Reason 5 Jesus 4

[dbackjon]

Actually yeah kinda...



Look as things stand today I agree with you John
Marriage needs to be legal for all BECAUSE the government has over stepped its bounds
by making it an advantage to be married

Prior to that egregious over step this would have all been a total non-issue
so yeah... Like CID said way back there

The EXACT conversation Griz Goddess and I had yesterday. I could NOT get her to understand...

So V got the looks AND the brains in the family

[AZGrizFan]

The EXACT conversation Griz Goddess and I had yesterday. I could NOT get her to understand...

So V got the looks AND the brains in the family

Says the guy who doesn't understand either. Oh, but yes on the looks. And the boobs.

[CID1990]

Actually yeah kinda...



Look as things stand today I agree with you John
Marriage needs to be legal for all BECAUSE the government has over stepped its bounds
by making it an advantage to be married

Prior to that egregious over step this would have all been a total non-issue
so yeah... Like CID said way back there

You do know that official recognition of marriages for property/inheritances etc dates back centuries? Massachusetts has required licences since 1639. England required official registration for almost a millennium.

Where do you think the term bastard comes from

The church?

Tell me one facet of government sanctioned marriage that can't be handled by a will.

Why are you so stuck in the past, Jon? Never expected you to be such a traditionalist

[dbackjon]

You do know that official recognition of marriages for property/inheritances etc dates back centuries? Massachusetts has required licences since 1639. England required official registration for almost a millennium.

Where do you think the term bastard comes from

The church?

Tell me one facet of government sanctioned marriage that can't be handled by a will.

Why are you so stuck in the past, Jon? Never expected you to be such a traditionalist

It comes from children out of wedlock.

So what you are proposing is a lawyer-employment job security act - making everything that is covered by marriage into separate pieces, all requiring a legal document.

Not stuck in the past, but living for the future. Why are you stuck with the discredited ideas of a Russian immigrant that ended up on Social Security?

[Chizzang]

The church?

Tell me one facet of government sanctioned marriage that can't be handled by a will.

Why are you so stuck in the past, Jon? Never expected you to be such a traditionalist

It comes from children out of wedlock.

So what you are proposing is a lawyer-employment job security act - making everything that is covered by marriage into separate pieces, all requiring a legal document.

Not stuck in the past, but living for the future. Why are you stuck with the discredited ideas of a Russian immigrant that ended up on Social Security?

Nobody is arguing that the correct out come wasn't achieved - it was absolutely the correct decision
But that "correct decision" is based on a bad tendency and that bad tendency is
Federal Government involvement in personal lives

Its just not a good trend

Federal Governments don't get smaller
They don't get less involved
They don't ask for less influence
They don't seek lower revenue
They don't self limit their sphere of control
They just continue to GROW and EXPAND

Nobody with at least a passing knowledge of the issues disagrees with the outcome
I would argue that 95% of those in disagreement do so because of Religious beliefs
not policy and equality

[dbackjon]

The delusions of the Liberatarians - thinking we can have the same size government now with a population of 325 million as we did when there were 3.25 million.

[Chizzang]

The delusions of the Liberatarians - thinking we can have the same size government now with a population of 325 million as we did when there were 3.25 million.

Hey look, I have my delusions
And you have yours

[AZGrizFan]

The delusions of the Liberatarians - thinking we can have the same size government now with a population of 325 million as we did when there were 3.25 million.

the delusions of liberals - insisting we need twice as much government as we had just ten years ago despite population growing just 15% in that time.

[dbackjon]

The delusions of the Liberatarians - thinking we can have the same size government now with a population of 325 million as we did when there were 3.25 million.

the delusions of liberals - insisting we need twice as much government as we had just ten years ago despite population growing just 15% in that time.

Except we don't have that.

[JohnStOnge]

ake your beat down like a man. This is America, where liberty trumps religion (eventually).

I am getting so sick of you people equating homosexual marriage to "liberty."

It's not. You are not denying somebody liberty by virtue of opting not to recognize their relationship as "marriage." You are not denying somebody liberty by opting not to interact with them, serve them, engage in commerce with them, etc.

Saying someone who does not want to recognize a perverted relationship as "marriage" should be forced to do so IS denying LIberty. Saying that someone who does not want to participate in that kind of abomination IS denying liberty.

You people just don't even get what Liberty is.

[houndawg]

ake your beat down like a man. This is America, where liberty trumps religion (eventually).

I am getting so sick of you people equating homosexual marriage to "liberty."

It's not. You are not denying somebody liberty by virtue of opting not to recognize their relationship as "marriage." You are not denying somebody liberty by opting not to interact with them, serve them, engage in commerce with them, etc.

Saying someone who does not want to recognize a perverted relationship as "marriage" should be forced to do so IS denying LIberty. Saying that someone who does not want to participate in that kind of abomination IS denying liberty.

You people just don't even get what Liberty is.

Ever the drama queen...

[AZGrizFan]

the delusions of liberals - insisting we need twice as much government as we had just ten years ago despite population growing just 15% in that time.

Except we don't have that.

Nor do we have what you said either...

[D1B]

The EXACT conversation Griz Goddess and I had yesterday. I could NOT get her to understand...

So V got the looks AND the brains in the family

Z and V "conversation." Thinking it went and looked exactly like an episode of The Honeymooners.

[Chizzang]

So V got the looks AND the brains in the family

Z and V "conversation." Thinking it went and looked exactly like an episode of The Honeymooners.

Except reverse the characters... V is powerful

[Skjellyfetti]

Was a marriage license required by the state when the founders were doing their thing?

Yes.

I have to routinely look these up for research purposes at work.

Here's one from 1810:


And, see Marriage Act of 1753:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "idea" itself isnt about marriage - it is about the government's intrusion in so many facets of our personal lives in ways the founders never could have predicted

it is the ultimate "mission creep"

And, marriages were FAR more intrusive when we were founded as a country.

For instance, in order to have a legally sanctioned marriage, in Virginia, you had to be married in an Anglican/Episcopal Church. Period. (Until Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom).

And, as someone who wears a kilt for shits and giggles... you should understand how intrusive it was back then. The English were directly attacking the Scottish traditional marriage ceremonies as invalid with their 1753 law.

You're out of your depth here

Speak for yourself.

[CID1990]

Was a marriage license required by the state when the founders were doing their thing?

Yes.

I have to routinely look these up for research purposes at work.

Here's one from 1810:


And, see Marriage Act of 1753:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "idea" itself isnt about marriage - it is about the government's intrusion in so many facets of our personal lives in ways the founders never could have predicted

it is the ultimate "mission creep"

And, marriages were FAR more intrusive when we were founded as a country.

For instance, in order to have a legally sanctioned marriage, in Virginia, you had to be married in an Anglican/Episcopal Church. Period. (Until Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom).

And, as someone who wears a kilt for shits and giggles... you should understand how intrusive it was back then. The English were directly attacking the Scottish traditional marriage ceremonies as invalid with their 1753 law.

You're out of your depth here

Speak for yourself.

Your petty insults about my heritage and Jon's diversions/libertarian straw men and refusals to answer aside

I will ask you and Jon directly

Why is it necessary for the government to approve your marriage?

I was being somewhat hyperbolic but you are correct- government has been in the marriage business - in some cases for a very long time

But neither of you have yet to say why this is necessary - why do you crave approval from a bureaucracy? Why is it necessary? Why would Christians need Caesar to bless their marriages?

You actually did a pretty good job of showing through egregious examples why government is poison to institutions like marriage, but neither of you have yet to offer just ONE good reason for why government should be in the marriage biz

And marriage is already big biz for lawyers so you guys can save that canard for your echo chamber

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage either.

[CID1990]

I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage either.

You're a smart feller, then SK.

I'll leave the question to Jon then-

Why should the government be in the business of approving marriages? Involved in any way with the institution's business?

I really want to hear a good argument for it.

[AZGrizFan]

So V got the looks AND the brains in the family

Z and V "conversation." Thinking it went and looked exactly like an episode of The Honeymooners.

It's like you were there in the car with us!!

[houndawg]

Z and V "conversation." Thinking it went and looked exactly like an episode of The Honeymooners.

It's like you were there in the car with us!!

"Straight to the moon AZGriz..!"

[Ibanez]

ake your beat down like a man. This is America, where liberty trumps religion (eventually).

I am getting so sick of you people equating homosexual marriage to "liberty."

It's not. You are not denying somebody liberty by virtue of opting not to recognize their relationship as "marriage." You are not denying somebody liberty by opting not to interact with them, serve them, engage in commerce with them, etc.

Saying someone who does not want to recognize a perverted relationship as "marriage" should be forced to do so IS denying LIberty. Saying that someone who does not want to participate in that kind of abomination IS denying liberty.

You people just don't even get what Liberty is.

Do you understand equality?

[dbackjon]

I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage either.

You're a smart feller, then SK.

I'll leave the question to Jon then-

Why should the government be in the business of approving marriages? Involved in any way with the institution's business?

I really want to hear a good argument for it.

What is the argument against it?
We as a society have built institutions for millennium based on marriage. Now the definition of marriage has been fluid, with women going from being property to our current state, multiple marriages, etc. And for the most part, it has accomplished societies goals - stability at home, path for inheritance, etc.

We don't REQUIRE marriage - you can shack up, have kids, etc without it - but it takes a lot of work to approximate marriage without getting married, and you can't fully duplicate it.

If you want to argue to eliminate marriage, go ahead - I just fail to see what that gains society or our country. And you have not made a rational argument for your side, other than "I don't like it"

[dbackjon]

and are you married, CID? With a government issued license?

[Grizalltheway]

and are you married, CID? With a government issued license?

Hey, he just wants the gubmint to cut them paychecks, fund that retirement, then leave him the fuck alone.

[Ibanez]

and are you married, CID? With a government issued license?

What's your point? Because he disagrees with the government intervention, he shouldn't have married his wife and had kids? That's a weak position, even for you.