Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now. The two goat dowry is just icing on the cake.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now. The two goat dowry is just icing on the cake.

Yeah, have fun with that in jail. Shame that gay sex isn't illegal any more or you might have something resembling a point.

So why does the government ask for marriage licenses?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now.

You know, you're right. It's weird that there are no laws against forced marriages, child marriages, or even child abuse.

You think such laws would already be put in place in our society, but no. I can walk over to my neighbor's house and straight-up buy his daughter.

40below: So why does the government ask for marriage licenses?

the same reason they ask you for anything else - so they can tax you appropriately based on legal, binding relationships you willingly enter into

I've been saying it for a while now: the government issues a civil union that can bind any two people, assuming they are of legal age, or have parental consent if below legal age. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in our government. If you want to get married, go to a church.

GAT_00: I've been saying it for a while now: the government issues a civil union that can bind any two people, assuming they are of legal age, or have parental consent if below legal age. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in our government. If you want to get married, go to a church.

You and lots of libertarian-sounding cranks. How about this: you advocate for equal treatment for everyone, and once there is equal treatment, you advocate for civil unions only then.

Megain: the same reason they ask you for anything else - so they can tax you appropriately based on legal, binding relationships you willingly enter into

It's way, way better tax-wise to be married if one of the spouses does not work. You get all the write-offs that person would not have gotten if single.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now.

PROTIP: That "16 year old Filipino girl" is neither 16, Filipino, nor a girl.

In retrospect, I wouldn't have minded if the government stepped in and stopped me from getting married.

My personal view -- and I've had this for as long as I've thought about the issue -- is that it's not the government's business who you love and who you marry.

...but it IS their business what you smoke and where you smoke it. Oh, and how you drive. um...and what sort of business you own (if any), how much you make a year, how many kids you have, who you vote for, what websites you visit, who you call on the phone and if you trade files online with anyone else.

But hey - whom you marry is COMPLETELY sacrosanct! so we have that going for us. Which is nice.

Won't someone think of the children????

bobbette: GAT_00: I've been saying it for a while now: the government issues a civil union that can bind any two people, assuming they are of legal age, or have parental consent if below legal age. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in our government. If you want to get married, go to a church.

You and lots of libertarian-sounding cranks. How about this: you advocate for equal treatment for everyone, and once there is equal treatment, you advocate for civil unions only then.

Bing...

...wait for it...

...go.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now. The two goat dowry is just icing on the cake.

Yeah? I believe it. That's about in line with how I've seen you act around here.

Go Mikey go!

I don't know. I need at least three multiple marriage philanderers to explain the sanctity of marriage to me before I'm comfortable excluding people from it.

Newt? Rush? What say you, titans of traditional family values?

Etchy333: You know, you're right. It's weird that there are no laws against forced marriages, child marriages, or even child abuse.

You think such laws would already be put in place in our society, but no. I can walk over to my neighbor's house and straight-up buy his daughter.

Like the man said "it's not the government's business who you love and who you marry.". But now you're saying that the government does have an interest in who I can marry.

I wish you would guys get this settled or is just a fact that everything is in matters of degree.

If you have the government dealing with child custody and inheritance, it is the government's business.

However, it's wrong to discriminate based on the gender of the two parties involved.

bobbette: You and lots of libertarian-sounding cranks. How about this: you advocate for equal treatment for everyone, and once there is equal treatment, you advocate for civil unions only then.

What's the difference?

I'm getting married in a church because it means a lot to my fiance. It doesn't change ANYTHING legally, but it does mean something in terms of the religion.

I feel like we should have the same civil union that anyone could have -- regardless of their particular faiths... and the whole church thing is above and beyond, a choice.

It's a chicken or the egg scenario, and ultimately, a change in terminology is probably essential to the whole debate.

/wedding just short of 6 months away... kind of wedding-brained.

bobbette: How about this: you advocate for equal treatment for everyone, and once there is equal treatment, you advocate for civil unions only then.

But not everyone IS equal. Some people are stupid and uneducated. Some people are smart and educated. Some people are athletic and attractive. Some people are fat lazy slobs. Some people have a natural talent for music/writing/painting/numbers/law/science. Some people have a natural talent for being able to shatter glass with their belches.

Saying everyone is equal is a flat-out lie and leads to "Everyone gets a trophy!" mentality that's going to fark our country.

serpent_sky
What's the difference?

I'm getting married in a church because it means a lot to my fiance. It doesn't change ANYTHING legally,

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are people in this country who can't take the LEGAL FIRST STEP (i.e. the license) you have taken in order to do your wife-to-be a favor that you don't seem to really care about (the church part).

Except in the few states that have legalized it, gay people can't do any of what you have done. Most importantly, the first step, which legally recognizes them. How is this fair to them, now?

A marriage license issued by the state is a civil union. The only meaning is has is a legal one--it's about tax, survivor benefits, and so on.

.

Abstruse

And the geniuses, the morons, the educated, the uneducated, the beautiful, the ugly, the thin and the obese are all equal in the eyes of the law*. There's a difference between equal access and lobbing participation trophies at everyone who comes along.

*In theory

My wife and I were both raised Roman Catholic. Both don't really buy into that anymore (her because of her Catholic school nuns were evil, me because I am probably evil). Anyway, we refused to get married in a church. My family didn't really care, but her's did. She stood her ground, and we didn't get married in a church.

Flash forward several years. My brother had twins and wanted me to be Godfather. I resisted at first, but it is what we wanted. But I couldn't because I wasn't married in the Church. I called the local church (which due to re-locations, I had never been to). They said they could declare a Radical Sanation. They sent me paperwork with the Priest's signature at the bottom. All I had to do wa fill in the blanks, like "Do you regularly attend Mass?" etc. Of course, the answers were "Yes", "Yes", "Yes", etc. The Priest had already signed.

Anyway, I lost my point. But organized religion seems like a bunch of hippocrates from top to bottom.

/Wish it wasn't so.

Three Crooked Squirrels
My wife and I were both raised Roman Catholic. Both don't really buy into that anymore (her because of her Catholic school nuns were evil, me because I am probably evil)

You know, as much crap as I give the Catholic Church, I have to give them one victory. They seem to be producing the overwhelming majority of 'formerly' religious, whether this means they gave up Catholicism for something less rigid but still Christ oriented and more inclusive, converted to Unitarianism, became agnostics or atheists, or whatever.

Of course, there will always be Southern Baptists that regard this as a vice and proof that Catholics aren't 'real' Christians. Personally, I find it to be a hallmark of critical thinking when a person is able to move on to something more rational, and I think we should have some kind of credo.

/Semper Filii et Spiritūs Sancti?

Action Replay Nick: Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are people in this country who can't take the LEGAL FIRST STEP (i.e. the license) you have taken in order to do your wife-to-be a favor that you don't seem to really care about (the church part).

Except in the few states that have legalized it, gay people can't do any of what you have done. Most importantly, the first step, which legally recognizes them. How is this fair to them, now?

Not at all... I want everyone to have that basic right. [and it's my husband-to-be, thanks] and it's not that I don't care, it's just that it's more his thing than mine. We were both raised Catholic. I could go either way.

I think everyone should be allowed to have a civil union. "Marriage," as I understand it, is a sacrament in the Catholic church. UNFORTUNATELY, the term has become the standard for "union" and we need to start re-defining.

What I will have with my future husband is no different from what anyone could or should have, and I in no way devalue it. I just question your order of things, and if it is essential.

Great Metal Jesus: And the geniuses, the morons, the educated, the uneducated, the beautiful, the ugly, the thin and the obese are all equal in the eyes of the law*. There's a difference between equal access and lobbing participation trophies at everyone who comes along.

*In theory

You're absolutely correct, but most people don't get the distinction.

Action Replay Nick: You know, as much crap as I give the Catholic Church, I have to give them one victory. They seem to be producing the overwhelming majority of 'formerly' religious, whether this means they gave up Catholicism for something less rigid but still Christ oriented and more inclusive, converted to Unitarianism, became agnostics or atheists, or whatever.

You kind of can't recover from Catholicism, especially if you go to Catholic school and mass. It really gets into you, and while you may step back, it sticks with you.

serpent_sky
What I will have with my future husband is no different from what anyone could or should have, and I in no way devalue it. I just question your order of things, and if it is essential.

I see what you mean and I apologize if I came off as harsh. Like I said in my initial statement, I don't disagree with the intent of your sentiment. However, as I mentioned, it's more fair, realistic, and easy to give people what already exists, as opposed to an attempt to burn down everything and start over. Not to be overtly trollish, but essentially, this is what segregation attempted, and it was an abysmal failure and a complete waste of time.

bobbette: You and lots of libertarian-sounding cranks. How about this: you advocate for equal treatment for everyone, and once there is equal treatment, you advocate for civil unions only then.

Did you just call me a libertarian? Holy shiat that's hilarious. Nice of you to say that I don't support equal rights for everyone else though.

GAT_00

I usually agree with the things you post, but essentially, I agree with bobbette here, except without any specific perceived insult directed at you personally. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to what I've said.

Action Replay Nick: I usually agree with the things you post, but essentially, I agree with bobbette here, except without any specific perceived insult directed at you personally. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to what I've said.

Ok, I'm slightly confused, or maybe I'm being confusing. What I'm saying is that any two people can get a civil union. I could give a damn if they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Remove religion from it entirely, marriage becomes a church based institution only, and the government has civil unions take the place of marriage today.

GAT_00
Remove religion from it entirely, marriage becomes a church based institution only, and the government has civil unions take the place of marriage today.

In theory, I agree. However, this lends itself back to the whole 'burn down everything that already exists and start over' Tea Party mentality.

The government calls it a marriage license. Gay people can't get one. They can't file their taxes together without special legal steps. They don't get de facto Fifth Amendment rights afforded to spouses.

These things are unjust. Let them get married.

Does it help to look at it this way?

marriage::marriage:tithe::tax

It is possible for the same word to have multiple meanings in the minutiae, and still essentially convey the same definition. Why should the whole system be rebuilt from the ground up when it isn't necessary?

GAT_00: Ok, I'm slightly confused, or maybe I'm being confusing. What I'm saying is that any two people can get a civil union. I could give a damn if they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

Why only TWO people? You got something against polyamory?

Replace marriage with a manditory will to be filed with your income tax that may be updated at any time with a simple free filing with the government. That takes care of property rights issues. You want marriage? Go to a church. The government isn't involved. You can marry whatever the hell you want to marry. You want them to get your estate when you die? Add them to your will. No more prenups, no more alimony. I don't get alimony when my roommate leaves me to move in with his girlfriend. Why should someone else get alimony for the same situation only with sex involved?

Action Replay Nick: It is possible for the same word to have multiple meanings in the minutiae, and still essentially convey the same definition. Why should the whole system be rebuilt from the ground up when it isn't necessary?

All I'm really suggesting is since marriage only allows for a man and a woman, toss it and replace it with civil unions and only change the name and the different sex requirement. I'm not suggesting we toss the rest of it. Same tax breaks and such. Basically it just has to be renamed so the fundies can say that marriage is still between a man and a woman.

I am definitely being the confusing one, so I guess I'm not enunciating myself well. All I'm saying really is change the name to please the fundies and now any two people can get what used to be called married. Changing the rest isn't necessary.

Abstruse
Why only TWO people? You got something against polyamory?

Personally, I do not. However, polyamory isn't what we're talking about, asshole. We are talking about letting queers have the same rights as we do, meaning two people willingly entering into a lifelong commitment between two adult people that the government recognizes, and is intended to foster societal stability.

If you're into polyamory, don't get married.

Abstruse: Why only TWO people? You got something against polyamory?

That's something else entirely. I don't personally believe that is natural to human nature, which is why I oppose it. I don't think humans, as a whole, will naturally form polygamous relationships given the chance, we don't have that pack animal instinct. Now, if I could be proved wrong though biological analysis, that polygamy is a natural human state, then it should be allowed.

Awesome! Mayor Bloomberg is following the leadership of Pierre Trudeau!

vartian: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Sweet.. I've had my eye on this little 16 year old Filipino girl for a while now. The two goat dowry is just icing on the cake.

Yeah, have fun with that in jail. Shame that gay sex isn't illegal any more or you might have something resembling a point.

That underagesexuals should have equal rights?

Agreed, but it is God's business.

GAT_00
All I'm saying really is change the name to please the fundies and now any two people can get what used to be called married. Changing the rest isn't necessary.

I know you aren't being difficult, but I can't stress this enough.

Changing the rest IS neccesary. You are advocating the long and hard road of redefining the world. "Let's just change the definition of everything and everyone will be equal" isn't the way to go, when people are being treated unfairly RIGHT NOW.

GAT_00: though biological analysis, that polygamy is a natural human state, then it should be allowed.

Doesn't ID scientific resarch show that the Mormon DNA has an extra code segment from God that permits this....?

I miss karion.

Just like it's not the government's business how much money you make. Oh, wait, you mean there's tax implications to major lifestyle choices? Let 'em marry and your tax revenues go down. It's bullshiat. What lib doesn't want more tax money?

serpent_sky: I feel like we should have the same civil union that anyone could have -- regardless of their particular faiths... and the whole church thing is above and beyond, a choice.

What is the functional difference between a civil union and a marriage? It's an argument of semantics at that point.

strangeguitar: In retrospect, I wouldn't have minded if the government stepped in and stopped me from getting married.

Yeah...

Action Replay Nick: Changing the rest IS neccesary. You are advocating the long and hard road of redefining the world. "Let's just change the definition of everything and everyone will be equal" isn't the way to go, when people are being treated unfairly RIGHT NOW.

Those people won't change their minds overnight. They probably won't at all. They have to be worn down over the years, like the 1960s. The next generation will be fine, hell those born in the '90s already don't give a damn. We've got to look at this like the civil rights movement, make sure they are equal in the law, then start wearing down the people who want to oppress their fellow man. That's the way I see it anyway. Telling them they should be tolerant won't do shiat.

When the current generation in power dies, the generation to take its place doesn't give a damn who you marry or why.

Though they'll probably care if it's not human or more than one at a time.

/unless I'm an outlier, here.