Someone in the Social Security hierarchy better get their head out of their butt and quickly straighten this fiasco out.  Doesn’t the government have enough black marks against the way it is operating or are they now trying to punish even those who follow their laws?

Come on leaders use your heads to do more than hold your ears apart or act like saviors out to cleanse this country.

Your job is not to spread the gospel but to administer the Social Security department so DO IT!

It is astounding that the federal government can’t seem to navigate its’ own system in order buy proper equipment for our troops in the field, but it sure as hell can idenify every podunk dot of a town in the US that performs gay marriages and quickly act to nullify them via paperwork. Does anybody else think that our governments priorities are screwed up?

After reading the entire article, I think it is clear the SSA is just covering its bum and is no more than a symptom of the whole sick system.

It is astounding that the federal government can’t seem to navigate its’ own system in order buy proper equipment for our troops in the field, but it sure as hell can idenify every podunk dot of a town in the US that performs gay marriages and quickly act to nullify them via paperwork. Does anybody else think that our governments priorities are screwed up?

I’m with you Rufus-Leroy. But you know, as Bumsfield said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have… {and I make the comments I make, not the comments my party wishes I would make about the unkowns I know I don’t know}”

Okay, so I paraphrased some of it.  (And I have the memories I have, not the memories this administration wishes I would forget)

I’m so disgusted by the “morality” at the bottom of actions like this that I really think marriage is over-rated. Hell, how strong could it be if the behavior of strangers thousands of miles away can weaken it.

I say, find a work-around to ensure a continuity of quality of life for the survivors and then.... In like Flynn and livin in sin.

That may be naive but I refuse to have someone tell me my love for another is jeopardized by the behavior complete strangers.

That may be naive but I refuse to have someone tell me my love for another is jeopardized by the behavior complete strangers.

If jeopardizing your love is the standard, then there is no standard.  Polygamy of strangers doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Unknown older men w/ unknown 13 year old girls doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Cousins marrying cousings doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Fathers and daughters/sons doesn’t effect your love either.

It is simply fallacious to set up the standard as it doesn’t effect my relationship. There is no cause and effect between gay marriage and anybody’s specific marriage.  There can’t be. So of course there will be no effect.

The real question is what is the basis for the state to sanction marriage in the first instance? If there isn’t a basis for the state to sanction marriage then all of the above go.

Regards,

I presume the state feels marriage serves a purpose. But what that purpose is.... Economic? Biological?
(Where’s Anna Nicole Smith when you need her?)

I think by design the state sees marriage as primarily serving an economic purpose and uses that for its basis to sanction. But the right sees marriage as serving a biological purpose.

If you feel the purpose of marriage is to express love then biology and economics don’t matter. The opinions/behavior of others don’t matter. When someone cries, “Slippery slope!” Just say, hey it already exists, it’s called materialism.

The institution of marriage really is in big trouble. It’s seeing that it might have to change.
REAL old cultural traditions like marriage haven’t had too much pressure in the last few centuries to accomodate much more than the division of costs, which used to be a Bride’s family’s obligation, then there was that dowery thang that vanished as well. I have no problem with “alternative lifestyles” as I prefer to call anything which is not “deemed” standard by society...But what I think we need here is to rethink what marriage is....

Why take part in a process that forbids you ?Marriage needs to be rethought from the ground up, but with the Religious right, forgeit it…
Bilogical, cultural or economic reasons...,
who’s to choose right and wrong and write new law that is based on religious textes and traditions?
Why can’t the State just keep the **** out of our bedrooms ??!!
Peace out

Actually, wives owning property is recent and wrenching change - far more significant than gay marriage can ever be. What are the odds that the same religious types argued against it?

Yep, right on…
But I had to read Consigliere’s post three times to understand where he stood…
I mean, Anything one group does in society WILL affect the rest of the population....
The plausable issue of what Gay marriages might do to our morales and values is actually NOT the issue....
The issue is are we willing to treat Gays as equals with equal rights.
I won’t deny that seeing two men kiss makes me feel a little strange, but denying their rights to live their lives for themselves and not their closets upsets me more....

I won’t deny that seeing two men kiss makes me feel a little strange, but denying their rights to live their lives for themselves and not their closets upsets me more....

On what grounds might the state have a right to define marriage?  Or should it just say oh, bang your daugher all you want cuz the we (the state) really need to stay out of your bedroom??????? And if you and your daughter believe that is true LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEEE, then by God it must be.

Regards,

consi said: Or should it just say oh, bang your daugher all you want cuz the we (the state) really need to stay out of your bedroom???????

Consi, if I’m not mistaken, the issue here is gay marriage between consenting adults, not banging daughters.  No one here is advocating that.  If you think permitting gay marriage will lead inexorably to incest and polygamy, you’d better demonstrate the connection.  Merely ranting

And if you and your daughter believe that is true LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEEE, then by God it must be

is not very convincing- we’ve all heard this slippery slope argument before.

We have to make a clear separation between laws governing marriage and laws governing sex.  What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of the State’s business.  Who should be allowed to marry is a trickier question, because of economic and genetic issues.  Leaving aside the economic stuff (I don’t know that much about what all they entail), there are well-known biological reasons to discourage close relatives from having children.  Hard to draw lines, but in the case of gay couples, no offspring, no problem.  Why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to marry?  Because it’s a sin, right?

Incest already exists. It benefits society about as much as rape does (it usually is the result of rape).

Besides, I don’t think there is a relation between homosexuality and incest… Doesn’t most, if not all incest occur heterosexually? People identify themselves as either heterosexual or homosexual… Are there groups that identify as incestuous?

My point..... The issue is about sexual orientation, not practice. We are all born with an orientation. The state merely has to decide if both orientations are equal.

Since sexual practice is a behavior, and since behavior can cause injury, then the state should have the right to regulate it. Rape should always be illegal. I’m not aware of a significant occurrence of consensual incest (or bestiality for that matter, baaaaaa).

I don’t think one sexual orientation is more injurious than the other.

That’s the deal here though as you can tell by Consigs response which is the typical Christian diatribe.
In their religiously delusional mind brainwashed by years of Biblical hatred they see a gay person or relationship as no different than an animal or a rapist, there is no real distinction to them between the 2, Gay/Rapist/Bestiality etc. are no different, its not their fault really, they have been brainwashed into such hatred by an institution that has survived off of brutality, hatred, genocide, racism, death & War all under the guise of an all loving, all giving, all accepting dogma that in its infinite wisdom is really trying to help these infidels by torturing, killing, or using whatever manner to change or in their diseased mind “Save” these poor souls from an eternity of damnation & hellfire. Pat Adolph Robertson & Jerry Goering Falwell are a couple of prime examples of current hate mongers operating under the guise of Christian dogma. These lunatics are keeping their flock all nicely brainwashed with their doctrine of hate 7 days a week nationwide.

Religion is by far the most divisive & damaging human behavior we as a species have inflicted on ourselves.
The amount of irreversible damage Christianity alone is entirely responsible for in the past 2000 years is utterly disgusting, add in all the other “destructive religions” and its astronomical in scope.

If jeopardizing your love is the standard, then there is no standard.  Polygamy of strangers doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Unknown older men w/ unknown 13 year old girls doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Cousins marrying cousings doesn’t jeopardize your love.  Fathers and daughters/sons doesn’t effect your love either.

Meanwhile that very Bible they so feverishly cling to as their “absolute proof” of what they believe says this:

Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12)

Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20).

Lot’s daughters with their father (Gen. 19:33);

the son with his father’s concubines, as Reuben (Gen. 35:22), and Absalom (2 S. 16:22; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1);

father-in-law with his daughter-in-law (Gen. 38:15ff; cf. Ezk. 22:11)

of the brother with the sister or half-sister, as Amnon (2 S. 13:14);

of the brother-in-law with the sister-in-law (Mt. 14:3);

or with both a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 20:14: 18:17).

Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the “mother of all living.� If that is the case, where, then, did her son Cain find a wife?

Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

2 Samuel 5:13 (also 1 Ki 11:3)

After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

and on & on, blah blah, of course you can find other verses is this so called “infallible” book that directly contradict, this is what’s so dangerous about this horrible joke on mankind.

One can take this book and “Justify” any behavior you want in the name of some fictitious deity.
You can make the Bible say anything you want, its the most contradictory book ever written, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I retract calling Consi a worthy enemy; he or she blew it with the posts above.

In any case, we already took a ride down that slippery slope with Rick Brady et al. The gist of it is that person A shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car, because it might lead person B to eat raw meat on Mondays.

C.U.D.D.L.E International: “Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws Through Education”

That link provides you with a “U.S. Alphabetical Index of Marriage Statutes” ... complete with a color-coded map… if you want to, you know, marry your cousin and need to know where it is legal to do so.

To date, no one has married a cow or a daughter.

Their own daughter, that is. Or any cow.

I still don’t see the contradiction in nunya’s quotes, David also murdered an innocent man, that didn’t make murder ok, & the whole statement about Eve shows why those patriarchs married their relatives.

Anyway, I think it’s just funny, because the issue is defying the government, not discrimination.  If gay marriage becomes the law, so be it, but not before the people of the state or nation say so.  Much like I don’t give a shit about Clinton’s sex life, but if he so much as forgets what he ate for breakfast 2 weeks ago (rather than simply pleading the 5th) under oath, I hope they toast his ass. I don’t know if they’re incompetent so much as unprepared because we know you can’t judge by name, & on the marriage liscence I’ve recently seen, there’s no distinction between bride & groom, you don’t have to check male or female, & we all know you can’t judge by 1st names.

Why take part in a process that forbids you ?Marriage needs to be rethought from the ground up, but with the Religious right, forgeit it…
Bilogical, cultural or economic reasons...,
who’s to choose right and wrong and write new law that is based on religious textes and traditions?
Why can’t the State just keep the **** out of our bedrooms ??!!

Mike,
That is exactly my thinking on the subject.
The vocal and insistent gay community has fought vigorously to obtain the right to get married here, in Canada. The issue of gay marriage rights is or has been resolved; it is now legal in many of the provinces and one territory. I do not understand why they wanted to be a part of an institution (church practice) which wants no part of them.

Instead, in my opinion, the gay community should have fought to re-define “marriage”. Term it a Civil Union if not performed in a church. Civil Union can also come with the full legal implications, obligations and responsibilities as an ordinary marriage, including divorce. How does the following work: 

A MARRIAGE is the “union” of one man and one woman as performed with the approval and consent of a church. The government recognizes that the couple have a binding cultural and economic agreement. 

A CIVIL UNION is the “union” of two people outside of a church as performed by an agent recognized by the government to perform such functions. The government recognizes that the couple have a binding cultural and economic agreement. 

Personally speaking, these changes to the current system would mean that my wife and I, we have a Marriage certificate issued by the province of Alberta, would receive a Civil Union Certificate instead. And would we tell everyone that we are Civically Unionized as recognized in Alberta..., Hell NO, We would still tell everyone we were married. And that way gay civic unions become recognized as gay marriages, creeping slowly along to become part of the common vernacular. Just as my civil union would be. And also, I want a Gay Pride parade to make about as much sense as a Heterosexual Pride parade.

If you think permitting gay marriage will lead inexorably to incest and polygamy, you’d better demonstrate the connection.

I don’t believe that.  What I am saying is that on the standard that is being suggested, (doesn’t effect my relationship), there is a a compelling argument that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then the state should also allow polygamy. 

It is difficult to see from the posts here on what grounds a state has a right to regulate marriages other than it may result in genetic defects.  Those folks can argue that they will abort the baby if there was a defect so no harm, no foul. 

As far as myself, I believe that rearing children is not intregal to a marriage, but it marriage is the institution that we have set up for child rearing.  For that reason, I believe the state has the right to regulate marriage.  My beliefs about what is sinful and what should be legal or illegal are separate zilch. 

Of the two, same sex and opposite sex marriages, I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.  So, that is the marital institution that I believe should be sanctioned.

Regards,

What I am saying is that on the standard that is being suggested, (doesn’t effect my relationship), there is a a compelling argument that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then the state should also allow polygamy.

Unless I’ve missed something, no one here has suggested that the reason for allowing gay marriage is because it doesn’t affect other relationships.  One might as well suggest allowing the murder of foreign heads of state for the same reason.

No, this is just a common argument of the fundies turned upside down- they often claim that allowing gay marriage would endanger traditional marriage.

The rationale for allowing gay marriage is civil rights, and the rationale for not allowing it is adherence to religious belief.

I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.

Any support for this?  We had a post here a while back about kids raised by lesbian couples doing just fine.

I believe, that children are best served in a two parent father-mother home environment.

Come to think of it, children are best raised in an extended family. Failing that, they are best raised in a loving environment and the penis/vagina ration be damned.

s/ration/ratio/

prickly pear, I agree,

Gimme that Hetero Parade !

Otherwise, I just deleted a novel I was writing here, just too much to comment on !!

My kids will have 2 parents even if it kills me.
They will learn sacrifice and responsibility,
Stability and trust, openness and truth.
They will learn that life goes beyond one’s own pleasure and rights…
(Without the Church’s involvement)

And when they ask about sue and her two moms, I’ll just tell them that some kids have two mommies or daddies but look, one does what dad does and the other one is more like mom right ? So it comes out the same. Or at least I hope it does…

Hell, another comment like that and we’ll be discussing the sexual revolution
again....

And before someone slams me for that last comment, let me add that :

You don’t have to own a Penis to act like a prick
and
You don’t have to own a Vigina to be on yer period

Enough said !

Merry Mass Consumerism !!