Apropros the recent mood of the board

[Ranger]

I'll try to be less surly. I am listening to you ranger and learning too.

Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit .

[jscwerve]

Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit .

Now I need a new keyboard, diet Mtn dew all over it.

[sniper7]

Don't let it go to your head, you're still a dipshit .

Totally agree

[Hoosier]

I am opposed to calling it marriage. How does it affect me? To me it de-legitimizes the term marriage. It's splitting hairs perhaps, but a civil union being the same as marriage, OK, but since the term was first conceived it was a union between man and woman. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find out that heterosexual also applies to gays as well, so why have to do that with marriage? I don't feel I need to qualify myself if I say "I'm married....to a woman". It's a new thing, gay "marriage", give it a new name.

How are you materially harmed? To say that "in my opinion my marriage is de-legitimized" implies that your feelings about this represent material harm. If that's the case, the same logic could be applied to the muslim lady who hit someone for taking her picture, she "felt" that her right had been harmed. I believe both of you are wrong.

And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.

H.

[Zundfolge]

And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.

Thats twice in one week that I find myself in complete agreement with Hoosier ... I think I need to go lie down or something.

I can't tell you how much it pissed me off that I had to go down to the court house and pony up some cash and beg the state for permission to marry my wife ... why the gays want that too is beyond me.

[Ranger]

And yes, I agree marriage is not something that Government should define in the first place. Call it a civil union, or just call it a contract -- where it should be anyway. That would be the extent of the governments involvement. From there you can go to your Church to get "married" and have the ceremony etc.

H.

Hoosier, you'll see I had said the same thing a few more replies down. Marriage to me is a church thing and I really didn't articulate that very well on my first reply.

[Hoosier]

Hoosier, you'll see I had said the same thing a few more replies down. Marriage to me is a church thing and I really didn't articulate that very well on my first reply.

Yeah I saw someone else said it, I was agreeing that's the way it should be.

On FB a gay friend posted about this issue, and I said something along the lines of "Government should have no involvement in 'marriage', they can do nothing but take rights away" and got jumped on by several of his friends who thought I was taking a stance against his. My friend knew what was up and put my thoughts into more eloquent phrasing.

Need a little web app with circle-slider for every question... Then make an effective questionnaire where each question has several answers, and you can select a value anywhere between each of the answers.

H.