not that i think anyone cares.

In reply to z31maniac:

You're misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying it would be much easier to pass such a bill, if it wasn't called 'marriage'.

racerfink wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Marriage is a CHURCH institution, not STATE (or federal, for that matter). The tax collectors at the state level saw it as a way to collect more monies, with marriage licenses and such. Now, when you say you want separation of church and state...

I disagree completely. "Holy matrimony" and a wedding service performed by an ordained minister are church institutions - and as far as I know, precisely no one is seeking to make churches perform wedding ceremonies for homosexuals if that goes against the church in question's tenets. But a marriage is the union between consenting adults who choose to commit to each other for life; no specification of who the ceremony is performed by.

And has been said ad nauseum (but bears repeating), nobody who has been divorced has ANY moral leg to stand on in declaring same-sex couples as "an attack on the sanctity of marriage".

Duke wrote:

racerfink wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Marriage is a CHURCH institution, not STATE (or federal, for that matter). The tax collectors at the state level saw it as a way to collect more monies, with marriage licenses and such. Now, when you say you want separation of church and state...

I disagree completely. "Holy matrimony" and a wedding service performed by an ordained minister are church institutions - and as far as I know, precisely *no one* is seeking to *make* churches perform wedding ceremonies for homosexuals if that goes against the church in question's tenets. But a marriage is the union between consenting adults who choose to commit to each other for life; no specification of who the ceremony is performed by. And has been said *ad nauseum* (but bears repeating), nobody who has been divorced has ANY moral leg to stand on in declaring same-sex couples as "an attack on the sanctity of marriage".

I beg to differ. There are times when it is more moral to get divorced than to continue to destroy the family members. Been there, done that, got the T shirt/hat/scars.

Again, since people seem to be ignoring it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/video-of-the-day-dick-cheney-endorsing-gay-marriage-in-2009/256961/

Marriage is both a religious institution and a legal institution.

That's why the whole civil union thing doesn't carry water, because it is not 'equal' to marriage.

I am surprised by the tolerance exhibited in this thread, given the neanderthal chest-thumping that characterizes too many social/political discussions here.

Curmudgeon wrote: I beg to differ. There are times when it is more moral to get divorced than to continue to destroy the family members.

I agree with you - but I also do not feel that same-sex couples are an attack on the sanctity of marriage. I haven't been paying attention to your opinion on this (if you've even expressed it) but I'll wager that you don't think gay marriage is a problem, either.

If someone truly thinks that the existence of loving, committed gay couples constitutes an attack on the institution of marriage, then they better be a berking immaculate saint when it comes to participating in their own marriage.

N Sperlo wrote: Really I thought Obama would be endorsing a national CCW program first, since he has only supported gun rights since he has been in office.

No, he's a wantin to take our guns away. I get e-mails about it all the time, and e mail is always true!

Duke wrote: If someone truly thinks that the existence of loving, committed gay couples constitutes an attack on the institution of marriage, then they better be a ... *saint*

What if they're Protestant?

MG Bryan wrote:

Duke wrote: If someone truly thinks that the existence of loving, committed gay couples constitutes an attack on the institution of marriage, then they better be a ... *saint*

What if they're Protestant?

As long as they're Whiskeypalian, it still counts.

Duke wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: I beg to differ. There are times when it is more moral to get divorced than to continue to destroy the family members.

I agree with you - but I also do not feel that same-sex couples are an attack on the sanctity of marriage. I haven't been paying attention to your opinion on this (if you've even expressed it) but I'll wager that you don't think gay marriage is a problem, either. If someone truly thinks that the existence of loving, committed gay couples constitutes an attack on the institution of marriage, then they better be a berking immaculate *saint* when it comes to participating in their own marriage.

Right, got that. I personally couldn't care less if gays want to marry. Why should straights have all the misery?

What bugged me a bit (and maybe I misread it) was that what I read was to get divorced was immoral and gave me no room to make any sort of moral judgment. I have been told that to my face by idiots who have no idea WTF they are talking about and it pissed me off more than a little. I have also heard the same thing about atheism; i.e. since I am an atheist I must also be some sort of immoral sicko peophile freak.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I am fine with gay marriage, divorce, etc. People can make their own lifestyle decisions without help from the government.

Duke wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

Duke wrote: If someone truly thinks that the existence of loving, committed gay couples constitutes an attack on the institution of marriage, then they better be a ... *saint*

What if they're Protestant?

As long as they're Whiskeypalian, it still counts.

....or Frisbeetarians

dculberson wrote: Marriage is not a church institution. My marriage and wedding did not involve a church or church-affiliated official in any way, shape or form.

Likewise here - While I would have preferred our marriage to have been performed by a sea captain, for convenience we found a Unitarian minister who was happy to do the deed w/ no mention of any deity. He signed the papers afterward and we (conveniently being one each male and female) were good to go with regard to taxes, real estate, and benefits.

There was precisely zero church involved. We held an exceptionally nice party for about 125 of our best friends at a big old mansion near where I grew up (and where the have a really nice car show every October). There was spectacular food, lots of nice things to drink, and glorious weather. Plus it was about 2 weeks after 9/11 and everyone was about ready for something cheerful and a stiff drink.

But no church stuff. Nuh-uh.

Curmudgeon wrote: What bugged me a bit (and maybe I misread it) was that what I read was to get divorced was immoral and gave me no room to make any sort of moral judgment. I have been told that to my face by idiots who have no idea WTF they are talking about and it pissed me off more than a little. I have also heard the same thing about atheism; i.e. since I am an atheist I must also be some sort of immoral sicko peophile freak.

Sorry about that, I wasn't clear. I meant it as an attack on those who posture about the sanctity of marriage, while simultaneously giving their own marriages very little in the way of respect or care.

People change and divorces happen. But somehow I can't really believe that Rush Limbaugh has managed THREE TIMES to find the perfect soulmate woman to share his life with in holy matrimony, only to have her become an intractable sociopath despite his every effort to cooperate and honor their God-witnessed vows till death do they part.

Polygamy doesn't bother me. If everyone is consenting adults and not consenting out of fear or intimidation.

I just think that incest may be a bad idea as their kids may suffer from abnormalities as someone stated previously. So technically their kids could be losing a little bit of liberty. That is really going out on a limb, but that would be one way to argue it.

Polygamy? Chrissakes, I have enough trouble with one woman at a time. I can't imagine trying to keep two, or three, or four etc happy. (ducks rain of broken bottles bricks and rocks from female board members) I forget who the comedian was (Rita Rudner, maybe?) who said her boyfriend suggested a threesie and she said 'Why? Do you really want two women disappointed in and mad at you at the same time?'

bludroptop wrote: I am surprised by the tolerance exhibited in this thread, given the neanderthal chest-thumping that characterizes too many social/political discussions here.

I believe the forum(and nation for that matter) is full of pretty tolerant people when it comes to peoples rights. It just doesn't seem fair for some to get persecuted for something that does not harm someone else or affect them in any way. Its the "get out of my sandbox" mentality that has been dwindling down over time.

Car Example: Someone that has the terrible taste for donks. I am not going to say that because I think it is stupid, that it should be illegal for someone to have one.

Now when the fiscal stuff comes out, that gets a little hairy in this forum.

I'd prefer the government get out of the social side of life until it can get it's financial house in order. Balance the budget first, guys, then I'll take you seriously on anything else.

Anti-stance wrote: ....I believe the forum(and nation for that matter) is full of pretty tolerant people when it comes to peoples rights....

In reply to aircooled:

So, is that saying that if you have a bachelors degree and you live in NC that you are more likely to not support gay marriage?

...okay

88% of all statistics are wrong. Or made up on the spot.

poopshovel wrote: Out of curiosity, is anyone who is not opposed to gay marriage opposed to polygamy?

You gotta be kidding me. I'm not opposed to either, but polygamy? My God, my wife and I are a small company of two employees. Money comes in, money goes out. In good months the ebb and flow are equal and no one goes to jail.

Throw in a third wheel? Well, the sex would be good for a while, the most exciting 45 seconds of my life! What to do the other 23 hours in the day?

Nah, can't do polygamy.

Wait, the third wheel is female right?

OK, nevermind.

Belay my last.

Gotta go.

C'ya.

racerfink wrote: Again, since people seem to be ignoring it. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/video-of-the-day-dick-cheney-endorsing-gay-marriage-in-2009/256961/

I think everyone knows this, don't they? I heard it mentioned several times a week or so ago when Biden made his view known. I don't think anyone is ignoring it, it's just a bigger deal when the President says it. Vice President? What do they even do?

poopshovel wrote:

mtn wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Out of curiosity, is anyone who is not opposed to gay marriage opposed to polygamy? How about incest, assuming both parties are adults and willing participants?

I am not opposed to gay marriage; I am opposed to polygamy.

Go on.

Regardless of the divorce rates and 3 week marriages and so on, I do consider marriage to be a... I'm struggling for a word here... a sacred* love shared between two people. I feel that if you start allowing polygamy, it does take away from the exclusiveness of it. I have no problems with open marriages, but there should be one with whom you grow old and hold especially dear.
In another view (viewing polygamy as man with many wives), if a woman doesn't please her husband, he can simply turn to another of his wives and that first wife must be submissive or lose the marriage and the love in it. I guess it could happen the other way around as well.

*I use sacred not in the actual meaning of the word, but take the religion out of it and see what it is--something that should be revered and worshiped.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Vice President? What do they even do?

"Dontcha mean what don't they do?"