involvement in marriage,
---
we agree again
which should be between a man, a woman and their
God, period.
---
putting a myth between a man and a woman is supposed to be good?
The problem today, is that a secularist and predominately
militant Gay movement is attempting to push the redefinition of
marriage
down the proverbial throats of Americans,
---
a definition that doesn't include gays is wrong
On Feb 8, 10:16 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Greg,
>
> Mark pretty much summed it up and I think accurately. Michael is correct
> in that government, (the First State was California followed by
> Connecticut) who got into the regulation of marriage, and it was
> literally to prevent miscegenation.
>
> I don't think that is the case today, in the New Milennium. The purpose of
> government being involved in the contractual arrangement of marriage is two
> or three fold. FIrst, it is a revenue generator, (albeit a modest
> revenue generator). Second, because of the amount of divorces, and the
> burden that these contract place upon the judiciary, there has to be some
> modicum of regulation.
>
> As stated on each and every time this subject pops up, I am not opposed to
> civil unions for Gays, and for those heterosexual couples who are looking
> for some type of acknowledgement of their union, who do not understand or
> believe in the tenets of marriage from a ecclesiastical standpoint.
>
> If It were up to me, I would in fact remove government from any
> involvement in marriage, which should be between a man, a woman and their
> God, period. The problem today, is that a secularist and predominately
> militant Gay movement is attempting to push the redefinition of marriage
> down the proverbial throats of Americans, and this is to further their
> secularist agenda, as well as to normalize the Gay, homosexual agenda.
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There are no hospital visitation "RIGHTS". There is only hospital
> > policy. That policy is normally in line with the patients exact stated
> > wishes.
>
> > Taxes (I assume Federal)...The Feds may make any rule they wish as may
> > the States. Marriage is a permitted activity. If a State allows Gay
> > marriage then the State tax forms can be filed jointly. If the Feds do
> > not allow Gay marriage then the inverse is true. These are totally
> > different systems.
>
> > Spousal benefits... again... State and Federal are two different
> > systems.
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:11 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Should a married gay couple in Massachusetts have hospital visitation
> > > rights as a spouse, be able to file taxes jointly, and get spousal
> > > benefits upon death?
>
> > > On Feb 8, 8:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Proposition 8, nor any of the other state initiatives that I am
> > familiar
> > > > with, are not attempting to treat "different classes of people,
> > > > differently". What the legislation similar to Prop 8 and others are
> > > > attempting to do, is to prohibit individuals from carving out more
> > rights,
> > > > additional privileges, "Special Rights" if you will, from State
> > > > Constitutions and State Code, that other individuals.
>
> > > > Currently, any man or woman can marry any other man or woman that
> > they so
> > > > choose to marry. No law prohibits that; e.g.; any man can go and
> > marry
> > > > any woman, or any woman can go and marry any man, as is the
> > definition of
> > > > "Marriage". What the militant, secularist Gay agenda is attempting
> > to do,
> > > > is to carve out additional rights and privileges, by allowing certain
> > > > individuals to redefine "marriage", thereby giving special rights and
> > > > privileges to a few people who claim that they want to "marry" within
> > their
> > > > gender. That's not marriage, from a legal standpoint, and it is
> > clearly
> > > > not marriage, from an ecclesiastical standpoint.
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > > Government has no business in the marriage issue.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > You'll get no argument from me. A dem gave us DOMA, and n now they
> > > > > all spout about how terrible it is, and do NOTHING about it.
>
> > > > > And yes, there are rights attached to marriage, from taxes to
> > > > > hospitals to death.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment