The W
Views: 99364269
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.10.14 0102
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 3)
This thread has 56 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(1895 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (75 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 50 days
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
My point with the two or three to a marriage thing was that a three-way marriage is not allowed for anyone, while a two-person marriage is allowed for only part of the population. I was not defining what marriage is.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 57 min.
Last activity: 32 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    My point with the two or three to a marriage thing was that a three-way marriage is not allowed for anyone, while a two-person marriage is allowed for only part of the population. I was not defining what marriage is.
So brothers and sisters can marry? Can a son marry his mother? How about a couple of kids?



CRZ
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 50 days
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
oh man, you of all people...

i came back right away because i realized i didnt make myself clear enough in the previous post, but sure enough someone was already there responding.

i dont want to start another argument within this thread, but i dont necessarily agree with those laws either for the same reasons.

however, as has already been said, the emotional side of marriage is not the governments reason for getting involved. the governments recognition of marriage is strictly for economic purposes and im sure there is a reason somewhere that incestual(sp?) marriages would mess things up (for example, can you identify someone both as a "son" and a "husband"? Not to say that that is a good reason to ban the relationships.)...

(edited by TheBucsFan on 6.8.03 1054)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#44 Posted on


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    as has already been said, the emotional side of marriage is not the governments reason for getting involved. the governments recognition of marriage is strictly for economic purposes


So, therefore, government recognition of homosexual, etc. marriages would be strictly for ecomomic purposes?



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 6 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
What I don't understand is why gay couples feel thay have to be "legitimized" by the government. You can't stay together unless you have some stupid legal document?

There's many Gay people who don't. There is currently a big debate about Gay Marriage in the GAY community (or LGBTQ community, as is the style nowadays). Needless to say, it centers around somewhat different issues than the debate over Gay marriage in, say, the Episcopalian Church.

The fact still remains though, that that "stupid legal document" gives you very un-stupid legal rights that can be very valuable.



(edited by MoeGates on 6.8.03 2234)


"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#46 Posted on


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    There is currently a big debate about Gay Marriage in the GAY community (or LGBTQ community, as is the style nowadays). Needless to say, it centers around somewhat different issues than the debate over Gay marriage in, say, the Episcopalian Church.

    The fact still remains though, that that "stupid legal document" gives you very un-stupid legal rights that can be very valuable.



Yes I understand that. What I am wanting to know is where the limits will be drawn. Example: Two 50-year-old "straight" unmarried women working in the same company could decide to marry, forcing their company to consider them a family unit. They could be married yet have nothing else to do with each other.

Frankly, I could care less what any of the organized religions think about the issue.



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 50 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Well if that is your concern, then you must be opposed to all marriages in general, no? Because that could still happen now, only now the potential scam is limited to conartists putting on a heterosexual front...

(edited by TheBucsFan on 6.8.03 2328)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#48 Posted on

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Well if that is your concern, then you must be opposed to all marriages in general, no? Because that could still happen now, only now the potential scam is limited to conartists putting on a heterosexual front...

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 6.8.03 2328)



Yes there are straight people who abuse the PRIVILEGE of marriage...that is NOT a reason to open the same loophole to thousands more people. Now, can you please at least TRY to answer the question?

How would a marriageable relationship be defined?



(edited by Eddie Famous on 6.8.03 2040)


The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 176 days
Last activity: 176 days
#49 Posted on
So if we lived in a country where only straight people could own guns, and gays were not allowed to own guns your argument would come down to:

Straight people own guns. Straight people sometimes commit crimes with those guns. So we'd better not let gay people own guns, or else they'll commit crimes with guns!

I don't konw about you, but this seems pretty stupid to me. If this is what you're really worried about, then either the fair thing here is to let gay people shoot at people as much as straight people do OR don't let the straight people own guns at all.

Can you think of any other solution that doesn't discriminate against one type of person?


-Jag

And I do realize that maybe if we let gays own guns, then maybe dogs will want to own guns too. But until dogs get the right to vote and own property, I'm pretty convinced it won't happen.



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#50 Posted on

Jaguar, owning property and entering into a governmentally recognized marriage partnership is apples and rocks.

ALL OF YOU who think you are debunking my concerns have continually failed to answer my questions. Instead of diverting, try answering.



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#51 Posted on
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    How would a marriageable relationship be defined?


Two constenting adults. What was so hard about that?

EDIT: Who are human and not related, to stove off the inevitable really-fucking-stupid examples that always follow.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 7.8.03 1719)




"So, we've got Uday and Qusay. Now, how about the eapons-way of ass-may estruction-day?"
---The Onion, What Do You Think?, 7.30.03
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#52 Posted on


    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      How would a marriageable relationship be defined?


    Two constenting adults. What was so hard about that?

    EDIT: Who are human and not related, to stove off the inevitable really-fucking-stupid examples that always follow.

    (edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 7.8.03 1719)



Two consenting adults who only know each other over the internet? Two consenting adults who live in the same city? Two consenting adults who have worked together for a number of years and would like company family benefits rather than single bennies?

I don't care what two consenting adults do, I just don't see why the government should have to validate those relationships.



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2212 days
Last activity: 1079 days
#53 Posted on
And that's the conundrum, Eddie F. The government can't possibly know if I love my lady or if we are simply getting married in order to have a plethora of benefits at our disposal for use and abuse. Hence the economic risk (to corporations and small businesses).

To presume that any marriage is predicated on the want of those benefits could potentially devalue the committment itself. People will abuse whatever systems and safeguards are in place (call me a pessimist, if you will).

The idea of criteria for marriage recognition is one with a lack of absolute quanitfiability (MODO).



And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#54 Posted on


    Originally posted by DrOp
    And that's the conundrum, Eddie F. The government can't possibly know if I love my lady or if we are simply getting married in order to have a plethora of benefits at our disposal for use and abuse. Hence the economic risk (to corporations and small businesses).

    To presume that any marriage is predicated on the want of those benefits could potentially devalue the committment itself. People will abuse whatever systems and safeguards are in place (call me a pessimist, if you will).

    The idea of criteria for marriage recognition is one with a lack of absolute quanitfiability (MODO).



There. You've put it much better then I have been able to. At the moment, homosexual relationships with "life partners" are getting recognized more and more often by businesses on their own terms. It's once you try and DEFINE the relationships....thats where trouble comes in. And you KNOW definition will take place in the legal and civil law system.

I haven't been trying to "bash" or pay disrespect to those contributing who may be in such a relationship, in fact I hope you're happy for a lifetime. I just don't believe lives will be made any easier by this particular issue.




The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4034 days
Last activity: 4033 days
#55 Posted on
Marriage is about reproduction?


Funny, I thought it was supposed to be about love.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1293 days
Last activity: 59 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#56 Posted on
Marriage was ALWAYS about reproduction. That is the very reason the intitution was created in the first place.

It is only modern selfishness that has made it about love.

Marriage insofar as love goes is a private matter between two consenting adults. Why the government should be involved, in ANY way, is beyond me...





Still on the Shelf #17 - Pete, the P.O.'d Postal Worker
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#57 Posted on
CARTOON!







"So, we've got Uday and Qusay. Now, how about the eapons-way of ass-may estruction-day?"
---The Onion, What Do You Think?, 7.30.03
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 305 days
#58 Posted on


    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    CARTOON


Don't tell me you've run out of answers so soon?



The ghost of a steam train - echoes down my track
It's at the moment bound for nowhere -
just going round and round
Playground kids and creaking swings -
lost laughter in the breeze
I could go on for hours and I probably will -
but I'd sooner put some joy back
In this town called malice
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3726 days
Last activity: 3195 days
AIM:  
#59 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Marriage was ALWAYS about reproduction. That is the very reason the intitution was created in the first place.


Marriage isn't about reproduction. It's about control. "If you have a baby without our sanction, you're going to hell."

That's powerful stuff, when you're dealing with superstitious and ignorant people.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2807 days
Last activity: 2650 days
AIM:  
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Marriage was ALWAYS about reproduction. That is the very reason the intitution was created in the first place.


    Marriage isn't about reproduction. It's about control. "If you have a baby without our sanction, you're going to hell."

    That's powerful stuff, when you're dealing with superstitious and ignorant people.



So I presume that our recently-engaged Dictator, and every other married Wiener, is ignorant and superstitious?



"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."
Pedro Martinez
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Denver to vote on Anti-Stress Initiative
Next thread: Gay HS Redux: Lawsuit Filed
Previous thread: More Politics
(1895 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.pr-inside.com/chavez-orders-troops-to-colombian-border-r465960.htm Just what the world needs, another war in a large oil producing nation.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush: Marriage Is For a Man and Woman (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.221 seconds.