Author Topic: Getting married to my good buddy.  (Read 9262 times)

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Getting married to my good buddy.
« on: September 07, 2005, 02:29:57 PM »
Me and my friend are contemplating getting married.

We believe that any type of love should be enough reason for marriage, not just romantic love.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/07/MNGFGEJIR41.DTL

If that passes, anyway.

Screw your sanctity of marraige!

The individual in question; no clicky if you don't want to see a middle finger extended.


What we say to the sanctity of romantic marraige!
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/haschen/TenderMoment.jpg
Go civil unions!
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2005, 03:03:13 PM »
Just out of curiosity, Winston...

Are you the catcher or pitcher in your, umm, relationship with your good buddy?
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

Guest

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2005, 03:44:20 PM »
Dude, you're too young to get married.

Hell, I'm too young to get married!

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2005, 03:58:05 PM »
What does love have to do with marriage?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,428
  • My prepositions are on/in
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2005, 06:28:18 PM »
Winston,

Having trouble seeing through your irreverent tone.  What exactly is your opinion on this issue?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Strings

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2005, 06:56:36 PM »
fistful: I think he's saying he supports the idea of gays being able to "marry" (I'm assuming "civil union" here). Which is fine, from what I read of the article: they're not saying that any religious group HAS to preform such cermonies, just that same-sex unions are recognized by law. Which is fine by me, too. Of course, we can discuss that ifn' ya'd like... Wink

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2005, 07:28:53 PM »
I dont really have an opinion, not being gay or married. I just think the whole ordeal is rather hilarious; otherwise freedom loving people getting their panties in a wad about people doing what they wanna do behind closed doors, and on the other side people pushing the whole envelope just because, and forcing everyone to pay attention to their sexuality.

As far as pitcher or catcher, we switch days.
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

atek3

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
    • http://www.geocities.com/atek128/Welcome.html
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2005, 08:05:41 PM »
people due get right uppity when you use the M word.

atek3

caseydog

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2005, 09:06:37 PM »
Quote from: atek3
people due get right uppity when you use the M word.
Yeah they do , I guess marriage has meant one thing for so long that it just gets stuck in your brain that it's a man and a woman , a few centuries of references to fall back on and all.

I'm guilty , I'd rather they just legitimised some kind of "civil union" and not call it marriage, there are some sticky civil questions that gays are concerned about (spousal insurance coverage and retirement benefits , tax issues etc.) so go ahead and fix it already with some sort of civil union language and be done with it. Gays are living as families and are legitimate enough to adopt and raise children in the .gov eyes, fix the rest and be done with it, why have a huge fight about a constitutional amendment , do we really want to muck with our constitution over a gay marriage ban ? I know I don't.

Ray
Be kind as you speak to others , they may be facing demons you are unaware of...

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,386
  • I Am Inimical
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2005, 09:08:36 PM »
uhm...

Whatever.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

jefnvk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,478
  • I'll sleep away the days and ride the nights...
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2005, 09:14:33 PM »
I don't even think the gov't should be in the marraige business, myself.  Keep track of next of kin, is all they should do.  Then, if you can find a church to marry you, fine.

The problem is that they took a religious ceremony, made it a gov't ceremony, and are now changing the meaning of it.  Either keep it as it was when you decided to take it in your hands, or quit messing with it.

Now, what really set me off, was when I was talking to a gay guy, and he strictly opposed polygamy.  Came up with a bunch of reasons why it was bad, and should not be allowed.  So much for tolerance rolleyes
I still say 'Give Detroit to Canada'

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2005, 09:17:10 PM »
Hah, hadn't thought of the polygamy angle...

Good call jeff.
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Strings

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2005, 09:38:54 PM »
so long as all you're talking about is a legal contract between consenting adults, I don't think it should be banned. Just my two cents...

Guest

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2005, 12:20:38 AM »
I think you're too young to enter into a legally binding, presumably life long contract. Smiley

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2005, 02:20:53 AM »
A nation does have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the nation survives.  Hence, the protections and benefits given to those who do the work necessary for that survival.

We can see the effects on some nations where the policy-making elite no longer share this interest in places such as W Europe.  Unless demographic trends change significantly, by the year 2100, Europe will no longer exist.  It will have become an Islamic colony.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,428
  • My prepositions are on/in
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2005, 03:05:11 AM »
Quote from: Winston Smith
otherwise freedom loving people getting their panties in a wad about people doing what they wanna do behind closed doors, and on the other side people pushing the whole envelope just because, and forcing everyone to pay attention to their sexuality.
The first group, at least in this debate, isn't talking about what homosexuals are doing behind closed doors, but rather what they want to do in government offices (get marriage licenses, etc).  The second group isn't just "forcing everyone to pay attention," they are demanding that the nation treat homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality.

That said, if homosexual couples have legal difficulties they'd like to resolve, their sexuality shouldn't have anything to do with it.  If we need to establish something like a civil union, let us all be able to take advantage of it, whether we're sleeping together or not.  

For a discussion of this issue that had its surprisingly-rational moments, see Homophobes are afraid of the same?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,428
  • My prepositions are on/in
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2005, 03:50:15 AM »
Quote from: Hunter Rose
they're not saying that any religious group HAS to preform such cermonies, just that same-sex unions are recognized by law.
1.  So, I don't have to give homosexuals the use of my church for their wedding, but I would still have to pay for their marriage license with my tax dollars?  

2.  Can you give some reason why two people having sex should be a matter for legal recognition?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2005, 05:10:15 AM »
*sigh*

Again, this has a simple solution.

1. Government needs to drop the entire "marriage" racket. However, licensure for binding civil contract between two able-minded citizens shall continue and form the contingent.

2. This means that a civil contract carries all the weight that "marriage" does now. Two people can get a civil contract (an exclusive one, btw), and recieve all the classic benefits of marriage.

3. NOW, here's where we satisfy everyone. You've got your license, therefore you're a couple in the eyes of the state. Then, you go get married in the eyes of God (or gods/goddesses, or a bunch of friends, depends on your religious persuasion). You have the ceremony, you're married. Same result. No, that wouldn't be recognized by the state as a marriage by itself, but you could just go do the civil contract *just like you get your marriage license now*.

The marriage is good in the eyes of the lord, the civil union contract is good in the eyes of the state.

And to those "that's not enough"ers, if the marriage is good in the eyes of the lord, why is that not good enough? Does the state take some manner of precedent over God?

It's the best of both worlds and hits both sections of life where it matters. Contract = fiscal matters on the earthly plane, and you've got your marriage to take care of the afterlife, should you be of that belief.

Strings

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2005, 06:42:24 AM »
>1.  So, I don't have to give homosexuals the use of my church for their wedding, but I would still have to pay for their marriage license with my tax dollars?<

Why is it that EVERYTHING concerning government immediately brings a cry of "my tax dollars!". Fistful... don't know for sure about anywhere else but, here in WI, your tax dollars have nothing to do with the marriage liscense. It was covered by the $80+ that I paid for the thing ($.50 for the wife, $80+ for liscensing. Hmmm...)...

>2.  Can you give some reason why two people having sex should be a matter for legal recognition?<

Just two people having sex? No reason. Two people in a long-term commited relationship? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to have the same protections as everybody else?

jefnvk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,478
  • I'll sleep away the days and ride the nights...
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2005, 06:51:33 AM »
Quote
licensure for binding civil contract between two able-minded citizens shall continue and form the contingent.
Once again, if you are going to change the definition, I don't see why you should not allow polygamy as well.  In fact, it is kinda hypocritical to say that we should change the laws for these one people, and still say that another person's type of marraige is bad.
I still say 'Give Detroit to Canada'

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,628
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2005, 07:23:32 AM »
Quote
1.  So, I don't have to give homosexuals the use of my church for their wedding, but I would still have to pay for their marriage license with my tax dollars?
Missouri taxpayers pay for your marriage licenses?  I had to pay for my own when I went to get it here in Indiana.

And are you okay with paying for marriages between heterosexual couples?  If indeed you're paying for marriage licenses, the heteros are pretty much always going to cost more on a basis of sheer numbers.
Quote
2.  Can you give some reason why two people having sex should be a matter for legal recognition?
Nope.  I can't.  And I fully agree with jefnvk's first post.  No need for the government to impose itself on marriage at all.  

I'm okay with civil unions completely without regard to the sexuality or sex involved.  If a couple of retired ladies have been living together for twenty years because neither of them have family to take care of them, I've got no problem with them signing a civil union - even if they never, ever, ever plan on being sexually involved.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2005, 08:50:40 AM »
Yeah, I noticed that, too.

Quote
people due get right uppity when you use the M word.
Especially when I read Barbara's postings from time to time, both here and on THR.  Hell, I'm divorced once, and I've never seen such bitterness. Some days, she makes it sound like nobody deserves to have a happy marriage.  Sad
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

SteveS

  • The Voice of Reason
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,224
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2005, 11:06:02 AM »
Quote from: jefnvk
I don't even think the gov't should be in the marraige business, myself.  Keep track of next of kin, is all they should do.  Then, if you can find a church to marry you, fine.

The problem is that they took a religious ceremony, made it a gov't ceremony, and are now changing the meaning of it.  Either keep it as it was when you decided to take it in your hands, or quit messing with it.
As long as marriage entails certain privileges in the eyes of the government, they will be involved.  This includes things like:
-filing taxes
-intestate succession
-testifying in court

I don't see an easy answer to this dilemma, though mfree may be onto some thing.
Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate mother****er.

Guest

  • Guest
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2005, 11:33:54 AM »
Who am I to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry.

The real issue is this:

What BUSINESS is it of the government? Why is there ANY state involvement in something that is clearly a matter of religious practice? Why do married people get taxed any different from single people? The real problem is that the government feels like it should have its finger in this pie in the first place.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Getting married to my good buddy.
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2005, 02:20:09 PM »
No, you're not.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050908/people_nm/rights_california_gays_dc_4
By Jim Christie
Thu Sep 8,10:48 AM ET
 


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov.     Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday he will veto a bill to allow gay marriage in the state and said the issue should be decided by the courts or by voters directly but not by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
A veto had been widely expected after California's Assembly on Tuesday endorsed gay marriage, the first time a state legislature had taken such a step. California's Senate passed the bill last week.

Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."

But since California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the question of gay marriage should be put to voters again in a referendum or decided by courts, she said.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.

Gay marriage is under review in California courts following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- a move that set off a national debate.

California's Supreme Court has invalidated the San Francisco licenses, but left the wider issue of whether the ban on gay marriage is constitutional to lower courts.

Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture and had said they did not expect support from Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican grappling with declining voter support.

"It certainly seems like he wants the courts to make the decision for him, but we truly feel like we did the right thing," said Richard Stapler, an aide to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

RATINGS SLUMP

Republican media consultant Wayne Johnson said it was inconceivable Schwarzenegger would have signed the bill because his approval ratings have slumped, leaving him with only Republican support. "The people who are his strongest supporters are among the least likely to support this bill," said Johnson.

Schwarzenegger faces an uphill struggle to convince voters to back ballot measures in an unpopular special November election he has called.

A Field Poll released on Wednesday found 56 percent of California voters are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger if he seeks re-election.

But voters hold the state legislature in even lower regard, one analyst said, allowing Schwarzenegger the opportunity to cast his veto of the gay marriage bill as a defense of existing state law.

"He can wrap himself in the rule of law and say, 'The people have spoken,"' said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, which tracks state political races. "This is probably one issue in which Schwarzenegger is probably a winner at a time when he has very few issues going his way."


Reuters
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”