DOMA and Prop 8 - Page 26
+ Reply to Thread
Page 26 of 48 FirstFirst ... 1622232425262728293036 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 479
Like Tree248Likes

Thread: DOMA and Prop 8

  1. #251
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default Abortion witchcraft gun control founding fathers homophobia ment.

    But thats silly- laws don't just move in one direction! Were that true the conservative right wouldn't be working so hard to turn back time and control my uterus and my reproductive rights! Of COURSE you could be changing laws regarding divorce or premarital sex. After all- they used to be on the books and if you want to go by the founding fathers on gun control why NOT witchcraft and divorce and ore marital sex as well? But no- just the gays. Again- overt homophobia.
    Spacers likes this.

  2. #252
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,516

    Default

    I agree. I can't find a way in to this "get the government out of marriage" except that it's specifically and exclusively about denying it to gay people.

    By the way, here's an indication of the modern (in a good way) world we live in: I was watching the show CHOPPED with my 9-year-old son, and it was all teens competing. The youngest was 14, the oldest 17. The 14-year-old boy started talking during the bio section at the top of the show and I said out loud, "Oh, he's gay."

    "Does that mean he's married?" my son asked me.

    Spacers and Alissa_Sal like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  3. #253
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    The response is in kind. I don't see a bunch of people out lobbying for divorce either do you? Christians are only lobbying against gay marriage in response to those who are lobbying for it. If there was a chance that we could turn back time and make divorce more difficult I would be the first one speaking out about it. After all I may not have been divorced if it was more difficult to get one. It is a lot harder to change something back that has already happened, and the laws making divorce simpler happened many years ago. So it is not really apples and apples.
    I do. Fairly recently the news had segments on women who were ordered to pay spousal support to their ex even though the ex-husbands were in prison convicted of abuse against the wife or her daughter.

    Divorce laws have to address almost every little detail of unraveling the marriage. You used to have to show fault but now many states have no-fault. Custody decisions, property division, spousal support, pensions or 401K...the list goes on and on. As the times change, people lobby to have the divorce laws changed. A wife could once expect a nice sum of spousal support for life or until she remarries. Not anymore. Women almost always got custody and child support orders. People have fought to have the laws changed to have a more equitable custody split and CS is enforced nation-wide.

    Oh, and DOMA was a preemptive strike against gay marriage; not the other way around.
    Alissa_Sal likes this.

  4. #254
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,516

    Default

    I just don't see who is supposed to regulate this things if it isn't the government.

    And again, if you want a non-government marriage, you can have it. There is nothing stopping you.

    But if there is going to be marriage, then it has to be granted/tracked/regulated/dissolvable by somebody. If not the government, then who? As far as I'm concerned, "the legal system" = the government, no? I mean, somebody makes the laws.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  5. #255
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    I'm sure that could be a whole nother debate ~ But it would be way too personal! My point was that I could easily argue that divorce (Larry King anyone? Brit Brit? Kim Kardashian?) is WAY more of a real and legitimate threat to all of our marriages than gay marriage is......but you don't see Gay people who ARE legally married out campaigning to ban divorce. You don't see Christians lobbying to ban divorce, or living together before one is married. Just the gays ~ only trying to keep legal rights from the gays. It is so overt that it is just hard to pretend that its accidental, or that it is about wanting the government out of marriage (which you all enjoy) or anything short of pure homophobia.
    There are many groups trying to stop people from living together before marriage... how about the whole abstinence movement... ?
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  6. #256
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    I just don't see who is supposed to regulate this things if it isn't the government.

    And again, if you want a non-government marriage, you can have it. There is nothing stopping you.

    But if there is going to be marriage, then it has to be granted/tracked/regulated/dissolvable by somebody. If not the government, then who? As far as I'm concerned, "the legal system" = the government, no? I mean, somebody makes the laws.
    The question is.. should benefits be given to those that are married?
    Should we change the definition of who can be married, or the definition of marriage to grant benefits to others?
    OR
    Should we stop benefits for those that are married.. leaving marriage at its current definition before LBTG wanted to change it... (between one man and one woman of legal age, that are not close relatives)
    AND.
    Add a new piece of paper.. that grants all the benefits currently bestowed upon a spouse to one other person of your choosing.. from medical benefits.. survivorship.. end of life.. quality of life.. bank account accessibility.. home and car insurances etc etc.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  7. #257
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Why can't we just say you can be married following the current laws and get all the benefits those that are currently married get.

    If you personally don't want marriage benefits then great.

    Also, abstinence movement is ludicrous to me but I would never make it illegal. Nor would I ever make it illegal for grown adults to live together.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again...if the people in this country just minded to their own business and let others live freely, peacefully and pursuing their OWN happiness unless it infringes on another person...we would be MUCH MUCH better off.
    Alissa_Sal likes this.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  8. #258
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    But thats silly- laws don't just move in one direction! Were that true the conservative right wouldn't be working so hard to turn back time and control my uterus and my reproductive rights! Of COURSE you could be changing laws regarding divorce or premarital sex. After all- they used to be on the books and if you want to go by the founding fathers on gun control why NOT witchcraft and divorce and ore marital sex as well? But no- just the gays. Again- overt homophobia.
    Trouble is... you see them as trying to control you.. but they are trying to say that the person inside you should have rights too.
    Does any Christian actually think Witchcraft, Divorce or Premarital Sex are just fine and dandy with God?
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  9. #259
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    Why can't we just say you can be married following the current laws and get all the benefits those that are currently married get.

    If you personally don't want marriage benefits then great.

    Also, abstinence movement is ludicrous to me but I would never make it illegal. Nor would I ever make it illegal for grown adults to live together.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again...if the people in this country just minded to their own business and let others live freely, peacefully and pursuing their OWN happiness unless it infringes on another person...we would be MUCH MUCH better off.
    Why should a single person have to get married to bestow those rights/responsibilities onto someone else?

    Potter was saying that Christians are not against people living together.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  10. #260
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Yes actually I don't think that God really gives a crap about any of those 3.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions