Gay Marriage is GO...

[RandyForRubio]

I don't see how this changes anything I just said. Perhaps you needed "for any reason" in there, but the concept remains the same; If I feel like the marriage of X and X is bad for the institute of marriage, or makes a mockery of it, I shouldn't sign the marriage license. I'm not paid by the state. I'm a private entity that makes no money, and therefore can not be taxed.

If any two self aware individuals of legal age want to get married, they should. But as a non-taxed private entity, I maintain my right to chose not to be a part of a wedding if I'm against the union for any reason. Christian churches currently still have that right, and so do I. If at a later date that changes, that's fine. But let's cross that bridge when we get there.

Curious, but why just two adults? I saw in Japan they have people marrying robots. And why not 3 or 4 adults?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Why would it be any different than before gay marriage was legalized? Admittance based on sexual preference has nothing to do with marital rights. Has any bigoted university lost their tax exemption for refusing to admit a student based on their sexual preference or behavior?

The key part is compelling government policy. With more governmental acceptance, it will be more difficult to say the case doesn't have consequences here.

Even the solicitor for the Obama administration said that this is going to be an issue, as well as Alito. So if the legal people on each side think it will be an issue, why don't you?

 

[BabyPeterzz]

If we went to a flat tax system then most of the issues surrounding the need marriage in general goes away. I would be curious how much of a drop off of marriage, of any kind, we would see if there were no perceived benefit for getting married in the first place?

Very little drop off IMO. Very few people get married for tax purposes. Plus, there are a myriad of other issues marriage regulates, e.g. custody, assets and inheritance, medical visitation, just to name a few. Overhauling our tax code, which this happening is far fetched at best, will only negate one "perk" of marriage.

Oh yeah, and the whole love thing too. Gotta find a way around that one.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Curious, but why just two adults? I saw in Japan they have people marrying robots. And why not 3 or 4 adults?

Hasn't this been driven into the ground yet? One word: consent. A robot, dog, cat, child, toaster oven cannot legally consent to marriage. Problem solved.

For the record, I think polygamy should be legal, as long as those involved are of age and consenting adults. Why not?

 

[GVC]

The key part is compelling government policy...So if the legal people on each side think it will be an issue, why don't you?

Because the policy addresses marital rights. Nothing else is directly affected.

If you're only arguing that this moves us closer to wider non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation (which still vary state to state) that will eventually lead to a situation similar to race-based discrimination in college admissions, I'd guess you're probably right.

Do you think universities should retain their tax exempt status - which effectively grants them free access to public resources and services - while discriminating based on race?

 

[Stoked]

Hasn't this been driven into the ground yet? One word: consent. A robot, dog, cat, child, toaster oven cannot legally consent to marriage. Problem solved.

For the record, I think polygamy should be legal, as long as those involved are of age and consenting adults. Why not?

I agree. Consenting adults should be free to marry who ever they choose. Wether it is a man and woman, 2 women, a woman and 3 men, 2 men and 3 women...

Anything gov. performed should be a "civil union" and anything done religiously should be a "marriage". Gov. should view them as equal in every way.

And before anyone freaks out at me. Relax, my opinion would make my marriage a "civil union" instead of a "marriage".

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I agree. Consenting adults should be free to marry who ever they choose. Wether it is a man and woman, 2 women, a woman and 3 men, 2 men and 3 women...

Anything gov. performed should be a "civil union" and anything done religiously should be a "marriage". Gov. should view them as equal in every way.

And before anyone freaks out at me. Relax, my opinion would make my marriage a "civil union" instead of a "marriage".

How about gov. performed, which are all legal marriages btw, are called marriages and religions change the name of their unions. All good eh?

 

[Stoked]

How about gov. performed, which are all legal marriages btw, are called marriages and religions change the name of their unions. All good eh?

OK.

I could lie and reply in some other way if it helps you keep your idea of me in this mold you seem to have.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

OK.

I could lie and reply in some other way if it helps you keep your idea of me in this mold you seem to have.

I don't know what you're talking about, dude. I appreciate your level, although sometimes infuriating, approach to issues. We're good mang. My response was serious, because I've heard it from others. I just don't get why everyone else is responsible for changing the name of their union, which has existed before most of these organized religions, because religions wants their unions to be separate. That's on them if they want to do so, not everyone else. Again, marriage does not belong to religion, if they want something different by all means do so, but us non-organized religious folks shouldn't have to be forced to change. Gay marriage, which is now officially just marriage now!!!!, isn't forcing anything on any one, why does organized religion always trying to force it's beliefs on others?

 

[Harambe]

Curious, but why just two adults? I saw in Japan they have people marrying robots. And why not 3 or 4 adults?

I simply haven't opened the line of thought to it yet, in this context. I'm certainly convinced you can love and be in love with two people at one time. I'm certainly NOT convinced it could work in the long run. I dare say I might go along with it with some stipulations... All members love and are in love with each other, no more than four people per union, adequate finances to supplement a family of this size, no outside influence from religion(or other groups to ensure "set ups" aren't happening) just to name a few. But if you have to get into that many stipulations, why bother? Is it really worth the time, given that the couple/trio/quartet could be just as happy in a polyamorous setting outside of marriage?

Robots are not a true individual, just premature AI, and therefore I'm not sure I would sign off on that. If a being is not sentient, intelligent life, I'm not sure we should be marrying it.

 

[Stoked]

I don't know what you're talking about, dude. I appreciate your level, although sometimes infuriating, approach to issues. We're good mang. My response was serious, because I've heard it from others. I just don't get why everyone else is responsible for changing the name of their union, which has existed before most of these organized religions, because religions wants their unions to be separate. That's on them if they want to do so, not everyone else. Again, marriage does not belong to religion, if they want something different by all means do so, but us non-organized religious folks shouldn't have to be forced to change. Gay marriage, which is now officially just marriage now!!!!, isn't forcing anything on any one, why does organized religion always trying to force it's beliefs on others?

oh ok. I thought you were just being mocking. My bad. I am ok with switching up the name choice. That's a nuance and not the issue I was getting at.

Why I seperated civil and religious unions/marriages was for what I want to happen next. Polygamy for consenting adults. Regardless of relation or number.

So a man, his mother and their friend can all enter a "civil union", "union", "marriage" or what ever else we want to call it.

If religions wanted thiers to be seperate they can change the name if they wish and only "seal" (borrow a mormon term) a hetero man and hetero woman if they wish.

 

[Harambe]

How about gov. performed, which are all legal marriages btw, are called marriages and religions change the name of their unions. All good eh?

Let's just reverse it entirely, the LDS faith already kinda has a lock down on it. All marriages preformed by the government are marriages. Religions can religiously seal two people on top of marriages.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.