Separation of Church & State

[cbg]

Oh, good grief. The village idiot is here.

 

[mistoffolees]

can you give me an example of a bad equal right?

are you saying, gay marriage is a bad equal right?

No, you misunderstood me.

My statement meant "if someone wants equal rights to the good things, they also get equal rights to the bad things". In this case, the right to get married (good) also implies the right to get a divorce (bad).

I have no objection at all to the rights for gays to get married. Personally, I think that they're going about it the wrong way strategically, but I agree with the end objective (if I were responsible, I'd be pushing for 'civil unions' which grant them all the rights of married people without using the emotion-laden word 'marriage'. Then, after people get used to civil unions, you could start calling it marriage and there would be less opposition. But that's just my view on strategy and tactics, not the eventual goal).

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[Dillon]

Oh, good grief. The village idiot is here.

dont you mean bad grief ? LOL

do you hate me, because i tell you the truth ?

 

[cbg]

What you say is not my truth. What you say is nonsense.

But don't flatter yourself that I care enough about you to hate you. You are a minor annoyance, like a fly. I swat at flies but I don't hate them. They're not worth hating. Neither are you.

 

[LdiJ]

No, you misunderstood me.

My statement meant "if someone wants equal rights to the good things, they also get equal rights to the bad things". In this case, the right to get married (good) also implies the right to get a divorce (bad).

I have no objection at all to the rights for gays to get married. Personally, I think that they're going about it the wrong way strategically, but I agree with the end objective (if I were responsible, I'd be pushing for 'civil unions' which grant them all the rights of married people without using the emotion-laden word 'marriage'. Then, after people get used to civil unions, you could start calling it marriage and there would be less opposition. But that's just my view on strategy and tactics, not the eventual goal).

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

There is a series of books that I read that are set about 50 years in the future, and its very interesting the way that marriage and relationships are defined. (there is a bunch of other interesting stuff as well, LOL)

There is marriage.
There is legal cohabitation.

Either of them can be between a man and a woman, or between two partners of the same sex. Marriage is much more difficult to dissolve than legal cohabitation, but otherwise the rights and privileges are pretty much the same.

Either parent can opt for professional parenthood status (no matter the socio economic background) and draw a salary from the government, with all the associated social security benefits, employee benefits etc.

Personally, I think that any two adults should be able to form some sort of legal cohabing relationship/partnership even if they are just friends or family members. I think that a "family" for all legal intents and purposes should be able to be any two adults who band together to make life better for themselves and their children, whether they are romantically involved or not. If fact, I am not at all sure that it shouldn't be able to include more than two adults.

Take three single mothers on welfare...friends, family members or whatnot. Two of them could work to support the "family" and the third could care for the children while the others work. With some sort of formalized union/partnership so that everyone has financial protection, property rights, inheritance rights, insurance etc., it could alleviate much of the need for welfare.

The current system actually discourages people from working together that way.

 

[justalayman]

Take three single mothers on welfare...friends, family members or whatnot. Two of them could work to support the "family" and the third could care for the children while the others work. With some sort of formalized union/partnership so that everyone has financial protection, property rights, inheritance rights, insurance etc., it could alleviate much of the need for welfare.

Future hell. That's a Mormon (the offshoot branch, not the LDS folks)

 

[Dillon]

In this case, the right to get married (good) also implies the right to get a divorce (bad).

I have no objection at all to the rights for gays to get married.

Then, after people get used to civil unions, you could start calling it marriage

right to marry (good), right for gays to divorce also (very good)

I have no objection at all to the rights for gays to get married to the opposite sex, either.

after people get used to civil dis-unions, we could start calling it divorce.

 

[tranquility]

Personally, I think that any two adults should be able to form some sort of legal cohabing relationship/partnership even if they are just friends or family members. I think that a "family" for all legal intents and purposes should be able to be any two adults who band together to make life better for themselves and their children, whether they are romantically involved or not. If fact, I am not at all sure that it shouldn't be able to include more than two adults.

Whew! It's a good thing the judge came to the decision he did. Clearly, there is a Constitutional right to a "marriage" between more than one. (We shall ignore the Supreme Court decisions on the matter as the SanFran judge is smarter than they.) What one "feels" should be put up for a vote.

When we do that vote, THE MAJORITY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, disagrees.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Dillon]

What you say is not my truth. What you say is nonsense.

But don't flatter yourself that I care enough about you to hate you.

what you say is my nonsense

i dont hate you, either


Jesus said, that he is the truth.

 

[Dillon]

Personally, I think that any two adults should be able to form some sort of legal cohabing relationship/partnership

If fact, I am not at all sure that it shouldn't be able to include more than two adults.

I think that is not right.

 

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by LdiJ
Personally, I think that any two adults should be able to form some sort of legal cohabing relationship/partnership

If fact, I am not at all sure that it shouldn't be able to include more than two adults.

so, when do you stop? If I want 27 wives, is that ok? how about the citizens of an entire town marry each other (in a cult, this would be a real possibility). Just where is the line drawn? As it stands, it is one + and one -. Once you open the gates, you really have to remove all the rules or you are just as restrictive on others just as you believe the current laws are now.

 

[mistoffolees]

so, when do you stop? If I want 27 wives, is that ok? how about the citizens of an entire town marry each other (in a cult, this would be a real possibility).

Just to keep yourself awake at night, think about the issues if one or more of those people wants a divorce.

 

[justalayman]

Just to keep yourself awake at night, think about the issues if one or more of those people wants a divorce.

I see $$$$$$$$ for the divorce lawyers.



Hey, has anybody ever researched to see if there is a general position on homosexual based marriages by divorce attorneys? It would seem, as least for business reasons, they would be in favor of such marriages as it would provide them with more divorces to deal with.

 

[Dillon]

I see $$$$$$$$ for the divorce lawyers.



Hey, has anybody ever researched to see if there is a general position on homosexual based marriages by divorce attorneys? It would seem, as least for business reasons, they would be in favor of such marriages as it would provide them with more divorces to deal with.

you mean the whole issue could be about more money for the courts.

i find that hard to believe. LOL

sounds like pluck a gay pigeon, to me

 

[HawaiianBurger]

you mean the whole issue could be about more money for the courts.

i find that hard to believe. LOL

sounds like pluck a gay pigeon, to me

/This......