I've been warning about this
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
I think you make my argument. Then why would they object to a civil union?
Why can't they have marriage...you can..your American.. so are they..why should they be treated like second-class citizens why should they settle for less
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Your previous argument was that they have been prevented from marrying because of religion. In otherwords, "religion is bad". But that is the very thing they want to be a part of. Has nothing to do with whether they can or can't, it is the motivation. If you look at civil unions, it is the same thing with the religious component removed. Same rights, same everything. Nothing to do with calling them "second class citizens". I don't believe they are settling if they are getting the same rights and benefits.
Because then they are civil Union couple not a married couple why should they have to settle for anything less????????????????
Again they are American citizens just as you are so why can't they be afforded the same rights as you
Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract so why can't they enter into a legal contract and you do
That is discrimination 101
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Yes...
Do you know what discrimination is??
.but good grief....why do they have to settle for civil unions ..why can't they just have marriage as everyone else...geeeess
Let's try it this way are gays human beings
Are they american
So why can't they have the same marriage as you??
Why do they have to be treated like that 2md class citzens
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Because they want to redefine what marriage is, in order to have it.
They have rejected and continue to reject civil unions outright, despite civil unions giving them the same exact legal rights and obligations as a marriage, because they want the M-word. And it's because the M-word is borne from religion, a religion which decry homosexuality to be an abomination.
It's in its early stages, but there's a movement afoot to have the Bible edited to remove any and all "discriminatory and disparaging" references to homosexuality. Once they get the M-word, which is rooted mostly in religion (13th century origins from Latin marītus and marītīāre, conjugal wedding for the purposes of having children) they think they'll have an open door and the ammunition to do just that. And they might just be right.
This isn't about equality or "equal marriage," it's about getting an in-your-face "Ha!" to the religions that decry homosexuality. It's about winning, and getting their way, simply because they want it really, really bad. Otherwise, they wouldn't be exerting so much effort to get "marriage" redefined for their own purposes - they would instead accept Civil Unions for the equality that it gives them.
I can see one day where states will no longer issue marriage license of any kind to anybody. They will instead issue civil union licenses and if you want a marriage certificate you'll have to get that from a church. The only reason states issue marriage licenses now is because they have historically been done to legalize a "Marriage in the Eyes of God," and is a de facto civil union anyway. They called them marriage licenses because they're always been the legal extension of the man-woman union. That may very well end sooner than later.
The state should have never gotten into the marriage game/civil unions in the first place. IMO
OMG! OVM is in the soapbox!
Until the 16th century all a couple had to do was publicly declare they had exchanged vows and the church accepted it as so. The first marriage licenses were issued in the Middle Ages, but they were only to allow marriages that would otherwise be illegal (almost always a case of wanting to get married before the required period of notice had expired). There was a time, and in some states it still exists, where simple cohabitation for a certain period qualifies as a marriage (common law marriage). But you can thank the Massachusetts Colony for the formality of states issuing marriage licenses or marriage certificates. They started doing that in the 1630s.
Like most marriage licenses of the past, it was done to prevent certain marriages, mainly across certain religions and white people marrying Indians. As recently as the 1920s we had 38 states that prohibited whites from marrying a whole host of races and ethnic groups, including blacks, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, and generally anyone not white. Remember that judge in Louisiana a couple or three years ago who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple and then was forced to resign about a month later? The couple got married by another Justice of the Peace, but geez, dood.
Libertarians argue, and I agree, that since marriage is a right, we don't need no stinking license to do it. All marriages should be civil and the state should have no part of it. When you're born you are issued a birth certificate, not a birth license. License implies a privilege rather than a right. Most Christians (and many from other religions, as well) argue that a marriage is a contract between two people (usually one man and one woman) presided over by God, no state approval required. In WAY TOO MANY states the state is an actual party to the contract, which is an obscene infringement on your rights, IMHO.
In Pennsylvania, however, to allow for Quakers, they have a self-uniting marriage license that is offered. All you need is the signature of the bride, groom and at two witnesses. While it's to accommodate Quakers, any (heterosexual) couple can also do it. Wisconsin has the same thing, except they do have a form to fill out that states the state cannot guarantee the marriage will always be recognized in all contexts.
Colorado has self-uniting marriages, as well, and they don't ask questions or make you sign any forms. You don't even need witnesses in Colorado. For my money, that's exactly how it should be done. The state shouldn't be involved at all, and the federal government shouldn't even care.
But as far as I know, those are the only three states which have self-uniting marriages.
Like most marriage licenses of the past, it was done to prevent certain marriages, mainly across certain religions and white people marrying Indians. As recently as the 1920s we had 38 states that prohibited whites from marrying a whole host of races and ethnic groups, including blacks, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, and generally anyone not white. Remember that judge in Louisiana a couple or three years ago who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple and then was forced to resign about a month later? The couple got married by another Justice of the Peace, but geez, dood.
Libertarians argue, and I agree, that since marriage is a right, we don't need no stinking license to do it. All marriages should be civil and the state should have no part of it. When you're born you are issued a birth certificate, not a birth license. License implies a privilege rather than a right. Most Christians (and many from other religions, as well) argue that a marriage is a contract between two people (usually one man and one woman) presided over by God, no state approval required. In WAY TOO MANY states the state is an actual party to the contract, which is an obscene infringement on your rights, IMHO.
In Pennsylvania, however, to allow for Quakers, they have a self-uniting marriage license that is offered. All you need is the signature of the bride, groom and at two witnesses. While it's to accommodate Quakers, any (heterosexual) couple can also do it. Wisconsin has the same thing, except they do have a form to fill out that states the state cannot guarantee the marriage will always be recognized in all contexts.
Colorado has self-uniting marriages, as well, and they don't ask questions or make you sign any forms. You don't even need witnesses in Colorado. For my money, that's exactly how it should be done. The state shouldn't be involved at all, and the federal government shouldn't even care.
But as far as I know, those are the only three states which have self-uniting marriages.
From the Associated Press Associate Press on today's big story...
Read the full story at the link above.
See? It's not about equal rights or equal marriage, it's about winning, pure and simple. And they're using the courts to try and reinterpret current laws and redefine terms to do it. They want to EXPAND current anti-discrimination laws to force states to abide by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause even though that's not even remotely what that clause is for, and it's never been used to force a state to recognize any marriage that they wouldn't otherwise recognize as legal. Clearly, State's Rights are meaningless to the Gay Agenda, as they are going after them tooth and nail via the Supreme Court in applying legislation in ways it's never been applied before.
Equal Marriage my ***.
Last edited:
EASYTRADER
Expert Expediter
Turtle,
Your last 2 posts are on point.
The State really has no business regulating marriage, or other private relationships for that matter. Having said that though, traditional marriages do bring legal quandry's that other human relationships don't. Survivorship rights, children,property right ETC.
Because of that the State does have compelling justification to recognise these relationships, and in the case of man + woman familial relationships (formerly known as marriage) their is every justification to encurage those relationships because they do in fact "promote domestic tranquilty".
Nuclear families are more financially stable, produce better children - there are a whole host of positive beneifits to society from these kinds of relationships.
There is no benefit to the State or society in recognising pervert relationships. ;-)
Which was my initial point in the 3 fundamental points of government. To Prevent, Promote or Ignore behaviors.
Your last 2 posts are on point.
The State really has no business regulating marriage, or other private relationships for that matter. Having said that though, traditional marriages do bring legal quandry's that other human relationships don't. Survivorship rights, children,property right ETC.
Because of that the State does have compelling justification to recognise these relationships, and in the case of man + woman familial relationships (formerly known as marriage) their is every justification to encurage those relationships because they do in fact "promote domestic tranquilty".
Nuclear families are more financially stable, produce better children - there are a whole host of positive beneifits to society from these kinds of relationships.
There is no benefit to the State or society in recognising pervert relationships. ;-)
Which was my initial point in the 3 fundamental points of government. To Prevent, Promote or Ignore behaviors.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
The nuclear family is a rarity these days...how exactly should the state promote these relationships anyway? What next denying divorces to promote domestic tranquility?
Plus I can various economic and tax benefits to allowing civil unions between any 2 consenting adults. Since marriage is technically defined as one man, one woman...then the simple answer is no marriage license, make any state recognition of two people together a civil union.
Then one the government gets more fees bc a marriage license isn't free so a civil union certificate wouldn't be. Plus in many instances combining incomes raises their tax rate so more taxes. You also have more people paying divorce fees later on! Because almost 50% of domestically tranquil little nuclear families end in divorce, so will same sex unions.
Economically you have more people getting married so more money spent on weddings, including gifts given and honeymoons. Plus now they would have right of survivorship how many gay or lesbian couples would buy homes, invest together etc?
It's not the states right nor anyone else's right to say what two adult people can behind closed doors especially since this isn't just "bad" or "perverted" behavior. No chooses to be gay or straight...they are born that way. It's definitely not a learned behavior. Scientific research shows that there are differences in hormones and the brain between straight and gay people. They are literally wired different! Different not worse or bad!
)0( Nasmaste )0(
Plus I can various economic and tax benefits to allowing civil unions between any 2 consenting adults. Since marriage is technically defined as one man, one woman...then the simple answer is no marriage license, make any state recognition of two people together a civil union.
Then one the government gets more fees bc a marriage license isn't free so a civil union certificate wouldn't be. Plus in many instances combining incomes raises their tax rate so more taxes. You also have more people paying divorce fees later on! Because almost 50% of domestically tranquil little nuclear families end in divorce, so will same sex unions.
Economically you have more people getting married so more money spent on weddings, including gifts given and honeymoons. Plus now they would have right of survivorship how many gay or lesbian couples would buy homes, invest together etc?
It's not the states right nor anyone else's right to say what two adult people can behind closed doors especially since this isn't just "bad" or "perverted" behavior. No chooses to be gay or straight...they are born that way. It's definitely not a learned behavior. Scientific research shows that there are differences in hormones and the brain between straight and gay people. They are literally wired different! Different not worse or bad!
)0( Nasmaste )0(
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Well, no. I simply asked you to choose which argument your going to discuss because you seem to be wavering between two separate points. And shooting amiss is not the same as being wrong. This is why it's so frustrating to have an intelligent conversation with people like you. Some of these claims of religious war, The Church and sexual frustration, and how we sit around and don't do anything, are not just stretches of the imagination......they are the same moon beams shot into the air, as people with your views seem want to do.
The first problem here is Christian has not been properly defined. One has to remember, the church in it's present state is apostate. You lump those people in with true born again spiritual people who are walking in the spirit. So you throw a blanket on the whole group....not understanding the difference.
Secondly, there are ignorant people who actually believe this hype from yesteryear about how "God told me to strike the terroristsssss" , America needs to spread it's twisted and rotten system onto everyone else because we're the good guys, and silly people who bought the lies, and a magnet car sticker to go with it.
True born again Christians actually see and feel the spiritual battles going on in this world. The apostate church looks and feels much like worldly people themselves, and have no such discernment. You'll find them waving the flag, cheering on old Georgie boy, and basically being ignorant of biblical teaching. In short.....they are sheeple of the same world you live in.
So for America......the glue which used to hold this country together is wearing out and getting thin, as 70% of the once moral society has moved over to your camp, without even realizing it. As with Benteen and Reno, they're sitting on a hill far away and fighting the shadow match, while Custer is pushed up the hill and in a defensive posture, fighting to the last man.
Only difference here is, those of us who remain are not putting up a fight as we're pushed into a corner, rather, we know these times are to come, what we're suppose to do about it, and where the spiritual battle lays in the whole scheme of things.
Now, if you wish to resume your conversation on the laws, what state does this and that, and how any of this means anything to those of us who remain......please continue with what you do know, but be careful with spiritual things you know nothing about, because by your own admission and through statements on this thread.....you hold no spiritual discernment at all.
Last edited:
I am sure part of it is about winning ...gays have been picked on .. discrminated... been called all sorts of names there whole life...JUST FOR WHO THEY LOVE...so HELL YES its about pushing back winning .
a big F U...In your face... why not...they have been treated like second class citizens for years...the queer..there here...deal with it!!!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Last edited:
Remember everybody picking on the gays in high school laughing at them ..calling them names.. there fed up...time for them to win...GOOD FOR THEM!!!!!,!!!!,!
And it gets all of those bible thumping hypocrites panties all bunched up....that's the best part !!!!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
And it gets all of those bible thumping hypocrites panties all bunched up....that's the best part !!!!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited: