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.
You'll make a killing.
If I were a divorce lawyer I would move to Mass, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.
You'll make a killing.
a homosexual (whose beliefs do not align with a religion, so most likely is not a part of a religion)
Ban cheeseburgers, the bible says so.
I'd marry you in Vermont.
She-sagwa would be okay with that, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I were a divorce lawyer I would move to Mass, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.
You'll make a killing.
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'd marry you in Vermont.
She-sagwa would be okay with that, right?
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.
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.
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 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.
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)?
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.
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.
Actually... I have no idea what he his arguing... It's just a bunch of ranting.Norton, NO ONE CARES...you've proven you're a populist.