Dick Cheney is a dick.

Marraige is just another area of over involvement by the government in peoples lives. Doesn't matter if you are straight or not.

Cheney's kinda sorta been for gay marriage for awhile.

Yeah, kinda sorta hard to be against your daughter's union.

Plus theres his wife writing lesbian porn

On topic I agree that as a society we have turned a corner and that gay/lesbian relationships are here to stay. I do not however think that they should be afforded the same rights a traditional marriage. The divorce rate in this country is high for a umber of reasons but it is even higher amongst that community (See www.loveandpride.com).

Gay couples should be able to have insurance and other benefits that straight couples enjoy but I believe it should be along the same lines as common law marriages.

I do not however think we should bend to the sreaming and protesting that they are doing. The gay community is a VERY small minority and we need to hold the line here to preserve that which is fundamental in relationships between men and women.

I agree with Micheal only by conclusion. G/L relationships have been going on whether "permitted" or not for a very long time. The "fundamental" character of straight attraction is also impervious to management. Divorce rates are a backwards way of thinking about this; the fact that gays (men especially, I'd presume) are less inclined to long-term fidelity is irrelevant. (And it's easy to imagine that homosexual divorce rates would be higher if they'd been marrying heterosexually.)

(But I didn't follow your link.)

Interesting point about common law marriage.

@Crid

The point I was making by that is that G/L couples breakups are just as messy but unlike straight divorces which have laws in place to settle disagreements G/L do not enjoy those rights and protections.

Case in point lesbian couple adopt or have a child while in a union. Couple splits and the "Mother" cuts the other partner out of the childrens life because the law does not allow the partner to exercise visitation. The union is not recognized and has no protections as such.

When I reference divorce rates its used a baseline showing that regardless of what type of relationship it is straight or G/L the rates are similar. Only the protections for both sides arent.

TOMD

It's been a long time since I felt divorce was meaningfully protecting anyone, especially children.

Just want to point out the 'tradition' of marrige we are savong from the gays is less than 50yrs old

That's horseshit, loojy. List the cultures wherein the sacrament of marriage has been available to gay couples as it has to straights... And...

Go!

1. ________________
2. ________________
3. ________________
4. ________________
5. ________________
6. ________________
7. ________________
8. ________________

Never said it was - though I think the greek or romans had gay marriges of a sort(mihgt have read that wrong though)

My point was the tradiotn we are barring gays from is less than 50 yrs old

1 5 decades ago it was illegal of a black and white to marry
2 3 Decades ago divorce(which is a part of marrige) wass hard to come by
3 70+ yrs ago in many countries Jew were forbidden from marrying chirstians
4 going further back marrige between pesansts were not recognised by and govenmental of religious athority
5 Durring that time royaly sold their children to eachother in marrige for the sake of power
6 the religuos roots from which todays opponest of gay marrige claim moral athourity allowed a man to murder a virgins entire familly and rape her as a form of marrige

is 6 of 8 ggod enough?

None –not one– of your points supports your thesis. That's all just horseshit. It's like saying that because a 1997 Chevy Cavalier has airbags, it has nothing in common with a '67 Falcon.

Seriously Loojy, it pisses me off when say childish and stupid things like that. I don't care where or even if you went to college. A grown man ought not oversell.

Don't be part of the problem

TOMD commented:

"I do not however think that they should be afforded the same rights a traditional marriage. . . . Gay couples should be able to have insurance and other benefits that straight couples enjoy."

I don't see the line you're trying to draw. Insurance and "other benefits" = OK for same-sex couples. "Same rights" = not OK. From your other post, it sounds like you favor allowing divorcing same-sex partners the same parental rights. What other rights could possibly be more important than that that you would arguably withhold from same-sex couples?

None –not one– of your points supports your thesis. That's all just horseshit. It's like saying that because a 1997 Chevy Cavalier has airbags, it has nothing in common with a '67 Falcon. -crid

The way I see it, its like saying since the EV1 ran on electricity it has nothing in common with the model T

Just becasue the long twisted constanly changing definition of tradtional marrige had at least both sexes represented(even if it was in multiples) doesnt mean it can be changed to allow two people of the same sex who love each other, or even those who just want to game the system like alot of strait people do

@snakeman

Health Insurance
Recognition of the union by law as a civil union not a marriage.
Property rights in the event of a split.(Much like a common law in some states)

And honestly yes to the parental rights. If a G/L couple has a child together either by adoption or one or the other (in the case of a lesbian couple)has a child natually thru IV they should be allowed to put both of thier names on the birth certificate. All too often the "parent" cuts the other out of the childs life by saying that they were never a "legal" couple while at the the same time claiming they were when they were together. BUT I also beleive that they should be forced to pay child support also just as man or woman would have to do in the case of a straight couple.

On the flip side they would not get the same federal tax benefits as a regualar couple filing joint taxes.
Their access to joint consumer credit would be limited to those companies which accepted those unions just as a couple of examples.

Im not going down the road of relgious moral grounds because I myself am not a religious person.

Make things a bit clearer?

TOMD

I don't know, I didn't get the impression that he was even "kinda sorta" supporting gay marriage. He said people should enter into any kind of union they want, acknowledged that he has a gay daughter, and that the states should work it out. At the risk of splitting hairs, nothing in there suggested that he actually supported legalizing unions.

I point this out because I've heard a lot of people say that Dick Cheney came out in favor of gay marriage, and I'm not hearing that based on his actual statement. Just an observation on my part.

The most important thing the penguin is saying is that the FED should get out of it. The fact that he doesn't care is important as this is a part of private belief and public policy being different. It doesn't matter if he has a gay daughter, that is a personal matter, and YES he could be against that. A lot of parents are.

He's essentially arguing for the status quo, which is state jurisdiction concerning marriage, while accepting the recognition of gay marriage under this model. So effectively he's making a statement approving of gay marriage. But he's rejecting federal incorporation of marriage.

Crid
I think certain tribes of the American Indians (First Nations) were progressive enought to have same sex (whatever they were called by them) marriage.
It seems that only when the moneychangers get into it that it's actually bad
Dax

Certain tribes drink from puddles; certain others did human sacrifice in volcanoes; etc. Are these the global pattern for our modern institutions?

To say that by dint of some minor variation, "the 'tradition' of marrige we are savong from the gays is less than 50yrs old" is flatly ridiculous. If Loojy real believes that to be true, his sense of proportion is too skewed to trust.

My sense of proportion is fine crid.

Most of the arguments against gay marrige were used 50yrs ago by those who didnt want black men marrying 'their' white women.

They were used by antisemites to prevent jews from marrying christians.

But I have a new question for you.

How is marrige betwwen two memebers of the same sex a worse change to the tradition of marrige then say, no longer letting men kill a 14yr old girls familly, kidnap her and keep her as a sex slave for the rest of her life?

Make your best case looj.

I are shocked. Gay marriage again, and guess what, Crid is still opposed.

Fortunately, it's unnecessary to persuade everyone to win this debate. And marriage equality is winning, no matter what a conservative blog poster thinks. Six out of 50 states, so far. The more places that permit it sans apocalyptic consequences, the less likely the rest of the sane states pass it. Some dead-enders will stay opposed, but hey, there are still people who think miscegenation is an abomination.

You missunderstood crid. You have to make the case.

Expalin how to gay guys, or ladies getting a secualr social contract is worse for the tradition marrige than no longer allowing men to keep the women of conquered rivals as sex slaves.

The 'tradidtion' of marrige is constanly changing its definition. Show us how this one is worse than any of the other changes that proceeded it.

I don't have to make dick, loojy. You're the one petitioning for change. Take an 8th grade debate class and get back to us, OK?

My argumet is simple, crid. Marrige changes all the time, this change is just one of many.
In my opinion it is a better change then the change of disallowing rape as form of marrige.

The point is for you to provide a rebuttal - perhaps you need the 8th grade debate class.

It's a silly argument. Here's a rebuttal: Housing designs change all the time too. Just a few years ago, they were radically different. So let's start building houses without roofs.

Loojy, there's nothing novel or convincing about what you're saying. Got it?

Seriously, what is the story of your life? How bad are you going to make me feel for making fun of you? Are you shut in or something, someone who never had a lot of interaction with others?

And how exactly does a house with no roof equate to gat marrige?

And I dont care if you made fun of me, life is too short for me to even bother carrying a grudge over something so inconsiquencial

Right, but why do I have to explain this metaphor to you? Why can't you grasp it on your own, unless there's some serious learning disability?

Much like a common law in some states

I hate to break it to you guys, but common law marriage is just another method of becoming married that doesn't require standing before a judge and taking vows.

"There is no such thing as "common-law divorce" – that is, you can't get out of a common-law marriage as easily as you can get into one. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage#United_States

-Julie

"do not however think that they should be afforded the same rights a traditional marriage."

Other Mike, do you think these "marraiges" should be afforded the same rights as traditional marraiges:

1. "Love marriages" in which the partners marru based soley on their attraction for each other, without negotiations between their families or the permisson of their parents - this was the big deal about Jane Austen's books; they were revolutionary and subversive to the natural order and common decency.

2. "Marriages" in which no dowry is exchanged - the custom of dowry, which ensured that people married within their own class, only began falling into disues at the end of the 19th century. In China this custom went away only when the Communists took over, and it is a pretty Communist thing to do, doing away with dowries.

3. "Marriages" between members of diffenrt classes. These only became legally recognized in Gebrmany in the 1870s; somewhat earlier in other European countries, with france of course leading the way during its revolution. What this meant in modern terms is that an investment banker simply could not form a legal union with, say, a construction worker. That Anna Nichole Smith farce would never have happened. Until recently sex between gentry and common people was considered a form of bestiality, something to snicker about in drunken equivalent of frat parties, and certainly not something to dignify in a marriage.

These are three instances where the fundamental caharacter of traditional marriage changed in recent times (if we are considering marraige as an institution going back thousands of years). But in these degenerate times we confer legal sanction on all these hook ups.

"I hate to break it to you guys, but common law marriage is just another method of becoming married that doesn't require standing before a judge and taking vows."

Yes, Julie, and it is far older in the West than church weddings. The Church didn't develop a wedding ceremony for centuries, and then for centuries longer did not marry people inside in the church building. It considered marriage and married people outside the spiritual life, per St. Paul's teaching on marriage and the preferability of celibacy.

@ Jim

1. We arent talking about the 1800s where arranged marriages were done at birth to further the power/position of a family.

2. Dowrys were also used to so that the woman would not have to depend on her husband for some things considered "ladies items" and were "unseemly" for a man to buy.

3. Class Marriages (See Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson) Again you reach back into a time long gone for an example that is outdated.

In my comments I was refering to a traditional marriage as between a man and a woman not Man/Man or woman/woman.

The 3 types you used are anacronistic to say the least and have no bearing on my comments.I never said I support gay marriage as a matter of fact I dont but if we must have it or if it is forced upon society then it should be controlled and should never be done in a church.

I happen to agree with Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

If you agree with adam and eve then you must also agree with incest rape slavery and murder. Sorry but its in the bible

You love –absolutely ADORE– telling people what their beliefs mean.

Do other people do that to you, too? Would you be annoyed if they did?

No it woudnt assumeing they had some logical assumtion for their reasoning.

In this case TOMD clais the belive in a biblebased marrige because of the creation story of adam and eve.

If you take that to be true then you must take other parts of the bible to be true.

In other parts f the bible god condonse salvery, polygamy, incest, and kidnapping and raping your futrue wife after killing her familly.

The bible is either true or it isnt - if your going to claim moral superiority from it in order to furthre you argumnets then dont be suprised when it blows up in your face

By you and your I ment it in a general sense not you specifically crid as your not a christian

Other Mike,

What you said:
"I do not however think that they should be afforded the same rights a traditional marriage."

What you say now:
"The 3 types you used are anacronistic to say the least and have no bearing on my comments."

You are contradicting yourself. Two hundred years is a very short time when you are talking about traditions and customs built over many centuries. And this is what the opponents of gay marraige always say, you can't just make these huge changes in something that has been going on for thousands of years. Two hundred years is a lot shorter than that.

So when you say we aren't talking about arrnaged marriages, and then say we are talking about traditional marriages, make up your mind. Because arranged mariages were the tradition. People, at least decent people did not just go off and meet each other in a bar and then fall in love and get married. There was apsecific name for women like that and it wasn't wife. Even in my grandparents' day you dioidn't just marry any old person you took a shine to.

Besides, that, you are just wrong on the facts when it comes to dowries. Big pieces of land changed hand, or big sums of money; it was hardly just to pay for ladies fripperies. Those are jsut the dfacts. A woman's family had to show she was of the same social and economic standing as her husband. Otherwise she was just "climbing".

"Sorry but its in the bible"

That goes for polygamy then. It's in the Bible and never gets on line of bad comment. But that doesn't make it Christian. There are lots of things in the Bible that are un-Christian, starting with the Torah and going on from there. There's a name for Torah-believing Christians - heretics and Pharisees. Paul setteld the issue of keeping to the Law pretty thoroughly. But then again, he diodn't much approve of "Adam and Eve" did he?

Paul setteld the issue of keeping to the Law pretty thoroughly. But then again, he diodn't much approve of "Adam and Eve" did he?

Jim, you and I are on the same side with this one, but I have to ask: Why are we debating religion when it comes to a legal status change? We aren't discussing baptism or bat mitzvah, we are talking about the creation of one tax entity from two with additional inheritance and power of attorney rights.

Catholics and Mormons have decided who they want to marry and who they don't for centuries. If they don't want to marry GLBT, then fine. Why does the bible play directly into the validity of a legal contract for the rest of us? These are two consenting adults wanting to create a legal entity. If they can create a business partnership, why aren't they good enough to create a personal one with legal consequences?

Without quoting religion, why should Steve the gay man be unable to marry his longtime partner, but Steve the straight man can?

-Julie

"Jim, you and I are on the same side with this one, but I have to ask: Why are we debating religion when it comes to a legal status change? "

You are right; theyre is no connection. I was talking about a pernicious tendency within Ameircan Protestantism with Other Mike, that's all. It was only a tenuous connection to the real subject.

But nowe that you ask, there is an aspect to religion that really has nothing to do with spirituality or faith. In Roman times "religio" was the system of ceremonies that held the community together emotionally - sacrifices to various patron gods of the city or whatever (and it's their word, so that's what it meant at least in the beginning). It resembled the flag salute more than something spiritual. That aspect of religion has a lot to do with laws and social norms. It keeps creeping inot faith, and I do mean creeping.

They already can enter in to any kind of union they wish. That does not mean, however, that we should call it a marriage. Are you hoping to recognize bestiality and pederasty as marriages also?

Are you really that stupid stuart? Or do you normally go around comparing gay people to animals?