...and here's the slippery slope

[MarAzul]

If there are benefits to society for heterosexual marriages, the exact same benefits would come from homosexual marriages.

They both show the importance of commitment.
They both provide a loving atmosphere for a child.
They both provide for merging of accounts to free up capital or time to make the community better.

Bull! No children produced. Then if you eliminate the preference in the tax code, There is no benefit to anyone.

 

[MarAzul]

A hundred years ago, the democrats were really conservative. Way to pass judgment when you don't know the entire details.

Ps, when racism was at its highest peak in America, we had democratic leadership. Go figure?!

The democratic leadership still leads in the same direction, it just a bit convoluted now.

 

[Further]

...

 

[Further]

There are plenty of kids that need to be adopted or people that had kids from previously heterosexual relationships. And there is in vitro fertilization if there is a sperm doner.
I have a Lesbian aunt who has two children who are both wonderful young adults now.

 

[MarAzul]

There are plenty of kids that need to be adopted or people that had kids from previously heterosexual relationships. And there is in vitro fertilization if there is a sperm doner.
I have a Lesbian aunt who has two children who are both wonderful young adults now.

And that has to do with marriage how? Nothing. No need to redefine the word, no benefit. You could call it a what ever you like except change the definition of Marriage and gain the same benefit you think it has and I nor many other people would object.
So it seems the main gain it the thumb in the eye of those that understand marriage is and has been the joining of a man and a woman for thousands of years now. This is true for all major religious philosophies, including Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, and Hindu. So it would seem the atheist best find their own word to describe what they wish to join.

 

[Further]

And that has to do with marriage how? Nothing. No need to redefine the word, no benefit. You could call it a what ever you like except change the definition of Marriage and gain the same benefit you think it has and I nor many other people would object.
So it seems the main gain it the thumb in the eye of those that understand marriage is and has been the joining of a man and a woman for thousands of years now. This is true for all major religious philosophies, including Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, and Hindu. So it would seem the atheist best find their own word to describe what they wish to join.

My point is if marriage is a benefit to straight couples, those same reasons would apply to gay couples.

For me, the only real benefit aside from financial is that the children see their parents as fully committed and not some fly by night relationship that has a chance of ending any moment. Basically, something to help the children know their parents are there to stay. That safety could certainly make for a happier one and a more stable child.


But really the nice thing is, it's over (or ending) and justice and fairness won.




If you want something different, either work to change the name "marriage" from what the government does, or have religious institutions choose alternate terms.


And you say it's been around for thousands of years. In Aramaic, marriage is Ogwwz (pronounced zuooag,aa). That's been around for even longer. Why not choose that word, or a Hebrew one, or a Latin one, you know, something the bible might have been in thousands of years ago.
http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictio...ge&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0

 

[MarAzul]

My point is if marriage is a benefit to straight couples, those same reasons would apply to gay couples.

For me, the only real benefit aside from financial is that the children see their parents as fully committed and not some fly by night relationship that has a chance of ending any moment. Basically, something to help the children know their parents are there to stay. That safety could certainly make for a happier one and a more stable child.


But really the nice thing is, it's over (or ending) and justice and fairness won.







If you want something different, either work to change the name "marriage" from what the government does, or have religious institutions choose alternate terms.


And you say it's been around for thousands of years. In Aramaic, marriage is Ogwwz (pronounced zuooag,aa). That's been around for even longer. Why not choose that word, or a Hebrew one, or a Latin one, you know, something the bible might have been in thousands of years ago.
http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictio...ge&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0

Man that is an ignorant idea! The federal government hasn't given a fig about marriage except since the sixteenth amendment, that is the last hundred years. The word marriage has been around since the beginning of the Indo-European language, thousands of years and has alway
meant the joining of a man and a Mari (young woman). Why the hell do Gay people want to horn in on the joining that everyone knows doesn't mean them?
Tax purposes and that's it. Well bitch at the Congress for giving preference to the institution of marriage as defined between a man and a woman. That was probably on purpose with malice of fore thought. But it is ridicules the redefine the word to correct the perceived tort.

This question isn't over at all.

 

[Further]

To claim the word marriage was some uncorrupted holy term is a farce. It's not just some religious term that was attacked by the gays. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, satirists, hippies, satanists, Buddhists and every other schlub under the sun has been using the word for quite a while. If it was corrupted, it was done a long time ago.

My suggestion, get over it. It's just a word. You are holding onto something, saying its sacred when it's not. The actual marriages may be sacred, not the word, regardless of its origin.

 

[maxiep]

Again, can someone make the case for me why the government should continued to be involved in marriage?

 

[Further]

Again, can someone make the case for me why the government should continued to be involved in marriage?

I agree with you, but until such time as the govt steps back, it must be applied equally. But I would throw my vote behind the govt abolishing all marriages and leaving that up to private religious or secular organizations.

 

[RR7]

Again, can someone make the case for me why the government should continued to be involved in marriage?

All you're really doing, though, is nit picking over a name, then, no? If govt. gets out of it, and ALL govt. sanctioned "marriages" are civil unions, why not just still call them marriages? And allow religious organizations to, I suppose, discriminate as they please.
I tend to agree with you for the most part, but what's in a name, if govt. gets out of the marriage business, but issues civil unions to hetero and homo sexual couples?

 

[maxiep]

All you're really doing, though, is nit picking over a name, then, no? If govt. gets out of it, and ALL govt. sanctioned "marriages" are civil unions, why not just still call them marriages? And allow religious organizations to, I suppose, discriminate as they please.
I tend to agree with you for the most part, but what's in a name, if govt. gets out of the marriage business, but issues civil unions to hetero and homo sexual couples?

Because it takes the morality out of the debate. Words matter. Also, it will get rid of the "marriage penalty".

 

[MARIS61]

From the first article linked:
As soon as the government makes smoking and drinking while pregnant a crime, or forbids motherhood after age 40, then the "birth defect" argument against incestuous marriage holds water. However, we know that none of those will ever happen.

Kind of like how alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but pot is not.

Or how back in the day you could be a conscientious objector to going to war on religious grounds, but you couldn't be one just because you knew it was wrong to murder innocent women and children for the oil companies.

It's all about our government and the corporations who run it.

 

[THE HCP]

I hooked up with my 1st cousin 3 times my Junior summer during HS....... No shame. All my boys were tryin'...... She's still super hot!


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, can someone make the case for me why the government should continued to be involved in marriage?

Divorce. Who gets the kids?

The courts decide. So government is involved.

 

[Denny Crane]

I hooked up with my 1st cousin 3 times my Junior summer during HS....... No shame. All my boys were tryin'...... She's still super hot!


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!

She looks like Shrek too?

 

[ABM]

She looks like Shrek too?

That's just cruel.

 

[maxiep]

Divorce. Who gets the kids?

The courts decide. So government is involved.

And civil unions can't handle that aspect? Also, why do the courts have to decide? Why couldn't families just hire a mediator, cut the lawyers out and negotiate a settlement? In probably 75%-90% of all divorces that approach would work fine. It would be cheaper for the families and for the taxpayers.

We look to the government for so many things that we shouldn't. It's none of the government's business who I choose to marry. If I care about survivor benefits, then I'll get a civil union, too.

 

[magnifier661]

And civil unions can't handle that aspect? Also, why do the courts have to decide? Why couldn't families just hire a mediator, cut the lawyers out and negotiate a settlement? In probably 75%-90% of all divorces that approach would work fine. It would be cheaper for the families and for the taxpayers.

We look to the government for so many things that we shouldn't. It's none of the government's business who I choose to marry. If I care about survivor benefits, then I'll get a civil union, too.

I've been divorced twice and both had kids. If there were no kids involved; the divorce would have been easy. Kids really make matters worse.

I had a convo with an family attorney and he said criminal attorneys have it easy because the worst people in society act at their best in the court room. The family attorney has some of the most upstanding people in society act the worse in a court room.

I know it really isn't on your point; just wanted to show how fucked divorces are when you have kids.

 

[maxiep]

I've been divorced twice and both had kids. If there were no kids involved; the divorce would have been easy. Kids really make matters worse.

I had a convo with an family attorney and he said criminal attorneys have it easy because the worst people in society act at their best in the court room. The family attorney has some of the most upstanding people in society act the worse in a court room.

I know it really isn't on your point; just wanted to show how fucked divorces are when you have kids.

I believe it. I'm a child of divorce. However, there's no reason it can't be handled privately. Why does the court system have to be involved?

 

[magnifier661]

I believe it. I'm a child of divorce. However, there's no reason it can't be handled privately. Why does the court system have to be involved?

Because the adults can't act like adults during a divorce. Rational thinking gets tossed out the window because it turns into a pissing match. There needs to be an unbiased outside party to ref the separation.

Even if one side of the party is open and willing to be fair; the other side usually isn't. Most the time both sides want to win out on the other. I mean shit, look in this forum. Look at how many stubborn people there is just in this small community?

It sucks, but is what it is.

 

[maxiep]

Because the adults can't act like adults during a divorce. Rational thinking gets tossed out the window because it turns into a pissing match. There needs to be an unbiased outside party to ref the separation.

Even if one side of the party is open and willing to be fair; the other side usually isn't. Most the time both sides want to win out on the other. I mean shit, look in this forum. Look at how many stubborn people there is just in this small community?

It sucks, but is what it is.

So, why can't a mediator/arbitrator with binding powers decide the case? Why does it have to be a judge?

 

[Denny Crane]

And civil unions can't handle that aspect? Also, why do the courts have to decide? Why couldn't families just hire a mediator, cut the lawyers out and negotiate a settlement? In probably 75%-90% of all divorces that approach would work fine. It would be cheaper for the families and for the taxpayers.

We look to the government for so many things that we shouldn't. It's none of the government's business who I choose to marry. If I care about survivor benefits, then I'll get a civil union, too.

Civil Unions are "separate but equal." In other words, not really equal.

The divorce/kids thing is a teeny part of it. Probate. Medical decisions. All sorts of marriage related law.

Why should anyone care what the state calls it?

 

[magnifier661]

So, why can't a mediator/arbitrator with binding powers decide the case? Why does it have to be a judge?

Because sometimes there needs to be that final say when both sides will not agree. And there starts out an arbitrator with children.

In California
1.) you must take a cooperative parenting class

2.) you must see an arbitrator to try and work out custody without attorneys to try and work out custody. This has a 90% fail rate btw.

3.) if you cannot agree on arbitration; then you go to court.

Most the time the judge doesn't make the decision because the parents eventually get their head out of their ass and agree on custody. But I've learned from my personal experience and what I've seen in the court rooms; the parents usually have that one parent that gives in because they finally realize how this is effecting the children.

2.)

 

[MarAzul]

Civil Unions are "separate but equal." In other words, not really equal.

The divorce/kids thing is a teeny part of it. Probate. Medical decisions. All sorts of marriage related law.

Why should anyone care what the state calls it?

Why they care is enough. They do. The state never defined the term marriage. Now is not the time for them to do so. So call it what every you need IF you need the state involved, and I sure as hell don't see a good reason for the state to be involved. Let the Justice of the Peace preform unions between a man and a goat if you must, but there is no reason to call it marriage. That term serves about 88% percent of the population that would have their church do the blessing. No need to stick the stick in their eye just to please a Gay, and then more to follow.

 

[maxiep]

Because sometimes there needs to be that final say when both sides will not agree. And there starts out an arbitrator with children.

In California
1.) you must take a cooperative parenting class

2.) you must see an arbitrator to try and work out custody without attorneys to try and work out custody. This has a 90% fail rate btw.

3.) if you cannot agree on arbitration; then you go to court.

Most the time the judge doesn't make the decision because the parents eventually get their head out of their ass and agree on custody. But I've learned from my personal experience and what I've seen in the court rooms; the parents usually have that one parent that gives in because they finally realize how this is effecting the children.

2.)

Again, why does one need a judge? Binding mediation/arbitration would do the same trick.

 

[maxiep]

Civil Unions are "separate but equal." In other words, not really equal.

The divorce/kids thing is a teeny part of it. Probate. Medical decisions. All sorts of marriage related law.

Why should anyone care what the state calls it?

But everyone would get a civil union from the government if they wished. Marriage would be for religious institutions. How is that unequal?

 

[Further]

You do realize that many gays would still get married in a church that accepted them, or just have a ceremony with family and friends that accepted them, hence the end result would still be Gays and Straights having their unions referred to as marriages. No difference in the outcome.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, why does one need a judge? Binding mediation/arbitration would do the same trick.

All must go through mediation before you can even see a judge. I already said that.

The success rate of mediation is very small.

 

[maxiep]

You do realize that many gays would still get married in a church that accepted them, or just have a ceremony with family and friends that accepted them, hence the end result would still be Gays and Straights having their unions referred to as marriages. No difference in the outcome.

Bingo. I attended such a ceremony back in March.