Gay vs. Plural

[davjohns 1]

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

a marriage is a religious term

Yes and no.

The word marry/marriage is derived from the Latin maritare (to marry). In Roman society religion and government were so intertwined as to be one and the same. From that viewpoint marriage is as much a civil term as it is a religious one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

>There are many instances where human behavior is mentioned in the
>Bible for historical purposes not as an example of proper behavior.

This isn't just a mention, it's an instruction:

Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."

Exodus 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."[/reply]

And that right there explains the whole Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in a nutshell.
Hagar ===> Ishmael 1
Sarai ===> Isaac 2


BUT was the illegitimate oldest son of Sarai's handmaiden the rightful heir or not?

• Quote

[Coreece 189]

Quote

David (Beloved of God) had hundreds of wives and concubines.

...and with all that he still was not satisfied. He still felt the need to take another man's wife, knock her up and then kill her husband...I just don't think there is any end to the desires of the flesh, nor can they be satisfied.

Ironically. the son from that relationship, Solomon, who was probably the wisest, richest man to ever experience practically every pleasure, had some comforting words with regard to a healthy relationship:

Proverbs 5:18-19
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Right, but churches are private parties and can say anything they want. I am no more obligated to accept a churches validation of a marriage than I am to accept their statements about a man living inside of a fish or about having 72 virgins waiting fo rme.

Which I can't do anything about, sure they can preach that man lived with dinosaurs and we were all willed into existence and the world is 6,000 years old. While I wish they didn't teach such ignorance, they have every right to do so, but once they start to picket and cause an uproar saying it should be against the law and our service men and women are discriminated against that's where I have an issue.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Right, but churches are private parties and can say anything they want. I am no more obligated to accept a churches validation of a marriage than I am to accept their statements about a man living inside of a fish or about having 72 virgins waiting fo rme.

Which I can't do anything about, sure they can preach that man lived with dinosaurs and we were all willed into existence and the world is 6,000 years old. While I wish they didn't teach such ignorance, they have every right to do so, but once they start to picket and cause an uproar saying it should be against the law and our service men and women are discriminated against that's where I have an issue.

So bottom line, you have issue with free speech.

Are you for or against the gay community being allowed to picket those same venues?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dgskydive 0]

Marriage is a contract pure and simple. Yes is is used in a religious way, but that is all it really is. I think people get hung up on the word "marriage" to much. The contract of Marriage is not religious in itself. The contract was simply executed in a church (since they didnt have to many City Halls back then). The contract itself is not religious.

Let Gays enter into a contract with the same rights as "married" couples. Just call it something different and maybe the big debate will go away. That way they get their benefits and the religious folks get to keep the word marriage.

The whole thing started with the Puritans when they brought it here.

Quote

Puritan marriage choices were influenced by young people’s inclination, by parents, and by the social rank of the persons involved. Upon finding a suitable match, husband and wife in America followed the steps needed to legitimize their marriage, including: 1) a contract, comparable to today’s practice of engagement; 2) the announcement of this contract; 3) execution of the contract at a church; 4) a celebration of the event at the home of the groom and 5) sexual intercourse. Problems with consummation could terminate marriage: if a groom proved impotent, the contract between him and his bride dissolved, an act enforced by the courts.

The courts could also enforce the duty of a husband to support his wife, as English Common Law provided that when a woman married, she gave all her property to her husband and became a feme covert, losing her separate civil identity in his. In so doing, she legally accepted her role as managing her husband’s household, fulfilling her duty of “keep[ing] at home, educating her children, keeping and improving what is got by the industry of man.

Dom

[billvon 2,384]

>Let Gays enter into a contract with the same rights as "married" couples.
>Just call it something different and maybe the big debate will go away. That
>way they get their benefits and the religious folks get to keep the word
>marriage.

Sure, that works. Relegate government to providing civil unions. Then people can go to church and get married, or wed, or unionized or whatever they want.

It would actually work very much the same as it does now. Go to the courthouse, get the civil union, go to church, get married.

[rehmwa 2]

Or, just get rid of civil unions completely.

It's a nation of individuals, not a nation of some individuals and some couples

leave partnering ceremonies out of government altogether and if two people want to establish legal contracts with each other, etc, fine

...
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

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Or, just get rid of civil unions completely.

It's a nation of individuals, not a nation of some individuals and some couples

leave partnering ceremonies out of government altogether and if two people want to establish legal contracts with each other, etc, fine

You obviously haven't seen a tax form, or filed taxes ever.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,384]

>leave partnering ceremonies out of government altogether and if
>two people want to establish legal contracts with each other, etc, fine

Well, I assume you mean "enforceable legal contracts" which means justice system involvement. So you can't get them out of government altogether.

But I'd be all for user-defined civil unions - PROVIDED federal and state governments supported them. For example, you'd have to change inheritance law, federal survivor's benefits, visitation rights, child custody laws etc to take references to marriage out, and allow their assignment via such contracts.

[Niki1 1]

The bible has been through a lot of translations. The new testement over 20 and probably more for the old. Lawyers were undoubtably some of the translators, being part of the literate few. And I wouldn't be surprised if the translators added their own "improvements" to the language.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[dgskydive 0]

to take references to marriage out

Quote

or just add in "civil union" or what ever term to describe Gay marriage. Give them the whole legal kit and kaboodle.

Once Gay marriage is legal and the first 7 years go by. They will start divorcing like straight couples do. Then they will stop getting married in the first place, and realize that marriage may not be worth the divorce that typically seems to follow these days.

What? Isnt like 50% of all 1st time marriages end in divorce these days anyway? The % gets higher with the 2nd one.

Dom

[wmw999 2,116]

Quote

or just add in "civil union" or what ever term to describe Gay marriage. Give them the whole legal kit and kaboodle.

That's an awful lot of amending. It'd be really, really expensive.

Much cheaper and more cost-effective simply to call it marriage.

How do you want to spend your tax dollars?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Much cheaper and more cost-effective simply to call it marriage.

How do you want to spend your tax dollars?

But that is the issue for some folks Wendy. The word Marriage. Take that away and then the they cant bitch about the word.

As far as tax dollars. I would rather have them spent on something like this then supporting people that are on Welfare and never going to try to get off. Or spending it on keeping people in jail on Marijuana charges. Or a war we should never have gotten into. Or on a number of other things that our Govt. wastes money on everyday.

At least this way they would be spending money on something that is going to actually benefit someone.

Dom

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

>leave partnering ceremonies out of government altogether and if
>two people want to establish legal contracts with each other, etc, fine

Well, I assume you mean "enforceable legal contracts" which means justice system involvement. So you can't get them out of government altogether.

Sure you can. That's largely the way the gay folks and the "shacking up" folks have been operating for years. You buy a house together, it works the same way any kind of joint real property deal works. You can manage a lot of the details that go along with a "marriage" through various forms and contracts. What you can't do is deal with stuff like spousal dependents, tax issues, etc. But if it's just coming down to who owns what, who can sign what, and who can make what decision for who if they're incapacitated, there are legal forms for that. This is not legal advice and laws vary from state to state, and legal counsel from your state should be consulted regarding anyone's particular situation.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

to take references to marriage out

Quote

or just add in "civil union" or what ever term to describe Gay marriage. Give them the whole legal kit and kaboodle.

Separate but equal isn't equal.

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Separate but equal isn't equal

I dont think they will ever win the right to "marry" as long as they insist on being "married" They are the minority, along with those that support them. As long as it is voted on, they will lose based on the word Marriage. Take that word away and the yahoos against gay marriage have no argument and the chances of winning a vote get better.

The more it is brought up as a Civil rights issue hurts them at the polls as well. They need other minorities to join them. They lost a lot of black votes (that would have put them over the top) because of that. Blacks did not see it as a Civil Rights issue and voted against. To them it didnt doesnt compare to the civil rights that blacks fought for.

I am not saying you are wrong Kris. Just saying that if the attack it from a different angle, they may get the result they want.

Dom

[Nightingale 0]

Like most civil rights issues, their battlefield isn't going to be at the polls. It's going to be in a courthouse.

For example, the following battles would probably never have been won in a voting booth:

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
This decision held that "racially restrictive covenants" in property deeds are unenforceable.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
In this landmark case, the Court prohibited racial segregation of public schools.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
This decision holds that state laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional.

Romer v. Evans (1996)
In this case, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which sought to preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional.

[billvon 2,384]

>That's largely the way the gay folks and the "shacking up" folks have
>been operating for years.

Well, then you run into common-law marriages and the like - which means government gets involved anyway. And if there are children involved, then paternity laws, child support etc apply.

(BTW if you mean "the government doesn't need to get involved if everything goes well" then I agree 100% - but unfortunately things don't always go well, which is why laws on visitation/child support/survivor's benefits/joint custody etc are important.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But I'd be all for user-defined civil unions - PROVIDED federal and state governments supported them. For example, you'd have to change inheritance law, federal survivor's benefits, visitation rights, child custody laws etc to take references to marriage out, and allow their assignment via such contracts.

yeah, yeah - you want all the benefits and just change the name. I'm saying why have any benefits different than individuals. (oh, that would be hard to approve). so what, clean slate

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You obviously haven't seen a tax form, or filed taxes ever.

you, obviously, can't understand a hypothetical position

...
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

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

>But I'd be all for user-defined civil unions - PROVIDED federal and state governments supported them. For example, you'd have to change inheritance law, federal survivor's benefits, visitation rights, child custody laws etc to take references to marriage out, and allow their assignment via such contracts.

yeah, yeah - you want all the benefits and just change the name. I'm saying why have any benefits different than individuals. (oh, that would be hard to approve). so what, clean slate

Yup, no reason certain individuals should be treated differently under the law than others.

Child support, custody, and visitation laws are all the same regardless of whether or not the parents are legally married, so that is a non-issue. Not all states recognize any sort of common law marriage either.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Well, then you run into common-law marriages and the like - which means government gets involved anyway. And if there are children involved, then paternity laws, child support etc apply.

(BTW if you mean "the government doesn't need to get involved if everything goes well" then I agree 100% - but unfortunately things don't always go well, which is why laws on visitation/child support/survivor's benefits/joint custody etc are important.)

Many states don't have common law marriage, and if they did, that would also disappear with the government no longer recognizing relationships.

Child custody is child custody, and child support is child support. It's got nothing to do with marriage and divorce. People separate and remain married and deal with custody and support. People never get married and deal with custody and support. A child is a responsibility completely separate from a relationship between the parents.

As for survivor's benefits and the like, there's no reason why those can't be willed to whoever the person wishes. I know a lot of people who would like to will them to take care of an elderly parent, and frankly, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do that if they don't have a minor dependent. A benefit is a benefit, and if it's been earned, it should go to whoever the person who earned it says it should go to.

[quade 3]

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.

Gay marriage from a legal stand point is revenue neutral from a "normal" straight marriage.

Plural marriage could open up a can of worms when you consider a group of people getting together to take advantage of tax and inheritance loopholes. I'm certain there are other legal aspects I haven't considered in the last 30 seconds since I've started typing this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver