Two more states allow same-sex civil unions

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i do not understand why people cling with such desperation to the need to preserve marriage for "one woman, one man"? how does someone else's choice of an adult, non-goat, same-sex spouse affect someone who's living in, let's say, alaska?

It doesn't. Coincidentally, the only places on earth where marriages to animals take place or where kids are married even to family members - you know, all this "slippery slope" garbage the defenders of traditional marriage continue to bring up - happen to be exclusively those places that also consider same sex marriages a taboo.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

i do not understand why people cling with such desperation to the need to preserve marriage for "one woman, one man"? how does someone else's choice of an adult, non-goat, same-sex spouse affect someone who's living in, let's say, alaska?

I do not understand why people cling to marriage in government to begin with. Government should have no place in marriage and marriage should be called civil unions all around if government is going to be involved. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. Bastardization of another word by the homosexuals should be out of the question. Just as denying them the same benefits that go with "marriages" should be out of the question as well.

There's plenty of ignorance all around on both sides of the issue and it's an easy one to solve if people would just get their heads out of their neighbors bedroom.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

i do not understand why people cling with such desperation to the need to preserve marriage for "one woman, one man"? how does someone else's choice of an adult, non-goat, same-sex spouse affect someone who's living in, let's say, alaska?

Because some of us find that life style sick, revolting, disgusting and totally demented and don't want to see it brought into the mainstream is if it's accepted normal behavior between two normal adults. That and some of us including myself still believe in the sanctity of marriage.

The lib nuts can get off on same sex marriages all they want and try to pass them off as normal couples, but it's anything but normal.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Last year or thenabouts, some guy in Africa was observed being intimate with a sheep. The tribal elders forced him to marry the sheep and pay its owner a dowry. He now has to file an I-130 instead of the I-129F, si man.

did you forget about these gems?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/37276-indian-youth-weds-hill-to-ward-off-curse/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/16370-you-may-now-kiss-the-groom/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It doesn't. Coincidentally, the only places on earth where marriages to animals take place or where kids are married even to family members - you know, all this "slippery slope" garbage the defenders of traditional marriage continue to bring up - happen to be exclusively those places that also consider same sex marriages a taboo.

Its not even a slippery slope. Animals cannot make legal decisions - hence they cannot marry. Incestual marriages have occured in the past. The only negative is it weakens the gene pool.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Its not even a slippery slope. Animals cannot make legal decisions - hence they cannot marry. Incestual marriages have occured in the past. The only negative is it weakens the gene pool.

That is the only negative you can come up with?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its not even a slippery slope.

That's why I referred to it as the slippery slope garbage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Garbage can be terribly slippery, and full of maggots as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I do not understand why people cling to marriage in government to begin with. Government should have no place in marriage and marriage should be called civil unions all around if government is going to be involved. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. Bastardization of another word by the homosexuals should be out of the question. Just as denying them the same benefits that go with "marriages" should be out of the question as well.

There's plenty of ignorance all around on both sides of the issue and it's an easy one to solve if people would just get their heads out of their neighbors bedroom.

Division of property is why the government gets involved. The deed to your home would be meaningless without a society that validates the legality of your ownership.

What definition of marriage are you referring to? The meaning of words can and do evolve. Take the word '**' for example. I couldn't call you a ** without most people thinking I just used a pejorative for homosexual when the dictionary meaning is someone entirely different.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Division of property is why the government gets involved. The deed to your home would be meaningless without a society that validates the legality of your ownership.

What definition of marriage are you referring to? The meaning of words can and do evolve. Take the word '**' for example. I couldn't call you a ** without most people thinking I just used a pejorative for homosexual when the dictionary meaning is someone entirely different.

i think "smoking" when I hear "**" but that's just me.

Words don't "evolve" they get stolen/bastardized.

as far as "division of property" goes, you don't need government to recognize a union of two individuals for that. You can file as joint owners, etc. You can have two names on a mortgage, a car loan, etc.. Equal ownership is understood and it's the smart way to go about things when making such a large purpose. Signing and notarizing personal contracts works as well. There are plenty of options available. Non of these requires government to recognize your relationship.

If you don't consider your relationship meaningful until the governmnet recognizes it, then you truly don't belong in the relationship that you are in.

and yes I get the whole "medical care" argument as well, but there again that's irrelevant as well as it should be up to the individual who they want to care for them. I should be able to say that I want my best friend's sister to make my medical decisions, and that should be the end of the story.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Garbage can be terribly slippery, and full of maggots as well.

Okay, slippery slope nonsense then.

[Danno 1,228]

i think "smoking" when I hear "**" but that's just me.

Words don't "evolve" they get stolen/bastardized.

as far as "division of property" goes, you don't need government to recognize a union of two individuals for that. You can file as joint owners, etc. You can have two names on a mortgage, a car loan, etc.. Equal ownership is understood and it's the smart way to go about things when making such a large purpose. Signing and notarizing personal contracts works as well. There are plenty of options available. Non of these requires government to recognize your relationship.

If you don't consider your relationship meaningful until the governmnet recognizes it, then you truly don't belong in the relationship that you are in.

and yes I get the whole "medical care" argument as well, but there again that's irrelevant as well as it should be up to the individual who they want to care for them. I should be able to say that I want my best friend's sister to make my medical decisions, and that should be the end of the story.

IN this one instance, steve is right. You suggest "gov. should get out of marriage".

IN order to change that you have to rewrite everything from inheritance law to Social security to custody laws.

We have been through this debate before and where it typically goes is- Your view point retreats into needing to change a thousand other things to make it work.

For instance, I can kick my girlfriend out of my house, I can't do that with my wife, she has protections provided by law, how would the court decide if we were married or not if there were no control?

Who would be eligible to collect your social security when you died if we had no way to figure out which of the three women claiming to have married you were in fact your real wife?

But all this aside laws are made in part to preserve society, marriage is primarily instituted for the security of Children, the two go hand and hand.

[TBoneTX 45,469]

did you forget about these gems?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/37276-indian-youth-weds-hill-to-ward-off-curse/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/16370-you-may-now-kiss-the-groom/

Zombies... from the dead... zzz man...

[Danno 1,228]

It doesn't. Coincidentally, the only places on earth where marriages to animals take place or where kids are married even to family members - you know, all this "slippery slope" garbage the defenders of traditional marriage continue to bring up - happen to be exclusively those places that also consider same sex marriages a taboo.

Rather than address the point, you dodge with you "slipper slope" mantra.

Answer the questions.

Q: By what logic can we deny a Muslim man from marrying 2 women, by what right do you impose the Christian standard of a marriage consisting of just two people?

Edited January 4, 2012 by Danno

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i do not understand why people cling with such desperation to the need to preserve marriage for "one woman, one man"? how does someone else's choice of an adult, non-goat, same-sex spouse affect someone who's living in, let's say, alaska?

It doesn't. Coincidentally, the only places on earth where marriages to animals take place or where kids are married even to family members - you know, all this "slippery slope" garbage the defenders of traditional marriage continue to bring up - happen to be exclusively those places that also consider same sex marriages a taboo.

Rather than address the point, you dodge with you "slipper slope" mantra.

Answer the questions.

Reading comprehension issues, Danno? Again? Read "the questions" that were answered with two simple words, no less, rather than making up questions that I did clearly not respond to. Are you really that incompetent when it comes to following a simple conversation? Or are you simply overwhelmed by this indisputably true observation?