Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

Jedah Doma

Chroma Ma' Doma!,
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
9,902
If I were a divorce lawyer I would move to Mass, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.

You'll make a killing.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,682
If I were a divorce lawyer I would move to Mass, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.

You'll make a killing.

Sure, they have a whole new demographic that can get divorced now. It is probable that some homosexual married couples will get divorced, but so do heterosexual couples.

Your "statistics" are all bullshit lie eggbert.
 

SonGohan

Made of Wood
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Posts
23,652
a homosexual (whose beliefs do not align with a religion, so most likely is not a part of a religion)

There's such an insane amount of homosexuals in religion that it's laughable. You've probably high-fived a faggot that goes to your church after sharing a few moments of bigotry together.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,031
Sad that I'm on the side of Jedi and eggbert, two morons in a pod.

But I stand by my sentiment. No government marriage, church marriages ok and all other legal contracts that bestow to each other the rights currently granted in marriatge such as medical decision making, inheritance, etc, between two or more consenting adults of any sex is fine by me.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Sad that I'm on the side of Jedi and eggbert, two morons in a pod.

But I stand by my sentiment. No government marriage, church marriages ok and all other legal contracts that bestow to each other the rights currently granted in marriatge such as medical decision making, inheritance, etc, between two or more consenting adults of any sex is fine by me.

Too bad we live in the real world and not fairy tale libertarian village.
 

Segata_Sanshiro

Tesse's Maintainence Man
15 Year Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
2,948
Way to go Vermont, what an honor.

Eggbert and Jedi are so far in the closet, they're finding Christmas presents
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,031
Too bad we live in the real world and not fairy tale libertarian village.

If everyone would quit with this 'real world' crap and stop settling we wouldn't have all the fools in power that we do. But alas, people think that everyone else are going to go one way so they just fall in line.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,682
No government marriage, church marriages ok and all other legal contracts that bestow to each other the rights currently granted in marriatge such as medical decision making, inheritance, etc, between two or more consenting adults of any sex is fine by me.

This is exactly how I feel. The government shouldn't recognize any "marriage" - it should only recognize the type of legal contract you mention.

Why do married couples get a tax break anyway? What is the rationale?

If everyone would quit with this 'real world' crap and stop settling we wouldn't have all the fools in power that we do. But alas, people think that everyone else are going to go one way so they just fall in line.

I hate the phrase "preparing kids for the real world."

Uh, the purpose of education is to become a better person through knowledge. We're only now to the point where most everyone [in the first world I suppose] can simply to go school and learn solely for the sake of learning. And that is pretty amazing. If you want a skill go to a trade school (nothing wrong with a skilled trade though, i'm quite envious of skilled craftsmen.)
 
Last edited:

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,031
Speaking of real world though Wayne, I thought you supported Kucinich? See that's the kind of politician I like, even if I don't agree with him. At least there wouldn't be endless vacuous arguments between two parties that hardly vary in policy.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
If everyone would quit with this 'real world' crap and stop settling we wouldn't have all the fools in power that we do. But alas, people think that everyone else are going to go one way so they just fall in line.

I guess that constitutional amendment that passed last year in Florida was just the first step in their plan to get rid of marriage altogether.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
If I were a divorce lawyer I would move to Mass, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.

You'll make a killing.

Not at all. Two wage earners with no children.

Sounds like most of those will be clean no contest divorces. The only stickler is if property division comes into the equation. Otherwise you can forget alimony, custody, child support, etc.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Speaking of real world though Wayne, I thought you supported Kucinich? See that's the kind of politician I like, even if I don't agree with him. At least there wouldn't be endless vacuous arguments between two parties that hardly vary in policy.

I just dont agree with your deregulation fixes everything way of thinking is all, we've argued it before, not going to change either of our opinions now.
 

abasuto

Orgy Hosting Mod
15 Year Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Posts
22,221
Sad that I'm on the side of Jedi and eggbert, two morons in a pod.

But I stand by my sentiment. No government marriage, church marriages ok and all other legal contracts that bestow to each other the rights currently granted in marriatge such as medical decision making, inheritance, etc, between two or more consenting adults of any sex is fine by me.

I agree with that, but they don't understand that the "church" will still do it. Maybe not all churches, but there's countless christian churches that support same-sex marriage.

Just saying "christian" rules is meaningless now because you could get 5 self proclaimed christians in a room who all have totally different beliefs. All of which would leave claiming the other 4 were fake christians and only their belief is the real one.

I personally know a preacher at a presbyterian church who preaches pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage.
 

Jedah Doma

Chroma Ma' Doma!,
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
9,902
Not at all. Two wage earners with no children.

Sounds like most of those will be clean no contest divorces. The only stickler is if property division comes into the equation. Otherwise you can forget alimony, custody, child support, etc.

Well I'm certainly NOT arguing against a lawyer.
 

Jedah Doma

Chroma Ma' Doma!,
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
9,902
If everyone would quit with this 'real world' crap and stop settling we wouldn't have all the fools in power that we do. But alas, people think that everyone else are going to go one way so they just fall in line.

The reason I like to stir up the pot on here once in awhile is due to the fact what Lithy says above.

If people would have an opinion and not just go along with what's IN...then we would be much better off.

In the early 80's to mid 90's it was the IN thing to be a conservative. Crap, even Michael J Fox was portraying one on Family Ties.

People in the know understand that EVERYTHING is cyclical in this life so no matter what position you support I wouldn't get on my high horse and start celebrating. This is what put the Republicans out of power. Well that and the fact they started spending like Democrats...but that's a different thread.
 
Last edited:

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,031
I agree with that, but they don't understand that the "church" will still do it. Maybe not all churches, but there's countless christian churches that support same-sex marriage.

Just saying "christian" rules is meaningless now because you could get 5 self proclaimed christians in a room who all have totally different beliefs. All of which would leave claiming the other 4 were fake christians and only their belief is the real one.

I personally know a preacher at a presbyterian church who preaches pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage.

Oh sure, I put it that way full knowing that a Unitarian church or other relatively 'liberal' church would probably do same sex marriages. Hell, maybe the Mormons would go back to polygamy.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
Who said anything about hate? Sorry I disagree with gay marriage, why don't we just go ahead and allow bigamy while we are at it?

I too agree that the government sanctioned marriage is the root of the problem. Marriage is a religious institution (hence why I disagree with the government altering its definition) and should be left as such, and I would personally be willing to give up my tax benefits to make it so.

Gotta love the internet. I am actually 26, married (for almost 5.5 years), have two kids (3yr and 19mo, cutest kids in the world, maybe I will send you some pics), and do in fact pay my taxes (not state taxes though, thank you TX!). I know it is a rediculous thought that someone would give up some money to make a moral stand, absurd (and what about those people that just go and GIVE money away for nothing in return, donations I think they call it...)! Reading back on both of our posts I find it ironic that I am the one being called hateful. Either way, it does concern me just as if we started giving people a legal status of "christian" and then the government goes on defining what that means.

I am pretty sure if you read my earlier post again it will be clear that the moral stand I would be sacrificing my money for would be to keep the government out of the institution of marriage, something I think many of us would agree to (although apparently some of us wouldn't give up any of their hard earned money for). What I have already stated I support is a strictly religious institution of marriage where that marriage is (guess what!?) governed by the rules of that religion (which does not include gay marriage). So me wanting to practice my religion makes me a bigot? This world IS crazy!

If there were no priviledges afforded by the government noone would be being denied. True, there is nothing stopping me from enjoying the Christian sacrement of marriage, just as if there were a legal status of "Christian" nothing would stop me from enjoying being a Christian. It is still however, is the government attempting to define what I am as a Christian, which I do not believe is the government's job. This pizza reference you have going is great and all, except here, once you stop giving tax benefits to married people, all of a sudden the atheists and homosexuals do not want to get married anymore! If the government thinks it needs to give everyone in a committed relationship (and I use the word committed here loosely considering how quickly many marriages fall apart), thats fine, call it a civil union for EVERYONE legally. It is funny because the easy solution is just to have civil unions for everyone (heterosexuals and homosexuals), but for some reason people refuse to persue this option on principal because they don't want to be left out of the "marriage" loop. Why would I care about Jewish people getting married? Guess what, the marriage definition comes out of the same book we both believe in, the good old Old Testament! It is easy to throw out that I am some homophobic, angry, evil person without seriously putting any thought into this matter. As to giving my money to the government as a show of good faith, why would I give that to them when all they are going to do is use it to help a failing company last a few days more and increase our national debt? Good faith is one thing, waste is another, I would rather give my money to organizations that are actually doing good work with the money they are given. Let me be clear, I do not hate nor can any reasonable person contend that God hates any gay person, hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't have time to sit here and apologize for all of the people that hate gays nor is that my responsibility.

Riddle me this SouthTownKid, if there are no monetary benefits and marriage is just a religious institution, then why does an atheist (who has no religion, unless you consider atheism a religion) or a homosexual (whose beliefs do not align with a religion, so most likely is not a part of a religion) want to be married?

I lost hope of getting a "thought out" answer long ago...

Interesting, here YOU define marriage based on what, historical data? If so, I am fairly confident in saying that the history of marriage has been between a man and a woman. I am unsure of why you need to be "married" to be in a commited monogamous relationship for the remainder of your life... Plenty of people have done so without a "marriage." Out of curiousity, who married you (not your spouse, but the person performing the ceremony)?

Only two thoughts come to mind:

1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
2. Vote Chuck Baldwin!
 
Last edited:

abasuto

Orgy Hosting Mod
15 Year Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Posts
22,221
This is what put the Republicans out of power. Well that and the fact they started spending like Democrats...but that's a different thread.

I seriously doubt anyone voted for Obama thinking "he'll spend less than Bush". The average voter has no concept of the economy, which is why we're talking about gay marriage.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
If people would just ignore this topic the excitement of it would go away and things would progress naturally.

However, I would be worried in California where a majority vote can be overridden by a few liberal judges.




That being said, once they get through with the lawyers and the ex they'll be wishing they never got married in the first place.

Homosexuality for the most part is still a promiscuous lifestyle.

It would be nice for you to actually cite a source that we can check up on.... Not some random text that references some unnamed UCLA study...

Also, what is the Divorce/Break up rate for Black and Inter-racial Families?
Should we ban those unions too?

Also, gay relationships problems may or may not have anything to do with promiscuity. Take into consideration the severe weight that these relationships are under due to societal constraints.

Norton, NO ONE CARES...you've proven you're a populist.
Actually... I have no idea what he his arguing... It's just a bunch of ranting.
At least with you, I know what point are trying to get across. EDIT: Sorry to include your quote with his..... I didn't mean to (even if you were dead wrong about the reason for institution of marriage).

The best I can do to summarize is that he thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman for religious reasons (not noting that not all religions share his view). And that somehow, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to condone any marriages, but that they should be able to outlaw gay marriages on religious grounds.
 
Last edited:
Top