Nevermind.No need to argue the point as you continue to support it with your posts, including this one. Human civilization didn't all come from the middle ages.
Nevermind.No need to argue the point as you continue to support it with your posts, including this one. Human civilization didn't all come from the middle ages.
I said, I DO AGREE.
Seriously, what further questions could you possibly have that haven't been asked and answered?
^What's stoping me from "selling marriage" with a strong prenup, so that others can piggyback on my health insurances?
The same thing that is stopping you now, NOTHING. Happens all the time in the military.
Do we then define marriage as have to be living under the same roof?
Good question, I don't have an answer.
I understand you side to say, this is precisely why the govt should step out of that role, so what's your pull out plan look like?
Haha... That's a whole other thread topic. I'm "trying" to operate under the knowledge that this isn't going to happen.
This is actually a really interesting idea... lolNo currently, I can only marry and share health insurance with 1 person. Since we've redefined it as multiple people, I'd like to offer it as an alternative to obamacare.
Ummm... What? Who are you talking to?...And about what?"Seems a little contradictory to me..." Let me put this in terms you can understand, The Declaration of Independence is a document that declares the separation of the 13 colonies from the British Crown. That is it, it is not a document establishing a government or a separation of powers, it is not the supreme law of the United States of America. That is the Constitution.
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is the purpose for the Declaration of Independence.
Do I really need to post more proof
You substantiated every thing in the article. The overwhelming reason for marriage in the that time period was to procreate, it was for pure survival. Homosexual marriage would have been viewed as frivolous, if not flat out suicide.
"The writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract." Oh come on... Do you really have to stoop to trolling in an attempt to discredit the author. Thats just sad if you can't support your option in any other way.
"Seems a little contradictory to me..." Let me put this in terms you can understand, The Declaration of Independence is a document that declares the separation of the 13 colonies from the British Crown. That is it, it is not a document establishing a government or a separation of powers, it is not the supreme law of the United States of America. That is the Constitution.
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is the purpose for the Declaration of Independence.
Do I really need to post more proof
You substantiated every thing in the article. The overwhelming reason for marriage in the that time period was to procreate, it was for pure survival. Homosexual marriage would have been viewed as frivolous, if not flat out suicide.
"The writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract." Oh come on... Do you really have to stoop to trolling in an attempt to discredit the author. Thats just sad if you can't support your option in any other way.
I married my wife because I love her. We were already living together, but she couldn't get my health insurance until we were married. So part of the reason to marry, was to get her on my health insurance, and file a joint return.
I don't care about the definition. You can call it whatever you want.
We aren't going to eliminate the marriage tax benefit, and spousal rights when it comes to insurance and other legal issues any time soon. So it's probably best to simply call it marriage for any consenting adults, to get married, regardless of the number of them, their gender, or their current relationship?
The better solution is people mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on others.
And as for democracy being about the majority forcing it's beliefs on the minority. That is not what democracy is about, it's just what it has become. Democracy, and ideally any form of government, exists to protect the minority from the majority. This seems to contradict the whole majority rules thing, I know. I'm not a liberal by any means, but the government is there, in it's truest form, to protect the little guy. That just doesn't seem to work out most of the time.
The only "big deal" that I personally see with it would be if churches are forced to go against their beliefs and have to marry gay couples if they choose not to.
The "church" get blamed for being anti gay marriage, but it is the State and Federal Governments that are holding onto the control.
Because politicians and pundits have suggested that churches that don't comply should get their tax exempt status revoked?
For the record, I didn't say it would happen, I said that is the only problem I personally would have with it..
Says I need to spread the love around first, but anyways.Churchs should not be tax exempt anyway, jmo of course. They should be treated like any other business, why do they get the pass on putting in their fair share? If they have income above and beyond salaries, expenses, and whatever goes to charity they should be taxed on it.
Then again I am also in favor of getting rid of pretty much every tax exemption or deduction. All I ask is we spend within our means and keep taxes as low as possible and still be able to pay our nut. Never will happen, but whatever.
I find it frightening that some are convinced that the entirety of the opposition comes from having one's rear superglued to a pew. The underlying principles involved are potentially far more dangerous. I also find it suspect that the radical homos aren't at all willing to settle for equal treatment before teh law but insist on redefining the word 'marriage'. It would seem to be their quest for forcing acceptance rather that mere tolerance of their choices, much in the same way they expect public schools to be mouthpieces for their cause. Also, their leaders would not be able to get traction without some unattainable goal to be offended with, much like the Jacksons and Sharptons would be out of a job if people started getting along. That said, if part of language is negotiable, then all of it is, and that offers the perfect vehicle for eliminating our rights not be repealing, infringing, or amending the Constitution, but simply be redefining them to the point that they are of no practical value. I really don't care if two men want to both bugger each other and pool their worldly resources and responsibilities. I do care that they are insisting on opening the door on a pandora's box of completely unlimited government through eliminating the absolute value of language.
Bold emphasis added by me.
"Want to bugger each other"? "Radical homos"?! What the cuss is that? I think this post has made it abundantly clear that the redefinition of the word marriage isn't really what your issue is.