That makes both of you inaccurate.....
let us abolish marriage as a contract with the state
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
That makes both of you inaccurate.....
maineman
Banned
in your opinion...which, since the days of politics.com. I have valued about as much as a bucket of warm spit.
maineman
Banned
why do I need to defend my point of view on this matter? You disagreed with a very well laid out post by dixie which I fully agreed with...and your post to me was only that I was wrong. I disagree. In MY opinion, you are wrong. I believe that the state should stay out of the marriage business and the church should stay out of the civil union business. period. You are free to disagree with my point of view, and, as I said, given the fact that it is YOU, I really could give a shit.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me illustrate my point by asking you a question. What does "God" mean? Would you agree, the word has differing meaning to various people? All people's definition of "God" is certainly not the same, is it? If you can accept that people have differing views of what "God" means, can't you also understand people have differing views of what "Marriage" means? Okay, let's try another one... "morality" ...Is your definition of the word the same as everyone else? Should everyone conform to a specific definition, or can it possibly be, we all have a different definition based on our personal perspectives? Ready for another one? "tasteful" ...does it mean the same thing to every person, or does it vary from person to person? The world would probably be a boring place if everyone shared the same exact opinion of what was in good taste or what was in bad taste, wouldn't you agree?
So, we can see that numerous words do indeed mean different things to different people. As I said, I agree with your definition of "marriage" and I think most people do, however, we aren't everybody, some people see "marriage" as something different, they have a differing view of "marriage" than you and I. My point about Civil Unions is, it takes this aspect out of the equation. No longer is government bound to a specific interpretation or definition of "marriage" and it can be viewed however the individual chooses. Why should government mandate what "marriage" means to the individual? It makes no sense. It's not government's place to do that, so why do we construct a system in which that is the case? Why not eliminate that aspect altogether?
careful with the 'sacred institution' stance
there have been, over the millennia, various sacred institutions (such as stoning to death) that have been labeled illegal
adultery, an old time favorite, is no longer a crime
'no other god before me' is another (religious freedom)
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' - except when it interferes with other rights provided for - some of the old testament would not stand up against today's laws
a person may have free exercise of their religion, but they may not impose it on others
homosexuality has been declared to be not a crime
you and followers of your religion or any others that prohibit homosexuality, may do so within your religion, but may not impose your beliefs on others outside your religion
so lets keep marriage within religious institutions and away from government
it is the government that has already perverted marriage and turned it into a legal contract
oth, marriage should be defined as for the protection of children
it has evolved into various rights granted married people over non-married people
in ca, property may be owned by a single person, a married person and an unmarried person
by law, if you get a divorce, you are not a single person but an unmarried person
the real reason that homosexuals want the status of marriage, is to obtain the full rights of a married person that are denied to single or unmarried people
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Hmm... I agree with you, and you agree with me, yet you want to find some area of disagreement with me? Is that it? I don't understand!
I have not advocated anyone impose their religion on others, have I? The second part of the 1st Amendment sentence you posted, it what is in question here... the "prohibiting free exercise thereof" part... it means, government can't establish laws which conflict with the free exercise of religion, which includes holy religious ceremonies. "Marriage" falls into the category of "religious excercise" whether you like it or not. The First doesn't say; "...nor prohibit the free exercise except when you think it's right to do!"
If churches didn't give a whit about 'marriage' or how it was defined, it wouldn't be an issue, we could just change the meaning of marriage to include whatever, and there wouldn't be a problem. It is the fact that religion holds 'marriage' sacred, that this is an issue. Those opposed to "gay marriage" are not forcing their beliefs on you, they are maintaining they have a right to hold marriage sacred, it's part of their religious exercise and beliefs, and they have the Constitutional right to have them protected.
The whole point of your initial argument, and my supporting argument, which even maineman agrees with me on, is that government doesn't need to be put in the position of unconstitutionally denying "free exercise" or unconstitutionally denying "liberty" for homosexuals to marry. The issue can be completely defused and resolved by removing the "marriage" aspect from government sanction. Then, it doesn't matter what you believe, or what I believe, it doesn't matter what the Old Testament says, or the ACLU, or Liberal Judges, or Southern Baptists, or Atheists, or Unitarians. It simply doesn't matter how any of us define "marriage" or how we personally believe in it.
this is all academic
governments (once they get a power) are loath to relinquish any power they have
so now that governments have got their finger in the pie of marriage, they will not give it up but will strengthen that power - so my prediction is that homosexual (and i suspect other forms of marriage like plural) are in our future via government control
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
this is all academic
governments (once they get a power) are loath to relinquish any power they have
so now that governments have got their finger in the pie of marriage, they will not give it up but will strengthen that power - so my prediction is that homosexual (and i suspect other forms of marriage like plural) are in our future via government control
Well then, why did you bring the topic up? If it's academic and it doesn't matter what we do, why does it matter what we say?
You see Don, I think you know as well as I do, WE THE PEOPLE control Government. They do as we tell them to do! If they don't, we vote them out of power. You made a valid point in your opening, and I demonstrated that I can be completely objective and unbiased, and gave a viable solution to the problem. At first, you wanted to find something to argue with me about, but when I pointed out, we really don't have an argument because I agree with you, suddenly, it's all "academic" because government is going to do what it wants to do. So basically, I can't win for losing. You are going to either disagree with me, or tell me my solution is academic, yet you are well-reasoned in presenting my same opinion. It doesn't make any logical sense, it only shows how shallow minded you can be, when someone agrees with you.
Meanwhile, you will continue to support a party that doesn't have the slightest inclination toward solving this problem. The Democrats need for the gays to be angry and outraged, demanding "rights" they really aren't being denied, and marching in lockstep to vote liberal democrats into office, who will immediately throw them under the bus until they need their votes again. If they came together with the right to solve the problem with the solution you and I advocate, there would be no reason for gays to line up and vote for the Democrats! Of course, the same is also true with the 'religious right' and their representation, neither side really wants to solve this issue, it brings too many votes to the voting booth for them.
One more state for a constitutional convention. Then we can write it in there...this is all academic
governments (once they get a power) are loath to relinquish any power they have
so now that governments have got their finger in the pie of marriage, they will not give it up but will strengthen that power - so my prediction is that homosexual (and i suspect other forms of marriage like plural) are in our future via government control
uscitizen
Villified User
A marriage liscence should just be a prerequisite for entering into a union agreement with another person.
First there should be the marriage liscence learners permit, where you learn about sex and child care, family finainces, and such.
Then when you pass the marriage test you get a marriage liscence and can enter into a civil union agreement.
It should be a crime to have sex with anyone without a marrige learners permit or liscence!
First there should be the marriage liscence learners permit, where you learn about sex and child care, family finainces, and such.
Then when you pass the marriage test you get a marriage liscence and can enter into a civil union agreement.
It should be a crime to have sex with anyone without a marrige learners permit or liscence!
There should be no such thing as a marriage license. It is preposterous that we let our government define and attempt to regulate such a thing at all. Beyond the obvious laws of age and consent the government should remain silent.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I agree that Dixie hit the nail on the head with his statement, but I do think that Conservatives (i.e. the old Republican Party) use these issues in the same way that Liberals (i.e. Democrats) use them. Neither side wants to solve the issue because they divide America and help to bring votes.
You are right. There are churches that recognize Gay Marriage. Those churches have every right to do so and they should be allowed to continue to do so under a "civil union" law adopted by the government. Any church that deems it acceptable should be allowed to practice its faith in such a manner while a church that considers it sinful should not be persecuted for that stance. If you don't like the church's stance on this issue then join another church. I for one would not join a church that ordains homosexuals or marries gay people, but I would not hinder someone who wants to do so from doing so.
Sex is a priviledge, not a right!
I'll give up my sex the day someone pries my cold dead... er that's been used before hasn't it?
Immie
uscitizen
Villified User
I'll give up my sex the day someone pries my cold dead... er that's been used before hasn't it?
Immie
Yeah but I don't think "Planet of the Omega man Moses" was holding a gun when he died.