Marriage, intolerance and acceptability

[Jetboogieman]

I can't figure who I hate more. Ronulans or radical leftists. Help me chose.

Would you describe me as a radical leftist for wanting Lesbians and Gays to be treated equally under the Law?

Oh and by the way it's "Romulans" and they don't live on Earth.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

That would require a 3-some, polygamous, relationship.




Really.





I don't think that people oppose polygamy and gay marriage because of the inconvenience of changing a few laws.

Oh look a pro-polygamy guy, you're something new.

Matt brings up a good point and the response to his point verifies the slippery slope argument, first we let gays marry, then we let variations of different numbers of different sexes marry then we let them adopt and ultimately we have nothing left to call normal.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Matt brings up a good point and the response to his point verifies the slippery slope argument, first we let gays marry, then we let variations of different numbers of different sexes marry then we let them adopt and ultimately we have nothing left to call normal.

It's not a good point. It's a fallacy and one that was used to justify anti-interracial arguments as well.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Matt brings up a good point and the response to his point verifies the slippery slope argument, first we let gays marry, then we let variations of different numbers of different sexes marry then we let them adopt and ultimately we have nothing left to call normal.

And just what is normal? Is normal a construct devised by people? Is it the way people are in nature? What is normal? Normal varies and changes as do morals. So what is it. Polygamy has been around forever. In the bible men slept with made so they could have children. If your wife could not have children would she let you sleep with the maid so you could have an offspring? Just what is normal. Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac. Is that normal? Would your wife let you take one of the kids out so you could sacrifice him? Would anyone think you were normal or would you be in a place for delusional people. Imagine if that happened today.
You want to call something normal try this. You allow consenting adults to be who they are. You stay out of their sex life and married life and let them exist. That would be normal.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

And just what is normal? Is normal a construct devised by people? Is it the way people are in nature? What is normal? Normal varies and changes as do morals. So what is it. Polygamy has been around forever. In the bible men slept with made so they could have children. If your wife could not have children would she let you sleep with the maid so you could have an offspring? Just what is normal. Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac. Is that normal? Would your wife let you take one of the kids out so you could sacrifice him? Would anyone think you were normal or would you be in a place for delusional people. Imagine if that happened today.
You want to call something normal try this. You allow consenting adults to be who they are. You stay out of their sex life and married life and let them exist. That would be normal.

I honestly don't care about your private sex life but when you want laws changed, when you want to bring children into your world then it becomes my business. As for "normal" if you look at your body parts and mens body parts you see how nature intends them to fit together like a jig saw puzzle, that is "normal. What you do is literally cramming a square peg in a round hole, abnormal but I fully support your right to do it, just don't ask me to sanction it with marriage or to give you equall rights to adopt a child with a normal hetro couple. Your argument that says there is no such thing as normal once again verifies the slippery slope argument, society needs standards and needs things to be accepted as normal or abnormal behavior or you have a complete breakdown of that society. Just be who you are, you are a lesbian and that is fine but don't pretend you are normal, you most definitely are not.

 

[katiegrrl0]

I honestly don't care about your private sex life but when you want laws changed, when you want to bring children into your world then it becomes my business. As for "normal" if you look at your body parts and mens body parts you see how nature intends them to fit together like a jig saw puzzle, that is "normal. What you do is literally cramming a square peg in a round hole, abnormal but I fully support your right to do it, just don't ask me to sanction it with marriage or to give you equall rights to adopt a child with a normal hetro couple. Your argument that says there is no such thing as normal once again verifies the slippery slope argument, society needs standards and needs things to be accepted as normal or abnormal behavior or you have a complete breakdown of that society. Just be who you are, you are a lesbian and that is fine but don't pretend you are normal, you most definitely are not.

You obviously do care about my sex life. My wife and I have four children. We have a wonderful home and a beautiful life. We are every bit as normal as you would claim to be. I notice you avoided the questions I asked. I figured you might because they would require thought and self-questioning and it's easier just to say what you like or want. Society needs to stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. That is what it needs to do. A child needs love to thrive and grow. Our children have everything that a child needs and more. I see what Abraham was thinking of doing as abnormal behavior. He was going to sacrifice his child. He changed his mind but he was still thinking about it. How normal is that? How would society see his action? Please don't even try to say this wouldn't bother you. If you spotted a man going to sacrifice his child you would beat the snot out of the delusional bastard. So if you believe and follow a text like that and view it as a way to live don't try and tell me what normal is. Abraham was a psychotic lunatic in today's world. So normal is for consenting adults together in their bedroom normal.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You obviously do care about my sex life. My wife and I have four children. We have a wonderful home and a beautiful life. We are every bit as normal as you would claim to be. I notice you avoided the questions I asked. I figured you might because they would require thought and self-questioning and it's easier just to say what you like or want. Society needs to stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. That is what it needs to do. A child needs love to thrive and grow. Our children have everything that a child needs and more. I see what Abraham was thinking of doing as abnormal behavior. He was going to sacrifice his child. He changed his mind but he was still thinking about it. How normal is that? How would society see his action? Please don't even try to say this wouldn't bother you. If you spotted a man going to sacrifice his child you would beat the snot out of the delusional bastard. So if you believe and follow a text like that and view it as a way to live don't try and tell me what normal is. Abraham was a psychotic lunatic in today's world. So normal is for consenting adults together in their bedroom normal.

You asked me to define normal, I did so. Something went wrong when you were being formed in the womb, the mix of hormones or something and you came out "abnormal" just like a midget or someone with Down Syndrome. I wouldn't mock them and I won't mock you I will however comment on your lifestyle when you choose to bring "normal" kids into it. I'm getting bored of this topic, we have reached a point of talking in circles, at each other not to each other. I'm glad you have a good life now have a good day too.

 

[roguenuke]

So that's all marriage is then, it's a f*ck-contract.

Let's change the name from marriage to f*ck-contract.

Do you want real debate or just a chance to purposely represent what people have posted completely as something they didn't post?

I have specifically said that LEGAL marriage is just a contract.

Everyone's personal marriages are whatever they want them to be.

Mine is a lot of things. Mine has no religion involved at all. My husband and I do not have any religious beliefs that require a higher power to be involved in our relationship. Many other people do have religion involved in some way in their marriage. Nothing in the law requires religion to be involved. Mine also involves children that are both mine and my husband's. Many other people are like us, having children involved in their marriage. But a surprisingly large percentage of couples in the US are childless, and that is completely okay because nothing is required by the law for kids to be involved in a marriage. The vast majority of people who are married love each other (or believe they do) and that is why they got married. This is certainly true for my husband and I. However, love is also not a requirement of marriage since there is no valid way to measure love. It is not illegal to get married for most other things besides love (citizenship alone being the only successfully prosecuted exception in the US I know of in the last 50 or so years).

 

[roguenuke]

Matt brings up a good point and the response to his point verifies the slippery slope argument, first we let gays marry, then we let variations of different numbers of different sexes marry then we let them adopt and ultimately we have nothing left to call normal.

Like when we allowed interracial couples to marry? Or when we started marrying for love as the primary reason instead of a good family arrangement?

Neither of these things were "normal" when they began. There are plenty of things that are not "normal" and still are legal in this country because you need more than just "lack of being normal" to justify denying something like a right to contract when we are talking about laws.

 

[roguenuke]

I honestly don't care about your private sex life but when you want laws changed, when you want to bring children into your world then it becomes my business. As for "normal" if you look at your body parts and mens body parts you see how nature intends them to fit together like a jig saw puzzle, that is "normal. What you do is literally cramming a square peg in a round hole, abnormal but I fully support your right to do it, just don't ask me to sanction it with marriage or to give you equall rights to adopt a child with a normal hetro couple. Your argument that says there is no such thing as normal once again verifies the slippery slope argument, society needs standards and needs things to be accepted as normal or abnormal behavior or you have a complete breakdown of that society. Just be who you are, you are a lesbian and that is fine but don't pretend you are normal, you most definitely are not.

Unless you can prove that same sex couples raising children is somehow harmful to those children, then no you do not have any right to prevent them from raising children. And decades of research is against you in this area.

As for marriage, again unless you can prove that allowing two people of the same sex to get married is fundamentally going to do harm or be different in some major way than allowing any two people of the opposite sex to marry, no matter their ability to produce children, then you have no right to prevent them from entering into the legal marriage contract.

 

[Matt Foley]

Do you want real debate or just a chance to purposely represent what people have posted completely as something they didn't post?

I have specifically said that LEGAL marriage is just a contract.

Everyone's personal marriages are whatever they want them to be.

Mine is a lot of things. Mine has no religion involved at all. My husband and I do not have any religious beliefs that require a higher power to be involved in our relationship. Many other people do have religion involved in some way in their marriage. Nothing in the law requires religion to be involved. Mine also involves children that are both mine and my husband's. Many other people are like us, having children involved in their marriage. But a surprisingly large percentage of couples in the US are childless, and that is completely okay because nothing is required by the law for kids to be involved in a marriage. The vast majority of people who are married love each other (or believe they do) and that is why they got married. This is certainly true for my husband and I. However, love is also not a requirement of marriage since there is no valid way to measure love. It is not illegal to get married for most other things besides love (citizenship alone being the only successfully prosecuted exception in the US I know of in the last 50 or so years).

So there's no legal requirement of "love" to get married, uhuh.

Sham marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sham marriage or fake marriage is a marriage of convenience entered into with the intent of deceiving public officials or society about its purpose.
.
.
.
Since the introduction of stricter modern immigration laws in First World countries, sham marriages have become a common method to allow a foreigner to live, and possibly gain citizenship, in the more desirable country of the spouse. The couple marries with knowledge that the marriage is solely for the purpose of obtaining the favorable immigration status. This is frequently arranged as a business transaction (i.e. a substantial sum of money is paid) and occurs more commonly with foreigners already in the country. The United States has a penalty of a $250,000 fine and five-year prison sentence for such arrangements.

Whoah! Those f*ck-contracts are really restrictive. I guess if you're going to get into one, you've got to f*ck.

So....You guys are for polygamy and gay marriages, what do you think about sham marriages too?

...and stop bringing up religion.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Application Process

The couple must apply in person at the Registry Division in Room 213 of Boston City Hall for a marriage intention application. This requirement applies to both residents and non-residents.

Federal Statutes requires the collection of Social Security numbers (SSNs) at the time of application.

In Boston, proof of age is required if under the age of (24) twenty-four. For proof of age, a certified birth record or passport is required.

There is a (3) three day waiting period to receive your license. The license is valid for (60) sixty days from the day you originally file and may be used in any city or town within the Commonwealth. This license cannot be used outside of this state. A waiver of the (3) three day waiting period can be applied for at the city or town clerk's office where you apply and then presented to a court of competent jurisdiction for approval.

The person who performs the ceremony of marriage must sign the license and return it to the city or town where it was issued. That is the only place where the license will be registered.

The fee for a Marriage License in Boston is $50.00 cash only and must be paid at the time of filing intentions.

After the marriage, a certified copy of the of marriage certificate may be obtained from the Registry Division in person or by mail.

Marriage Intention Instructions | City of Boston

Where does it say anything about love or religion?

 

[roguenuke]

So there's no legal requirement of "love" to get married, uhuh.

Sham marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoah! Those f*ck-contracts are really restrictive. I guess if you're going to get into one, you've got to f*ck.

So....You guys are for polygamy and gay marriages, what do you think about sham marriages too?

Covered that. You must have missed it.

The only successful prosecution of "sham marriages" under US civilian law involves immigration/citizenship issues. And even then, only when money or some contract (besides marriage) is involved could they truly prosecute.

Even the government cannot prove love though. They can show a lack of familiarity and financial/private records that show details about a transaction involving marriages that also give someone citizenship.

Arranged marriages, even to those which would get citizenship for one of the party, are allowed in the US under certain criteria. The main one being that the person has to show that their family has a history of arranged marriages (not too hard for many cultures/religions) and show some connection between the foreigner's family and the family of the US citizen.

In fact, the biggest evidence our government ever has in any sham marriage case is documentation of the transaction in some way or confessions from the people involved. I know because the military does try to address "sham marriages" but can only prove these things when someone confesses or does something stupid that shows a good possibility the marriage is for money.

 

[Matt Foley]

Marriage Intention Instructions | City of Boston

Where does it say anything about love or religion?

OK then all that's left is a f*ck-contract.

 

[MarineTpartier]

It's the core component, as far as the government is concerned. The government doesn't actually give a crap whether you love your spouse, attach religious connotations to the event, or hold a ceremony in a church, mosque, casino, or mcdonald's parking lot.

None of that is relevant to the discussion of whether or not a particular group should be allowed to enter the contract at all. Nobody gives a crap whether Christians, Muslims, or Scientologists personally choose to host a ceremony for two men getting married. You can think in your head all day long that two men aren't really married because God says it's wrong. Nobody cares.

None of that is relevant to how the government should treat its citizens. My personal disapproval of an activity is not sufficient grounds to make it illegal. I morally disapprove of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I think they are gross and wrong. Guess what? You still can eat them if you want to, it has absolutely no effect on me. Therefore under no circumstances would I suggest they should be illegal.

It isn't the government's place to enforce my religious beliefs on the entire population. If the right of an individual is to be denied, the government must demonstrate something beyond moral disapproval by 50% of the population. (and falling every year)

Marriage is more than a legal contract to me, but why should you get to decide what that "more" part is for me? For everyone? Are you really that arrogant?

Related to this point, I don't think the gov't should be allowed to perform Justice of the Peace marriages anymore. Gov't should have no part in marriage whatsoever other than the filing of your taxes.

 

[roguenuke]

Related to this point, I don't think the gov't should be allowed to perform Justice of the Peace marriages anymore. Gov't should have no part in marriage whatsoever other than the filing of your taxes.

Why not? The universally consistent thing about marriage is that it makes people legal family. The US recognizes legal family. Why should a person in the government not be allowed to perform marriages, which make people legal family? After all, it is a legal contract.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Why not? The universally consistent thing about marriage is that it makes people legal family. The US recognizes legal family. Why should a person in the government not be allowed to perform marriages, which make people legal family? After all, it is a legal contract.

Because when the gov't enters into marriage, it enters into the fray of being able to say what is and isn't marriage. That's why we are in the predicament we're in today with this debate. With things like DOMA out there, gov't is involved in a realm they should not be.

 

[Matt Foley]

Because when the gov't enters into marriage, it enters into the fray of being able to say what is and isn't marriage. That's why we are in the predicament we're in today with this debate. With things like DOMA out there, gov't is involved in a realm they should not be.

Typical Libertarian solution to everything: surrender.

Got a war on drugs? Surrender

War in X country? Surrender

Marriage topic getting a little hot? Surrender

Federal government getting involved in regulation? Surrender to states

 

[roguenuke]

Because when the gov't enters into marriage, it enters into the fray of being able to say what is and isn't marriage. That's why we are in the predicament we're in today with this debate. With things like DOMA out there, gov't is involved in a realm they should not be.

Then do away with DOMA. No need to throw out legal marriage just because people are ignorant.

We legally recognize immediate family in ways that are important to us. The government is already involved with families and, despite the complaints, it is in ways that protect and help people. Legal marriage is important for us to be able to include a person within that protection who otherwise would be excluded. No POA makes another person legal family.

Being in the military allows a person to see this play out really well. The military only allows people to claim legal family as dependents in any way. And only legal marriage allows an adult who wasn't on your enlistment papers be included in who you can get certain privileges concerning something that happens to them.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Typical Libertarian solution to everything: surrender.

Got a war on drugs? Surrender

War in X country? Surrender

Marriage topic getting a little hot? Surrender

Federal government getting involved in regulation? Surrender to states

Surrender? LOL. Whatever you want to think bro. As opposed to your approach of "I want it my way all the time but it's not okay for anyone else to have it a different way." You know who you sound like? A British citizen circa 1775ish.

 

[Verthaine]

OK then all that's left is a f*ck-contract.

If that is what you think and believe,then that is what you think and believe.
Good for you,what do you want,a cookie?
Sorry,I'm all out of the "Gives a crap" oatmeals.
May I suggest the "I don't give a rats behind what you think" chocolate chip.
Just baked them today.

I firmly believe that you have every right to think and believe what you want.
I also firmly believe that I and anyone else is absolutely is in no way obligated to give two craps about what you (or Plutarch) thinks or believe.

If you don't like the fact that my youngest daughter planns on marrying her girlfriend,and it is legal where she does it, that's your problem,not mine or any one elses.
If my daughtergetting married to another woman somehow "effects" is some way you have yet to explain,that's your problem,not mine or anyone elses.
May I suggest a good psychiatrist?
Care to explain how my daughter getting married to another woman effects you,other than the fact that you don't like it?

You can hate the fact of my daughter getting married to another woman,bringing children into this world,or adopting children all you want,I couldn't care less about you,your beliefs,your ideologies,and your traditions.
Doesn't effect me one iota.
Your beliefs are your beliefs and you are welcome to them
I wouldn't do a thing to prevent you from having them.

But the moment you try to prevent my daughter from marrying the person she loves,from achieving the happiness she seeks,from having a child I know she is fully capable of loving and being a great parent,from preventing me and my wife from being proud parents,from preventing my two other daughters from becaoming the aunts,then you just attacked me and my family,and that becomes my problem.
And I will do anything necessary to protect my family from pain and suffering.
To protect them from people like you.

 

[Diving Mullah]

20, 30 or 50 years from now when we are at the same cross road and debating whether people from Ursa Major or Alpha Century should be able to marry humans, and opposition would point out definition of marriage is only when humans should get married and somehow marrying other beings from different planet is morally wrong and not in God's Plan!

When we point out to here and now, the opposition will be quick to point out..."hey I was totally for Gay marriage, but this is somehow way different...yack, yack, yack....!"


The thing is.... change is scary and closed mindedness and bigotry is comforting. What we see from Religious right with all these panicky legislation is all too common reaction and nothing new. Sadly sometimes it is necessary to drag the closed minded and scared flock kicking and screaming into "enlightenment".


It was done with Slavery, Civil Rights, Women's rights, voting rights and now the Gays rights. Tomorrow something else, but the song and dance still remains the same.


Diving Mullah

 

[MarineTpartier]

Then do away with DOMA. No need to throw out legal marriage just because people are ignorant.

We legally recognize immediate family in ways that are important to us. The government is already involved with families and, despite the complaints, it is in ways that protect and help people. Legal marriage is important for us to be able to include a person within that protection who otherwise would be excluded. No POA makes another person legal family.

Being in the military allows a person to see this play out really well. The military only allows people to claim legal family as dependents in any way. And only legal marriage allows an adult who wasn't on your enlistment papers be included in who you can get certain privileges concerning something that happens to them.

Marriage can be legal without the gov't performing marriages or dictating what marriage is. The state gov't should simply dictate that a contract must exist between two people in order to utilize the legal system in case of abuse or divorce. In other words, if a couple is married at a church they are married. If they are married at a private marriage provider with no religious affiliation, they are married. But if they want to ensure they can exercise legal action in the event of a divorce, they must enter into a contract that is notarized by the state. For instance, if you are married at a Catholic church, the doctrine of the Catholic church would dictate when you can divorce. Once divorce preceedings are in action at your church or organization of choice, you can now start the legal actions if you signed the contract. If you didn't sign a contract, the church can still litigate what each individual in a marriage gets but only if both parties agree to it.
If you get married at the Catholic Church but don't want to follow that doctrine anymore, you simply go to a Catholic church, have your marriage certification canceled there and have it renewed somewhere else. It doesn't have to be a church either. I am aware that most churches won't marry gay couples. A private organization would suffice as well. Again, the regulations of that private organization would dictate when you can divorce. I know this sounds like it would allow churches to dictate who can divorce and who can't. It does. But, if you don't like the way a certain religion or church handles divorces, don't get married in it. You know as well as I do that organizations would pop up that advertise things like "All divorces approved, no questions asked." If that's the kind of thing a couple wants, they pick that organization instead of a church.

 

[roguenuke]

Marriage can be legal without the gov't performing marriages or dictating what marriage is. The state gov't should simply dictate that a contract must exist between two people in order to utilize the legal system in case of abuse or divorce. In other words, if a couple is married at a church they are married. If they are married at a private marriage provider with no religious affiliation, they are married. But if they want to ensure they can exercise legal action in the event of a divorce, they must enter into a contract that is notarized by the state. For instance, if you are married at a Catholic church, the doctrine of the Catholic church would dictate when you can divorce. Once divorce preceedings are in action at your church or organization of choice, you can now start the legal actions if you signed the contract. If you didn't sign a contract, the church can still litigate what each individual in a marriage gets but only if both parties agree to it.
If you get married at the Catholic Church but don't want to follow that doctrine anymore, you simply go to a Catholic church, have your marriage certification canceled there and have it renewed somewhere else. It doesn't have to be a church either. I am aware that most churches won't marry gay couples. A private organization would suffice as well. Again, the regulations of that private organization would dictate when you can divorce. I know this sounds like it would allow churches to dictate who can divorce and who can't. It does. But, if you don't like the way a certain religion or church handles divorces, don't get married in it. You know as well as I do that organizations would pop up that advertise things like "All divorces approved, no questions asked." If that's the kind of thing a couple wants, they pick that organization instead of a church.

Why not just allow JoPs to sign the form too then? I just don't see what the issue is here. Having a private party responsible for signing the contract does not prevent the government from discriminating against which contracts it will or will not recognize.

And the government is still going to need to keep a record of who is married to who. If for no other reason but to avoid excessive case load on our civil courts because of marriage fraud.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Why not just allow JoPs to sign the form too then? I just don't see what the issue is here. Having a private party responsible for signing the contract does not prevent the government from discriminating against which contracts it will or will not recognize.

And the government is still going to need to keep a record of who is married to who. If for no other reason but to avoid excessive case load on our civil courts because of marriage fraud.

That's the point. You don't need anyone in the gov't to sign anything if you don't want the contract. The marrying entity (church, etc) is who handles all initial divorce/fraud proceedings according to the agreed upon bylaws. As far as property, the gov't handles that if you signed a contract. Issues regarding children are automatically handled by the gov't, as they should be.
Marriage fraud? Have you been to Vegas?lol. Also, you're military. You know all about contract marriages right before deployments. In this case, laws aren't preventing anything. Marriage fraud happens all the time.