DOMA and Prop 8 - Page 35
+ Reply to Thread
Page 35 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 479
Like Tree248Likes

Thread: DOMA and Prop 8

  1. #341
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    It was specifically asked, so I answered. I am not joking or lying, I honestly think it would be a better situation than we have now.
    But you're not answering my MARRIAGE question. In this scenario, do couples who are in love have a special union with a special name? Is it called marriage? If so, is it different from the name given to a brother-sister union or friend union? And if so, is it open to everyone, including gays and atheists?

    Or are you actually suggesting that we change the definition of marriage (horrors!) to mean a legal partnership about money and assets and I can marry my sister?

    And then...how is this better for society? Or any of us individually?



    And wouldn't this common law relationship be government-regulated? So that's keeping the government in. Unless....marriage goes to the churches and the rest of us are left out without it.

    I'd really like you to address this specific issue.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  2. #342
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Yeah if this better marriage involves incest (sister-sister or father/ son marriages) this whole thing has really gone over the deep end
    Spacers likes this.

  3. #343
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    But you're not answering my MARRIAGE question. In this scenario, do couples who are in love have a special union with a special name? Is it called marriage? If so, is it different from the name given to a brother-sister union or friend union? And if so, is it open to everyone, including gays and atheists?

    Or are you actually suggesting that we change the definition of marriage (horrors!) to mean a legal partnership about money and assets and I can marry my sister?

    And then...how is this better for society? Or any of us individually?



    And wouldn't this common law relationship be government-regulated? So that's keeping the government in. Unless....marriage goes to the churches and the rest of us are left out without it.

    I'd really like you to address this specific issue.
    When I was getting married there was a time before hand that I had to go somewhere (I forget where) and fill out my marriage licence. I had to put down how I was going to spell my name such. Legally, that would all still be the same except it would be open to everyone.

    The civil service, would be called whatever that person wanted. If two gays wanted a service and called it marriage that would not be anyone's business but their own. They would own it. The Government would not be involved and therefore no one would have the right to interject their opinions into the union.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #344
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    That somewhere was the courthouse. You know- the government.
    Spacers likes this.

  5. #345
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Yeah if this better marriage involves incest (sister-sister or father/ son marriages) this whole thing has really gone over the deep end
    I am not talking about about a romantic union. I am talking about the legal benefits of marriage. Who is allowed to be put on your health insurance, who is allowed to visit you in the hospital and make your legal decision, who inherits your belongings when you die. Any other legal reason people want to legally be married. I do not not believe those benefits should have to be only between a husband and wife.
    Rivergallery likes this.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #346
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    But married people can have sex. So you've opened the gateway to incest in your utopia. Oh- and you've entirely changed the entire definition of marriage to now make it WILDLY unbiblical.......... And here I thought the whole initial objection was with changing the biblical definition of marriage. And who again is keeping the records of these couplings and uncouplings? If not the government, who? SPCa?

  7. #347
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    I know. I don't understand it.

    Bonita -- is there still marriage? A romantic union of two people?

    By the way, your scenario actually means putting MORE government into marriage, not less.

    To be fair, it was Gloria and not Bonita talking about the definition of marriage, but how is this new scenario in which you can "marry" anybody better than what we have?

    Why not take your legal, government-dictated rules and SEPARATE them from marriage? You can keep your ideal of being able to name anyone the person who speaks up for you if you're ill, gets your stuff if you die without a will, etc., without taking away marriage? Do you not think marriage is helpful to society?

    Anyway, this scenario as you have spelled it out doesn't remove government, it increases its involvement in all types of relationships. It also creates a nightmare for the courts resolving disputes when friends have a falling out, people change their minds, etc.

    I really can't see how this would benefit anybody.

    The only real problem it solves is that you'd be able to add someone to your insurance who isn't your spouse or common-law partner. I can't see anything else it accomplishes as you can already create legal documents that cover the rest of these needs.

    And I don't see how it's connected to marriage.

    And again, in this scenario, do you keep your marriage or must you give it up?

    Can two gay people be married and call it being married?
    Spacers likes this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  8. #348
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    I do not think I have the energy to keep doing this right now. I never said (and do not believe) that laws should be based solely on the Bible as everyone is going to interpret the bible differently. You are lumping everyone that believes that the Government should not be involved in marriage into one large group when even though I can not explain myself very well, I am sure my reasons are different than Gloria's or RG.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #349
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I do not think I have the energy to keep doing this right now. I never said (and do not believe) that laws should be based solely on the Bible as everyone is going to interpret the bible differently. You are lumping everyone that believes that the Government should not be involved in marriage into one large group when even though I can not explain myself very well, I am sure my reasons are different than Gloria's or RG.
    I get that they are different. But the legal scenario you envision could be completely separate from marriage. It is a scenario that requires more government and legal intervention and regulation rather than less.

    And you haven't explained what happens to actual marriage (couples in love) in it.

    I am trying to understand your pov but I can't because you keep leaving me hanging on the same issues.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  10. #350
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post

    And you haven't explained what happens to actual marriage (couples in love) in it.
    Couples in love (Both Gay and Straight) would have whatever civil service they wanted. In a church, in the woods, in a rented hall. You could call it marriage, a partnership, or whatever you wanted.

    ~Bonita~

+ 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