Legislating Morality

[rjh]

I have a easy fix for the whole thing but it would call out the religious freaks in this country and force them to admit their hatred for the gay community.

Marriage is for the most part a religious term and as a result a religious institution. Therefore, my proposal is that the term marriage be stricken from the law books as a ‘legal’ institution and that the term marriage carry no legal weight what so ever. Any church or religious institution can create whatever guidelines it chooses. As a result, the debate between who can or cannot get married becomes a moot issue in the political world.

In it’s place, what we commonly refer to a marriage (in legal terms) we can institute a legal contract that can be signed by any two individuals. This contract will afford those to individuals all the rights, benefits and obligations that a current ‘marriage’ require under the law. If the two people decide to end their union, the same procedures that are used to day, would apply.

Essentially, my proposal just takes the religious aspect out of the public forum and puts in back where it belongs, in religious institutions.

I have no religious affiliation and no religious beliefs and yet I am ‘married’. I would think that for those that argue that allowing marriage between same sex partners diminishes the sanctity of marriage would also feel that my actions diminished it as well. The marriage that my wife and I entered into is purely a contractual issue. The contract allows her to make decisions on my behalf should I become incapacitated for what ever reason. It affords her financial security should I die as well as a host of other rights. My devotion, love ..etc did not change from the day before we were ‘married’ to the day after we were ‘married’. It is a contractual issue. How does that help the sanctity of marriage?

I agree with you 100%. Of course people will come back with the typical illogical arguments "Well if we allow 2 men to marry, what's to stop us from allowing a man to marry his cat?"

 

[Garfield1966]

My response would be "who cares". Someone can marry their house for all I care. I am guessing that ceremony would be conducted by the First church of real-estate. Marriage would only be a religious symbol. As for legal unions, I think most of us could live with restrictions dictating that the union be limited to 2 humans (not sure why polygamy should not be allowed but we can fight that battle after ward).

 

[local 12 proud]

As for legal unions, I think most of us could live with restrictions dictating that the union be limited to 2 humans (not sure why polygamy should not be allowed but we can fight that battle after ward).

I Guess so long as its humans you have no problem with one man/one boy, or one man/one girl huh?

Exactly where do you draw the line there Garf?

Do you even have a line, or is it 'if it feels good do it' for your liberal mindset?

 

[Ch. 12]

I Guess so long as its humans you have no problem with one man/one boy, or one man/one girl huh?

Exactly where do you draw the line there Garf?

Do you even have a line, or is it 'if it feels good do it' for your liberal mindset?

It's illegal to marry a minor (with exceptions for parental consent based on age in some states). Corrupting a minor is far different than two individuals (who are ADULTS) entering into a consenual marriage. Surely you can come up with a better argument b/c that one was pretty weak.

 

[Garfield1966]

I Guess so long as its humans you have no problem with one man/one boy, or one man/one girl huh?

Exactly where do you draw the line there Garf?

Do you even have a line, or is it 'if it feels good do it' for your liberal mindset?

My apologies. I hoped everyone here was smart enough to understand that the civil union would have to abide by the same standards that a current marriage does. 2 humans, 18 yrs or older (unless you live in some southern states where a 13 yr old can get married), no coercion .. blah blah blah. I guess my estimation of the intelligence level on this board was a bit high.

 

[local 12 proud]

My apologies. I hoped everyone here was smart enough to understand that the civil union would have to abide by the same standards that a current marriage does. 2 humans, 18 yrs or older (unless you live in some southern states where a 13 yr old can get married), no coercion .. blah blah blah. I guess my estimation of the intelligence level on this board was a bit high.

My response was to your Ignoramous response.

My response would be "who cares". Someone can marry their house for all I care.

 

[Garfield1966]

If you will read my proposal, you will see that marriage is a ceremonial procedure, the civil union is a legal one. Had he said that someone will want to have a civil union to a cat, my response would have been far different. Since a marriage has not legal standing (in my proposal) whether someone wants to marry a house, a cat or their favorite chair, the result is of little consequence.

 

[rjh]

To those with common sense, it's pretty obvious that this type of legal contract would only be valid between two human adults. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts, and cats don't have opposable thumbs allowing them to sign such legal documents.

It amazes me that the same people who want to limit an institution like marriage are the same ones who are against any restrictions on deadly weapons.

 

[local 12 proud]

Perhaps you liberals would like Sharia Law, You know, that Peace Loving Islam Religion.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region...18&region=6

After all Rosie O'Donnell says 'the only thing you have to fear is fear its self'.

 

[rjh]

Perhaps you liberals would like Sharia Law, You know, that Peace Loving Islam Religion.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region...18&region=6

After all Rosie O'Donnell says 'the only thing you have to fear is fear its self'.

I'd prefer to have laws that exist only to protect people and society. Banning gay marriages does neither one.

 

[KCFlyer]

local12...HOw does a judge okaying a piece of paper that says a man and another man have the same legal rights as a man and a woman who are joined in an identical civil union? Is it because God isn't a part of it? Did you know that men and women are legally MARRIED by Elvis impersonators in Vegas? Is their union "sacred"? How are you harmed by a legal contract? NO law says that a person MUST be married in a church. If two Baptists think the Catholic cathedral is just beautiful and wants to get married there, there is no law that says the church MUST marry them...just as there are no laws that say any church MUST marry a gay couple.

 

[local 12 proud]

local12...HOw does a judge okaying a piece of paper that says a man and another man have the same legal rights as a man and a woman who are joined in an identical civil union? Is it because God isn't a part of it? Did you know that men and women are legally MARRIED by Elvis impersonators in Vegas? Is their union "sacred"? How are you harmed by a legal contract? NO law says that a person MUST be married in a church. If two Baptists think the Catholic cathedral is just beautiful and wants to get married there, there is no law that says the church MUST marry them...just as there are no laws that say any church MUST marry a gay couple.

and your point is....?

You've lost me on this one dude, I personally could care less if two men or two women wish to marry. How does that pertain to my post?

I was merely pointing out that 'The Religion of Peace' likes to hang homosexuals and perhaps the defenders of Islam should be aware of Sharia Law, you know The Religion Rosie O'Donnell the Lesbian says we should have no fear of.

 

[KCFlyer]

and your point is....?

You've lost me on this one dude, I personally could care less if two men or two women wish to marry. How does that pertain to my post?

I was merely pointing out that 'The Religion of Peace' likes to hang homosexuals and perhaps the defenders of Islam should be aware of Sharia Law, you know The Religion Rosie O'Donnell the Lesbian says we should have no fear of.

Sorry...didn't realize I had to get that specific. And you've lost me with your response since I was responding to this:

I Guess so long as its humans you have no problem with one man/one boy, or one man/one girl huh?

Exactly where do you draw the line there Garf?

Do you even have a line, or is it 'if it feels good do it' for your liberal mindset?

What does that have to do with "the religion of peace"? And based on that, you sure seem to certainly care if two men or two women wish to marry.

 

[local 12 proud]

Sorry...didn't realize I had to get that specific. And you've lost me with your response since I was responding to this: What does that have to do with "the religion of peace"? And based on that, you sure seem to certainly care if two men or two women wish to marry.

I suggest you go back and re-read my post which was in response to puss-n-boots ignoramous post.

I DONT Care what two consenting adults do KC, it has no bearing on me. My Jab about the 'Religion of Peace' was simply to point out that the same ones defending Islam and saying they are no different than christians ie. (Rosie O'Donnell) and some on this board, are the same ones demanding equal rights for gays, while Sharia condemns them to hang. I find the two in total opposition, Its actually quite absurd yet humorous.