source
an excerpt;
In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.

i think what cott says holds a lot of truth,
we said in another thread the marriage cert was just a piece of paper, a contract of sorts. so why can't gays have that same sort of contract. why can't they marry. if the final decision is in favour of gay marriage then n vote for or against proposition 8 will matter. and if it goes against them they can keep trying to change the law.


your views. (keep it on topic)

Restrict marriage for the purpose of procreation ? I thought marriage was to symbolize the sanctity of that internal bond of love between two people? Its a civil union and the church is only a dressing for sanctimonious hoopla.
According to the Republicans its supposed to be held as a sacred union between a man and a woman even though it is just a civil ceremony and they use the outdated twisted views of the bible to justify there reasoning.

(01-15-2010, 12:30 PM)Scrufuss Wrote:  Restrict marriage for the purpose of procreation ? I thought marriage was to symbolize the sanctity of that internal bond of love between two people? Its a civil union and the church is only a dressing for sanctimonious hoopla.
According to the Republicans its supposed to be held as a sacred union between a man and a woman even though it is just a civil ceremony and they use the outdated twisted views of the bible to justify there reasoning.

personally i think marriage is a crock, to some its a symbol but usually one thats usually ignored after a while.
if people want to sanctify their love then so be it. but let everyone sanctify it. maybe not in church because there the church and not the law sets the rules (within certain criteria) but everyone should be allowed the civility of a civil wedding.

Marriage is a symbol of taking it one step further. It symbolises you stay with your partner no matter what (civilly or religiously).

The sexuality of the couple should not make a difference imo. leepy:

Thats just hog wash. Marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman and god. God was taken out of the equasion by man. The contract, which is what it is, was then between a man and a woman and the IRS with a large portion of lawyers thrown in for spice. The contract has become nothing more than a bad joke played to add another revenue source to the economy and in effect no more than just another money grab. Therefor i see no reason why homosexuals should be allowed to evade paying their share as the rest of you married suckers do. Yes I said suckers, but a more appropriate term would be "marks" .

I disagree. In the old times maybe yes but why would atheists want a union with something they don't believe in ?

And yes we skweeezed profits out of it, but we do that with everything benny leepy:.

And most homosexuals i'm guessing would not even mind paying the tax if they could legally get married. Not even christians have to get married, it's just tradition.

(01-18-2010, 02:03 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Thats just hog wash. Marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman and god. God was taken out of the equasion by man. The contract, which is what it is, was then between a man and a woman and the IRS with a large portion of lawyers thrown in for spice. The contract has become nothing more than a bad joke played to add another revenue source to the economy and in effect no more than just another money grab. Therefor i see no reason why homosexuals should be allowed to evade paying their share as the rest of you married suckers do. Yes I said suckers, but a more appropriate term would be "marks" .

god was taken out of the equation by man. i agree. but god was also put there by man. before god people still got married. still made a covenant to each other. then came baby jesus and people said i know lets force the people to get married in church. lets say that they can only be married in the eyes of god. before that it was the eyes of other gods.
wikkens did it in the forest. they did it that way because no god like jc was available. the blessed the earth with the marriage and the marriage with the earth. the marriage gives both parties certain property rights, certain benefit rights re retirement benefits, rights such as the passing on of wealth to a partner. the right to pass property on. whether married under the eyes of god or not the irs will always take it's slice. even 2000 yrs ago the irs did that benny.

(01-16-2010, 06:43 PM)billy Wrote:  

(01-15-2010, 12:30 PM)Scrufuss Wrote:  Restrict marriage for the purpose of procreation ? I thought marriage was to symbolize the sanctity of that internal bond of love between two people? Its a civil union and the church is only a dressing for sanctimonious hoopla.
According to the Republicans its supposed to be held as a sacred union between a man and a woman even though it is just a civil ceremony and they use the outdated twisted views of the bible to justify there reasoning.

personally i think marriage is a crock, to some its a symbol but usually one thats usually ignored after a while.
if people want to sanctify their love then so be it. but let everyone sanctify it. maybe not in church because there the church and not the law sets the rules (within certain criteria) but everyone should be allowed the civility of a civil wedding.

The wedding contract just allows for 2 people to merge there finances like a business in ways that are recognized by the state and feds. Thats its purpose, its binding until one defaults.
The divorce rate is guesstimated to be 50% in the USA alone.
Some people are hopeless romantics and want the big gaudy all day wedding celebration ritual. I will have to admit(we) gays redefine "over the top" when they/we want to.

(01-17-2010, 09:38 PM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  Marriage is a symbol of taking it one step further. It symbolises you stay with your partner no matter what (civilly or religiously).

The sexuality of the couple should not make a difference imo. leepy:

Well said, couldn't of said it better my self.

(01-18-2010, 02:03 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Thats just hog wash. Marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman and god. God was taken out of the equasion by man. The contract, which is what it is, was then between a man and a woman and the IRS with a large portion of lawyers thrown in for spice. The contract has become nothing more than a bad joke played to add another revenue source to the economy and in effect no more than just another money grab. Therefor i see no reason why homosexuals should be allowed to evade paying their share as the rest of you married suckers do. Yes I said suckers, but a more appropriate term would be "marks" .

God was in the equation because how, dont tell me its "his words" written in that rag of a bible? (Do not go there its a whole new mutli page thread topic)
Since god was taken out of the equation, then you think us gays should pay the fines to the revenue like the rest of the wedded fools? But if god what STILL in the equation, we shouldn't be married, and therefore not have to pay the revenues?

(01-18-2010, 03:43 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  I disagree. In the old times maybe yes but why would atheists want a union with something they don't believe in ?

And yes we skweeezed profits out of it, but we do that with everything benny leepy:.

And most homosexuals i'm guessing would not even mind paying the tax if they could legally get married. Not even christians have to get married, it's just tradition.

Atheists do there rituals to. I would imagine its pretty dull. ("Do you? Yes. Do I? Yes. OK, we do and done" In front of a justice of the peace) Then they become a little business unit.
And most homosexuals You guess right - do not give a fling about no taxes for the wedding - we just want to be treated like everybody else even if that includes paying the fees. As long as they are the same fees paid by everybody else.

NO H8, Stop Hate and Reverse Prop 8, Marriage Equality For All
Is the current political cry in my state of California

Its happening slowly, one day we will be just like the rest of you in society's eyes. Being equally overtaxed like all of you. It's just a matter of time.
In the old days of some states the divorces were always between the 2 sexes. With the gender being a factor in the process, property and flotsam got divided up accordingly. The man usually gets shafted in the deal. Then there were pre-nups contracts. They help a little. Now there will be same sex divorces. OMG. Now that can be scary. I feel pitty for the divorce judges. I really do.

Pathetic, a

i agree. not even a but to follow.

Pathetic, as soon as the word god is mentioned you people go all haywire, like how dare someone bring it up. As if your all scholars on the subject. As far as JC being the only one of the type, your all wrong. There were several before him and the same.

Back on topic....I hold to what I posted the first time.

I read an article about some guy trying to get the state of California to ban divorce. It seems rather logical to me, especially if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage. What better way to protect marriage than to prevent it from ending? Needless to say, people aren't all that thrilled about it. It's become the American way I guess. So why is it a problem if two men, or two women want to get married? If marriage is that much of a "holy" institution, then you'd think divorce would be the first thing to be thrown out the window. It kind of makes you think that it's not the sanctity of marriage they're trying to protect, because as we all know marriage has become somewhat of a joke.

(01-18-2010, 01:41 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Pathetic, as soon as the word god is mentioned you people go all haywire, like how dare someone bring it up. As if your all scholars on the subject. As far as JC being the only one of the type, your all wrong. There were several before him and the same.

Back on topic....I hold to what I posted the first time.

hehe, naw benny. just replying to you saying men took him out of the contract. and everyone's opinion is valid even yours and mine

(01-18-2010, 01:41 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Pathetic, as soon as the word god is mentioned you people go all haywire, like how dare someone bring it up. As if your all scholars on the subject. As far as JC being the only one of the type, your all wrong. There were several before him and the same.

Back on topic....I hold to what I posted the first time.

You didnt answer the question;
"Since god was taken out of the equation, then you think us gays can marry and should pay the fines to the revenue like the rest of the wedded fools? But if god what STILL in the equation, we shouldn't be married, and therefore not have to pay the revenues?"

And what would be the "god" element? A sacrificial lamb?

(01-19-2010, 06:29 PM)Scrufuss Wrote:  

(01-18-2010, 01:41 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Pathetic, as soon as the word god is mentioned you people go all haywire, like how dare someone bring it up. As if your all scholars on the subject. As far as JC being the only one of the type, your all wrong. There were several before him and the same.

Back on topic....I hold to what I posted the first time.

You didnt answer the question;
"Since god was taken out of the equation, then you think us gays can marry and should pay the fines to the revenue like the rest of the wedded fools? But if god what STILL in the equation, we shouldn't be married, and therefore not have to pay the revenues?"

And what would be the "god" element? A sacrificial lamb?

Since this is SD&D I am not really able to comment on the if question only on the fact part so my original answere will have to do IMO. I don't honestly have another one.
OFF TOPIC BY MOD
If you want to debate the God angle then start another thread and make sure you state that opinions are welcome without facts.
Rant removed //mod

(01-19-2010, 06:29 PM)Scrufuss Wrote:  

(01-18-2010, 01:41 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  Pathetic, as soon as the word god is mentioned you people go all haywire, like how dare someone bring it up. As if your all scholars on the subject. As far as JC being the only one of the type, your all wrong. There were several before him and the same.

Back on topic....I hold to what I posted the first time.

You didnt answer the question;
"Since god was taken out of the equation, then you think us gays can marry and should pay the fines to the revenue like the rest of the wedded fools? But if god what STILL in the equation, we shouldn't be married, and therefore not have to pay the revenues?"

And what would be the "god" element? A sacrificial lamb?

the god element would be a wedding sanctified by a church or religion.
i can't see them making that law. if they can't make it law to order a catholic church to baptise my kids i can't see em doing it to force them to allow gay's to marry (in church). i think we should be allowed to marry as we please but only a person appoint by the law should be forced to marry any of of us. i know was turned away from being married in a catholic church because my partner wasn't catholic.

Gay marriage huh. Isn't that a little like saying "Sunny night"?
Why not civil union with equal rights/benefits?

(02-15-2010, 05:54 PM)Larry Wrote:  Gay marriage huh. Isn't that a little like saying "Sunny night?"
Why not civil union with equal rights/benefits?

good point but why not just say marriage...it save time and ink

(02-15-2010, 05:56 PM)billy Wrote:  

(02-15-2010, 05:54 PM)Larry Wrote:  Gay marriage huh. Isn't that a little like saying "Sunny night?"
Why not civil union with equal rights/benefits?

good point but why not just say marriage...it save time and ink

and there is such a thing as a sunny night, in fact you get 6 months of sunny nights

Second attempt,
Square triangle.