Twice-divorced Hawaii Gov vetoes Civil Unions Bill

[native]

I am not calling you names or making fun of you, Cleets. I seek to understand your meaning. I know it's not as much sport, but indulge me, please.

You are the one who said that this issue of marriage boils down to nothing more than simply "consenting adults." Does your analysis include consenting adult mother-son and other non-traditional sexual relationships? ...Or do you wish to add a few caveats?

Nope...
Two consenting adults is fine - no further government involvement required

If adult children want to marry their parents - whatever... who cares (see Religious Nut ball reference earlier)

Why thank you for your clarity, cleets!

[native]

If they are both consenting adults than why not? Just don't expect the government to take care of the messed up babies when a mom marries her son.

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

Bluehen86? Mr. Blue Pants? Fencesitter? Enthusiastic Brave New Worlderer? Courageous Disparager of Religious Nutballs blah blah blah...

Where are you, my normally sensible and good-humored friend?

[BlueHen86]

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

Bluehen86? Mr. Blue Pants? Fencesitter? Enthusiastic Brave New Worlderer? Courageous Disparager of Religious Nutballs blah blah blah...

Where are you, my normally sensible and good-humored friend?

Watching the World Cup.

[native]

Bluehen86? Mr. Blue Pants? Fencesitter? Enthusiastic Brave New Worlderer? Courageous Disparager of Religious Nutballs blah blah blah...

Where are you, my normally sensible and good-humored friend?

Watching the World Cup.

Me too. I love soccer but what a boring game! The replay of the Texas-Alabama game on ESPNU was better TV!

[BlueHen86]

Watching the World Cup.

Me too. I love soccer but what a boring game!

Agreed. Too much flopping and acting.

[OL FU]

Well when I left this thread a few days ago seemed like we were having a reasonable debate on an interesting issue

[BlueHen86]

Well when I left this thread a few days ago seemed like we were having a reasonable debate on an interesting issue

That was just for your benefit...

[OL FU]

Well when I left this thread a few days ago seemed like we were having a reasonable debate on an interesting issue

That was just for your benefit...

In that case, I need better benefits. I'm going on strike

[89Hen]

Two consenting adults is fine - no further government involvement required

If adult children want to marry their parents - whatever... who cares (see Religious Nut ball reference earlier)

I wonder how many people would agree with you on this one. 86? Jeff?

[Skjellyfetti]

Close incest is different because of the scientifically identifiable problems that can be passed on the offspring.

Incest can harm another individual.

Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Government, douchebag preachers and douchebags in general should stay out.

[89Hen]

Close incest is different because of the scientifically identifiable problems that can be passed on the offspring.

Incest can harm another individual.

Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Government, douchebag preachers and douchebags in general should stay out.

You didn't read the thread.

[BlueHen86]

Two consenting adults is fine - no further government involvement required

If adult children want to marry their parents - whatever... who cares (see Religious Nut ball reference earlier)

I wonder how many people would agree with you on this one. 86? Jeff?

My preference would be to just take the man & woman requirement out of the existing laws.

[JohnStOnge]

One question you smug **** pompous ass fat piece of hypocritical greedy **** - What would Jesus do?

D, I know you doubt that Jesus existed. But if we just go with how he is represented in the Gospels, I'm pretty sure that he would not have said that there's any circumstance in which a "union" between two members of the same sex would be considered equivalent to "marriage."

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not sure why you think the equal protection clause doesn't apply in this case. It essentially states that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law.

I guess I won't even get into how "equal protection" is not synonymous with "equal treatment." Let's just go with "equal treatment."

Defning marriage as being a union between one member of one sex and one member of the oppostie sex is not denial of equal treatment. Any member of one sex has access to the same situation. If that member of one sex wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the opposite sex they can do so. Saying that someone who wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the same sex is can't do so...can't get that recongition... is NOT denial of equal treatment.

The idea that saying that marriage is defined as one member of one sex united with one member of the opposite sex is a denial of equal treatment is absolutely abusurd. It's amazing that people are getting away with it the way they are. It's just amazing that people are buying it.

[Chizzang]

One question you smug **** pompous ass fat piece of hypocritical greedy **** - What would Jesus do?

D, I know you doubt that Jesus existed. But if we just go with how he is represented in the Gospels, I'm pretty sure that he would not have said that there's any circumstance in which a "union" between two members of the same sex would be considered equivalent to "marriage."

WTF..!!!

John: You can be dismissed 100% now - forever - thank you very much

Hey Kids..!!!
Want to know what Jesus thinks about completely stupid narrow minded myopic topics of the modern world
Log in to CS.com and check with JohnSt.Wrong... he knows what Jesus thinks

[BlueHen86]

I'm not sure why you think the equal protection clause doesn't apply in this case. It essentially states that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law.

I guess I won't even get into how "equal protection" is not synonymous with "equal treatment." Let's just go with "equal treatment."

Defning marriage as being a union between one member of one sex and one member of the oppostie sex is not denial of equal treatment. Any member of one sex has access to the same situation. If that member of one sex wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the opposite sex they can do so. Saying that someone who wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the same sex is can't do so...can't get that recongition... is NOT denial of equal treatment.

The idea that saying that marriage is defined as one member of one sex united with one member of the opposite sex is a denial of equal treatment is absolutely abusurd. It's amazing that people are getting away with it the way they are. It's just amazing that people are buying it.

It shouldn't be a question of equal treatment, it should be a question of what is the right thing to do. Just because something is equal doesn't make it right.

[OL FU]

I guess I won't even get into how "equal protection" is not synonymous with "equal treatment." Let's just go with "equal treatment."

Defning marriage as being a union between one member of one sex and one member of the oppostie sex is not denial of equal treatment. Any member of one sex has access to the same situation. If that member of one sex wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the opposite sex they can do so. Saying that someone who wants to enter into "marriage" with a member of the same sex is can't do so...can't get that recongition... is NOT denial of equal treatment.

The idea that saying that marriage is defined as one member of one sex united with one member of the opposite sex is a denial of equal treatment is absolutely abusurd. It's amazing that people are getting away with it the way they are. It's just amazing that people are buying it.

It shouldn't be a question of equal treatment, it should be a question of what is the right thing to do. Just because something is equal doesn't make it right.

I agree. I think allowing gays to marry is the right thing to do. But I also know enough to know that I am not always right and therefore since the constitution doesn't guaranty it, the political process has to make the decision on whether it is the right thing to do.

[89Hen]

D, I know you doubt that Jesus existed. But if we just go with how he is represented in the Gospels, I'm pretty sure that he would not have said that there's any circumstance in which a "union" between two members of the same sex would be considered equivalent to "marriage."

WTF..!!!

John: You can be dismissed 100% now - forever - thank you very much

Hey Kids..!!!
Want to know what Jesus thinks about completely stupid narrow minded myopic topics of the modern world
Log in to CS.com and check with JohnSt.Wrong... he knows what Jesus thinks

at you Chizz. You may not agree with it, but all he did was answer DB1's question.

[89Hen]

I wonder how many people would agree with you on this one. 86? Jeff?

My preference would be to just take the man & woman requirement out of the existing laws.

What are the existing laws? I honestly don't know how they are worded.

[OL FU]

My preference would be to just take the man & woman requirement out of the existing laws.

What are the existing laws? I honestly don't know how they are worded.

South Carolina Law

ARTICLE 1.

GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony.

(A) All persons, except mentally incompetent persons and persons whose marriage is prohibited by this section, may lawfully contract matrimony.

(B) No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

(C) No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

SECTION 20-1-15. Prohibition of same sex marriage.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

[Chizzang]

WTF..!!!

John: You can be dismissed 100% now - forever - thank you very much

Hey Kids..!!!
Want to know what Jesus thinks about completely stupid narrow minded myopic topics of the modern world
Log in to CS.com and check with JohnSt.Wrong... he knows what Jesus thinks

at you Chizz. You may not agree with it, but all he did was answer DB1's question.

Oh come on... you sanctimonious turd - lighten up Frances



Jeezus would laugh

[BlueHen86]

at you Chizz. You may not agree with it, but all he did was answer DB1's question.

Oh come on... you sanctimonious turd - lighten up Frances



Jeezus would laugh

John 11:35a Jesus laughed

[JohnStOnge]

WTF..!!!

John: You can be dismissed 100% now - forever - thank you very much

Hey Kids..!!!
Want to know what Jesus thinks about completely stupid narrow minded myopic topics of the modern world
Log in to CS.com and check with JohnSt.Wrong... he knows what Jesus thinks

Oh come one. Are you telling me that you seriously think that if the Jesus of the four Gospels was a true historical figure he would have gone along with the idea of homosexual marriage? Seriously now. No, he didn't say, "Thou shalt not have homosexual marriage." But look at the culture he was in. Look at the few statements he is reported to have made about marriage. They clearly imply a presumption that it involves opposite sexes.

Good grief man. I was responding to a post suggesting that the answer to "What would Jesus do" in this circumstance is "He would support the idea of homosexual marriage." That's ridiculous. It is far more likely that, if he was a real historical figure, he'd have said it's not right. Do you REALLY disagree with that?

[Chizzang]

WTF..!!!

John: You can be dismissed 100% now - forever - thank you very much

Hey Kids..!!!
Want to know what Jesus thinks about completely stupid narrow minded myopic topics of the modern world
Log in to CS.com and check with JohnSt.Wrong... he knows what Jesus thinks

Oh come one. Are you telling me that you seriously think that if the Jesus of the four Gospels was a true historical figure he would have gone along with the idea of homosexual marriage? Seriously now. No, he didn't say, "Thou shalt not have homosexual marriage." But look at the culture he was in. Look at the few statements he is reported to have made about marriage. They clearly imply a presumption that it involves opposite sexes.

Good grief man. I was responding to a post suggesting that the answer to "What would Jesus do" in this circumstance is "He would support the idea of homosexual marriage." That's ridiculous. It is far more likely that, if he was a real historical figure, he'd have said it's not right. Do you REALLY disagree with that?

I'm just thrilled that we're having a conversation pretending to know what Jesus would do and not do...

Were Jesus alive today - in this time - would he be more like Ghandi or Pat Robertson..?

[CitadelGrad]

When people tell you what Jesus wants, they are really telling you what they want.