RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft??

RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR Its more than just a piece of paper and benefits. Its about being able to talk for your loved one when they cant talk for themselves... legally. Its about being able to make decisions for each other.. and with each other... legally. Its about making sure wishes are respected... and typically its the partner who knows better than the family, yet the law doesnt recognize that fact if the family is filled with idiots and homophobes who want to argue that point. Those are all civil benefits, tazzy. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital when it's "family only" is another benefit. Not all benefits are monetary in nature. No, those are legal benefits. Benefits afforded to straight couples with that little piece of paper

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u What DOMA does is codify a segment of the population as "less than". As not being eligible for marriage by dint of their preference. By definition that can not,in our society,be constitutional . We have long ago chosen equality under the law as our benchmark....we can not now in the post civil rights era fashion laws that as intent are meant to create a "less than"class. It is as plain as the nose on your face and only someone with a bias or a prejudice can claim not to see that. So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. We agree it's unConstitutional. How is it going to be stricken from the books if it's not rule unConstitutional by the SCOTUS?

Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting.

jlf1961 -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:14:49 PM)
Look the law prevented a man from marrying his Ferrari.

Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:17:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting. There's a basic point that you're failing to grasp here: the other civil benefits all come with the legally recognised marriage. That's part of the package, rather than a separate deal, as you're arguing.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting. There's a basic point that you're failing to grasp here: the other civil benefits all come with the legally recognised marriage. That's part of the package, rather than a separate deal, as you're arguing. Nope. I'm not missing it. I'm bringing them specifically. Maybe I should rephrase my question to them thus: "If you had the choice between getting married but not having any of the civil benefits, or not being able to get married (and, thus, still not getting the benefits), which would you take?" Maybe that would be more enlightening to them.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:45:40 PM)
quote: Nope. I'm not missing it. I'm bringing them specifically. Maybe I should rephrase my question to them thus: "If you had the choice between getting married but not having any of the civil benefits, or not being able to get married (and, thus, still not getting the benefits), which would you take?" Maybe that would be more enlightening to them. And that creates the mess we have today. The federal law had no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony.

Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Maybe I should rephrase my question to them thus: "If you had the choice between getting married but not having any of the civil benefits, or not being able to get married (and, thus, still not getting the benefits), which would you take?" Maybe that would be more enlightening to them. Maybe you should have: I'd assumed that you were discussing the issue as is, rather than a 'what if" version that's abstracted from reality. [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Nope. I'm not missing it. I'm bringing them specifically. Maybe I should rephrase my question to them thus: "If you had the choice between getting married but not having any of the civil benefits, or not being able to get married (and, thus, still not getting the benefits), which would you take?" Maybe that would be more enlightening to them. And that creates the mess we have today. The federal law had no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony. The Federal Government had, has, and won't ever have (without Amendments) business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony, Corporation, or other non-nationally relevant "thing."

slvemike4u -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Exactly. Were you a member of the class in question this would be clear to you. Being thought of as "less than" is an injustice in and of itself. It's long past time where we all acknowledge that,no ?

thishereboi -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 4:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting. Why do you think straight couples want to get married then? Maybe we should just do away with it all together since all anyone wants is the benefits.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 4:05:06 PM)
I have often said people should have a civil ceremony for the legal.. and a religious marriage if they so desire.

slvemike4u -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 4:11:27 PM)
All well and good Tazzy...as long as all people,no matter their orientation can choose to do both ,or neither,or one or the other....irrespective of anything other than their preference [:)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 5:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that. Why does there need to be any more to it than that? Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting. Why do you think straight couples want to get married then? Maybe we should just do away with it all together since all anyone wants is the benefits. There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony." Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

jlf1961 -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 5:59:38 PM)
Look, I want the federal government to make it legal for certain native American wife getting practices be practiced for all people of at least 1/4 native blood and higher. This would mean it would be legal to purchase a bride in exchange for horses. Or It would be legal to pull a raid, on horse back, and steal wives from other tribes and white folks. This makes as much sense as the DOMA idea.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 6:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, I want the federal government to make it legal for certain native American wife getting practices be practiced for all people of at least 1/4 native blood and higher. This would mean it would be legal to purchase a bride in exchange for horses. I have a few friends who would consider that an equitable trade. No returns tho.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 7:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, I want the federal government to make it legal for certain native American wife getting practices be practiced for all people of at least 1/4 native blood and higher. This would mean it would be legal to purchase a bride in exchange for horses. I have a few friends who would consider that an equitable trade. No returns tho. Wouldn't that be equinable? [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/18/2013 6:42:05 AM)
City skins would have to be traded in trojans probably.

thishereboi -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/18/2013 4:47:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I have often said people should have a civil ceremony for the legal.. and a religious marriage if they so desire. That's not a bad idea along with slvemikes additions.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875