Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
gh wrote:Here we go, politics and religion wrapped up in the same package
Silly me thinking there was a separation between the two. I can't fathom why religious types feel they have to foist their definition of marriage on a secular government. Why can't marriage be what the legislature defines it to be? How does same-sex marriage preclude the religious right from their own 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'?
gh wrote:Here we go, politics and religion wrapped up in the same package
Silly me thinking there was a separation between the two. I can't fathom why religious types feel they have to foist their definition of marriage on a secular government. Why can't marriage be what the legislature defines it to be? How does same-sex marriage preclude the religious right from their own 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'?
Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?
Pego wrote:Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?
And I'm a Christian in a Christian nation, big whup. That don't give me no reason to demand others think as I do (think, that is - well, I do think, sometimes, but not like 'they' do!)
Pego wrote:Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?
And I'm a Christian in a Christian nation, big whup. That don't give me no reason to demand others think as I do (think, that is - well, I do think, sometimes, but not like 'they' do!)
That is not what I read daily in letters to the editor in the Wausau Daily Herald.
Christian nation-God's laws, not of those godless socialists that want to dismantle Christianity, force women to abort their babies and nationalize all the property. Oh yes, confiscate all the guns.
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.
of course they say that, it's politically impossible to say anything different. but i would bet money they would support some kind of partnership agreement without the contentious word marriage attached,
in UK we have civil partnerships which were supported by all parties right and left and you know what, marriage hasn't been undermined and the world hasn't come to an end !!!
tandfman wrote:But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?
As I understand it, the UK civil union is equivalent to a heterosexual registry office civil wedding in pretty much most respects. I can't think offhand of any area where it's not equal.
I've never understood the "homosexuals are responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family" shtick of the religious wingnuts. I think they've got a nerve blaming their adultery, divorces and crack-addicted kids on me!
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.
They do't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.
Ultimately, this WILL end up before the Supreme Court. There is no way it can't since the argument will be that if different states have different interpretations of civil union and/or marriage, it will, in effect favor one segment of society over another.
Gays should be allowed to marry - they are not a favored segment of society and should have to suffer like the rest of us.
You say "most respects." Is anything left out? Inheritance rights? Rights to jointly own property? Insurance benefits (public or private)? Retirement benefits, etc.? The reason there has been such a strong push to legalize same sex marriages in the US is that registered civil unions confer some legal benefits, but usually leave the parties with fewer legal rights than they would have if they were married.
This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
SQUACKEE wrote:My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage
No one is pro-gay marriage, just as no one is pro-abortion. For that matter no one should be pro-marriage either. With a 50% divorce rate, why should we be? On the other hand, I have nothing against marriage, gay or not. As for an abortion, I am certainly not for it, but I not willing to tell a woman who decides for herself that she wants one, she can't. That's not my business. It goes without saying that I don't believe that a a fetus (first trimester) is a person or I would agree that it is murder. For those who do believe it is murder, I would think you would also have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is justifiable terrorism.
SQUACKEE wrote:My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage
No one is pro-gay marriage, just as no one is pro-abortion. For that matter no one should be pro-marriage either. With a 50% divorce rate, why should we be? On the other hand, I have nothing against marriage, gay or not. As for an abortion, I am certainly not for it, but I not willing to tell a woman who decides for herself that she wants one, she can't. That's not my business. It goes without saying that I don't believe that a a fetus (first trimester) is a person or I would agree that it is murder. For those who do believe it is murder, I would think you would also have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is justifiable terrorism.
I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages.
SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages.
How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now!
SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages.
How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now!
There will be dumping going on but it wont be by you my friend. Your 34 year old experiment could fizzle at any second! If she dumps you you could move in wih me. I have a hot tub and everything.
SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages.
How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now!
It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks, no "rights", no nothing, for anyone.
Then again, those psycho, wackjob leftnuts wouldn't like that.
gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks, no "rights", no nothing, for anyone.
Then again, those psycho, wackjob leftnuts wouldn't like that.
I thought the "family values" are at the heart of "those psycho, wackjob rightnuts".
But then again, what do I know? I am no more than a psycho, wackjob leftnut.
I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!
Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!
I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus
interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being
born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously,
extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)
gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks,
Tax breaks? I believe until fairly recently there was actually a tax penalty for being married. Two people earning approximately the same amount of money paid significantly more in federal income taxes if they were married filing a joint return than they would have if they had been single filing separate returns.
gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks,
Tax breaks? I believe until fairly recently there was actually a tax penalty for being married. Two people earning approximately the same amount of money paid significantly more in federal income taxes if they were married filing a joint return than they would have if they had been single filing separate returns.
Still do. It is why mrs. hammy and I, together for over 17 years, are still not married.
It's obvious that gm is NOT married. OR, he's so perpetually blissed out in matrimonial Nirvana that he pays no attention whatever to such grubby details of life as tax returns...
tandfman wrote:But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?
it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry
I'm not sure what he would say about same-sex marriages, but a former boss of mine once advised me that "marriage is the smartest mistake you can ever make."
mump boy wrote:it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry
I'll do it mump boy, if we get to 40 and we're both still single! Then at least we've got a back up! (I wonder how many people would freak out reading a gay marriage proposal on the internet? Disclaimer: I have never met mump boy or even had a conversation with him outside the confines of various message boards. Goodness only knows what we'd be letting ourselves in for).
"Will you civilly partner me?" just doesn't have the same touch of romance about it though. Do gays get down on one knee? Is it acceptable for a man to wear an engagement ring? On the other hand, if you've been disinherited by the in-laws for being gay then at least you won't have to spend Christmas with them. In separate rooms.
(I wonder how many people would freak out reading a gay marriage proposal on the internet? Disclaimer: I have never met mump boy or even had a conversation with him outside the confines of various message boards. Goodness only knows what we'd be letting ourselves in for).
