Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it has more to do with women entering the work force. the women think that they can earn their own money, no need to put up with a guy once he gets his beer belly.
oh so you have some kind of emotional interest in this issue so you think its ok for you to be obnoxious? "civil union" and "marriage" are words. the rights of the people involved in either situation could very well be exactly the same even if they are called something different. stop being a nut.
LMAO! Capt - Did YOU just call someone obnoxious?
It's not the same thing though. I have a close friend who is a lesbian and in a civil union relationship. Their relationship is not covered under the recent Supreme Court ruling - only marriages are which is why this was so important. Now her marriage will be recognized in other states where gay marriage is legal as well. Civil unions are not "transferable" - they would have to get married in the state that they moved to in order for it to be recognized. Now that's not an issue.
As to your question about the government being involved it's because originally marriage was a contract between two families and treated as a business deal back in the day, which is also why it's so funny how people think it was once this honored and respected entity. People sold their daughters to families for goodness sake!
It's not the same thing though. I have a close friend who is a lesbian and in a civil union relationship. Their relationship is not covered under the recent Supreme Court ruling - only marriages are which is why this was so important. Now her marriage will be recognized in other states where gay marriage is legal as well. Civil unions are not "transferable" - they would have to get married in the state that they moved to in order for it to be recognized. Now that's not an issue.
As to your question about the government being involved it's because originally marriage was a contract between two families and treated as a business deal back in the day, which is also why it's so funny how people think it was once this honored and respected entity. People sold their daughters to families for goodness sake!
I have my own way which is very aggravating to people but I don't actually cross the line of being technically obnoxious.
so its the same rights within nj, but it wouldn't be recognized elsewhere. I don't even really know what the legal rights are. im not sure why we don't just have civil unions for everyone legally and let marriage be thing choice that has nothing to do with government.
yeah, it seems to me like a contractual agreement. government should drop the marriage term altogether.
Funny, while I was out having a lovely day, Captain stayed home arguing all by himself. So who is nuts exactly? Why was my disagreement with you relegated to a lapse in mental health? Because I don't agree with you? Because I have a personal stake in the issue? Ridiculous!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a personal connection to further an insight. In my case, I was merely sharing with you that my eyes were quite opened about the impact of these laws.....on real people. That I happened to love one of those peeps, doesn't make my points any less legitimate.
Meanwhile, I find it ironic that while you, Captain Underpants, is sitting home supposedly not emoting, you continue to persist in sending out messages that impact, and yes, hurt, real people. People who, at the end of the day, want one thing, and one thing only: to love and build their family with someone of the same gender. ("OOOh the horror, the social consequences...." )
Sorry if you didn't like my direct rhetoric or my wondering if you were dropped on your head as a baby. Obnoxious? Probably but I find your rhetoric obnoxious as well.
As for the point I made about civil unions--it clearly was too sophisticated for you to grasp. When you feel the need to make different rules for different people, you are creating an inherently unequal system---otherwise, why bother? The very fact that you prevent someone from calling themselves "married" and relegate them to being "unionized" is inherently unfair and not at all equal. Luckly, smarter people than you and me are seeing that way and changing the laws.
Don't get too worked up Captain. If you are going to be a provocateur, be prepared to be provoked right back. Hard to believe I got you..... I was expecting more mettle! :-)
Funny, while I was out having a lovely day, Captain stayed home arguing all by himself. So who is nuts exactly? Why was my disagreement with you relegated to a lapse in mental health? Because I don't agree with you? Because I have a personal stake in the issue? Ridiculous!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a personal connection to further an insight. In my case, I was merely sharing with you that my eyes were quite opened about the impact of these laws.....on real people. That I happened to love one of those peeps, doesn't make my points any less legitimate.
Meanwhile, I find it ironic that while you, Captain Underpants, is sitting home supposedly not emoting, you continue to persist in sending out messages that impact, and yes, hurt, real people. People who, at the end of the day, want one thing, and one thing only: to love and build their family with someone of the same gender. ("OOOh the horror, the social consequences...." )
Sorry if you didn't like my direct rhetoric or my wondering if you were dropped on your head as a baby. Obnoxious? Probably but I find your rhetoric obnoxious as well.
As for the point I made about civil unions--it clearly was too sophisticated for you to grasp. When you feel the need to make different rules for different people, you are creating an inherently unequal system---otherwise, why bother? The very fact that you prevent someone from calling themselves "married" and relegate them to being "unionized" is inherently unfair and not at all equal. Luckly, smarter people than you and me are seeing that way and changing the laws.
Don't get too worked up Captain. If you are going to be a provocateur, be prepared to be provoked right back. Hard to believe I got you..... I was expecting more mettle! :-)
did you really have to write a 6 paragraph post to me? can you boil it down to 3-4 sentences?
I went back and see you are very insecure regarding your intelligence. i bet i could have some fun with that insecurity. what about this issue do you think requires exceptional intelligence? when you say people smarter than both of us are changing the laws, are you referring to politicians, judges or voters?
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-22-2013 at 08:26 PM..
And do you think gay people getting married is part of the decay of society?
Definitely, but I refer to them as what they are... homosexuals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
