Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[CARLHAYDEN]

It seems to me that for legal simplification, persons involved in a legal intimate relationship which does n9ot infove children should have the status of civil partnership, for purposes of simplification.

Now, seperate divisions of family law courts (in my state, superior court) can be set up if this process is emplaced, and the courts could expeditiously handle resolution of civil union matters as many of the procedures involved in marriages with children would not need to be included.

What if a heterosexual couple is dishonest in obtaining marriage, just for the extra benefits (assuming there are any)?  Are they prosecuted for fraud, or what?  You were arguing for ideological consistency and zealousness in the enforcement thereof, after all.

This all just seems like extra government bureaucracy to me.  Why even have government in marriage?

And why haven't I seen you beat the drum for revoking marriages of those who are too old to procreate?  Why is that not "loony"?

Now, it seems to me that an understanding to make the changes I have proposed could implemented after the loonies stop trying to impose 'gay marriage.'

Yes, I understand.  People who disagree with you are crazy.  Gotcha.

First, what "extra benefits" do you assume would accrue to people with marriages versus civil unions?

Second, those engage in attacks on the rights of others to disagree, are loonies and hurt their own self-professed cause.

[Brittain33]

."

As I pointed out earlier, the primary purpose of Marriage in the United States, as distinguished from civil unions, is the protection or the rights of children.

Even if that were true--and that has been debated for many reasons--the commonality of this argument is one reason why state courts have refused to exclude same-sex couples raising children jointly via adoption from the protection of marriage.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I doubt much people who get married think they do so for the sake of whatever children they may have.

(If they so, it is much higher now than say, 50 years ago.)

Well, a lot of people (in Britain anyway, I don't know about elsewhere) these days marry after they've had their first child, so it might be a factor in those (just an assumption really).

Ah, but that suggests a response (to me anyway) that is due to convention or an ideal view of marriage itself rather than "we must have a better structure to look after the kids". (Which probably suggests that people who do marry after their first children have on average put more thought into looking after their children then those that don't, ergo it will probably end up being a more stable relationship.)

Probably, yeah. It's also an example of how marriage, as a cultural and social institution, is always changing. You just didn't get that sort of thing fifty years ago.

Which is my point (and that and the whatever marriage "means" to anyone person getting married might "mean" - if it means anything at all, goddamn functionalism - something completely different to another individual. Even if these individuals are the bride and groom.) Thus its stooopid to argue "OMG GAY MARRIAGE TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY!!1111112" and so on.

EDIT: Why does this thread have 19 pages?

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I doubt much people who get married think they do so for the sake of whatever children they may have.

(If they so, it is much higher now than say, 50 years ago.)

Well, a lot of people (in Britain anyway, I don't know about elsewhere) these days marry after they've had their first child, so it might be a factor in those (just an assumption really).

Ah, but that suggests a response (to me anyway) that is due to convention or an ideal view of marriage itself rather than "we must have a better structure to look after the kids". (Which probably suggests that people who do marry after their first children have on average put more thought into looking after their children then those that don't, ergo it will probably end up being a more stable relationship.)

Probably, yeah. It's also an example of how marriage, as a cultural and social institution, is always changing. You just didn't get that sort of thing fifty years ago.

Which is my point (and that and the whatever marriage "means" to anyone person getting married might "mean" - if it means anything at all, goddamn functionalism - something completely different to another individual. Even if these individuals are the bride and groom.) Thus its stooopid to argue "OMG GAY MARRIAGE TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY!!1111112" and so on.

EDIT: Why does this thread have 19 pages?

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

And we like that because...?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I doubt much people who get married think they do so for the sake of whatever children they may have.

(If they so, it is much higher now than say, 50 years ago.)

Well, a lot of people (in Britain anyway, I don't know about elsewhere) these days marry after they've had their first child, so it might be a factor in those (just an assumption really).

Ah, but that suggests a response (to me anyway) that is due to convention or an ideal view of marriage itself rather than "we must have a better structure to look after the kids". (Which probably suggests that people who do marry after their first children have on average put more thought into looking after their children then those that don't, ergo it will probably end up being a more stable relationship.)

Probably, yeah. It's also an example of how marriage, as a cultural and social institution, is always changing. You just didn't get that sort of thing fifty years ago.

Which is my point (and that and the whatever marriage "means" to anyone person getting married might "mean" - if it means anything at all, goddamn functionalism - something completely different to another individual. Even if these individuals are the bride and groom.) Thus its stooopid to argue "OMG GAY MARRIAGE TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY!!1111112" and so on.

EDIT: Why does this thread have 19 pages?

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

And we like that because...?

you've been here how long?

I know I've contributed to this one - but yeah -

[Brittain33]

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

Oh, come on. The CARL HAYDEN content is still a minority of the posts, and I think we're getting some good discussion in the rest.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

Oh, come on. The CARL HAYDEN content is still a minority of the posts, and I think we're getting some good discussion in the rest.

I agree to a certain extent.

Discussion is fine, just as long as no conclusion is expected.

[Brittain33]

I agree to a certain extent.

Discussion is fine, just as long as no conclusion is expected.

I don't expect anyone to say "oh, you're right." I'm just glad I have an opportunity to talk about the issue in depth and deal with some complex arguments instead of just "it's wrong" and "equality now." It's an issue a lot of people have thought about at a basic level, but not one where different policies and implications have really been hashed out.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree to a certain extent.

Discussion is fine, just as long as no conclusion is expected.

I don't expect anyone to say "oh, you're right." I'm just glad I have an opportunity to talk about the issue in depth and deal with some complex arguments instead of just "it's wrong" and "equality now." It's an issue a lot of people have thought about at a basic level, but not one where different policies and implications have really been hashed out.

Right, good deal.

[Alcon]

First, what "extra benefits" do you assume would accrue to people with marriages versus civil unions?

If the governmental differentiation is so trivial, why not leave it up to the people and the churches?  Why have the government intervene and force cultural values when it doesn't need to?

Second, those engage in attacks on the rights of others to disagree, are loonies and hurt their own self-professed cause.

Good thing no one here has done that, that I've seen.

[??????????]

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

No, you didn't. You were born free of sin.

I might not have sinned while I was an infant, but that doesn't mean I wasn't born ingrained with a sinful nature:

Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

So, then, we can conclude that we were born with a sinful nature, but we don't sin as infants (as you stated)...but at some point in our early lives, the sinful nature awakens and we become condemned:

Rom 7:9 "Sin sprang to life and I died"

Jmfcst, what you fail to realize is that nobody here cares.

He's answering a question someone asked. Quit being such a jerk.

[Matt Damon™]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

[Хahar 🤔]

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

No, you didn't. You were born free of sin.

I might not have sinned while I was an infant, but that doesn't mean I wasn't born ingrained with a sinful nature:

Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

So, then, we can conclude that we were born with a sinful nature, but we don't sin as infants (as you stated)...but at some point in our early lives, the sinful nature awakens and we become condemned:

Rom 7:9 "Sin sprang to life and I died"

Jmfcst, what you fail to realize is that nobody here cares.

I do, actually.

But I categorically reject original sin, so it's not a big deal.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

[Sbane]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

Hahaha you are so clueless. This is about rights you douche. Nobody could give a fcuk what churches think.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

Hahaha you are so clueless. This is about rights you douche. Nobody could give a fcuk what churches think.

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

[afleitch]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

Hahaha you are so clueless. This is about rights you douche. Nobody could give a fcuk what churches think.

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

They would never have imagined women voting or people driving cars and the laws that this would have to entail. What's your point?

[Flying Dog]

This thread's getting intense.

As for me, I am fully supportive of Civil Unions/ Gay marriage and the like. There's no such thing as the 'sanctity' of marriage anymore, if there ever was...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

Hahaha you are so clueless. This is about rights you douche. Nobody could give a fcuk what churches think.

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

They would never have imagined women voting or people driving cars and the laws that this would have to entail. What's your point?

that's why the constitution as amended and laws passed by the congress and state legislatures.

[Aizen]

Since gay marriage is banned, it only makes sense that fat people shouldn't marry either.

Argument 1:

Fat sex is just as gross as gay sex.

Argument 2:

Fat people will have fat children. It will ruin society.

Argument 3:

It will work out in the long run since it will motivate them to lose weight.

[Mint]

Since gay marriage is banned, it only makes sense that fat people shouldn't marry either.

Argument 1:

Fat sex is just as gross as gay sex.

Argument 2:

Fat people will have fat children. It will ruin society.

Argument 3:

It will work out in the long run since it will motivate them to lose weight.

You win the thread.

[CARLHAYDEN]

have everyone get civil unions and allow churches full authority in defining what 'marriage' is

dude, the whole purpose of this is to silence the churches and the word of God.

Hahaha you are so clueless. This is about rights you douche. Nobody could give a fcuk what churches think.

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

They would never have imagined women voting or people driving cars and the laws that this would have to entail. What's your point?

Umm.

First, the Constitution of the United States was amended to provide for female suffrage, rather than having the courts just decide they wanted to do it.

Second, technology is not written into the law.

[Earth]

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

[Verily]

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

Separate but equal?

It's not acknowledged as a right unless it's acknowledged as the same right.

[Alcon]

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

In like five states.

I don't think any gay marriage proponents are arguing for gay marriage or nothing.  I'd prefer gay marriage because I think it's essentially "separate but equal" and I don't care for that.  I'd much prefer the state out of marriage, which I think would probably make both of us happy, but that's not happening.

But I think you can understand why some people see "separate but equal" status as a coded insult.

(and kind of reminds us of other historical "separate but equal" cases that I still don't see much of a distinction between)