NationStates Jolt Archive

I have formulated a few solution to the gay marriage debate. One group does not wish for gays to be able to marry,another group thinks they should, and another group doesn't really give a shit (good choice).

My solution? All homosexuals must be married. That way, they experience the magic, pleasure, and slavery that is marriage. Three years later, the passion is gone and sex is, for the most part, repetative and boring.
Then they will want the freedom that all non-married couples share. Then they won't want to be married.

That is my illogical solution, and I many many more. :D

I have formulated a few solution to the gay marriage debate. One group does not wish for gays to be able to marry,another group thinks they should, and another group doesn't really give a shit (good choice).

My solution? All homosexuals must be married. That way, they experience the magic, pleasure, and slavery that is marriage. Three years later, the passion is gone and sex is, for the most part, repetative and boring.
Then they will want the freedom that all non-married couples share. Then they won't want to be married.

That is my illogical solution, and I many many more. :D

Hmm...what's more fucked up: you or your "solution"? :D

Just kidding, before I'm done for flaming.

This idea sucks.

Hmm...what's more fucked up: you or your "solution"? :D

Just kidding, before I'm done for flaming.

This idea sucks.
1) Hmm, that's a tough one.
3) It may suck, but at least it's somewhat creative

I have formulated a few solution to the gay marriage debate. One group does not wish for gays to be able to marry,another group thinks they should, and another group doesn't really give a shit (good choice).

My solution? All homosexuals must be married. That way, they experience the magic, pleasure, and slavery that is marriage. Three years later, the passion is gone and sex is, for the most part, repetative and boring.
Then they will want the freedom that all non-married couples share. Then they won't want to be married.

That is my illogical solution, and I many many more. :D Hmm… I like social engineering as well.

Is marriage that bad? Hmm, better stay out of it.

I have a solution, as well. Get the government out of marriage, period.

I have a solution, as well. Get the government out of marriage, period.
That works just as well.

The only solution is to outlaw heterosexual marriage, ban gay marriage, and force bestiality. Then we'll see who gets their comeuppance.

The only solution is to outlaw heterosexual marriage, ban gay marriage, and force bestiality. Then we'll see who gets their comeuppance.
Sounds like a party.

Throw kids, guns, and alcohol in there and we're coming close to who the terrorists think we are.

Sounds like a party.

Yea thats one party I wont be attending.

Throw kids, guns, and alcohol in there and we're coming close to who the terrorists think we are.
They like guns…

I have a solution, as well. Get the government out of marriage, period.
I agree. Every couple, straight or gay, should have the right to get an equal civil partnership. Marriage should be left to religions/druids/Elvis/whoever.

It proves what I've always believed: we must outlaw marriage!


No, I'm serious here!

Think about it for a moment: People won't need to spend thousands of dollars on divorce settlements, infidelity won't exist, and no-one would have to worry about spending lots of money on those expensive ceremonies. Besides, that way people could just live together no matter what their gender is. Or non-people. It'll get rid of all these problems!

Throw them all out of my beloved Christian nation. Give them an island they can call home, there they can do as they please in their so called paradise. They would be baned for life from ever entering my country again. No exceptions! Now there's the best solution, ever. Praise GOD allmighty!

Jeez, when other people say it's high time to get the government the hell out of marriage, it's a good idea, but when I say it, I get flamed for it. Sheesh. Great world this is.

I was hating on having the government in marriage before it was cool.

For the last time, you can't get rid of marriages! It makes the situation much worse, and leads to single mothers without any alimony, abused children, custody problems, etc. Despite the fact that getting married has some stupid monetary benifits, which cynics claim is merely a scheme to get the general public to have more kids, marriage also helps the government make sure that children and spouses are getting treated properly in marriages. If the government isn't allowed in marriages, innocent family members will only suffer.

I understand the appeal of this "brilliant" solution to the whole idea of gay marriage, but this only side steps the problem presented. If you are unwilling to grant minority groups equal rights, or feel that it is a lost cause, you only solidify the mindset of a backward Christian America by giving up and resorting to such disasterous proposals that acquiesce to the wishes of the conservative movement.

Throw them all out of my beloved Christian nation. Give them an island they can call home, there they can do as they please in their so called paradise. They would be baned for life from ever entering my country again. No exceptions! Now there's the best solution, ever. Praise GOD allmighty!
Which 'beloved Christian nation' would that be? The Holy See?

Throw them all out of my beloved Christian nation. Give them an island they can call home, there they can do as they please in their so called paradise. They would be baned for life from ever entering my country again. No exceptions! Now there's the best solution, ever. Praise GOD allmighty!

This has to be some sort of parody puppet. I've never seen such blatant stupidity and inability to transmit ideas as this. :D

Which 'beloved Christian nation' would that be? The Holy See?
Perhaps he lives in a commune.

Or instead, you could take the church out of legal marriage entirely. It entirely removes the religious argument against homosexual marriage. Make all couples wanting to marry get a marriage certificate from the government, which will mean that they are legally married and get all the legal benefits. Then, if they want, they can have a religious ceremony as well, which would look pretty but have no legal status.

Or instead, you could take the church out of legal marriage entirely. It entirely removes the religious argument against homosexual marriage. Make all couples wanting to marry get a marriage certificate from the government, which will mean that they are legally married and get all the legal benefits. Then, if they want, they can have a religious ceremony as well, which would look pretty but have no legal status.
I say get the government out of a private institution.

I say get the government out of a private institution.

Given the numbers of inheritance/alimony/divorce/whatever laws tied in with marriage, which all lead back to the government, getting the government out entirely would just completely fuck up the system.

How about this?

People can have feelings of intense love for another person without it being sexual, right? And straight folks in prisons and the military have gay sex to relieve sexual tension, right? So... How about gay man can marry a woman whom he intensely (yet non-sexually (duh)) loves. We already know that people can get aroused and have sexual relations outside of their orientation... So, this would appeal to religious folks ('cause the gays are in straight marriages) and the gay folks would have an outlet for their sexual tension. GET SEXUAL DESIRE OUT OF MARRIAGE!!!

Methinks this makes sense. Or am I just insane?

Or instead, you could take the church out of legal marriage entirely. It entirely removes the religious argument against homosexual marriage. Make all couples wanting to marry get a marriage certificate from the government, which will mean that they are legally married and get all the legal benefits. Then, if they want, they can have a religious ceremony as well, which would look pretty but have no legal status.


Which is basically the way it is already. . . you aren't legally married without a marriage license, no matter how many ministers say prayers over you.

Perverts!

Which is basically the way it is already. . . you aren't legally married without a marriage license, no matter how many ministers say prayers over you.
So if there's no religion in current marriages, why can't gays marry?

That's what the entire subject is about...

So if there's no religion in current marriages, why can't gays marry?

That's what the entire subject is about...


Because a bunch of people incorrectly think that marriage is about religion and cannot seem to grasp that if marriage is indeed ONLY about religion, the government cannot regulate it. Churche, temples, mosques etc. are and should always be free to regulate marriage within their congregations. They should not, however, be able to regulate what people do outside their doors. That's the problem--they think they should be able to do so.

So if there's no religion in current marriages, why can't gays marry?

That's what the entire subject is about...

Very, VERY good question. People can - at the moment - get married by government only, without involving any religion to the least degree. I would say that's a clear indicator that marriage hasn't got anything to do with religion.

However, some people claim that their religion invented marriage and that the government should stay out of it, and only their religion gets to decide who can marry and who can't. I never understood what they base that on, but ok...
I think that these people should only be allowed relgious marriages that are NOT being recognised by the state, don't involve tax benfits nor any special rights.

However, some people claim that their religion invented marriage and that the government should stay out of it, and only their religion gets to decide who can marry and who can't. I never understood what they base that on, but ok...It's based on the successful attempt of the Church to gain influence by making marriage a Church issue in the middle ages. Before then, marriages took place in the town's most public square, which, as churches began to pop up more often, was usually in front of the local church. The Church saw the power of being the only one to sanction marriages and went for it. Secular governments have recognized this too, and took that power from the Church.
What some people forget, though, is what it was like before the Church sanctioned marriages. Bonds for life have been around longer than religion and in places never even touched by Christianity or other world religions.

Geez, just do what Canada did. Legislate that denying a couple the right to marriage based on sexual orientation is wrong, and then ensure the rights of the various religious institutions to not perform any marriage that doesn't fit with their beliefs. Everyone should be happy, then; everyone can get married, and nobody who doesn't want to perform such marriages is required to.

Of course, the Zeroeth Commandment of most religions is: Thou shalt mind other people's business! ;)

The only solution is to outlaw heterosexual marriage, ban gay marriage, and force bestiality. Then we'll see who gets their comeuppance.


:headbang:

Beat me to it!

If homosexual couples do not have the right to get married, then neither do heterosexual couples. What heterosexuals have is a privilege granted to them by the government.

The difference between a legal privilege and a right is that legal privileges can be taken away with the stroke of a pen - what the Government giveth, the Government can take away. A right, on the other hand, continues to be a right even if the government (or anyone else) attempts to deny it. Rights are intrinsic, privileges are not.

So, which is it? Do heterosexual couples have the legal privilege of marriage, subject to the approval of the government? Or do all couples have the intrinsic right of marriage, which most governments currently attempt to deny but cannot take away?

It's pretty clear how my government sees it. My wife and I had to go to our county courthouse to apply for a marriage license, for which we had to pay; and our marriage was not legal until the county (acting as agent for the state) said it was. In other words, we had to petition the State for the privilege of marriage. It was (legally) the State's prerogative to say whether or not we were married.

I see it differently. Our marriage was made between my wife and myself. Even if the state had, on some pretext or other, chosen to deny it, we would still be married in my book. It's my prerogative, and my wife's, and nobody else's, to say that we are married, regardless of what the law recognizes. That's our right, and I defy anyone to deny it.

If homosexual couples do not have the right to get married, then neither do heterosexual couples. What heterosexuals have is a privilege granted to them by the government.

The difference between a legal privilege and a right is that legal privileges can be taken away with the stroke of a pen - what the Government giveth, the Government can take away. A right, on the other hand, continues to be a right even if the government (or anyone else) attempts to deny it. Rights are intrinsic, privileges are not.

So, which is it? Do heterosexual couples have the legal privilege of marriage, subject to the approval of the government? Or do all couples have the intrinsic right of marriage, which most governments currently attempt to deny but cannot take away?

It's pretty clear how my government sees it. My wife and I had to go to our county courthouse to apply for a marriage license, for which we had to pay; and our marriage was not legal until the county (acting as agent for the state) said it was. In other words, we had to petition the State for the privilege of marriage. It was (legally) the State's prerogative to say whether or not we were married.

I see it differently. Our marriage was made between my wife and myself. Even if the state had, on some pretext or other, chosen to deny it, we would still be married in my book. It's my prerogative, and my wife's, and nobody else's, to say that we are married, regardless of what the law recognizes. That's our right, and I defy anyone to deny it.


I hate to bring back a dead thread, but I've only pseudo been here and thought this needed a response. Regardless of whether marriage is a privledge or a right, it must be applied equally across the board--at least in the USA--as provided for by the 14th amendment.