Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question

56 and do not care. Your life style you enjoy it.
I use the same context for gun owners when the opposing team starts their shit.
So you feel human beings should be able to choose their life style
OT: Why yes everyone should be able to enjoy what they believe in.
Me: Great now explain to me again why same sex couples have a right to enjoy themselves. BUT as a gun owner i cannot because you don't agree with my life style choices? Bit hypocritical there you are. As always they get quiet and wander away.

I think as with everything now a days the liberal media is blowing this whole gay marriage thing out of controll and feeding lots of fule to the fire. Every one I talk with could give 2 shits about gay marriage. Stop wasting our tax money on this stupid shit and move on and let them get married who gives a shit, this isint 1940.

Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.

Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]

Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion

Keep the .gov AND religion out of the bedroom, In fact stay the fuk out of my house & life, unless i specifically ask you for help.

This is a non-issue in my eyes. I don't care about same gender marriage as it will not effect my marriage. If you can find happiness in a marriage then go for it. People will say it is nothing more that gay activism masking itself as civil rights. I guess my only issue would be if there where children involved. It might just be my own ignorance here but has there been any studies on the effects of a gay marriage on children of that marriage? I would hope that there is no issue there. I guess in general, I dont care about what two adults deceide to do but I do care if those actions are detremental to a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.

Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]

---

I'll even one up you there...how about we leave it up to the state governments? There doesn't have to be a federal law, just leave it up to the states. If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, then great. If you don't want to live somewhere where gay marriage is legal, then just move. I realize it's not as cut and dry as that in practical application, but really if it bothers you that much then moving would become a priority. If you really want to live in a state that has laws on the books that reflect Biblical (or Muslim or Jewish or Buddist or Hindu) principles, then move to one that is willing to do that.

Equal legal and civil rights yes.
Marriage no: these days of common-law union one does (or should) get married only for the traditional value of it.
Nothing traditional about same sex marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bellavite1

Equal legal and civil rights yes.
Marriage no: these days of common-law union one does (or should) get married only for the traditional value of it.
Nothing traditional about same sex marriage.

---

That I agree with. If they want to have their union for tax and insurance purposes so be it but they should not be married.

Never in human history has there been so much controversy of the mislabeling of a word. The way I see it, and it should be this way- Marriage = You, and man/woman you're engaged to (opposite sex) goes before a preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/whatever and before the eyes of [your God here] and witnesses and becomes a union of two people. Civil Union = same as marriage only legal in the eyes of the government and no religious affiliation at all. Man and woman need both, gays need only the latter. Done! Problem solved we can all dance around the campfire singing kumbaya!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Never in human history has there been so much controversy of the mislabeling of a word. The way I see it, and it should be this way- Marriage = You, and man/woman you're engaged to (opposite sex) goes before a preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/whatever and before the eyes of [your God here] and witnesses and becomes a union of two people. Civil Union = same as marriage only legal in the eyes of the government and no religious affiliation at all. Man and woman need both, gays need only the latter. Done! Problem solved we can all dance around the campfire singing kumbaya!

---

I thought about this earlier and came up with "church-marriage" and "court-marriage".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

I thought about this earlier and came up with "church-marriage" and "court-marriage".

---

Careful though, that whole "marriage" word tends to get under the skin of religious types... Why not just give the homo populous their own word and let them share it with the atheists. [Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Careful though, that whole "marriage" word tends to get under the skin of religious types... Why not just give the homo populous their own word and let them share it with the atheists. [Coffee]

---

Given the choice, most gays and atheists I know would prefer to get under the skin of the religious types.

I was considering this issue from another point of view.

If a 30 year old man walked into the County Clerk's Office and applied for a marriage license. The other adult consenting party was the man's 28 year old sister. Would this be an issue?

If a 65 year old consenting woman walked into the County Clerk's Office and applied for a marriage license. The other consenting adult party was the woman's 35 year old son. Would this be an issue?

What boundaries, if any, does your local political jurisdiction place upon the two parties who wish to enter into a legally binding marriage?

Why does a court marriage only have to be between two consenting adults? Why not six consenting adults?

IMO, this is a legal issue and therefore a political issue. If no one cared, then the law would be changed, as it has been in several jurisdictions. The interesting part of the reinterpretation of the laws regarding marriage is how the courts have taken a leading role in redefining what marriage is and what types of parties can enter into this contract. I think this leading role by the courts is what causes so many people to associate the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's with the same sex marriage movement of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Given the choice, most gays and atheists I know would prefer to get under the skin of the religious types.

---

And that's the problem with America. The two will never coexist as long as one (or both) are intolerant of each other's views. And that's why I have no respect for those gays and atheists and visa versa for the religious folks that can't accept differing views.

I'm not particularly religious but I AM a stickler on not defining the language. This attempt to redefine "marriage" (or for that matter, "we the people" or Occupy Whatever's "99%" that's really less than 20%) is what really bugs me about many of the left wing movements. Want to change the Constitution to fit modern culture? Fine, there's a mechanism provided to do that -- just quit trying to distort language and law in order to present America with "change" as a fait accompli.

OK... Now after reading all these opinions, I believe just I'll go over to Chick-fil-a for a nice chicken sandwich and follow it up with a nice cake from that recently made famous cake making place in the Denver metro area......[Tooth]
I guess my being 75 years old kinda influences my view of this rather unimportant matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayock

A bit of derailment, but occasionally the gay rights movement helps hetero people as well. For example, when I started my business I wasn't sure what to do about health insurance. Come to find out my now wife's company (not wife at the time) had benefits offered for "Domestic partners". Due to equal opportunity, they couldn't offer that only to gay, non married couples. So, after showing we lived together, shared a bank account (which we opened for that purpose) and had an xcel bill together, BAM!! I'm eligible for coverage under her employer plan.

It is post tax deductions for that coverage, and it is now pre-tax since we are married and the tax code allows married people to do healthcare pre-tax. But post tax coverage was better than none or independent coverage plans.

Again sorry to derail, but there are times when the pro-gay movement can help people who are hetero as well.

---

Not a derailment at all, its the original question of the thread. Ironically, short of taxes, I think we've pretty much established through pages of posts that short of tax breaks the difference is PURELY based on religious beliefs originating over 2000 years ago and rife with contradiction.

I don't think many here, or anywhere, are arguing their religious beliefs should be grounds for law. However, the people who do claim that just happen to be obnoxiously loud which is why it seems they have a bigger following than they do. Again, government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. Just let people do what they want and don't give any benefits or breaks to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.

Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]

---

Does a general durable power of attorney work both ways? What if the power of attorney gets sick? Don't you have to give up some sort of rights when you sign over power of attorney, or have to be handicapped in some way? Generally poa is asigned when someone is unable to handle their own aFfairs. How then, ey ble to handle the affairs of others if they can't handle their own? Want to see a serious divorce disaster? Get two people going through a bitter "divorce" who hold each other's power of attorney. Finally, does holding someone's power of attorney mean you are entitled to their social security after they die like a marriage?

http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/...z777/clint.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Does a general durable power of attorney work both ways? What if the power of attorney gets sick? Don't you have to give up some sort of rights when you sign over power of attorney, or have to be handicapped in some way? Generally poa is asigned when someone is unable to handle their own aFfairs. How then, ey ble to handle the affairs of others if they can't handle their own? Want to see a serious divorce disaster? Get two people going through a bitter "divorce" who hold each other's power of attorney. Finally, does holding someone's power of attorney mean you are entitled to their social security after they die like a marriage?

---

Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?

Well I have to say :
other then a couple little spats where stuff got a bit outta control I'm pleasantly surprised we all behaved so well .

I feel 90% of the posts got off my original topic but they were highly informative.

Everyones answers and debates ( yes even tristans) gave me a bit more insight then before we started tho Cstone's post of the following helped the most on my original topic ( in my opinion)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

If you define "traditional marriage" as one adult man married to one adult woman, then redefining marriage to one adult person to another adult person, then the harm would be dependent on whether you believe the former definition was of more value than the later definition.

This I believe is a value judgment. Some see no real difference, and for them there is no harm. Others see the redefining of terms as being of great difference and depending on where you stand on the redefinition, you may see the change as harm or improvement.

Marriage is a legal institution. For some, it is also a religious rite or ritual or covenant between man, woman, and God.

As for the issue of what a church may or may not choose to sanction, I will rely on the First Amendment and agree with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and note that this restriction has also been extended to state and local governments. As for the point of tax exemption, I will stand by Chief Justice John Marshall in Providence Bank v Billings when he stated "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Using both of the above statements, I believe that no establishment of religion should be taxed by federal, state, or local government. IMO, this makes good Constitutional sense to me. YMMV

While I believe there are many people of faith in the United States, IMO the USA is not a Godly nation. Just my opinion.

Be safe.

---

I feel SAFriday summed it all up the best with this :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

Not a derailment at all, its the original question of the thread. Ironically, short of taxes, I think we've pretty much established through pages of posts that short of tax breaks the difference is PURELY based on religious beliefs originating over 2000 years ago and rife with contradiction.

---

I HONESTLY thank EVERYONE for the answers they gave, and I thank the mod's wholeheartedly for allowing our debate to go on.

This thread is part of what AMERICA is all about. Discourse with opposing views that open both sides eyes.. even if just a little bit.

If the Mods wish to lock the thread at this point I will understand. if you all choose to let it go on I get that too but I've gotten all I think I can from it at this point.


Again...


THANK YOU ALL!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?

---

Sorry, I haven't been monitoring this question. Yes, you can have power of attorney for each other. If you questions someone's competency, even for a brief period, you revoke that power of attorney. I would expect revoking powers of attorney would be one of the very first things people would do when contemplating a split -- if they don't, the consequences are much the same as you could expect for a bitter divorce (think "War of the Roses").

You lose no rights when you issue a POA although you have given someone else the power to act as you. My mother holds a durable general POA and has for years. I did this in the event I was incapacitated while on active duty -- it allows her pay my bills using my funds, sign contracts (e.g., to rent or sell my home), etc.

If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.

A durable general POA does NOT give you rights to someone else's Social Security after they die. This aspect of SS is a holdover from another era anyway and I think is a red herring since the SS system is an underfunded Ponzi scheme anyway -- the very last thing it needs is to get even MORE freeloaders dumped into its system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.

---

So to see if I understand you correctly, you are against gay marriage because it's "about destroying any traditional structures or organization within society?" So if two people want their union (IE: Relationship) legally recognized for the various benefits that comes with a legal marriage it's all part of some scheme to destroy these traditional values you hold so dear? So does divorce play into your beliefs? Speaking of tradition, many cultures recognize that you can have multiple wives (like in Islam), but what if a woman wants to adopt the same tradition only reversed and have multiple husbands? It's not traditional, so we shouldn't adapt to the changing social environment we live in, right?

What's a more rational argument than enjoying the same rights and benefits, as well as the legitimacy and recognition, that "traditional" couples enjoy?