #51 June 27, 2013 Darius11******Giving them(gays) rights to call their union marriage violates what religions says is marriage.The reason we have such a thing as marriage to begin with is religion. . Do you have a definitive source for that? No I do not, however I have yet to see a weeding without some religious ceremony. Do you have a definitive source as to where marriage began? I know the idea is ancient before Jesus, Moses, or Mohammad. But not sure if anyone knows for sure. I do think even the ancient weddings were based on the religion of the time place and people. Would you agree that in this country and many others Marriage is a religious institute? For the record again I do not care who marries who as long as we are talking about adults, and by adults I mean old enough to know I don’t think 18 is magical number for all. I am simply trying to understand if I can see someone else’s view point because I have had a few friends surprise me with objections to allowing gays to marry. For those who choose it to be religious it is. For me, and many others, there was nothing religious about it.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #52 June 27, 2013 First I agree with you. However what most people object to at least in my experience is derived from believing marriage is a religious institute Now we know from history that marriage is older than the 3 religions, however I don’t think most people believe that, and that’s where we have an issue. FYI- I will be getting married this year as well, not for any other reason than me and my SO well save lots of money and be protected by law. Nether I or she wants a ceremony of any type. We might make our own like a scuba trip or something. :) Edite to add( we obviously love each other and have for the last decade, just didn't believe marriage means anything) not that anyone gives a shit :)I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #53 June 27, 2013 kelpdiver It would be hard for the government to rewrite history or biology. Not at all, all they have to do is change the definition.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #54 June 27, 2013 QuoteDarius - to you question - millions of people married in the USSR and China outside of religion. Many or most had ceremonies of some sort. They're not all religious. Excellent pointI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #55 June 27, 2013 Turtle I am curios Do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #56 June 27, 2013 Darius11QuoteDarius - to you question - millions of people married in the USSR and China outside of religion. Many or most had ceremonies of some sort. They're not all religious. Excellent point To answer an earlier interrogative . . . I think of the changing the definition of marriage just to make gay couples feel better about themselves in line and about par with the girl that sued to be allowed into the Boy Scouts of America.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #57 June 27, 2013 Darius11Turtle I am curios Do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first. No. Which is why it upsets me that they redefined it.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #58 June 27, 2013 QuoteTo answer an earlier interrogative . . . I think of the changing the definition of marriage just to make gay couples feel better about themselves ...So oh thick shelled one, can I assume that you would be agreeable to the following changes? 1. You and your spouse can no longer make any medical decisions for one another? 2. When you or your spouse dies, the survivor will have to pay taxes on the value of any inherited property or assets, even if they were jointly owned and paid for? 3. Were you ever in the military? I assume you would have been quite content if your non-military spouse was not allowed to live with you in base housing, or shop in the base store, or indeed even be allowed on base at all. If you were unfortunate enough to be killed while deployed, I'm sure you'd be happy if the military refused to notify your spouse of your death, so she'd have to "figure it out" when you stopped emailing/calling. I could go on and on of course, there are many laws and situations that treat married people as a unit instead of as two unrelated strangers. If marriage rights is solely about feeling better about yourself, I am quite certain you would be willing to relinquish each and every one of these benefits of legal marriage. You could keep the "feeling better about yourself", of course. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 June 27, 2013 turtlespeed***Turtle I am curios Do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first. No. Which is why it upsets me that they redefined it. Shouldn't you be upset they defined it in the first place then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #60 June 27, 2013 turtlespeed***Turtle I am curios Do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first. No. Which is why it upsets me that they redefined it. They didn't, they merely deferred to the states. The definition you're referring to just became law in 1996. Yesterday's ruling determined that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated against a subset of couples lawfully married by their respective states by depriving some couples federal benefits that are afforded to others. As far as I know, Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages, thus the definition of marriage in Texas remains unchanged. Similarly, yesterdays ruling did not change the definition of marriage in Washington. It just meant that all married couples in my state now have access to the same federal rights and responsibilities. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #61 June 27, 2013 GeorgiaDonQuoteTo answer an earlier interrogative . . . I think of the changing the definition of marriage just to make gay couples feel better about themselves ...So oh thick shelled one, can I assume that you would be agreeable to the following changes? 1. You and your spouse can no longer make any medical decisions for one another? A) That should be covered under civil union. 2. When you or your spouse dies, the survivor will have to pay taxes on the value of any inherited property or assets, even if they were jointly owned and paid for? A) That should be covered under civil union. 3. Were you ever in the military? I assume you would have been quite content if your non-military spouse was not allowed to live with you in base housing, or shop in the base store, or indeed even be allowed on base at all. If you were unfortunate enough to be killed while deployed, I'm sure you'd be happy if the military refused to notify your spouse of your death, so she'd have to "figure it out" when you stopped emailing/calling. A) That should be covered under civil union. I could go on and on of course, there are many laws and situations that treat married people as a unit instead of as two unrelated strangers. If marriage rights is solely about feeling better about yourself, I am quite certain you would be willing to relinquish each and every one of these benefits of legal marriage. You could keep the "feeling better about yourself", of course. That's all it is. Its a definition change. Call it a civil union and give all the same rights and responsibilities tax breaks, death rights, decisions when incapacitated. But call it a Civil Union. Why is that so difficult? DonI'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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #62 June 27, 2013 The DOMA decision is one that should be applauded by strict constructionists and conservatives. There is no authorization in the constitution for the federal government to define marriage. In the case law the definition of marriage has been a place for the states to make the laws. According to the 10th all rights not explicitly assigned to the feds are reserved to the states or to the people. So in one swoop the Supremes limited the Federal governments authority to overrule the states and also upheld a strict constructionist interpretation of the separation of powers under Federalism."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #63 June 27, 2013 turtlespeed That's all it is. Its a definition change. Call it a civil union and give all the same rights and responsibilities tax breaks, death rights, decisions when incapacitated. But call it a Civil Union. Why is that so difficult? Well, one of the reasons is that there are something like 1600 different laws, rules and regulations that use the words "husband" "wife" and "married." If you were to make civil unions identical to marriages for all legal purposes, you would have to change each and every one of them."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #64 June 28, 2013 >Not sure it helped everyone with more freedom. A minority, yes, they have more >freedom, the mojority had theirs squashed just a little more. Hmm. Did you feel squashed when blacks got the right to marry whites? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #65 June 28, 2013 billvon>Not sure it helped everyone with more freedom. A minority, yes, they have more >freedom, the mojority had theirs squashed just a little more. Hmm. Did you feel squashed when blacks got the right to marry whites? I'm not sure - how did you feel about it when it happened?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #66 June 28, 2013 QuoteA minority, yes, they have more freedom, the mojority had theirs squashed just a little more.How were your rights squashed? If you're talking about a "right to exclusivity" (i.e. that only some people can do something), well, that's not really enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, it's kind of against the whole "all men are created equal" thing. I realize that the Founders did say "men," but subsequent changes to the Constitution make it pretty clear that what applies to men also applies to women, from a legal standpoint. Or should (and yes, that means the bad stuff, too). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #67 June 28, 2013 turtlespeed***Turtle I am curios Do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first. No. Which is why it upsets me that they redefined it. Since it was DOMA that defined it, you should be pleased that DOMA was overturned, not getting all whiny about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #68 June 28, 2013 turtlespeed***Turtle I am curios, do you believe the government should have anything to do with marriage? I should have asked you that first. No. Which, in and of itself, is a right fine viewpoint. But here's the larger problem with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #69 June 28, 2013 wmw999 How were your rights squashed? http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/ "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
