Why do they need marriage?

PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....I would recommend it over falling for the lies you spread around......I can't speak for Texas law, but I know that in Michigan if a similar thing had happened and a person appeared with a signed power of attorney the judge would have appointed that person as guardian in place of the sister.....

.....
Click to expand...

Plus he could always petition the court to overturn any ruling, with the presentation of new evidence; ie: the power of attorney
 
Why are you all still arguing this.
Not one person on this board has had their opinion changed, by anything that the other side presents; plus it always deteriorates into:

Yes it is
No it isn't
It will allow this
No it won't
etc
etc

Rhode Island on track to be 10th state to allow gay marriage

Nine states (CT, IA, ME, MD, MA, NH, NY, WA, and VT) plus Washington, D.C. have the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. In 2012, the legislature in NJ passed a freedom to marry bill, and work is now underway to override the governor's veto.

It appears that slowly, change is happening.

Same-sex couples begin marrying
 
Last edited:
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
No, again, you can use it to describe the union of any two things. They don't have to be male and female or even have gender as a trait. But the common definition of marriage is not at issue. The legal definition is. That ones been changed and we can do it again.
Click to expand...

Just two? I say we either keep it as a husband-wife relationship, or damn the torpedos and blow it way out of proportion, as is proper when a movement attempts to make a simple word antequated.
 
9 States and DC now allow Gay marriages

1. Massachusetts - November 18, 2003
2. Connecticut - October 10, 2008
3. Iowa - April 3, 2009
4. Vermont - April 7, 2009
5. District of Columbia - December 18, 2009
6. New York - June 24, 2011
7. New Hampshire - March 21, 2012
8. Maine - November 6, 2012
9. Maryland - November 6, 2012
10. Washington - November 6, 2012
 
Threedee said:
Just two? I say we either keep it as a husband-wife relationship, or damn the torpedos and blow it way out of proportion, as is proper when a movement attempts to make a simple word antequated.
Click to expand...

I say we just not stand in the way as a country and let individual churches decide.... JP's don't get a choice, obviously.
 
It certainly would have done this country a world of good if the government had never gotten involved. I just see it as a battle for the dictionary at this point.
 
Rana said:
Consenting adults, why do they miss that part of the argument?
Click to expand...

I think when we discuss gay marriage, all those in favor should change our sigs to read "The above post refers to a situation between consenting adults".

Its sad that the whole "next they'll want to marry sheep" thing is still being spouted.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think when we discuss gay marriage, all those in favor should change our sigs to read "The above post refers to a situation between consenting adults".

Its sad that the whole "next they'll want to marry sheep" thing is still being spouted.
Click to expand...

personally, I think the motto ought to be "you are free to have any relationship you want so long as the rest of us have the freedom to pay no attention to you"......
 
WinterBorn said:
I think when we discuss gay marriage, all those in favor should change our sigs to read "The above post refers to a situation between consenting adults".

Its sad that the whole "next they'll want to marry sheep" thing is still being spouted.
Click to expand...

I will vote for it when it arrives on the ballot.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
9 States and DC now allow Gay marriages

1. Massachusetts - November 18, 2003
2. Connecticut - October 10, 2008
3. Iowa - April 3, 2009
4. Vermont - April 7, 2009
5. District of Columbia - December 18, 2009
6. New York - June 24, 2011
7. New Hampshire - March 21, 2012
8. Maine - November 6, 2012
9. Maryland - November 6, 2012
10. Washington - November 6, 2012
Click to expand...

How many by judicial fiat?
 
maineman said:
so, you honestly think that you can tell me to go away and I'll dutifully obey?

marriage in THIS country has meant a man and multiple women... but I suppose that doesn't matter to you, eh?

and there are NUMEROUS people on here who have known me far longer than you, trust me. Or ask them.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they all think of you as someone to be avoided.
 
Threedee said:
Just two? I say we either keep it as a husband-wife relationship, or damn the torpedos and blow it way out of proportion, as is proper when a movement attempts to make a simple word antequated.
Click to expand...

I guess, you could go with more than two, but that would be an uncommon usage. Use it in a sentence, if you can. I already used marriage in a way that is quite common describing the union of two things that don't possess gender as a trait.

I can't believe you are supporting this extremely idiotic notion that the state should be in the business of defending/defining words. The issue here is not the definition of marriage but the legal construct of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top