Real Marriage and Why Homo "Marriage" is a Joke

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

 

[Montrovant]

What did that video have to do with same sex marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't see anything that speaks against same sex marriage. The vows are serious. Until you divorce.

And the idea that those vows are the only way you stay together is nonsense. Look at the number of same sex couples who stepped up and got married that had been together for 20 and 30 years. They made it work.

As for children, if you want to be in a relationship with someone who has kids, you better know those kids come first. If you don't, do you really want to be with that person.

This has nothing to say about same sex marriage, and holds people's ability to stay in a relationship in very low esteem.

 

[WinterBorn]

What did that video have to do with same sex marriage?

Not a damn thing.

 

[Likkmee]

I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?

 

[WinterBorn]

I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?

I think you missed a lot of things. Just sayin

 

[Likkmee]

It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.

And it is held so sacred by straights that half of them break that vow.

 

[bodecea]

What did that video have to do with same sex marriage?

Someone has a fixation on gay couples getting married......for.......reasons........

 

[emilynghiem]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?

If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!

Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.

* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.

* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.

Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.

 

[WinterBorn]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?

If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!

Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.

* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.

* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.

Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.

I have said, on numerous occasions, that the gov't should not be in the marriage game at all. If you want to talk about gov't intrusion where it doesn't belong, this is one of the best examples out there.

That said, my comments in this thread have mainly been critiquing the video and making the statement that the video had absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

rush limbaugh 3 marriages

newt gingrich divorced his wife while she was suffering from cancer

trump wrote a book in which he delightedly discusses how lightly he took his marriage vows

tiger woods = nuff said.....

I am certain that should I do a little googling I can find LOTS of conservative republicans who cheated on their wives, had numerous infidelities and divorces.....

 

[Lysistrata]

We have a dual system. People can get married under civil law by a ceremony at the courthouse. They can get married in a religious ritual conducted by an officiant who has the appropriate credentials to sign the legal documents, which makes them married in their religious organization as well as under civil law. The couple decides which course to take.

To dissolve the marriage, the couple must do so in legal proceedings on the civil side of If they are members of a religious group that bans them from participation, they have to go through proceedings before a religious tribunal to get permission to divorce and remarry. Civil courts do not interfere with the operations of religious tribunals.

This system accommodates people of all religious persuasions. It fully protects everyone's civil rights with respect to marriage, divorce, and religion. No level of government is commanding people to marry or divorce.

I don't who this Peterson is, but he is entitled to his interpretation of what marriage vows mean. But he doesn't mention same-sex marriage, and I take it that his ideas would apply to everyone.

 

[Montrovant]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?

If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!

Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.

* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.

* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.

Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.

While I think it would have been better for government to stay out of marriage (or at least not make it such an ingrained government institution), I think that ship has long since sailed. It would be difficult to the point of being unfeasible to get government out of marriage at this point. To do so would take a gradual change over years, IMO.

 

[bodecea]

I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?

Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.

Civilizations all over the world practiced the tradition of marriage long before they ever heard of your “God” and every society on the planet still does it despite many not believing in your deity, so that was just an ignorant and stupid response

 

[bodecea]

It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.

Civil marriage is about a covenant with god? So those who don't believe in a god can't get married?


Ironically, I could marriage in a church over a decade before I could legally marry.

 

[Lysistrata]

I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?

Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.

These people are incredibly obsessed with sex. Sometimes I think that Americans should have a National Sex Day, on which everyone goes out and has sex with whomever and however they want, with the stipulation that they promise to shut up about it for the next 364 days and go on to other things more important than who's zoomin' who.

 

[WinterBorn]

I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?

Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.

These people are incredibly obsessed with sex. Sometimes I think that Americans should have a National Sex Day, on which everyone goes out and has sex with whomever and however they want, with the stipulation that they promise to shut up about it for the next 364 days and go on to other things more important than who's zoomin' who.

"These people"? Americans are incredibly obsessed by sex.

 

[emilynghiem]

Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly

Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?

If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!

Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.

* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.

* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.

Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.

While I think it would have been better for government to stay out of marriage (or at least not make it such an ingrained government institution), I think that ship has long since sailed. It would be difficult to the point of being unfeasible to get government out of marriage at this point. To do so would take a gradual change over years, IMO.

Dear Montrovant
I see the marriage and church-state threshold for govt
as intrinsically tied to RELATED conflicts over
* abortion and euthanasia laws
* drug legalization and health care laws
* death penalty, prison and immigration detention policies
* other issues of BENEFITS including "social programs"
where people don't even agree on social relationships and gender/orientation distinction.
Since those are faith based, I don't see people compromising on their beliefs.

If we can't get government OUT of the marriage and welfare benefits issues,
then either we agree to let ALL matters of beliefs into schools and public institutions
(such as giving the religious right the right to have Right to Life beliefs, Christian prayers,
teaching God and Creation in schools, etc. equally INCLUDED as LGBT and marriage/health care recognized as "rights")
OR we agree to separate these choices and still have them as OPTIONS through govt
but allow people to opt out and elect their own personal terms of benefits and conditions on taxes and services paid for.

One of my friends who INSISTS on health care through govt
finally relented on the idea of "forcing everyone to pay for it"
and finally agreed that if it's optional, and people can decide THEY want to "opt out"
as long as they allow other people to opt in, that isn't interfering with
THEIR beliefs that health care and benefits should be done through govt.

I think that's where we are heading, to satisfy the beliefs of all groups without interfering with the othes.

If we separate taxes going into social programs, welfare etc. into
3-5 basic plans, and let taxpayers SELECT what plan they agree to
be under and pay into, then the people who want to SEPARATE OUT
the funding for social programs APART from govt can do so, while
the people who BELIEVE in funding these programs through govt
can still opt to direct their taxes there.

I would recommend that we organize 3-5 tracks by party or by state
and let taxpayers choose on their tax forms which category they
agree to take responsibility for directing their taxes under terms
that each group will democratically decide, similar to party platforms, such as
* benefits through their state
* or benefits through their party by district if they cannot agree on policies by state
* benefits through their party nationally (since people do not agree on the same terms for reproductive health care or drug policies,
I would recommend this national level be separated along those lines so taxpayers can choose terms by organized groups
without interfering with the beliefs of others)
* benefits through a health saving account or other registered nonprofit, church or business entity
(this may fall under benefits by party if the parties that believe in privatizing and keeping health care out
of govt can agree to democratically manage the benefits for their own members apart from groups that believe in going through govt)
etc.

Furthermore, I would recommend to make payments for health care and medical services
100% deductible if these are paid for AT COST. And if they are for-profit, then still make
them partially deductible, but proportional to what is being paid toward actual costs of services
and how much is paying for profit as an elective choice. I would propose a scale that looks something like this:
* 100% deductible for at-cost health care or administrative costs less than 10-15% markup
(nonprofits that document less than 10% admin costs not going into services, or
private medical services that charge Medicare pricing plus a margin of less than 10-20% markup)
* 75% tax deductible for health care/medical expenses priced at 60% to 80% going to at cost services
with admin costs or markup ranging from 20-40%
* 50% tax deductible for expenses priced at 30-50% going toward at-cost services (again, based on Medicare pricing)
with admin costs or markup 50-70%
* and the normal nonprofit tax deduction rate of 30% for any other donations or payments for health care/medical services

Montrovant if we can't fully separate out marriage, health care and benefits from govt,
at least set up a system where people can choose their own terms by collective groups
so this is still manageable, but doesn't interfere with people's free choice of beliefs the govt should not be micromanaging anyway.
At least allow democratic representation, which I would organize by party and by district/state,
so people can access direct participation in deciding the terms they agree to pay under, without conflicting with benefits of other groups.