I think the entire matter would be solved if government got out of the contract. If homosexuals want to form their own groups to sanction their relationships let them do it. Barring that they can hire attorneys to set up the agreement.
Not to worry, we pretty much had that figured out, says me and the little mouse in my pocket.
rodericktbeaman wrote:
I think the entire matter would be solved if government got out of the contract. If homosexuals want to form their own groups to sanction their relationships let them do it. Barring that they can hire attorneys to set up the agreement.
Funny, I think the same thing about heterosexuals. Take that other nutjob's advice and stop getting marriage licenses. Just go to church and say your "I do"s. Who needs the government interfering in your home?
rodericktbeaman wrote:
I think the entire matter would be solved if government got out of the contract. If homosexuals want to form their own groups to sanction their relationships let them do it. Barring that they can hire attorneys to set up the agreement.
You're probably right. If there were no contract then everyone would need a lawyer in order to enter into marriage agreement. No agreement and there would be no marriage. Much better than the arrangement that we have now...don't you think!
Great example of the power of sarcasm!
There remains only one reason to oppose marriage equality.....some straight people still think they deserve something others do not. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
PaulPisces wrote:
Great example of the power of sarcasm!
There remains only one reason to oppose marriage equality.....some straight people still think they deserve something others do not. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
In regards to the last part of your sentence Paul, what would that be? And I am not being sarcastic nor argumentative.
rodericktbeaman wrote:
I think the entire matter would be solved if government got out of the contract. If homosexuals want to form their own groups to sanction their relationships let them do it. Barring that they can hire attorneys to set up the agreement.
Government takes away peoples rights to give another their rights. It's all very confusing and hard to figure out.
PeterS wrote:
You're probably right. If there were no contract then everyone would need a lawyer in order to enter into marriage agreement. No agreement and there would be no marriage. Much better than the arrangement that we have now...don't you think!
...or legalzoom.
Why would anyone pay a lawyer? LOL, rather than pay $30. at a government office pay two attorneys $200. an hour?
PaulPisces wrote:
Great example of the power of sarcasm!
There remains only one reason to oppose marriage equality.....some straight people still think they deserve something others do not. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Sarcasm is effective isn't it :thumbup:
You forgot to key the sarcasm font. Good one for a chuckle but probably not for homosexual folks.
P.S. "Gay marriage" and "common sense" are not found in any threads in OPP until now so you've probably created an oxymoron.
PoppaGringo wrote:
In regards to the last part of your sentence Paul, what would that be? And I am not being sarcastic nor argumentative.
Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you Poppa - not ignoring your question on purpose.
At the heart of it, those opposing marriage equality believe, either by virtue of ancient texts, or simply by the fact they are heterosexual they deserve protections, rights and social support/validation form the state that they believe same-sex couples do not.
The belief that same-sex couples are inferior on many counts is at the heart of their argument.
The idea of preserving the meaning of "marriage" is a rouse...they couldn't care less about the word, and are quite happy with the changes to the institution that has brought them benefits (women are no longer chattel, partners are on more equal footing, women can be the bread-winner in the relationship, marriages most often are no longer arranged but are rather a choice between the loving individuals, etc, etc, etc.) They only want same-sex couples to not participate in the institution.
Hope that explains my statement.
There is no common sense in gay marriage. In fact, it's outside of common sense. Like Thomas Jefferson's truths, this is self-evident. Parsing the words and definitions is pointless; everyone knows the truth.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.