(U Express) "The $4 million spent to pass gay marriage in Maine was wasted. Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage."
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.
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.
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.
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.
/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.
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
Elvis_Bogart
2009-11-05 09:02:05 AM
If that isn't good enough, why not?
Slaxl
2009-11-05 09:09:04 AM
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.
Thrabalen
2009-11-05 09:11:53 AM
jonasborg
2009-11-05 09:13:13 AM
Elvis_Bogart
2009-11-05 09:23:40 AM
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?
Father Jack Hacket
2009-11-05 09:26:23 AM
my potential FIL ranted about people marrying horses if gay marriage was passed.
I just chuckled quietly to myself.
St_Francis_P
2009-11-05 09:27:42 AM
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.
pandabear
2009-11-05 09:28:28 AM
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.
sweetmelissa31
2009-11-05 09:29:14 AM
flaEsq
2009-11-05 09:29:24 AM
They're in unhappy marriages and it's envy and jealousy?
jonasborg
2009-11-05 09:32:36 AM
This is a good way to put what I feel is a basic principle of the USA.
Slaxl
2009-11-05 09:36:40 AM
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.
alywa
2009-11-05 09:38:31 AM
/the end result is inevitable
//just get over it, old people
///link hotter than the hell you bigots think gay people belong in
I Said
2009-11-05 09:42:20 AM
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.
Thrabalen
2009-11-05 09:44:04 AM
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.
EatHam
2009-11-05 09:56:50 AM
Why not indeed.
Gwendolyn
2009-11-05 10:06:09 AM
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.
patrick767
2009-11-05 10:10:11 AM
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.
Talon
2009-11-05 10:32:17 AM
If that isn't good enough, why not?
Separate but equal is unconstitutional and rarely equal.
ne2d
2009-11-05 10:37:28 AM
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.
superfly66103
2009-11-05 10:48:36 AM
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?
Lionel Mandrake
2009-11-05 10:59:33 AM
I think you'd look great in flannel and combat boots, Mags.
susansto-helit
2009-11-05 11:04:13 AM
[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.
brainiac-dumdum
2009-11-05 11:05:18 AM
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?
patrick767
2009-11-05 11:09:59 AM
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