If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Indy News)   Indiana votes to make its ban on same sex marriage part of its constitution because "family is the basic unit of our society, and has been since Adam and Eve (were) created"   (wibc.com) divider line 272
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1865 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Apr 2011 at 1:21 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



272 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-02 05:44:34 AM

JSTACAT: for the sake of a psychological disease,
otherwise known as fetishism.


You baffle with enough bullshiat to make a believable lawyer. So you're a psychiatrist also?
 
2011-04-02 05:44:35 AM

JSTACAT: fetishism.


Inequality under the law is also fetishistic.
 
2011-04-02 05:44:51 AM

rynthetyn: It's a bad thing because you're letting a small group of fundamentalist bigots define marriage for everybody.


not really. The religious part of marriage is already separated from the civil part. It's merely a question of what it's being called and what the state recognizes.
 
2011-04-02 05:47:04 AM

CDP: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."


To counter: bring up animals that are prone to bisexual tendencies (oddly enough, this was on the radio yesterday).

Ask the person if a turkey is one of God's creatures, and if they say it is, bring up the fact that they are bisexual. Then ask what that person eats for Thanksgiving...
 
2011-04-02 05:48:10 AM

puffy999: Ask the person if a turkey is one of God's creatures, and if they say it is, bring up the fact that they are bisexual. Then ask what that person eatsgobble gobbles for Thanksgiving...


/yes i know that was weak...
 
2011-04-02 05:51:47 AM
JSTACAT:

...
No, children should not be raised by the state, nor just one parent, or by any sexual pervert.

Not worth it to undo all that law for the sake of a psychological disease, otherwise known as fetishism.


Alright, I have given up trying to understand your point of view on this topic. It appears to be the common conservative refrain:
- the nuclear family is the only valid type of family.
- homosexuals are bad.
 
2011-04-02 05:54:26 AM

JSTACAT: GhostFish 2011-04-02 02:36:47 AM
GWSuperfan: GhostFish: So you're restricted to who you can marry based on the sex you're born with? Sounds like flat out biology to me."
====================================================================

One thing i can't figure out, logically.
Why does the homosexual lobby want to appropriate some name/meme that has had a stable meaning for millenia?
Why cant they let marriage alone, but seek to pervert it?

Why can't they gwan and make their own name for their activity?
Why do they need to take over the authenticity belonging to persons and ideals they do not respect?

- why do they insist on changing and infiltrating existing religions, instead of founding their own, like everyone else does?-

Any legal rights can be attached to a new name as well as an old one.
Civil Union, whats wrong with that? Banana Union? Taco Union?
property settlements, inheritance, all can be assigned to a new name/function.

Why? it is recruitment.
Misery love company...
This isn't rocket science folks,
it is psychology

DERP.
 
2011-04-02 05:54:31 AM

SurfaceTension: rynthetyn: SurfaceTension: A Civil Union should be the standard contract sanctioned by the government. That should allow any person of legal age to enter into such a contract with any other person of legal age and will have the legal authority of the government behind it.

Marriage should be retained as a religious institution that people can voluntarily enter should they wish to do so, and each religion can define the terms of marriage as they see fit.

I don't see what's so wrong about that.

Marriage in this country has never been purely a religious institution, it's always been a civil institution sanctioned by the government.

Your proposal is actually the one that's redefining marriage.

Why is that such a bad thing, though? Separating the civil part from the religious aspects? That's not a re-definition so much as a deconstruction.


Actually, rynthetyn is correct, not just in the modern US, but cross-culturally and in our own past.

"Marriage" is now, and has always been a social, legal contract that has nothing to do with religion, except tangentially. It is now, and always has been, a contract that concerns property ownership and rights of access to heritable wealth.

"Weddings" are religious ceremonies, and no matter what happens on the civil level, each religion will retain the right to conduct their ceremonies in their own ways.

I agree completely that weddings are religious rituals and the government has no business getting involved in those. I've asked many people to explain why "marriages" should be part of the purview of religious organizations, in addition to weddings. I have yet to hear a convincing answer.

Why should a religious community have control or influence over (A) the determination of the social legitimacy of my offspring, (B) the proper distribution of my accumulated wealth when I die and (C) the determination of my recognition of kinship and familial relations?

Marriages establish those three sets of rights.

Weddings are formalized rituals that do not establish any actual legal rights.

(Full disclosure: I'm an ordained minister and have performed weddings in the past. I know that, legally, the ritual that I performed was not legally binding. The paperwork that I and the bride and groom filled out was, but the ritual itself was not.)
 
2011-04-02 05:58:00 AM
rynthetyn 2011-04-02 05:40:36 AM
Why should I be barred from the institution of marriage just because some fundamentalist, dominionist reactionaries whose theology I consider to be heresy say so?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because you would be a counterfeit, an outrageous travesty to the holders of the contract you wish to deprave.
What compensation can you offer to previous and current holders?
Wanna buy them out? WTF?

Ahh, but the pervert always want their pleasures free of lawful obligations.

So, how do the much reviled priests-cum- molesters figure in with your claims?
Shall they marry or adopt their child victims?
Do you sanction their behaviour?

Isn't it enough for you that the preists can cornhole each other, but no they also cornhole same sex children as young as four years old.

Shall ye offer that which is Holy [set aside] as a haven to cover their wretched filth?

Do you think for a second that those who cornhole children at their work place will not also do it to children at home, school or a park?
 
2011-04-02 06:02:54 AM
So if this gets into Indiana's constitution will WBC demonstrate in favor of it?

I'm sick of this and not just because I think gays should be allowed to marry. We've got bigger things to worry about.
 
2011-04-02 06:03:05 AM
We get it: you were molested by a priest, so gays are bad.
 
2011-04-02 06:05:13 AM
Do you think for a second that those who cornhole children at their work place will not also do it to children at home, school or a park?

PROTIP: Kids....stay AWAY from work places!
 
2011-04-02 06:07:35 AM

log_jammin: rynthetyn: It's a bad thing because you're letting a small group of fundamentalist bigots define marriage for everybody.

not really. The religious part of marriage is already separated from the civil part. It's merely a question of what it's being called and what the state recognizes.


As FloydA said, the distinction already exists between marriage as a civil institution and wedding as a religious ceremony. If you allow the bigots to take over the word "marriage" and be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to use the word to define their relationship, you are letting the bigots define the word for everybody.

When I eventually meet someone I want to marry, the bigots shouldn't be allowed to make the decision whether or not that legally binding relationship should be called marriage. My ancestors didn't flee sectarian control in 17th century Europe and travel all the way to the new world so that in 2011 some backward bigots could impose their sectarian control on everybody.
 
2011-04-02 06:11:23 AM
Farker Soze 2011-04-02 06:03:05 AM
==========================================================
That is escapism, at the most charitable.
Start calling your calling by its proper name,
if you want standing as a credible human mind.
So far, your logic has not been any competition to me.
are you ready?
HDD
 
2011-04-02 06:18:01 AM
One other very important legal concept;
get this:
Underneath the Form of the Law that allows you to live and breathe;
Remember, and remember it well...
We outnumber you,
we will dominate you,
you will submit.

Swallow that load, m'kay?,
are we understood now?
Yer type can certainly belly up to that.
Eh!
Wat!
 
2011-04-02 06:20:47 AM

JSTACAT: rynthetyn 2011-04-02 05:40:36 AM
Why should I be barred from the institution of marriage just because some fundamentalist, dominionist reactionaries whose theology I consider to be heresy say so?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because you would be a counterfeit, an outrageous travesty to the holders of the contract you wish to deprave.
What compensation can you offer to previous and current holders?
Wanna buy them out? WTF?

Ahh, but the pervert always want their pleasures free of lawful obligations.

So, how do the much reviled priests-cum- molesters figure in with your claims?
Shall they marry or adopt their child victims?
Do you sanction their behaviour?

Isn't it enough for you that the preists can cornhole each other, but no they also cornhole same sex children as young as four years old.

Shall ye offer that which is Holy [set aside] as a haven to cover their wretched filth?

Do you think for a second that those who cornhole children at their work place will not also do it to children at home, school or a park?


Did you just equate homosexuals and paedophiles?
 
2011-04-02 06:21:39 AM

rynthetyn: If you allow the bigots to take over the word "marriage" and be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to use the word to define their relationship, you are letting the bigots define the word for everybody.


I don't see it that way. I see it as taking away the power they have over what's BEHIND the word. Let them have the word, let everyone else have the rights to what the word entails. They can claim the word "marriage" all they want, but in the mean time everyone else will still be more married than they are since we'd have an actual marriage, not just a ceremony recognized only by a tiny minority of the country.

It would be the ultimate way to turn the tables on them. IMO anyway.
 
2011-04-02 06:26:38 AM

JSTACAT: Farker Soze 2011-04-02 06:03:05 AM
==========================================================
That is escapism, at the most charitable.
Start calling your calling by its proper name,
if you want standing as a credible human mind.
So far, your logic has not been any competition to me.
are you ready?
HDD


It's OK, we understand, a lot of people feel ashamed that they didn't mind, maybe even enjoyed, an experience like that foisted upon one of a young age by an authority figure. You need to realize you were a victim, and not a bad person. Then you won't project your hate onto people undeserving (who you see as like yourself, sinful and evil), but will instead be able to blame the individual (and not a group of bogeymen) who actually did these things to you. Go seek some counseling and maybe you'll find a Robin Williams type who will let you cry on his shoulder and tell you it's not your fault. Would do you some good.
 
2011-04-02 06:41:45 AM

log_jammin: rynthetyn: If you allow the bigots to take over the word "marriage" and be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to use the word to define their relationship, you are letting the bigots define the word for everybody.

I don't see it that way. I see it as taking away the power they have over what's BEHIND the word. Let them have the word, let everyone else have the rights to what the word entails. They can claim the word "marriage" all they want, but in the mean time everyone else will still be more married than they are since we'd have an actual marriage, not just a ceremony recognized only by a tiny minority of the country.

It would be the ultimate way to turn the tables on them. IMO anyway.


So you're saying that we would be equal to them, but separate?

That has a euphonious ring to it, but it makes me hesitant, for some reason.
 
2011-04-02 06:42:21 AM

log_jammin: rynthetyn: If you allow the bigots to take over the word "marriage" and be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to use the word to define their relationship, you are letting the bigots define the word for everybody.

I don't see it that way. I see it as taking away the power they have over what's BEHIND the word. Let them have the word, let everyone else have the rights to what the word entails. They can claim the word "marriage" all they want, but in the mean time everyone else will still be more married than they are since we'd have an actual marriage, not just a ceremony recognized only by a tiny minority of the country.

It would be the ultimate way to turn the tables on them. IMO anyway.


The word itself has power though, and as long as they are the ones who get to decide who can use the word "marriage", there is still a certain amount of separate but equal status. As long as the word "marriage" is reserved only for straight couples, there is still going to be a distinction in people's minds between the two types of relationships, even if they are legally equal. If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't, the general population isn't going to see them as the same thing, even if they're both called "civil unions" by the government.
 
2011-04-02 06:48:17 AM

FloydA: So you're saying that we would be equal to them, but separate?


nothing of the sort. I'm not even sure how you came to a statement lie that.
 
2011-04-02 06:52:16 AM
Fury Pilot 2011-04-02 06:20:47 AM
Did you just equate homosexuals and paedophiles?
==================================================================
I have a feeling you gonna be furious about what i'm gonna say;
are you ready/ got some pain killers handy? mebbe some iodine too..
Here ya go:

I was talking about the priests that some of y'all love to revile,
and you are including who else?
Hmm?
You said it.

you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a court room,
or a -------
 
2011-04-02 06:53:13 AM

rynthetyn: separate but equal status.


there is is again...how is it "separate but equal" if the only thing it's separating is the legal from the religious aspect? and what would stop someone from going to a church that recognizes gay marriage and getting their non legal ceremony there?

rynthetyn: If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't


it's not like it would be illegal or something.
 
2011-04-02 06:54:40 AM

rynthetyn: log_jammin: rynthetyn: If you allow the bigots to take over the word "marriage" and be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to use the word to define their relationship, you are letting the bigots define the word for everybody.

I don't see it that way. I see it as taking away the power they have over what's BEHIND the word. Let them have the word, let everyone else have the rights to what the word entails. They can claim the word "marriage" all they want, but in the mean time everyone else will still be more married than they are since we'd have an actual marriage, not just a ceremony recognized only by a tiny minority of the country.

It would be the ultimate way to turn the tables on them. IMO anyway.

The word itself has power though, and as long as they are the ones who get to decide who can use the word "marriage", there is still a certain amount of separate but equal status. As long as the word "marriage" is reserved only for straight couples, there is still going to be a distinction in people's minds between the two types of relationships, even if they are legally equal. If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't, the general population isn't going to see them as the same thing, even if they're both called "civil unions" by the government.


are you saying gays should take the word "marriage" over into the N1@@er zone? I would thoroughly enjoy that. that would be justice served in a bouquet!
 
2011-04-02 07:04:59 AM
At first I thought I didn't care about gays or about marriage, but then I thought about it and realized I don't want the government legislating morality. What would be next? "First they came for the homogays, and I said nothing" etc.
 
2011-04-02 07:10:39 AM

Wyalt Derp: At first I thought I didn't care about gays or about marriage, but then I thought about it and realized I don't want the government legislating morality. What would be next? "First they came for the homogays, and I said nothing" etc.


Umm-hmmm... are we the land of the free or not? there is no in-between. there is no "but" in "Freedom" unless I missed something.
 
2011-04-02 07:21:22 AM
Adam was created, Eve was derived, and having to be a family was God's punishment.
 
2011-04-02 07:31:06 AM
If you believe that Adam and Eve existed then you're a goddamned retard.

End of story.
 
2011-04-02 07:40:49 AM

JSTACAT: Fury Pilot 2011-04-02 06:20:47 AM
Did you just equate homosexuals and paedophiles?
==================================================================
I have a feeling you gonna be furious about what i'm gonna say;
are you ready/ got some pain killers handy? mebbe some iodine too..
Here ya go:

I was talking about the priests that some of y'all love to revile,
and you are including who else?
Hmm?
You said it.

you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a court room,
or a -------

Isn't it enough for you that the preists can cornhole each other, but no they also cornhole same sex children as young as four years old.


This is your quote. You start on the topic of priests engaging in a homosexual act and then continue in the same sentence to associate the same priests with sexually acts against children.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to imply from your statement that you may be equating homosexual behaviour between adults with paedophilic behaviour. Hence, I asked the question.

The condescending tone was unnecessary, so you might want to give it a rest.
 
2011-04-02 07:43:17 AM

rynthetyn: When I was in middle school, I had a friend who thought that a "God Made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" t-shirt was appropriate attire to wear to hang out at the skating rink.

/that is all


We all know someone who's gay
 
2011-04-02 07:49:53 AM
If you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, I wish you would carry a sign or something, so I have a better idea who is weak minded and stupid.
 
2011-04-02 07:53:39 AM

PonceAlyosha: Adam was created, Eve was derived, and having to be a family was God's punishment.


Actually, that's according to the second creation story in Genesis, the first one has them being created at the same time.
 
2011-04-02 08:00:18 AM

log_jammin: rynthetyn: separate but equal status.

there is is again...how is it "separate but equal" if the only thing it's separating is the legal from the religious aspect? and what would stop someone from going to a church that recognizes gay marriage and getting their non legal ceremony there?

rynthetyn: If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't

it's not like it would be illegal or something.


The word "marriage" has thousands of years of history and meaning behind it that isn't suddenly going to disappear because you decided to call it something different. As long as the bigots get to have the word marriage, they're free to behave as though same-sex unions aren't as legitimate. Everybody gets the civil union bit, but straight couples get the civil union PLUS marriage.
 
2011-04-02 08:04:27 AM

rynthetyn: log_jammin: rynthetyn: separate but equal status.

there is is again...how is it "separate but equal" if the only thing it's separating is the legal from the religious aspect? and what would stop someone from going to a church that recognizes gay marriage and getting their non legal ceremony there?

rynthetyn: If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't

it's not like it would be illegal or something.

The word "marriage" has thousands of years of history and meaning behind it that isn't suddenly going to disappear because you decided to call it something different. As long as the bigots get to have the word marriage, they're free to behave as though same-sex unions aren't as legitimate. Everybody gets the civil union bit, but straight couples get the civil union PLUS marriage.


That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
 
2011-04-02 08:06:02 AM

The_Soiler: I'm Yukon Cornelius: party of small government indeed.

They're just getting the government off the backs of the people.


DRTFT, but at least one person got it.
 
2011-04-02 08:06:31 AM
Acknowledging that fables are fictional does not invalidate the moral they convey.

I learned more about being a good (ie couragous, generous, noble, honest, hardworking, loyal, upstanding) person from Optimus Prime than I ever did from any church related activies I participated in. I don't need to claim that Cybertron is a real place, or that Optimus Prime is real, and hiding out there somewhere in the world, for his example to be a good one.

I no more believe Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt than I do Jack climbed a magic beanstalk and killed a giant.

When my lady and I get married, we're going to go to the courthouse and fill out the paperwork, and then we'll go out into the woods and have a handfasting by the light of the moon, because that's the kind of ceremony we want. We will not having a wedding in a church, presided over by a priest- have nothing against those who do, but our marriage will be no less valid for our not having a "church wedding" but from what I can tell, the folks behind this ammendment would equally illegitimize our marriage, because it doesn't comply with their religious values.

Fark those smeggers.

/Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
 
2011-04-02 08:12:20 AM

Marquis de Sod: rynthetyn: When I was in middle school, I had a friend who thought that a "God Made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" t-shirt was appropriate attire to wear to hang out at the skating rink.

/that is all

We all know someone who's gay


Heh, heh, clever.

Seriously though, that speaks to the environment I grew up in that somebody would actually buy and wear that shirt, their parents would let them out of the house in it, and the rest of us thought it was normal. In retrospect, that's pretty twisted, but that's what happens when you're surrounded by AFA and Christian Coalition people who are saying worse.

No wonder I didn't figure out I was gay until I was almost 30, in that environment if I'd figured it out back then I probably would have jumped off a bridge.
 
2011-04-02 08:17:18 AM

meekychuppet: rynthetyn: log_jammin: rynthetyn: separate but equal status.

there is is again...how is it "separate but equal" if the only thing it's separating is the legal from the religious aspect? and what would stop someone from going to a church that recognizes gay marriage and getting their non legal ceremony there?

rynthetyn: If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't

it's not like it would be illegal or something.

The word "marriage" has thousands of years of history and meaning behind it that isn't suddenly going to disappear because you decided to call it something different. As long as the bigots get to have the word marriage, they're free to behave as though same-sex unions aren't as legitimate. Everybody gets the civil union bit, but straight couples get the civil union PLUS marriage.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.


Care to use your oh so lofty intellect to elaborate? If gays can get a civil union and can't call it marriage, but straights can get a civil union and marriage, then how is it not separate but equal?

If you can call your relationship marriage and I can't, it's not equal. Period.
 
2011-04-02 08:20:01 AM
Supporters of a ban counter that all 30 states which have put the ban on the ballot have approved it

Well, Indiana, if all your friends decided to jump off a bridge, then would you too?
 
2011-04-02 08:28:49 AM
Care to use your oh so lofty intellect to elaborate? If gays can get a civil union and can't call it marriage, but straights can get a civil union and marriage, then how is it not separate but equal?

If you can call your relationship marriage and I can't, it's not equal. Period.


Marriage and civils unions are both separate and not equal. Most states that allow civil unions don't give them all the rights and privileges they give marriages.

And then there's DOMA, which means civil unions can't get social security survivors benefits, green cards for their spouse, file tax returns jointly, or anything that applies to about a thousand other federal laws dealing with marriage.
 
2011-04-02 08:35:49 AM
if discrimination is constitutional then we should ban republicans from the voting booth. they way they vote offends the FSM.
 
2011-04-02 08:39:04 AM

Karac: Care to use your oh so lofty intellect to elaborate? If gays can get a civil union and can't call it marriage, but straights can get a civil union and marriage, then how is it not separate but equal?

If you can call your relationship marriage and I can't, it's not equal. Period.

Marriage and civils unions are both separate and not equal. Most states that allow civil unions don't give them all the rights and privileges they give marriages.

And then there's DOMA, which means civil unions can't get social security survivors benefits, green cards for their spouse, file tax returns jointly, or anything that applies to about a thousand other federal laws dealing with marriage.


it's all about punishing those who do things they disagree with. it has nothing to do with sanctity of marriage.
 
2011-04-02 08:45:45 AM
You know all this "Marriage is a legal contract, religion shouldn't be in it"?

What's crazy about this is that my parents recently tried to get remarried. They looked all over for a Judge who would write them a marriage license. No judge would. They wanted a civil union, but could find no one to give them one. They finally had to go to a pastor to get it done.

That whole legal matter is all well and good but fark if it doesn't "work" that way.
 
2011-04-02 08:46:11 AM
media.avclub.com

Gay marriage in Indiana?
 
2011-04-02 08:54:29 AM

Lackofname: You know all this "Marriage is a legal contract, religion shouldn't be in it"?

What's crazy about this is that my parents recently tried to get remarried. They looked all over for a Judge who would write them a marriage license. No judge would. They wanted a civil union, but could find no one to give them one. They finally had to go to a pastor to get it done.

That whole legal matter is all well and good but fark if it doesn't "work" that way.


I'm confused. They were already married and wanted to renew their vows? Or they used to be married, ended the marriage, and then decided to get married again?

I've never heard of anybody going and getting a second marriage certificate to renew their wedding vows, they just find someone to officiate because it's purely symbolic--the legally binding marriage happened when they signed the marriage certificate when they initially got married.
 
2011-04-02 09:06:16 AM

rynthetyn: Lackofname: You know all this "Marriage is a legal contract, religion shouldn't be in it"?

What's crazy about this is that my parents recently tried to get remarried. They looked all over for a Judge who would write them a marriage license. No judge would. They wanted a civil union, but could find no one to give them one. They finally had to go to a pastor to get it done.

That whole legal matter is all well and good but fark if it doesn't "work" that way.

I'm confused. They were already married and wanted to renew their vows? Or they used to be married, ended the marriage, and then decided to get married again?


The latter. They divorced, then decided to remarry.
 
2011-04-02 09:10:24 AM

rynthetyn: meekychuppet: rynthetyn: log_jammin: rynthetyn: separate but equal status.

there is is again...how is it "separate but equal" if the only thing it's separating is the legal from the religious aspect? and what would stop someone from going to a church that recognizes gay marriage and getting their non legal ceremony there?

rynthetyn: If you can call your relationship a marriage and I can't

it's not like it would be illegal or something.

The word "marriage" has thousands of years of history and meaning behind it that isn't suddenly going to disappear because you decided to call it something different. As long as the bigots get to have the word marriage, they're free to behave as though same-sex unions aren't as legitimate. Everybody gets the civil union bit, but straight couples get the civil union PLUS marriage.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Care to use your oh so lofty intellect to elaborate? If gays can get a civil union and can't call it marriage, but straights can get a civil union and marriage, then how is it not separate but equal?

If you can call your relationship marriage and I can't, it's not equal. Period.


You need to reread what you wrote. It looks to me like you're defending discrimination against gay people.
 
2011-04-02 09:11:55 AM

Lackofname: rynthetyn: Lackofname: You know all this "Marriage is a legal contract, religion shouldn't be in it"?

What's crazy about this is that my parents recently tried to get remarried. They looked all over for a Judge who would write them a marriage license. No judge would. They wanted a civil union, but could find no one to give them one. They finally had to go to a pastor to get it done.

That whole legal matter is all well and good but fark if it doesn't "work" that way.

I'm confused. They were already married and wanted to renew their vows? Or they used to be married, ended the marriage, and then decided to get married again?

The latter. They divorced, then decided to remarry.


Can judges even do that? Refuse a marriage liscense to a heterosexual couple? What was their reason for not doing it?
 
2011-04-02 09:13:02 AM

Hand Banana: Mary had a little fun behind Joseph's back, got knocked up, and came up with this great story about being a virgin and how god musta done it and since many religious people are apparently very stupid Joseph and everyone else fell for it hook line and sinker. Someone wrote the story down and people are still believing it 2000 years later.

The end.


Or. more likely, Jesus was a rape baby.
 
2011-04-02 09:13:35 AM

Lackofname: rynthetyn: Lackofname: You know all this "Marriage is a legal contract, religion shouldn't be in it"?

What's crazy about this is that my parents recently tried to get remarried. They looked all over for a Judge who would write them a marriage license. No judge would. They wanted a civil union, but could find no one to give them one. They finally had to go to a pastor to get it done.

That whole legal matter is all well and good but fark if it doesn't "work" that way.

I'm confused. They were already married and wanted to renew their vows? Or they used to be married, ended the marriage, and then decided to get married again?

The latter. They divorced, then decided to remarry.


That makes no sense then, they should have just been able to go to a justice of the peace or even a notary. Were all the judges where you live smoking crack or something?
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report