|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
Same-gender couples should have the legal benefits and detriments of marriage if they choose. Our secular government is meant to protect everyone the same. This is no different.
|
|
S3
Cheshire, OR
|
Why WOULDN'T you want everyone to have equal rights?
That's just evil.
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
S3 wrote: Why WOULDN'T you want everyone to have equal rights?
That's just evil. That is just stupid. Equal rights are not violated. Other options are available. Civil Unions and domestic partnership. The word marriage has sinec time began defines as one man one woman. How is that evil? To change the definition of the word long after million have been married is more evil. Nice try.
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Factchecker wrote: Same-gender couples should have the legal benefits and detriments of marriage if they choose. Our secular government is meant to protect everyone the same. This is no different. Oh? What about those that have been, are and will be married. Who is protecting their rights to be married with the definition of the word marriage intact, as was when they were married? Obviously marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. That is why opposite sexes were married. To show that they are one as man and wife. To steal from that by the gay community is repulsive.
|
|
Jubal Current
Eugene, OR
|
I support not only gay marriage, but plural marriage as well. I believe people have the right to determine their own kinship family ties and their choices need to be tolerated and should be equal to what many call "traditional marriage", which they don't realize is far from "traditional" if they even ever had taken an Anthropology class they would realize the lucridity of their claims.
|
|
Jubal Current
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
That is just stupid. Equal rights are not violated. Other options are available. Civil Unions and domestic partnership.
The word marriage has sinec time began defines as one man one woman. How is that evil?
To change the definition of the word long after million have been married is more evil.
Nice try. You are making a huge assumption that marriage has been the way it is since the beginning of time. Obviously you have never taken an Anthropology class in your life...otherwise you would realize how foolish your assumption is. Kinship family ties have been as diverse as there are ethnicities on the planet. Is that what you believe about marriage because your pastor told you that it was that way...or did you deduce that from your bible?
|
|
Jubal Current
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
Oh? What about those that have been, are and will be married. Who is protecting their rights to be married with the definition of the word marriage intact, as was when they were married?
Obviously marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman.
That is why opposite sexes were married. To show that they are one as man and wife.
To steal from that by the gay community is repulsive. Since when do people who have married in the US own the rights to define marriage on their terms? Where is that in the constitution?
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Jubal Current wrote: <quoted text>
You are making a huge assumption that marriage has been the way it is since the beginning of time. Obviously you have never taken an Anthropology class in your life...otherwise you would realize how foolish your assumption is. Kinship family ties have been as diverse as there are ethnicities on the planet.
Is that what you believe about marriage because your pastor told you that it was that way...or did you deduce that from your bible? My bible? The definition of the word marriage is undeniable as we have known it and your attempt to play the religious connotation as justification is comical. But again, to steal and try to infringe on the definition of marriage is unacceptable to most Americans. Your ploy falls flat when you cannot quote accurately and try to twist the discussion with something that was not said. That is what we call a lie.
|
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Jubal Current wrote: <quoted text>
Since when do people who have married in the US own the rights to define marriage on their terms? Where is that in the constitution? Looks as if your "current" is of course again. No one owns the rights to define a word. The definition in this nation has been to refer to one man and one womaqn. Your simpelton questions shows how shallow and ignorant you are. When the 9th circuit appeals court affirms the Walker decision, it will go the the United States Supreme Court where it should have been for a long time. Then the issue will finally be settled.
|
|
freedom-exspress
Portland, OR
|
the home of the brave and free shouldn't be filled with the scared to be free. freedom should never be prosecuted (some exceptions may apply) But not this one!
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
Oh? What about those that have been, are and will be married. Who is protecting their rights to be married with the definition of the word marriage intact, as was when they were married?
Obviously marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman.
That is why opposite sexes were married. To show that they are one as man and wife.
To steal from that by the gay community is repulsive. Marriage is a word that pertains to a union forged in a church. Secular government has no right to provide "marriage" for couples. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints was founded on marriage for groups, not couples. What may be 'obvious' to you is NOT obvious to millions of other people. You are 'repelled' by that which you can't understand due to a little mind.
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
That is just stupid. Equal rights are not violated. Other options are available. Civil Unions and domestic partnership. The government should only be able to license civil unions or domestic partnerships. Couples who enter into a governmental sanctioned contractual relationship receive special property rights and state sanctioned financial benefits. Marriage should be limited to those who decide to be joined by a church. Those "married" couples should be required to license their civil union in order to obtain the benefits that the government provides.
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Factchecker wrote: <quoted text>
Marriage is a word that pertains to a union forged in a church. Secular government has no right to provide "marriage" for couples. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints was founded on marriage for groups, not couples.
What may be 'obvious' to you is NOT obvious to millions of other people. You are 'repelled' by that which you can't understand due to a little mind. Mariage is indeed recognized by state and federal government. It does not function as a religious organization does it? Oh. And it is necessary to get a marriage license from the state isn't it? Are they also a religious organization? I didn't think so. I am not sure what the state and the federal government have to do with the Latter Day Saints. Do you know? And you call my mind little?
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
Mariage is indeed recognized by state and federal government. It does not function as a religious organization does it? Oh.
And it is necessary to get a marriage license from the state isn't it? Are they also a religious organization? I didn't think so.
I am not sure what the state and the federal government have to do with the Latter Day Saints. Do you know?
And you call my mind little? Marriage is a 'WORD.' I said nothing about what the governmental units recognized. Actually,in many states one doesn't even need a license to get the benefits bestowed by the 'license.' A couple only need to live together for a requisite amount of time for recognition. Same sex couples haven't even attempted to litigate that issue...yet. Religion was the entity that first used the word 'marriage.' It's a religious word. You know what the Latter Day Saints have to do with the word 'marriage' or your mind is even smaller than I imagined. The incorporated territory of Utah had legal polygamy--take some home to the wives.
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Factchecker wrote: <quoted text>
Marriage is a 'WORD.' I said nothing about what the governmental units recognized.
Actually,in many states one doesn't even need a license to get the benefits bestowed by the 'license.' A couple only need to live together for a requisite amount of time for recognition. Same sex couples haven't even attempted to litigate that issue...yet.
Religion was the entity that first used the word 'marriage.' It's a religious word.
You know what the Latter Day Saints have to do with the word 'marriage' or your mind is even smaller than I imagined. The incorporated territory of Utah had legal polygamy--take some home to the wives. Funny how you react when you are proven wrong. Indeed the states require a marriage license for you to be married. Duh. So it is out of the religious realm at that point. Without a license you cannot get married. That is what all the same sex marriage attempt is all about. To get a marriage license so they can be married. They do not get a license from the church do they? No. they get it from the state, actually a few states with same sex marriage. Do you get tired of being foolish and putting it in writing for everyone to see?
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
Funny how you react when you are proven wrong.
Indeed the states require a marriage license for you to be married. Duh. So it is out of the religious realm at that point.
Without a license you cannot get married. That is what all the same sex marriage attempt is all about. To get a marriage license so they can be married. They do not get a license from the church do they? No. they get it from the state, actually a few states with same sex marriage.
Do you get tired of being foolish and putting it in writing for everyone to see? Marriage is a WORD that pertains to a union forged in a church. Secular government has no right to provide "marriage" for couples. The government should only be able to license civil unions or domestic partnerships. Couples who enter into a governmental sanctioned contractual relationship receive special property rights and state sanctioned financial benefits. Marriage should be limited to those who decide to be joined by a church. Those "married" couples should be required to license their civil union in order to obtain the benefits that the government provides. ******* What part of my OPINION do you not understand? I merely disagree with your OPINION. You certainly haven't provided us with anything but your opinion. Make of it what you want. Call the secular legal relationship that binds couples together what you want. It's merely a matter of semantics. You and the other social antiques that agree with you are fighting a losing battle. LOL!
|
|
truthful 1
Eugene, OR
|
Factchecker wrote: <quoted text>
Marriage is a WORD that pertains to a union forged in a church. Secular government has no right to provide "marriage" for couples.
The government should only be able to license civil unions or domestic partnerships. Couples who enter into a governmental sanctioned contractual relationship receive special property rights and state sanctioned financial benefits.
Marriage should be limited to those who decide to be joined by a church. Those "married" couples should be required to license their civil union in order to obtain the benefits that the government provides.
*******
What part of my OPINION do you not understand? I merely disagree with your OPINION. You certainly haven't provided us with anything but your opinion.
Make of it what you want. Call the secular legal relationship that binds couples together what you want. It's merely a matter of semantics. You and the other social antiques that agree with you are fighting a losing battle. LOL! You use the word "should" frequently. Should is not...is. That is where you are proven wrong yet again. Should is something that is not. Is....is. The state does require a marriage license, not should. See the difference there? Your should falls way short of is. A marriage license...is... the law, not should be. MArriage license "should" be limited to those..bla bla bla. It is not. It is. A simple lesson in reality which seems to escape you. What you want the law to be, or think it "should " be ii not. The law "is " what it is. The law is not my opinion. The law is what was stated, not my opinion. You are caught up in your wannabe social agenda and and disreagrd what was written because the truth hurts. Doesn't it.
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
Same sex marriage IS the law in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
More states are on the way! All of America is heading that way. THAT's the truth. LOL
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
The state does require a marriage license, not should. See the difference there? Your should falls way short of is.
A marriage license...is... the law, not should be. Common law marriage doesn't require a license. Common law marriages ARE (the plural form of 'is') legal in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, the District of Columbia, and by the US military. The US Internal Revenue Service recognizes common law marriage in those states. The IRS gives the same benefits to common law couples from the states that recognize common law marriage as it gives couples from states that only recognize licensed ceremonial marriage. There is no 'marriage license' issued for a common law marriage even though they are legally recognized by the above states and the Federal government. That IS the truth. LMAO!!
|
|
Factchecker
Eugene, OR
|
truthful 1 wrote: <quoted text>
You use the word "should" frequently. Should is not...is. That is where you are proven wrong yet again. Should is something that is not. Is....is. 150 years ago one could say the same thing about slavery. See how things change socially and legally? LOL
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Support
Oppose
Sagittarius