The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

I think you are insane but if you can find a church to marry you, under my system, go for it.

- yeah....one woman is more than enough for me....don't think I could handle arguing with more than one......

[Col.Foley]

Why do you need a church?



Correct.

You don't really but marriage has been, throughout history, mostly been and associated as being a religious, IE Churuches, Mosques, Synogogues, and temples, but really if you just want to be together.....

- yeah....one woman is more than enough for me....don't think I could handle arguing with more than one......

yeah tell me about it.

[lordofseas]

You don't really but marriage has been, throughout history, mostly been and associated as being a religious, IE Churuches, Mosques, Synogogues, and temples, but really if you just want to be together.....

yeah tell me about it.

Not. Going. To. Argue.

[Col.Foley]

Not. Going. To. Argue.

I really do not see that there is anything to argue.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

yeah....cuz it should also be our choice as to who we give away belongings to upon our death....not government's....just properly draw up the will and testament and have it notarized and that should be enough in a court of law if the person you willed them to ever needs to prove that they now belong to him/her

That is pretty much exactly what I am saying. I am not sure I got the specifics down, IE how exactly to do it, but Government has no place in the personal relationships of human beings except in book keeping and perhaps mediation if the two parties cannot come to an agreement by themselves. I would completley re write the tax code to achieve this and take away most of the legal incentives, and legal imperatives, in marriage. The only reason why Transgender, or Interracial, or Gay marriage is an issue in the first place is that marriage comes with a special place in our society...I do not really dispute that. But what I do dispute is that Government has gotten way too...married...with marriage. And issues like this story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/texa...der-marriages/, would mostly evaporate. If you want to find a church or other organization to marry you, that is well and good. I do believe there are churches who will marry gays and transgenders.

Now on the issue of Property transfer, well that is a legal matter. But that can be done through any number of legal documents and agreements incase one of the spouses dies and what to do with the property, the children, etc.

Im actually fine with the government moving away from marriage depending on how they would restructure the legal aspects. Im all for changes that I feel make sense guys .

I disagree about legal issues being the only reason why interracial marriages are an issue though. I have heard people say things like "it weakens the purity of the white man" and even people saying its unfair for the children because "they wont belong".

[Col.Foley]

Im actually fine with the government moving away from marriage depending on how they would restructure the legal aspects. Im all for changes that I feel make sense guys .

I disagree about legal issues being the only reason why interracial marriages are an issue though. I have heard people say things like "it weakens the purity of the white man" and even people saying its unfair for the children because "they wont belong".

Well again that is the bias of the people making such claims and I do not think anyone here would agree with them certainly. Sure I am sure that there would be some 'issues' regarding with hate and discriminiation and what have you but the issues from the Governmental perspetive would be gone and the other issues would thus be moot. Stupid, but moot.

[mad_gater]

Why do you need a church?



Correct.

well as we've been asserting....under this system there would be no legal aspect to marriage.....merely a spiritual aspect and who better to conduct spiritual affairs than churches.....and you can find one that will marry people involved in any kind of sexual deviancy known to man.....I'm sure there's churches friendly to not only homosexuality but bestiality (most especially EW!) and polygamy/andry and necrophilia, etc.....and it would leave people on an individual basis to choose which ones to honor (or not honor)....it would really only affect luxury services like hotels....in other words a Christian hotel owner could reserve the right to allow only heterosexual married couples to use his honeymoon suite(s) and the way to resolve that is to simply find a hotel that is liberal in who they allow to use the honeymoon suites...however a Christian supermarket owner would not have the right to deny gays the ability to conduct business.......they don't have the right to deny basic and necessary goods and services like food, clothing, non-elective medical/dental care to a person just because that person happens to be living in sin...it wouldn't affect agay person's ability to due process of law if a crime was committed against them

[mad_gater]

I really do not see that there is anything to argue.

yeah it's like are you really that desperate for a fiery debate that you'll look for one that doesn't exist?

[lordofseas]

well as we've been asserting....under this system there would be no legal aspect to marriage.....merely a spiritual aspect and who better to conduct spiritual affairs than churches.....and you can find one that will marry people involved in any kind of sexual deviancy known to man.....I'm sure there's churches friendly to not only homosexuality but bestiality (most especially EW!) and polygamy/andry and necrophilia, etc.....and it would leave people on an individual basis to choose which ones to honor (or not honor)....it would really only affect luxury services like hotels....in other words a Christian hotel owner could reserve the right to allow only heterosexual married couples to use his honeymoon suite(s) and the way to resolve that is to simply find a hotel that is liberal in who they allow to use the honeymoon suites...however a Christian supermarket owner would not have the right to deny gays the ability to conduct business.......they don't have the right to deny basic and necessary goods and services like food, clothing, non-elective medical/dental care to a person just because that person happens to be living in sin...it wouldn't affect agay person's ability to due process of law if a crime was committed against them

Would this be fair to atheists or agnostics?

[Col.Foley]

well as we've been asserting....under this system there would be no legal aspect to marriage.....merely a spiritual aspect and who better to conduct spiritual affairs than churches.....and you can find one that will marry people involved in any kind of sexual deviancy known to man.....I'm sure there's churches friendly to not only homosexuality but bestiality (most especially EW!) and polygamy/andry and necrophilia, etc.....and it would leave people on an individual basis to choose which ones to honor (or not honor)....it would really only affect luxury services like hotels....in other words a Christian hotel owner could reserve the right to allow only heterosexual married couples to use his honeymoon suite(s) and the way to resolve that is to simply find a hotel that is liberal in who they allow to use the honeymoon suites...however a Christian supermarket owner would not have the right to deny gays the ability to conduct business.......they don't have the right to deny basic and necessary goods and services like food, clothing, non-elective medical/dental care to a person just because that person happens to be living in sin...it wouldn't affect agay person's ability to due process of law if a crime was committed against them

I think more to the point wehther it is a right or not what would matter more, someones sense of Capitalism/ To make a living, or someones discrimination against gays and lesbians...or blacks. I know what I would chose. And many large chains and companies have their own anti discrimination policies because they cannot afford the political preassure against them if they were to step out of line.

yeah it's like are you really that desperate for a fiery debate that you'll look for one that doesn't exist?

[Col.Foley]

Would this be fair to atheists or agnostics?

Atheists and agnostics should not feel the need to marry in the first place.

[mad_gater]

Would this be fair to atheists or agnostics?

yeah cuz they can have their own framework in place for marriages

[lordofseas]

Atheists and agnostics should not feel the need to marry in the first place.

Reasoning?

[Col.Foley]

Reasoning?

Atheists do not believe in a God. Therefor a marriage between them and an individual under something they believe to be a myth would be silly. Agnostics, while they might believe in a God, I do not think they would be too much up for organized religion. And both of them, if you lose the legal aperatus that sets an unfair advantage to married people when it comes to many things I think would be content to just be together and live together and make babies together and live happily ever after without any outside group putting a stamp of approval on their relations.

[mad_gater]

Atheists and agnostics should not feel the need to marry in the first place.

or at the very least I'm quite certain they can find a way to perform a marriage without invoking any God or gods