Same-Sex Marriage!! Your Thoughts

[mlmpetert]

A interesting story considering the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell and same-sex marriage being illegal at the Federal level:

Three Marines in San Diego ousted for sham marriages - latimes.com

You know, the only reason the Federal government cares about marriage, gay marriage, or no marriage is tax related..... If everyone were taxed the same, say at 9% income rate and a 9% consumption rate, it wouldnt matter if people were married or not, or who they were or wernt married to. How crazy would that be???

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

A interesting story considering the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell and same-sex marriage being illegal at the Federal level:

Three Marines in San Diego ousted for sham marriages - latimes.com

You know, the only reason the Federal government cares about marriage, gay marriage, or no marriage is tax related..... If everyone were taxed the same, say at 9% income rate and a 9% consumption rate, it wouldnt matter if people were married or not, or who they were or wernt married to. How crazy would that be???

What they did was illegal and was fraud.

[mlmpetert]

^ I went to a wedding in Princeton less than a month ago and stayed at the Westin. It was the nicest hotel ive ever been in. I lied and said it was just me and the total came to $100 give or take a dollar. It was like 15 dollars more for a second person and you get a free breakfast for each person in your room, which would be the primary incentive to say 2 people. BUT the free breakfast was a complete scam. It was sit down only with about 15 tables and the wait was like an hour and a half, people were going NUTS in the lobby.

[los panda]

i almost mistakenly created a new thread. this is a major issue to me:
all americans need to have equal rights. that's the biggest fish that needs to be fried. i didn't chose to be heterosexual, yet i can marry my girlfriend. why can't everyone have that right? that's like saying a black man can't marry his girlfriend. it's insane that we talk about other issues while this is still unresolved.

[JoeRedskin]

I got no problem with it. Except: It shouldn't be called "marriage" not for hetero or homo sexuals. It's a contract pure and simple. Although originally called a marriage contract that term is outdated and has created an unneccesary blurring of the lines between church and state (for example: when he performs a marriage, completes and signs the marriage license, my priest signs as an officer of the State of Maryland).

Constitutional equal protection, to me, requires that anyone entering into the same promises and obligations associated with two people entering into a permanent shared living arrangement and that have been traditionally known as a "marriage contract" should receive the same benefits, under the law, as anyone else. You make the same legally binding promises, accept the same legally binding obligations, you get the same benefits and penalties as everyone else. Rename it a civil union contract, have the legal obligations set out (i.e. Party A promises to do x, y & z, Party B promises likewise) and have it properly witnessed and notorized by a court official.

If your church doesn't want to perform the sacrament of marriage, fine. The state shouldn't have any say in that. It is then up to you whether to belong to that religious institution or not. Further, I would have no problem with the State saying "if, as part of a religious ceremony, the parties agree to x, y, & z, and proof of that is provided to the appropriate State official, then no separate civil form is required to evidence the civil union contract". Church's would then be free to incorporate the State legal requirements into their sacramental services. If they chose not to do so, then participants simply have to fill out the forms at city hall.

Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, give unto God that which is God's.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I got no problem with it. Except: It shouldn't be called "marriage" not for hetero or homo sexuals. It's a contract pure and simple. Although originally called a marriage contract that term is outdated and has created an unneccesary blurring of the lines between church and state (for example: when he performs a marriage, completes and signs the marriage license, my priest signs as an officer of the State of Maryland).

Constitutional equal protection, to me, requires that anyone entering into the same promises and obligations associated with two people entering into a permanent shared living arrangement and that have been traditionally known as a "marriage contract" should receive the same benefits, under the law, as anyone else. You make the same legally binding promises, accept the same legally binding obligations, you get the same benefits and penalties as everyone else. Rename it a civil union contract, have the legal obligations set out (i.e. Party A promises to do x, y & z, Party B promises likewise) and have it properly witnessed and notorized by a court official.

If your church doesn't want to perform the sacrament of marriage, fine. The state shouldn't have any say in that. It is then up to you whether to belong to that religious institution or not. Further, I would have no problem with the State saying "if, as part of a religious ceremony, the parties agree to x, y, & z, and proof of that is provided to the appropriate State official, then no separate civil form is required to evidence the civil union contract". Church's would then be free to incorporate the State legal requirements into their sacramental services. If they chose not to do so, then participants simply have to fill out the forms at city hall.

Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, give unto God that which is God's.

You're just playing word games. Over time, the roles of men and women within marriage have changed. Social views on multiple wives, interracial relations, and divorce have changed. Legal rules regulating everything from the treatment of children and division of property to the grounds for divorce have changed. If you want to qualify and classify what marriage is that is your prerogative, just don't expect us not to keep evolving and keep it moving.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're just playing word games. Over time, the roles of men and women within marriage have changed. Social views on multiple wives, interracial relations, and divorce have changed. Legal rules regulating everything from the treatment of children and division of property to the grounds for divorce have changed. If you want to qualify and classify what marriage is that is your prerogative, just don't expect us not to keep evolving and keep it moving.

So if we allow same sex marriage we can also have multiple wifes? Hell yea!! I'll sign that petition.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if we allow same sex marriage we can also have multiple wifes? Hell yea!! I'll sign that petition.

The idea of having multiple wives isn't absurd...it use to go on, it still goes on around the world. Maybe if men could have multiple wives the divorce rate in this country would be so high?

And no, the idea of marrying your dog is idiotic and absurd.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if we allow same sex marriage we can also have multiple wifes? Hell yea!! I'll sign that petition.

Goodness no...for those with troublesome wives, why multiply the trouble?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Goodness no...for those with troublesome wives, why multiply the trouble?

And in fairness what about all those progressive wimmin what want more than one husbind, we'd have to accomodate them 'un's too....

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're just playing word games. Over time, the roles of men and women within marriage have changed. Social views on multiple wives, interracial relations, and divorce have changed. Legal rules regulating everything from the treatment of children and division of property to the grounds for divorce have changed. If you want to qualify and classify what marriage is that is your prerogative, just don't expect us not to keep evolving and keep it moving.

/thread


Hammer meet nail head.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're just playing word games. Over time, the roles of men and women within marriage have changed. Social views on multiple wives, interracial relations, and divorce have changed. Legal rules regulating everything from the treatment of children and division of property to the grounds for divorce have changed. If you want to qualify and classify what marriage is that is your prerogative, just don't expect us not to keep evolving and keep it moving.

I guess. I thought my "word games" were doing just that. Separating the religion from the secular. Ultimately, you're right - civil union, marriage, title it what you wish - as far as the state is concerned it's still a legally binding contract. My only thought was to clarify the distinction between church and state in this particular contract and the role each played in it.

[los panda]

let's make sure everyone has the right to be married before we start nitpicking. that's the big picture

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by los panda

let's make sure everyone has the right to be married before we start nitpicking. that's the big picture

I couldn't agree more with the point that you are making in this thread.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I couldn't agree more with the point that you are making in this thread.

amen brother