Protecting Marriage

Protecting Marriage

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:51 pm

By banning divorce

http://rescuemarriage.org/

It might actually make it on the ballot in California. Let's see just how hypocritical the "protect marriage" people really are.

ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: coalkirk On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:06 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:By banning divorce

http://rescuemarriage.org/

It might actually make it on the ballot in California. Let's see just how hypocritical the "protect marriage" people really are.


I am constantly fascinated with the glimpses into what I assume is the liberal mind. Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:17 pm

coalkirk wrote:Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.


IMHO the state should only recognize civil unions. If you want tax and visitation and survivorship, or any legal benefits, gay or straight, get a civil union.

If you want to get married (gay or straight) talk to your priest, or rabbi, or minister, or shaman, or spiritual adviser, or whomever you feel can help you. If they're willing to marry you, great, if not, find a denomination that will.

That my friends, is freedom of religion.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket


Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:18 pm

coalkirk wrote:
ErikLaurence wrote:By banning divorce

http://rescuemarriage.org/

It might actually make it on the ballot in California. Let's see just how hypocritical the "protect marriage" people really are.


I am constantly fascinated with the glimpses into what I assume is the liberal mind. Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.


BTW, you understand this is satire intended to point out hypocrisy.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: jpete On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:12 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:
coalkirk wrote:Marraige isn't under attack from divorce. It's under attack from those who would claim a union of two persons of the same sex should be granted the exact same level of legal recognition as unions of a male and female, the model that's been used and accepted for thousands of years in all civilizations. I'm ok with recogniziing civil unions but marraige is between a man and a women. Lets let gay people come up with their own word for it but the term marraige is problematic for me. Divorce, while not disreable, is a civilized way ( or should be) to end a marraige, not an attack on it.


IMHO the state should only recognize civil unions. If you want tax and visitation and survivorship, or any legal benefits, gay or straight, get a civil union.

If you want to get married (gay or straight) talk to your priest, or rabbi, or minister, or shaman, or spiritual adviser, or whomever you feel can help you. If they're willing to marry you, great, if not, find a denomination that will.

That my friends, is freedom of religion.


x2

I didn't watch the video but my (twice divorced) co-worker if fond of saying "Marriage is the leading cause of divorce" :D
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: rberq On: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:41 pm

Everybody needs somebody to look down on. So, us straight folks, we need gays as the inferior class to keep ourselves boosted up. After all, we're not allowed to use black or coffee people for step stools any longer. So I say, no marriage for same-sex couples. If we were in India, it would be simpler. There, everybody except the untouchables has at least one class inferior to themselves.

Besides, the Pope tells me what to believe, and he's Infallible with a capital "I".
rberq
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: DS Machine 1300
Coal Size/Type: Nut -- Kimmel/Blaschak/Reading
Other Heating: Oil hot water radiators, propane

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: George-NJ On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:35 am

Count me as one who would vote for no divorce or gay marriage! Marriage is a sacrad institution, the foundation of family & children. You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills, and that break down is due to the hammering of the liberal ideals of anything goes.

As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.

Rberg, how funny is it that even liberal maine voted gay marriage down? Even the most liberal of states turn it down when put to the voters, even California, twice!
George-NJ
 

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: mr1precision On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:55 am

U.K. Straight Couple Applies for Civil Partnership
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_p ... 84219.html

This should be interesting. So, far they were told they couldnt have a civil union because they arent gay. :lol:
mr1precision
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson AA-130

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:58 am

George-NJ wrote:
As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.



So for you marriage is all about kids.

So you don't think post menopausal women should be able to get married?

Nor do you think infertile people should be able to get married?
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: gambler On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:30 pm

George-NJ wrote:Count me as one who would vote for no divorce or gay marriage! Marriage is a sacrad institution, the foundation of family & children. You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills, and that break down is due to the hammering of the liberal ideals of anything goes.

As a 20 year married father of three, having been raised in a twice broken home myself, I couldn't imagine putting my own kids through the hell of what I went through. Every kid needs their mommy & daddy(.) Any other arrangement is second best (at best) and NOT the same or equal to it.

Rberg, how funny is it that even liberal maine voted gay marriage down? Even the most liberal of states turn it down when put to the voters, even California, twice!


So what do you think will happen to the family members or even the entire family of a person that has had it with their spouse and can not get a divorce?
I can see a lot more killings and murder suicides of entire families. That's ok as they will enact new gun laws to curb that, right?

Although I agree with this statement "You can point to the breakdown of the family for most of societies ills"
gambler
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: tvb On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:16 pm

Marriage panels is the answer. Each community can appoint a few of their favorite righteous people to oversee all marriage in the community. They can vote on who gets to marry whom and then vote on the subsequent divorce. Without their yea or nay, you don't get to marry or get divorced.

What's that? You say should have the right to marry who you want without outside interference? Really?
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: rberq On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:34 pm

George-NJ wrote:Count me as one who would vote for no divorce ... Marriage is a sacred institution, the foundation of family & children.

There is nothing sacred about marriage. Except for the children, marriage should be a 5-year no-fault renewable contract. That is, you can re-up after 5 years, or you can dissolve the contract and go your separate ways with no liability on the part of either spouse. I agree, children are the problem with this philosophy.

George-NJ wrote:Rberq, how funny is it that even liberal Maine voted gay marriage down?

Not funny, pathetic. It's one of only a couple times I have been ashamed to be a Mainer. (The previous time was when a deer hunter killed a teenage girl on her own back lawn, and the jury let him off scott free because she was wearing white mittens. This guy was hunting with a muzzle-loader, yet, which in theory means he needs to be closer and make more-sure of his target, because he gets only one shot.)
rberq
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: DS Machine 1300
Coal Size/Type: Nut -- Kimmel/Blaschak/Reading
Other Heating: Oil hot water radiators, propane

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: tvb On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:04 pm

The last time religion was used to deny marriage equality, this was the justification:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.


Any guesses as to who wrote that and what happened afterwards?
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: rberq On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:13 pm

tvb wrote:Any guesses as to who wrote that and what happened afterwards?

Well, I didn't know the answer, but I googled it. The words were by a trial judge in the enlightened state of Virginia, in the 50's, convicting a black woman and a white man of living together as husband and wife, though they had married in the District of Columbia. When I say "in the 50's" I don't mean the 1650's, the 1750's, or the 1850's, but the 1950's. They were sentenced to one year in jail, sentence suspended if they would leave the state. Eventually the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court with the assistance of that despicable organization the ACLU.

In fact we have personal friends whose son (one-quarter American Indian), a mere 30 years ago, could not get a marriage license in Virginia because he was marrying a white woman.
rberq
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: DS Machine 1300
Coal Size/Type: Nut -- Kimmel/Blaschak/Reading
Other Heating: Oil hot water radiators, propane

Re: Protecting Marriage

PostBy: SMITTY On: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:26 pm

Let the gays find their own form of a union -- MARRIAGE IS TAKEN.

If being gay was normal, straight people would be a minority.
SMITTY
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Patriot Coal - custom built by Jim Dorsey
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mark III (not currently in use)
Coal Size/Type: Rice / Blaschak anthracite
Other Heating: Oil fired Burnham boiler