Regulatory Czar--urges Abolish Marriage

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

Expound upon them then, maybe I've been misinterpreting you all this time by looking at your posts on the subject and applying my views of your opinion to them.

The readers digest condensed version.

My view has been and will continue to be.

Marriage, is a word use traditionally for a male/female union.
I dont think that the word should be used for gay intentions. However, I see no reason that the gay folk should not be able to hook up in some type of committed deal under a different name that gives them all the same imagined and real benefits of a traditional marriage.

now, if the government is out of it, then all benefits, rules, regulations etc... would be gone too.
If a church wanted to join these couples and call it marriage, I certainly would not be part of that church or feel a need to recognize anything it does as valid. (My choice) and since the government is out of the business, I know have a right to reflect this in my business if I so desired.

originally it was about the benefits and rights for the gays, when it was suggested that they go ahead and call it a civil union or something like that, then it became important to them that it be called marriage.

they should have gone for the civil union or partners contract, they could have been done with this mess already.

they dont need to change the traditional meaning of a word to suit their desire to be the same. they are not.

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Toxick

I absolutely think the government should be involved in marriages.

Do you not agree that the person I choose to spend my days and nights with is a matter of National Security?

My wife and I both agree that a federal agent should be present whenever we make a large decision, such as moving and buying a house, purchasing a vehicle, choosing a doctor for our children, picking medical coverage and life insurance, and deciding which Octane we use in our vehicles.

We also make sure the agent is there to help us bathe our children and brush their teeth, when we go grocery shopping, and he's there to issue written permission when we wish to engage in marital relations. (He hasn't allowed me to use the "alternate entrance" yet, usually after consulting with various local state authorities - but we can still hope!)

And when I got up to pee this morning he made sure that I shook it off before pulling my PJ's back up.

My marriage - and everyone else's - is most definitely the business of the government. My only regret is that we can't be MORE subserviant and subject to the whims of our elected officials.

It must be Friday!!!

[desertrat (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

What's wrong with this? I have long argued that the government shouldn't be involved in marriages.

Well they kind of stepped on the Mormans idea of marraige a long time ago.

[chernmax (Premo)]

My wife has already threatened to stay married to me for the rest of my life so no worries!!!

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

The readers digest condensed version.

My view has been and will continue to be.

Marriage, is a word use traditionally for a male/female union.
I dont think that the word should be used for gay intentions. However, I see no reason that the gay folk should not be able to hook up in some type of committed deal under a different name that gives them all the same imagined and real benefits of a traditional marriage.

now, if the government is out of it, then all benefits, rules, regulations etc... would be gone too.
If a church wanted to join these couples and call it marriage, I certainly would not be part of that church or feel a need to recognize anything it does as valid. (My choice) and since the government is out of the business, I know have a right to reflect this in my business if I so desired.

originally it was about the benefits and rights for the gays, when it was suggested that they go ahead and call it a civil union or something like that, then it became important to them that it be called marriage.

they should have gone for the civil union or partners contract, they could have been done with this mess already.

they dont need to change the traditional meaning of a word to suit their desire to be the same. they are not.

You would seriously disown the church you attend, the church you grew up with, if it decided to perform a ceremony for gay couples?

[ImnoMensa]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

You would seriously disown the church you attend, the church you grew up with, if it decided to perform a ceremony for gay couples?

I know I would. They have taught against marriage for gays all my life , if they change I change.

It's just that simple.

If after 2000 years the Church decides to abandon their principles, I quit.

I might even do like Jeremiah Wright and start my own. At that point, why not?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tilted

He's not urging the abolishing of marriage. He's saying the government should stay out of marriage.

He's right. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government. People should be free to enter into whatever relationship contract they want - and establish whatever rules or terms or conditions they want to agree on for that contract (whether specified or not). As with all contracts, the government should provide a means of enforcement and settling disputes that arise there from (the civil court system), but that is it. You shouldn't be forced to fit your relationship into a pre-defined, government established, generic contract in order to enjoy the same benefits and rights that other people in relationships do. I and my significant other (or others) should be able to form a relationship under terms that work for us.

You can do this.

A marriage license is not required for any aspect of marriage except the ones deemed appropriate by state legislators to encourage the positive aspects derived from marriage.

You can live however you choose without government interference. If you seek governmental recognition, to obtain the appropriate protections and benefits the people (via their representatives) deemed appropriate for a specific manner of living, you can choose to do that. You can also choose not to do that.

Sort of like choosing whether or not to put your charitable contributions on your tax forms. You can choose to admit those donations, or omit those donations and the advantages with the government those provide. It's your choice. No one will arrest you for giving $5,000 to the Red Cross and then not claiming it on your tax forms any more than they will arrest you for living with your same-gendered, opposite gendered group, or any other variation thereof, partner(s).

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

You would seriously disown the church you attend, the church you grew up with, if it decided to perform a ceremony for gay couples?

Yes.

is that any worse than a gay couple changing churches because the one they belong to wont marry them?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by bcp

Yes.

And I'm okay with that because the church would no longer meet your religious needs, and you have a right to choose your own church.

BUT that doesn't mean that you can prohibit the rights of others based on your own prejudices. (And I do not say "prejudices" in a derogatory manner - we all have them and they merely are.)

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by desertrat

Well they kind of stepped on the Mormans idea of marraige a long time ago.

I have a picture of my great-great grandfather in prison for polygamy. Think I can get reparations?