Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Because it is still denying them something, no matter how minor a thing we perceive it to be, in a society which is all about freedom. It's wrong, even if it is just a word they can't have, it's still an unjust discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

Because even though the bus is going to the same place, and you'll get there at the same time, having to sit in the back just because the other people on the bus don't want to be reminded you're on there is demeaning and dehumanizing.

Churches aren't REQUIRED to perform the ceremonies or recognize the marriage. I only see issue with not allowing it at all as that is not equality, that is not freedom. What did that guy fight for at Omaha Beach? Shouldn't it be all about letting people make their own choices? There should be no legislation of morality.

Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Elvis_Bogart: A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

my potential FIL ranted about people marrying horses if gay marriage was passed.

I just chuckled quietly to myself.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Good questions. OK by me. It's none of my business how other people live their lives, as long as they aren't harming someone else.

Elvis_Bogart: It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage

Elvis_Bogart: If that isn't good enough, why not?

Because the major financial benefits of marriage are federal. Going to be a while before the IRS recognizes same-sex relationships, whatever you end up calling them, or until the SSA starts sending survivor checks.

I'm cool with siblings getting married.

Slaxl: I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

They're in unhappy marriages and it's envy and jealousy?

St_Francis_P: It's none of my business how other people live their lives, as long as they aren't harming someone else.

This is a good way to put what I feel is a basic principle of the USA.

St_Francis_P: Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Good questions. OK by me. It's none of my business how other people live their lives, as long as they aren't harming someone else.

I'd agree with that.

flaEsq: Slaxl: I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

They're in unhappy marriages and it's envy and jealousy?

lol, if that were the case then they're trying to save homosexuals from the horror of marriage, thus turning them from homophobes to some sort of homosexual protection force.

/the end result is inevitable
//just get over it, old people
///link hotter than the hell you bigots think gay people belong in

I fully support violence against people who think like this.

alywa: /the end result is inevitable
//just get over it, old people
///link hotter than the hell you bigots think gay people belong in

Social conservatives are a historical formality. They lost on slavery, segregation, women's rights, interracial marriage, and they will lose on this.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

Religion, child problems, squick factor... pretty much the same argument most have against gay marriage. I'd suggest that until we crack the genetic hurdles involved, a voluntary sterilization (because of *serious* genetic defects from incestuous unions) should satisfy all but the "heebie-jeebie" factor of it.

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

The reasons I've always heard are tax and property reasons... if two people split, it's pretty easy to determine who gets what. If a third person splits from two, then what happens? It's more complicated than 1+1, which is still what gay marriage is.

But seriously, I'm of the mind that what consenting adults do that results in no harm to anyone should be permissible.

Elvis_Bogart: consenting adults, why not?

Why not indeed.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

I'm cool with all those too. As long as everyone is a consenting adult when the marriage happens.

alywa
www.stat.columbia.edu

/the end result is inevitable
//just get over it, old people
///link hotter than the hell you bigots think gay people belong in

I see the South is once again leading the way in bigotry. Florida is the only old south state not grouped right down at the bottom and that's probably because so much of their population moved there from all over the country.

Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Separate but equal is unconstitutional and rarely equal.

Slaxl: Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Because it is still denying them something, no matter how minor a thing we perceive it to be, in a society which is all about freedom. It's wrong, even if it is just a word they can't have, it's still an unjust discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

I agree it's silly, but don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Ok, why not?

Oh, Maggie, how are you making ends meet without the W Administration to pay you for writing your screeds?



I think you'd look great in flannel and combat boots, Mags.

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, Maggie, how are you making ends meet without the W Administration to pay you for writing your screeds?

[pic]

I think you'd look great in flannel and combat boots, Mags.

Dear god, that's the face of a woman who hasn't seen an orgasm in twenty years.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Wow, what an original argument.

Inbreeding is unhealthy. I cannot believe you considered that a valid point, even for 'devil's advocate.' There is a valid reason to not allow people to marry blood relatives. Even if one couple did not have children, sanctioning marriage between siblings could have some disastrous results.

Three spouses takes advantage of the benefits of marriage. Is your boss going to have to cover all three spouses and the resulting children? Do all three spouses get SS and Medicare benefits?

ne2d
I agree it's silly, but don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Sure. I think it's stupid that Washington didn't let gays call it marriage when they gave them all the same legal rights, but it's still a victory for the gay community. It's not perfect, but it's a good step. Hopefully in the future as public opinion continues to shift the last important step will be brought up in Washington and they'll win the right to be married and yes, call it that.

/of course it's still total bullshiat that the civil rights of a minority are up for popular vote

brainiac-dumdum: Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?

Wow, what an original argument.

Inbreeding is unhealthy. I cannot believe you considered that a valid point, even for 'devil's advocate.' There is a valid reason to not allow people to marry blood relatives. Even if one couple did not have children, sanctioning marriage between siblings could have some disastrous results.

Marriage should only be between two people who can have healthy children together?

"Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage."

I don't know... Massachusetts is a pretty liberal state, no? We seem to having no problem believing that. Two girls, even.

Are straight couples allowed to have Civil Unions?

Barbigazi: Are straight couples allowed to have Civil Unions?

I believe so.

Thrabalen: Because even though the bus is going to the same place, and you'll get there at the same time, having to sit in the back just because the other people on the bus don't want to be reminded you're on there is demeaning and dehumanizing.

Slaxl: I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

These.

/still fuming
//but not surprised
///at least the voters thought of the childrens!!

alywa: www.stat.columbia.edu

/the end result is inevitable
//just get over it, old people
///link hotter than the hell you bigots think gay people belong in

I think some enterprising young psychology doctorate aspirant could make their thesis on this: how the patterns in our mind are so hard and fast that it's next to impossible to change them, even confronted with evidence to the contrary. The thesis could even get into neurology and how the brain is wired.

You could title the thesis, "You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks."

Of course, it's probably already been done (countless times), but this kind of chart just proves it.

The Onanist: Barbigazi: Are straight couples allowed to have Civil Unions?

I believe so.

In that case it sounds like civil marriage is redundant. Conservatives should be gung-ho about removing redundancies from the government.

Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Because it then becomes too easy to write laws that apply to "marriage" but not to "everything but marriage"

Slaxl: I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

Having the state tell churches who they can and can't create legal contracts with is silly.
Government just need to admit this is a PR and tax issue. And gays just need to admit this is just something to feel persecuted about. At the end of the day there is nothing that is actually with held from gays other than the title and a few tax breaks.
And as we all know most gays are democrats and they just love the taxes.

I think people should be free to enter into marriage with their chosen sex partner, which is why I want to enter a civil union with myself.

Elvis_Bogart: Ok...Devil's Advocate time.

Why can't you marry your sister? If no kids result, what's the harm? Two consenting adults...who are you to not allow it?

A marriage with three spouses...again, consenting adults, why not?
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Slaxl: I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

Having the state tell churches who they can and can't create legal contracts with is silly.
Government just need to admit this is a PR and tax issue. And gays just need to admit this is just something to feel persecuted about. At the end of the day there is nothing that is actually with held from gays other than the title and a few tax breaks.
And as we all know most gays are democrats and they just love the taxes.

IMHO, the state shouldn't grant anyone "marriage" licenses. If people want to enter into a civil contract between two consenting adults, that can be a state thing. If they want to have the contract blessed by their chosen religious leader as a marriage, a couple can do so. (If their religion/ branch of religion won't do it, they can either work to change it, or switch.) But as far as government should be concerned, it's just a contract. All applicable laws would apply (Unless their isn't an anti-incest, or anti-bestiality statute on the books, no one's going to be screwing their sister or a turtle) and if the citizens wanted to prevent gay unions, they would have to pass a law, which can then face legal challenges in a court of law.

But otherwise, keep your damn religion out of my government. If you can't justify it without a "but the bible says" argument, then the state has no business dealing with it.

CitizenTed: I think people should be free to enter into marriage with their chosen sex partner, which is why I want to enter a civil union with myself.

Well, hey, you're already covered by your health insurance policy, will get your own social security checks, can rely on your own citizenship to make yourself a citizen, and are able to make medical decisions for yourself in times of duress. Self-civil-unions are automatic.

schoberp: But otherwise, keep your damn religion out of my government. If you can't justify it without a "but the bible says" argument, then the state has no business dealing with it.

Didn't I just say that? And all in one sentence?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Having the state tell churches who they can and can't create legal contracts with is silly.

Well, it's a good thing they didn't try to, then, innit?

But we do not believe gay marriage is a civil right; we think it is a civil wrong.

Cute. She mixes the meaning of "right" to mean both a privilege and a moral category.

Civics is not ethics, dear. Although they can be related.

Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Having the state tell churches who they can and can't create legal contracts with is silly.

Well, it's a good thing they didn't try to, then, innit?

In addition to which, the church isn't the one conferring the legality to the contract. They're basically signing off on them.

$4 million isn't that much.

I've easily spend that much on shoes, champagne, flowers, cocaine and rent boys.

Talon: Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Separate but equal is unconstitutional and rarely equal.

This

sweetmelissa31: I'm cool with siblings getting married.

West Virginia?

But we do not believe gay marriage is a civil right; we think it is a civil wrong.

Puns!

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of gays, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except gays, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

/hot like it's 1855

Slaxl: Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

Because it is still denying them something, no matter how minor a thing we perceive it to be, in a society which is all about freedom. It's wrong, even if it is just a word they can't have, it's still an unjust discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

I don't get why we are so zealously guarding the title of marriage. Just seems to be rather silly.

Ask Obama

The Stealth Hippopotamus
Having the state tell churches who they can and can't create legal contracts with is silly.

huh? No one is doing that at all. A church is not forced to marry people now and they won't be with legal gay marriage either. The state, on the other hand, should not be able to issue marriage licenses to straight people but not to gay people.

And gays just need to admit this is just something to feel persecuted about. At the end of the day there is nothing that is actually with held from gays other than the title and a few tax breaks.

You have got to be farking kidding me.

Elvis_Bogart: Out here in Washington we passed an "everything but marriage" initiative. It gives gay couples all the rights of marriage, but just not the title.

If that isn't good enough, why not?

It's not good enough - "separate but equal" is never good enough - but it's an excellent start. That's why I was proud to vote for R-71.

Barbigazi: Are straight couples allowed to have Civil Unions?

That was one of the key points in the campaign for R-71. Elderly couples, in particular, are eager to take advantage of it.