You were talking about them here, weren't you? If you don't want someone to ask about them, why talk about any of it here?

there are two reasons why people ask.. to change their mind, or to change my mind... which one was it?

Ok, well ROMANTIC love then. If two people love another ROMANTICALLY, they have every single right in the world to marry that person. No one should be able to take that away from them, period. Aren't there more important things to worry about than whether two guys or two girls want to marry? Seriously people.

I never understood why ANY person thinks marriage is such a big deal? I was married for six years all it did was cost me money to do so and towards the end it was horrible for both of us. All that time essentially was wasted, but the government has to but in and tell you what and what you cannot have.

Marriage is a sorely outdated ritual that means nothing. But if the gay community wants in, I say they have the right to be miserable for a while like everyone else.

seriously, I guess my whole point got missed.

Rights dont cost money or require employees. Thats called a 'service'. Services usually have requirements. Those requirements have not had a legal history of including 'love' at any time during amerian history(romantic or otherwise).

or else, many would be excluded from marriage

or else, any who claim 'love' (including minors and relatives) would not be excluded from marriage

a common sentiment for those who have 'failed' at marriage,,,or had unhappy marriages

its similar to me to those who think 'abortion' is no big deal because they arent real happy with how their own parenting experience turned out,,,

the institution of marriage is still significant for our KIDS, rather we are reaping the seeds of bad partner choices or not.

No, I got it, but it fails, because that has nothing to do with this. Any couple who loves each other romantically, deserves the right to have that love recognized. There is nothing you can tell me that is gonna make me feel any different.

who determines how someones love must be 'recognized'

thats got nothing to do with the legal concept of rights,,,

A common sentiment? LOL, I have always felt this way, even when things went great for 5 years......sorry I was married 7 not 6. My ex knew this, but wanted to get married, because in her mind it was the RIGHT thing to do. Well not to toot my own horn, but it seems I was right to begin with.

And as for the abortion thing, I have no kids. I wanted it that way. This world is screwed up enough without bringing more kids into it.

And don't you also have a "failed" marriage" too Ms?

I did read your posts. Currently marriage IS preformed AS A RELIGIOUS RITE. ALONG with that religious rite are papers that must be signed and submitted to the state in order to fulfill the state contractual agreement. It already works that way Spider.

If you changed the word of state contracts to civil unions what difference would it make EXEPT that people would not have to be contractually married under state law.

In effect you are telling heterosexuals that they don't have to have all the State and Federal benefits that homosexuals are fighting to get.

HOw does that solve the problem?

No I'm not saying that clergy should be forced to do anything against their religious beliefs - as long as their behavior in following those beliefs has no affect on the rights of other people.

We both agree that NY did it right. They put in the language to protect clergy from being forced to marry gay couples.

There are already MANY religious institutions who accept homosexuality. That means that homosexuals do not have to approach more traditional religions with a request for marriage.

So NOW how is that interferring AT ALL with the beliefs or the right of believers to their behavior?

Many Supreme Court decistions have included language referring to marriage as fundamental right. That is part of the argument for repealing DOMA at the Federal level.

Nope - a fundamental right IS a human right as in individual human right. Attempting to make it conditional changes it's fundamentality and turns into a discriminatory act of utility.

Please feel free to memorize all the definitions of delusion - because one of them suggests that religious fundamentaism can cause the kind of delusion that prevents individuals from ingesting any factual information that is contrary to one's belief.

ah - never mind you wouldn't make the connection anyway.

It is fun though to watch how the same concepts keep coming up as if there is no memory of past conversations or imparted factual infomation. It's true fundamentalism is quite predictable.

I do enjoy your posts 'as MG would say be blessed'

Under what I've proposed, everyone would have the same rights under the law and marriage would be a purely religious institution in which the Government could not mettle. I'm not at all sure what your question is or what you are objecting to.



This sentence here just confuses the hell out of me.

I'm done explaining this idea. It's very easy to understand and I'm actually surprised that anyone has any questions.

I certainly do, I have two. I am learning from what I can aknowledge as 'mistakes' of my own, not of marriage.


I can see the significant advantage my son had being raised with his mother and father in the formative years over what my daughter faces as the child of a 'single parent' home. Given a choice to knowingly bring her into the single parent home, I would not have done so.

A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.


,,,determined by the COURTS, meaning determined by interpretation of the very vague wording of the constitution

no such wording EXPLICITLY includes marriage or voting so the courts have given findings bases upon how they interpret it

so, the court CAN define a fundamental right and does define fundamental rights, BUT, not all courts have determined 'marriage' to be one nor do they have to

for marriage to be a right, similar to voting, it would need to be 'free', in my opinion

you cant tell me it is my fundamental right 'IF' I get a license, because (As you objected to) that puts a condition on it

its either fundamental or its not, if its conditional , (by your own logic) how can it be fundamental,,,it doesnt follow logically

voting costs me nothing but effort and noone can stop me from doing it,, when I marry, I require a license, so they can REQUIRE certain things to obtain it,,,kind of killing the notion of a fundamental right because why would a fundamental right require a license?

I can only speak for myself. I ask people questions to get a better understanding of their beliefs. Not necessarily to change my mind or their mind. So no, it's not quite so black and white as you'd like it to be.

It was your choice to get married even though you didn't want to. That does not mean others must feel the same way. And yes, that is a common sentiment of those who have been in failed marriages. Look around this site and see how many people there are who are bitter about marriage because theirs has failed. Not all people are like that, fortunately.

to get a better understanding of why i'm against it?...lol, i have to call BS on that one...