Marriages/Civil unions

[Belgian_Draft 0]

How should marriages/civil unions be restricted, if at all? Why?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Why not keep the topic in the other thread? You seem to suggest that Marriages and civil unions are the same thing, I think that is completely wrong.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Some think they should be the same, some don't. Some think we need both, some think we should only have one. Which describes you?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Only Civil unions. Let the people give themselves the marriage tag.

[lewmonst 0]

Where's the box for "Let anyone marry anyone, but bigots aren't allowed to produce offspring"?

http://www.exitshot.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Does that remark mean you feel family members should be allowed to marry and reproduce?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[beqa 0]

I think the marrying of family members, and the whole animal thing, take it a bit far. But, I did see the humor, and the ironic stretch of reality you placed there.

But, some people do consider animals to be almost human. You have actually scared me into thinking about what some humans might consider an appropriate realtionship.

Speaking of which. I saw on the news a year or two ago, where in Africa or something, two frogs got married..... Does that count?

It was supposed to be some ritual for prosperity or something or other. Hold on, I think I found a couple links to frog marriage.....

Just to prove, I am not making this up, here is a link. You have to scroll all the way to the bottom.
http://o3.indiatimes.com/palashbiswas/archive/2009/03/27/4962671.aspx

Oh, and it's in India, not Africa. They marry two frogs to make a god happy, so it will rain.

Here is a more credible looking link.
http://www.hitched.co.uk/Chat/blogs/wedding-news/page/20090317/Frog-marriage-believed-to-end-north-Indias-dry-spell-.aspx

[JohanW 0]

Why would, say, a brother and a sister living together be treated differently from a married couple for tax reasons? How about inheritances? Same goes for two brothers, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe one of 'em used to be married, had kids, the partner died, he or she moved back in with Mom&Dad (grandparents can make for a great support system), why shouldn't the other sibling eventually be legalised as a parent, say, after Mom&Dad die?

You won't find a priest to bless this holy matrimony of course

Johan.
I am. I think.

[billvon 2,400]

>Does that remark mean you feel family members should be allowed to
>marry and reproduce?

Apparently you feel that fathers should be able to marry their daughters!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Does that remark mean you feel family members should be allowed to
>marry and reproduce?

Apparently you feel that fathers should be able to marry their daughters!

The closer the kin,
the deeper it's in.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Does that remark mean you feel family members should be allowed to
>marry and reproduce?

Apparently you feel that fathers should be able to marry their daughters!

What did I write that would lead you to believe that?

But, since you broached the subject, what is the difference between a father marrying his daughter (as long as they don't have children) and two men getting married? In both cases the only possible harm to anyone is that some people will take offense to it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Why would, say, a brother and a sister living together be treated differently from a married couple for tax reasons? How about inheritances? Same goes for two brothers, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe one of 'em used to be married, had kids, the partner died, he or she moved back in with Mom&Dad (grandparents can make for a great support system), why shouldn't the other sibling eventually be legalised as a parent, say, after Mom&Dad die?

You won't find a priest to bless this holy matrimony of course

In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new. Until relatively recently virtually all marriages were for reasons of family stability, social acceptance and promotion, etc.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,400]

>What did I write that would lead you to believe that?

You have said you are in favor of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Therefore you must be OK with it.

(I don't really think that, just seeing if you are OK with your own logic when it applies to your beliefs.)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>What did I write that would lead you to believe that?

You have said you are in favor of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Therefore you must be OK with it.

(I don't really think that, just seeing if you are OK with your own logic when it applies to your beliefs.)

I also happen to agree with the states that have laws restricting the marriage between family members.

My whole point of posting this poll was to make people contemplate where we should draw the line of who can get married to whom.
I am fine with same-sex marriages, I just don't agree with the argument that they are being discriminated against. A much better argument, IMO, would be that the government is making a decision that should be left to the individual.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new.

It really isn't. It's actually very, very, very old.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new.

It really isn't. It's actually very, very, very old.

Wrong. As I said in my post, virtually all marriages were marriages of convenience, not love. Though some couples were in love, the marriage needed to be approved by family and community leaders who were concerned with making sure the marriage would benefit the parties involved, the families, and the community as a whole. If the couple were in love it was mostly by chance (or luck).

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How should marriages/civil unions be restricted, if at all? Why?

when it's such a semantics issues for those passionate about the issue on both sides, I don't see any reason to vote when you put it as

marriage/civil unions

much more friendly to split the terms out

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

How should marriages/civil unions be restricted, if at all? Why?

when it's such a semantics issues for those passionate about the issue on both sides, I don't see any reason to vote when you put it as

marriage/civil unions

much more friendly to split the terms out

Yes, it would be. If my intent was to gauge whether people prefered civil unions or marriage for same sex and opposite sex couples.
But that wasn't my intent. My intent was to gauge where people are willing to draw the line for society to recognize two people "as one".

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new.

It really isn't. It's actually very, very, very old.

Wrong.

What a qualified, substantiated answer. Impressive.

Quote

Though some couples were in love, the marriage needed to be approved by family and community leaders who were concerned with making sure the marriage would benefit the parties involved, the families, and the community as a whole.

In a lot of times and places, yes. But not in others. And not in some that are very, very, very old. Even older than you.

So sorry, but you're wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

What's the matter, Jakee? Can't get your facts straight?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

What's the matter, Jakee? Can't get your facts straight?

Maybe you need some new spectacles or something Grandpa, because you don't seem to be able to read what I'm actually writing. You're sure as hell not understanding it because I've been entirely consistent in my statements so far.

Here, I'll repeat it in big type so you can see it easier; The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

What's the matter, Jakee? Can't get your facts straight?

Maybe you need some new spectacles or something Grandpa, because you don't seem to be able to read what I'm actually writing. You're sure as hell not understanding it because I've been entirely consistent in my statements so far.

Here, I'll repeat it in big type so you can see it easier; The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent.

It is you who is not understanding. Marrying for love was a very, very rare occurance for most of the history of the concept of marriage.
Do you have anything relative to the topic to add...or are you just trolling?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's the matter, Jakee? Can't get your facts straight?

Maybe you need some new spectacles or something Grandpa, because you don't seem to be able to read what I'm actually writing. You're sure as hell not understanding it because I've been entirely consistent in my statements so far.

Here, I'll repeat it in big type so you can see it easier; The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent.

It is you who is not understanding. Marrying for love was a very, very rare occurance for most of the history of the concept of marriage.

Poor you, your memory must be failing in your dotage. What you just said is not the same as the statement I said was wrong, now is it?

Go ahead, look back through the thread, I'll wait.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

***The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent."
Is what you posted

"Marrying for love was a very, very rare occurance for most of the history of the concept of marriage."
Is how I replied

I can only assume that you are trolling. Yer gonna need fresh bait.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,400]

Both of you cut it out. Discuss the issue if you like, but stop with the "you're senile" "you're ignorant" comments.