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.

(National Review)   Almost there: nationalizing gay marriage. Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status   (nationalreview.com) divider line 270
    More: Scary, Justice Kennedy, Charles Krauthammer, abortion law, supreme court ruling, same-sex marriages, majority opinion, DOMA, special reports  
•       •       •

1910 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 01:33:06 PM  

12349876: 2 grams: But why wouldn't it work?

Because the Christian Conservative wouldn't agree.  Go look at all the state laws and amendments banning gay marriage and you'll see many also have language that ban civil unions or anything that resembles marriage.  They're the ones that forced gays to go for full on marriage because they refused to compromise to civil unions when this issue started getting big several years back.


And I'll add, remember it was Vermont allowing CIVIL UNIONS in 2000 to gays (a compromise by that libbiest of all libs Howard Dean to follow a court ruling without using the word marriage) that started the massive drive to pass all of those laws and constitutional amendments.
 
2013-06-27 01:33:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Churches finally having to catch up with the 21st Century?


Yup.
IF this moronic conspiracy ended up (somehow, dunno) coming true, I'd LOL.
 
2013-06-27 01:34:32 PM  
Just like we force churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to perform marriages for people of other faiths.

Wait...do we do that?

Oh, that's right - we don't.
 
2013-06-27 01:37:22 PM  

grumpfuff: BMulligan: grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there

No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.

For a sun-hater like myself, that sounds like a good thing.


It's an exceedingly strange place to live, and not everyone is well suited to it. I had to move away for a decade before I accepted that this is actually where I belong.
 
2013-06-27 01:38:19 PM  

Tamater: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

Potatoes that were pouring like an avalanche, coming ...


I was thinking more that they would be potatoes to be made into French fries, symbolic of our slouching toward French customs and that those who were blind to this encroach would only realise the true horror of becoming more like France when Michelle Obama wore another sleeveless dress.
 
2013-06-27 01:39:47 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


Srsly.
Chocolate fountains?
No open bar?
 
2013-06-27 01:40:50 PM  

BMulligan: grumpfuff: BMulligan: grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there

No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.

For a sun-hater like myself, that sounds like a good thing.

It's an exceedingly strange place to live, and not everyone is well suited to it. I had to move away for a decade before I accepted that this is actually where I belong.


So exactly how I feel about NJ, though I only had to go away to college to realize it.

/Welcome to New Jersey, where the weak are killed and eaten.
//I'm from New Jersey, don't worry, we don't like you either.
///Two actual shirts you can buy around here.
 
2013-06-27 01:41:23 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is [...] potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


*standing ovation*
Damn, you're good! Now I don't feel so bad about getting hooked in the atheism thread the other day.
 
2013-06-27 01:45:07 PM  

odinsposse: Actually you may have struck on something here. Conservatives don't think there is a separation of Church and State. They think the US government was inspired by God. So the fact that the government is allowing something that some churches disagree with means, in their eyes, that all churches will have to allow it.


Just to be more specific, they don't believe in separation between their Church and the State.  Promoting their own symbols and beliefs is okay, but another religion doing the same thing is not okay (e.g. Christmas displays).  Conversely, the State telling them what to do is not okay, but the State telling another religion what to do is okay (e.g. mosque locations).  It's a pretty consistent double-standard.
 
2013-06-27 01:48:30 PM  

lemurs: odinsposse: Actually you may have struck on something here. Conservatives don't think there is a separation of Church and State. They think the US government was inspired by God. So the fact that the government is allowing something that some churches disagree with means, in their eyes, that all churches will have to allow it.

Just to be more specific, they don't believe in separation between their Church and the State.  Promoting their own symbols and beliefs is okay, but another religion doing the same thing is not okay (e.g. Christmas displays).  Conversely, the State telling them what to do is not okay, but the State telling another religion what to do is okay (e.g. mosque locations).  It's a pretty consistent double-standard.


i726.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 01:50:14 PM  

lockers: So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


As a breeder, I have to say, if you take much offense to that term you have entirely too few real problems in your life.
 
2013-06-27 01:51:52 PM  
"In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws."

And that's why abortions are freely available to any woman at any time.
 
2013-06-27 01:55:30 PM  

grumpfuff: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.


Err...breeder doesn't belong just to the gays. I know quite a few heterosexuals that don't want kids who've used that term to describe people with kids for yeaaaaars.


Um, I'm a Breeder and I don't care. I've mostly heard it in fun, like I think Ghostfish was going for.

If I hear it in a derogatory connotation, I just figure the 'your momma' would work.

Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.
Then, I might be offended.
 
2013-06-27 01:56:59 PM  

Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.


Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?
 
2013-06-27 01:57:08 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


So we should stick to the Biblical definition of marriage.

Hey, you like that girl, but she's not interested in you? Just rape her and pay her father - then she has to marry you! Already married but want a few more wives? Go get 'em, tiger!

Widows with no male children? Don't worry - you can...wait, not "can"...are required to marry your brother in law!

www.janetober.com
 
2013-06-27 01:58:06 PM  

monoski: You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Huh.  That seems odd, as I personally attended an Orthodox wedding at a very large church in the wealthy suburbs of Athens, Greece (Bride was the niece of a law school friend of my father's) while living there in the early `80s.

No one asked me my affiliation (Atheist) nor indicated that being of the wrong faith/nationality would bar my entry.  And I didn't speak a word of Greek at the time, so it was pretty obvious that I was not a local.
 
2013-06-27 01:58:30 PM  

TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.


Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."
 
2013-06-27 02:01:30 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

So we should stick to the Biblical definition of mar ...


Geez, you just keep getting bites man, even after it's been explained. 15/10 and a gold star. The potato avalance was a nice way to tie it all together.
 
2013-06-27 02:04:26 PM  
All churches should lose their tax-exempt status regardless.....churches are just money-making enterprises that operate in houses of worship instead of offices.
And the people that give churches money are people who are too dim-witted to understand that they don't have to join a church for God to love them or hear their prayers (I only stopped being a dim-wit about 8 years ago.......).
 
2013-06-27 02:08:27 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Hey, you like that girl, but she's not interested in you? Just rape her and pay her father - then she has to marry you!


That would sure as shiat make my life easier, that's for sure.
 
2013-06-27 02:10:12 PM  

clambam: monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding

Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.


Why did I think you are a woman?
Have you been swapping genders?
 
2013-06-27 02:12:47 PM  
Geez, from this and all similar controversies, you would think that religion is really just a tax-exempt way to treat other people like shiat.
 
2013-06-27 02:13:07 PM  
I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??
 
2013-06-27 02:16:00 PM  

rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??


Why not both?
 
2013-06-27 02:17:12 PM  

BMulligan: rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??

Why not both?


Damn, there was supposed to be an image to go with that:

images.thecarconnection.com
 
2013-06-27 02:17:19 PM  

BMulligan: rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??

Why not both?


I think there are a few intentional communities around that started that way.
 
2013-06-27 02:17:54 PM  

d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!



More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.
 
2013-06-27 02:19:49 PM  

abrannan: d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.


Corporations are people, my friend.  You would have to register each member of your family as a corporation and then try to establish relationships between each corporation that would be favorable in taxation terms.  Consider having one of your children move to Switzerland.
 
2013-06-27 02:22:43 PM  

rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??


If deciding is tough and you never want to get to make a decision again, go with the multiple wives version. It might even be enough to just get one wife.
 
2013-06-27 02:23:13 PM  
"Nationalize" gay marriage? So the state will take over the means of production for gay marriage and become its exclusive supplier?

Makes sense I guess. I mean you've already got Obamaphones and Obamacars; now you'll have Obamarriages too.
 
2013-06-27 02:24:33 PM  

Triple Oak: Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?


Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

License/civil ceremony without Church = MARRIED

Church without License = NOT MARRIED

The state recognition is the only thing that matters/makes you married.

Church ceremony is irrelevant to a legal marriage.
 
2013-06-27 02:27:36 PM  
You may ask youself:

Deucednuisance:
Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

You mean the way that you just did, Mr. Nuisance?

Yes, exactly like that.

Management regrets the error, and slinks off for coffee.
 
2013-06-27 02:28:26 PM  
A status they should never have had in the first place, so....

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-27 02:36:24 PM  

BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."


They're through bein' cool
 
2013-06-27 02:38:42 PM  

Deucednuisance: Triple Oak: Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

License/civil ceremony without Church = MARRIED

Church without License = NOT MARRIED

The state recognition is the only thing that matters/makes you married.

Church ceremony is irrelevant to a legal marriage.


Not to Christians. Remember, the CHURCH IS THE STATE HERP DERP!ONE1!!!
 
2013-06-27 02:39:34 PM  

Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?


No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.
 
2013-06-27 02:42:16 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


Appeasment never shuts up bigots. They must be trampled, shunned, proven wrong, and ultimately forgotten in the mists of decades until their very existence is looked upon with shame.

"Civil unions" won't do that.
 
2013-06-27 02:42:31 PM  

TheMysticS: BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."

They're through bein' cool


Thank you.
 
2013-06-27 02:43:44 PM  

2 grams: No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless of same sex, or not get a Civil Union. A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever. I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
 
2013-06-27 02:43:46 PM  
It's funny how conservative " intellectual" arguments go right for the derp when they actually do have something to gripe about. It's just not the fantasy the are actually griping about.

Churches will have to give benefits to married gay couples.
 
2013-06-27 02:45:39 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


We already have what you're talking about. It's called "civil marriage."
 
2013-06-27 02:47:35 PM  

2 grams: A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.


You realize, heaven help us, that you are describing the situation as it already exists?

You're just worried who gets to use the word that has described that situation only for the last few thousand years.

Why do you want to allow churches to steal ownership of the word?

Your "great idea" changes nothing else.
 
2013-06-27 02:48:04 PM  

Aldon: It's funny how conservative " intellectual" arguments go right for the derp when they actually do have something to gripe about. It's just not the fantasy the are actually griping about.

Churches will have to give benefits to married gay couples.*


*employees
 
2013-06-27 02:48:30 PM  
12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.
 
2013-06-27 02:53:51 PM  

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


In an earlier post, you cited "shut up both sides" as a primary reason for wanting to ditch marriage as a civil term and I'm here to tell you that's not going to work based on my evidence in the previous post.
 
2013-06-27 02:56:20 PM  

BMulligan: TheMysticS: BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."

They're through bein' cool

Thank you.


That's my fave.
 
2013-06-27 03:00:22 PM  

gimmegimme: abrannan: d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.

Corporations are people, my friend.  You would have to register each member of your family as a corporation and then try to establish relationships between each corporation that would be favorable in taxation terms.  Consider having one of your children move to Switzerland.


If I wanted to optimize it, sure.  But I could establish my family as just one corporation, sell my house to that corporation and have it provided back to me as a perk, same with my vehicles, major purchases, etc.  They'd be business expenses, and I could claim depreciation, etc.  The difficulties come in my earnings as an individual, and being able to tie those to the corporation without having to get myself hired as a 1099 contractor.  Find some way to get the best of both worlds (corporate veil/personhood and marriage protections)
 
2013-06-27 03:12:50 PM  

CPennypacker: Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?

Definitely the donkey


Haha, Serious Black, you're so funny!
 
2013-06-27 03:12:57 PM  

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


Christ, you're thick.

After the SC ruling, that part of Texas' law will simply not hold up. They would be fools to pursue it, and if they did fight it in court, guess what? THE SC WOULD RULE THEIR LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Supremacy Clause. Read it, for fark's sake.
 
2013-06-27 03:15:45 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


Unfortunately it would be nearly impossible to get the bible-beaters from adjusting to what "marriage" means. And the language would change; "We're married" versus something like "We're unionized". Would husband and wife be acceptable terms for state-approved unions? It's really a mess. Extremists want to run with any change of marriage and say "Oh, well why not change it to non-humans and watch the world fall apart?" when the discussion has never been about non-humans to begin with. Once people move on with their tempered belief system (which will take longer than you or I have on this planet), acceptance can actually be a thing.

/apologies for the comment before, caught the cut-out section and ran with it
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report