Forums | MacLife

Now we've done it. What next, marrying our toasters?

Daniel wrote:

resedit wrote:

What I'm saying is - why put something into the democratic process if you are going to ignore the results you don't like?

You mean like getting UN approval to go into Iraq?

The UN did not go into Iraq.

btw - I really don't care anymore.
Just to be clear.

I am opposed to just calling them civil unions - that's a lie to keep the "marriage definition" people happy, if it is to be legalized, be honest about it and call it what it is - marriage.

resedit wrote:

I am opposed to just calling them civil unions - that's a lie to keep the "marriage definition" people happy, if it is to be legalized, be honest about it and call it what it is - marriage.

I dont know- the problem seems to me to come from the religious connotation of the word "marriage." If religion is perceived to be the bone of contention anyway, an unconstitutional belief system tainting what the law can or cannot allow, I kinda think the secular "civil unions" is more honest.

StaticAge wrote:

resedit wrote:

I am opposed to just calling them civil unions - that's a lie to keep the "marriage definition" people happy, if it is to be legalized, be honest about it and call it what it is - marriage.

I dont know- the problem seems to me to come from the religious connotation of the word "marriage." If religion is perceived to be the bone of contention anyway, an unconstitutional belief system tainting what the law can or cannot allow, I kinda think the secular "civil unions" is more honest.

If, and only if, the government calls straight marriages civil unions too.  Otherwise it's "separate but equal" rubbish.

StaticAge wrote:

resedit wrote:

I am opposed to just calling them civil unions - that's a lie to keep the "marriage definition" people happy, if it is to be legalized, be honest about it and call it what it is - marriage.

I dont know- the problem seems to me to come from the religious connotation of the word "marriage." If religion is perceived to be the bone of contention anyway, an unconstitutional belief system tainting what the law can or cannot allow, I kinda think the secular "civil unions" is more honest.

I tend to agree. I think that all official "marriage" licenses should be renamed to "civil union" licenses. Then, it's less emotionally involved to talk about allowing other types of unions.

It also makes the separation of church and state that much more clear.

iSeamas wrote:

radarman wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

I dont know- the problem seems to me to come from the religious connotation of the word "marriage." If religion is perceived to be the bone of contention anyway, an unconstitutional belief system tainting what the law can or cannot allow, I kinda think the secular "civil unions" is more honest.

I tend to agree. I think that all official "marriage" licenses should be renamed to "civil union" licenses. Then, it's less emotionally involved to talk about allowing other types of unions.

It also makes the separation of church and state that much more clear.

Why not call it marriage?

What the hell does religion have to do with marriage anyhow? (NOTHING)

I got married by a justice of the peace.
I'm as married as any religios person is. (and more so than a good many of them)

Marriage existed as an institution outside of religious ceremonies for thousands of years.

Because too many people get emotionally involved when discussing "marriage", but when you frame the argument in terms of civil unions, all of a sudden it seems like a decent idea.

IOW, there is too much emotional and religious baggage associated with the term "marriage"

radarman wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

radarman wrote:

I tend to agree. I think that all official "marriage" licenses should be renamed to "civil union" licenses. Then, it's less emotionally involved to talk about allowing other types of unions.

It also makes the separation of church and state that much more clear.

Why not call it marriage?

What the hell does religion have to do with marriage anyhow? (NOTHING)

I got married by a justice of the peace.
I'm as married as any religios person is. (and more so than a good many of them)

Marriage existed as an institution outside of religious ceremonies for thousands of years.

Because too many people get emotionally involved when discussing "marriage", but when you frame the argument in terms of civil unions, all of a sudden it seems like a decent idea.

IOW, there is too much emotional and religious baggage associated with the term "marriage"

My response to those emotional and religious people: tough smurfing titty.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

My response to those emotional and religious people: tough smurfing titty.

So you don't think that marriage is anything but a collection of civil contracts?

Rep. Roy Blunt opts to attack the judiciary and the State of California in the process, apparently ignorant of the fact that each of these justices have faced a public vote before:

“Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.
“This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state’s court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people – and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society.”

Link.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Robert B. wrote:

Now we've done it. What next, marrying our toasters?

Then I want to marry one of these.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g235/ … 5zooma.jpg

Holy smurf, me too! Where do I sign up?

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Robert B. wrote:

Now we've done it. What next, marrying our toasters?

Then I want to marry one of these.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g235/ … 5zooma.jpg

make sure you turn it off during you "quiet times"