Gay Marriage: To Approve or Not To Approve

[Broncho4]

The issue is not whether or not the government wants to approve gay marriage. The issue is why the government is in the business of approving marriage of any kind. Traditional marriage is a biblical contract between a man and a woman. When we allowed the government the authority to "sanction" marriage, we allowed for the changing of the definition. Therein lies the problem with a majority pushing around a minority; you may not be in the majority for ever.

 

[Syriusly]

The issue is not whether or not the government wants to approve gay marriage. The issue is why the government is in the business of approving marriage of any kind. Traditional marriage is a biblical contract between a man and a woman. When we allowed the government the authority to "sanction" marriage, we allowed for the changing of the definition. Therein lies the problem with a majority pushing around a minority; you may not be in the majority for ever.

Then why did you label the thread 'gay marriage'?

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a legal contract between two parties that establishes a new legal entity. The requirements are: the two individuals must not have a previous next of kin relationship, must be of legal age and must consent to entry into the contract.

The state has mechanisms in place to dissolve the contract. They're called Divorce Courts.

Access to these portions of our system of jurisprudence should not be restricted from those who qualify as the marriage contract provides benefits and protections not available to those not entered into the contract. Governments do not sanctify marriages. Churches do.

 

[Broncho4]

The issue is not whether or not the government wants to approve gay marriage. The issue is why the government is in the business of approving marriage of any kind. Traditional marriage is a biblical contract between a man and a woman. When we allowed the government the authority to "sanction" marriage, we allowed for the changing of the definition. Therein lies the problem with a majority pushing around a minority; you may not be in the majority for ever.

Then why did you label the thread 'gay marriage'?

Did you read at all? It clearly states that the definition was changed when the government was allowed to be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Marriage: To Approve or Not To Approve

It's over, and we don't ******* care whether you approve of it or not. Deal with it and move on.

 

[Broncho4]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a legal contract between two parties that establishes a new legal entity. The requirements are: the two individuals must not have a previous next of kin relationship, must be of legal age and must consent to entry into the contract.

The state has mechanisms in place to dissolve the contract. They're called Divorce Courts.

Access to these portions of our system of jurisprudence should not be restricted from those who qualify as the marriage contract provides benefits and protections not available to those not entered into the contract. Governments do not sanctify marriages. Churches do.

I didn't say "sanctify" I said "sanction". Marriage was around before there were governments to define it.

 

[Broncho4]

Gay Marriage: To Approve or Not To Approve

It's over, and we don't ******* care whether you approve of it or not. Deal with it and move on.

I hope you are not that naive. based on your argument, you may just be...

 

[Sunni Man]

Homos finally got their wish to have legalized "pretend" marriages. .....

 

[LoneLaugher]

The issue is not whether or not the government wants to approve gay marriage. The issue is why the government is in the business of approving marriage of any kind. Traditional marriage is a biblical contract between a man and a woman. When we allowed the government the authority to "sanction" marriage, we allowed for the changing of the definition. Therein lies the problem with a majority pushing around a minority; you may not be in the majority for ever.

No. Marriage has always been a financial arrangement. Marriage existed before Christianity existed. Marriage was secular long before it was religious.

This is a secular nation and marriage is a secular tradition. We let religions exist here...and some people decide to seek some kind of ceremonial religious sanction for their secular marriage. Some don't.

The aversion to gay marriage is an expression of bigotry........even if you dress it up in some kind of religious garb.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The government got in the business of sanctioning marriage when they decided to start giving tax breaks to married couples and families.

Gays aren't necessarily looking for a "sanctified" marriage, many of them are happy to be married by a JP, and for those that want a church marriage, many churches are happy to oblige.

The main thing they want is for their unions to be recognized so that they can get the same benefits that other couples do. Stuff like being able to go into a hospital room, the right to inherit their partner's stuff, and oh yeah...............the tax and legal benefits that go with being in a legally recognized union.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Marriage: To Approve or Not To Approve

It's over, and we don't ******* care whether you approve of it or not. Deal with it and move on.

I hope you are not that naive. based on your argument, you may just be...

The homophobes have no way forward. You can scream and whine like toddlers until the cows come home but it's a done deal, as it is in so many other nations. Move on to things you can actually change, this isn't one of them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The government got in the business of sanctioning marriage when they decided to start giving tax breaks to married couples and families.

Gays aren't necessarily looking for a "sanctified" marriage, many of them are happy to be married by a JP, and for those that want a church marriage, many churches are happy to oblige.

The main thing they want is for their unions to be recognized so that they can get the same benefits that other couples do. Stuff like being able to go into a hospital room, the right to inherit their partner's stuff, and oh yeah...............the tax and legal benefits that go with being in a legally recognized union.

Bbbbut it was for LOVE!!!!!! LMAO

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Homos finally got their wish to have legalized "pretend" marriages. .....

The divorce lawyers diagree, as do all other rational people. If Allah doesn't approve he can go **** himself. He doesn't rule here, we do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The government got in the business of sanctioning marriage when they decided to start giving tax breaks to married couples and families.

Learn the history of the marriage license here. That ain't it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Got links for the history PaintMyHouse?

Would be appreciated.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Got links for the history PaintMyHouse?

Would be appreciated.

Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

"8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States."

Not many benefits in 1639, if any eh?

 

[Broncho4]

The issue is not whether or not the government wants to approve gay marriage. The issue is why the government is in the business of approving marriage of any kind. Traditional marriage is a biblical contract between a man and a woman. When we allowed the government the authority to "sanction" marriage, we allowed for the changing of the definition. Therein lies the problem with a majority pushing around a minority; you may not be in the majority for ever.

No. Marriage has always been a financial arrangement. Marriage existed before Christianity existed. Marriage was secular long before it was religious.

This is a secular nation and marriage is a secular tradition. We let religions exist here...and some people decide to seek some kind of ceremonial religious sanction for their secular marriage. Some don't.

The aversion to gay marriage is an expression of bigotry........even if you dress it up in some kind of religious garb.

It was not secular at all. It is certainly not a "Christian" only/invented institution but even as far back as sanskrit and cave paintings, vows were recited to a deity.

 

[Broncho4]

The government got in the business of sanctioning marriage when they decided to start giving tax breaks to married couples and families.

Gays aren't necessarily looking for a "sanctified" marriage, many of them are happy to be married by a JP, and for those that want a church marriage, many churches are happy to oblige.

The main thing they want is for their unions to be recognized so that they can get the same benefits that other couples do. Stuff like being able to go into a hospital room, the right to inherit their partner's stuff, and oh yeah...............the tax and legal benefits that go with being in a legally recognized union.

I agree, but recognized by whom? Why was a government sanctioned marriage the basis for those basic rights anyway?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The tax laws may have come around gradually over the years to benefit married couples, but the bottom line is that marriage is a tax advantage over being single.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The tax laws may have come around gradually over the years to benefit married couples, but the bottom line is that marriage is a tax advantage over being single.

Yes it is, in most, but not all, cases. We promote marriage here, it's good for our society and our economy.