[Hoot Gibson]

So any state that doesn't stipulate marriage has to be man and woman has to give marriage licenses to anybody of legal age?

Have you had any luck finding a single example of states that do not allow gay marriage but have failed to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman of the "many" that you claimed exist? Or is this yet another example where you made a statement that cannot be supported by facts and simply decided to drop the point without admitting that you were mistaken? All I asked for was one example. A modest and reasonable request, IMO.

[TheRealVille]

Have you had any luck finding a single example of states that do not allow gay marriage but have failed to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman of the "many" that you claimed exist? Or is this yet another example where you made a statement that cannot be supported by facts and simply decided to drop the point without admitting that you were mistaken? All I asked for was one example. A modest and reasonable request, IMO.

I wasn't looking for one. I wanted to know what you thought, if there was one. You wouldn't answer the question, so I quit asking.

[Hoot Gibson]

I wasn't looking for one. I wanted to know what you thought, if there was one. You wouldn't answer the question, so I quit asking.

You said that many states do not define marriage and yet you could not name a single one. In Texas, I believe they describe people who do that sort of thing as being "all hat and no cattle." nicker:

You substantiate your statement and I will answer your question about a purely hypothetical situation. I will go a step further, just admit that you have no idea whether your statement was true or not, and I will still answer the question. Deal?

[TheRealVille]

Have you had any luck finding a single example of states that do not allow gay marriage but have failed to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman of the "many" that you claimed exist? Or is this yet another example where you made a statement that cannot be supported by facts and simply decided to drop the point without admitting that you were mistaken? All I asked for was one example. A modest and reasonable request, IMO.

Ok, Oklahoma, for example. On the US marriage laws website, Okalahoma doesn't say one way or the other, use it. Other states at this website definitely say whether same sex is allowed or not.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/uni...ndex.shtml

ID Requirement: Drivers License, certified birth certificate, passport or his or her Social Security number.

Residency Requirement: Do not have to be a resident of Oklahoma.

If previously married: Bring certified copy of divorce decree
or a copy of deceased spouse's death certificate.

Order Vital Records Online!

Application Requirement: Both parties to a marriage should appear in person to obtain the license.
Fees: $60 - cash or money order only. Couples who take a premarital counseling course "conducted by a health professional or an official representative of a religious institution" will be charged only $5 for a marriage license.

Waiting Period: No waiting period.

Blood Tests: No.

Under 18: Parents must appear at the courthouse with the couple to sign a consent form. Minors must wait three days before the marriage license is valid.

Proxy Marriages: No. Both parties must be present.

Common Law Marriage: No.

Cousin Marriage: No.

Officiants: Ordained ministers of the gospel of any denomination who are at least 18 years of age may perform marriages. Ministers must file a copy of their credentials with the county clerk before performing marriages. Ministers must complete a certificate of marriage and return it to the clerk or judge who issued the marriage license.

Valid: License is valid for 10 days.
The license can only be used within the State of Oklahoma.

It is important that you verify all information with your local marriage license office or county clerk before making any wedding or travel plans.

Please Note: State and county marriage license requirements often change. The above information is for guidance only and should not be regarded as legal advice.

[TheRealVille]

Try Rhode Island. It allows civil unions, but has no ban on same sex marriage.

Have you had any luck finding a single example of states that do not allow gay marriage but have failed to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman of the "many" that you claimed exist? Or is this yet another example where you made a statement that cannot be supported by facts and simply decided to drop the point without admitting that you were mistaken? All I asked for was one example. A modest and reasonable request, IMO.

[TheRealVille]

You said that many states do not define marriage and yet you could not name a single one. In Texas, I believe they describe people who do that sort of thing as being "all hat and no cattle." nicker:

You substantiate your statement and I will answer your question about a purely hypothetical situation. I will go a step further, just admit that you have no idea whether your statement was true or not, and I will still answer the question. Deal?

Look above. Let's just talk about Rhode Island. The one website didn't stipulate on Oklahoma, but after looking deeper, I saw that other sites did.

[TheRealVille]

You said that many states do not define marriage and yet you could not name a single one. In Texas, I believe they describe people who do that sort of thing as being "all hat and no cattle." nicker:

You substantiate your statement and I will answer your question about a purely hypothetical situation. I will go a step further, just admit that you have no idea whether your statement was true or not, and I will still answer the question. Deal?

New Mexico is an even better example, especially since it's so close to the Texas you speak of. They don't say, one way or the other.

[Hoot Gibson]

Try Rhode Island. It allows civil unions, but has no ban on same sex marriage.

In Rhode Island, I would oppose two people of the same sex being allowed to marry under their current law. An attempt was made in 2006 to change marriage eligibility requirements but it never became law, so even though there may not be a statute that explicitly define marriage as being between "one man and one woman," the repeated use of terms such as "wife" and "husband" and the description of what constitutes incest, makes the intent of the Rhode Island's law clear.

Now, to answer your hypothetical, it is a ridiculous question. If a state's laws have been scrubbed of references to "wife" and "husband" to the extent that it was clear that legislators intended to allow any two people to marry, then I would have no legal basis to object. In such a bizarre set of circumstances, I would opine that courts could rightfully compel the state to issue marriage license to any to people who applied for one that met the eligibility requirements.

What makes your question ridiculous is that if a state went to the trouble of blurring the intent of its laws to such an extent that a reasonable person would believe that legislators intended to allow marriage between any two people, then it is extremely unlikely that the legislators would not also insert a clear legal definition of marriage at the same time.

[Hoot Gibson]

New Mexico is an even better example, especially since it's so close to the Texas you speak of. They don't say, one way or the other.

I've already answered both your hypothetical question and addressed Rhode Island example. I am sure that New Mexico has similar laws, and I have said repeatedly, this is not really a burning issue for me. The absence of an explicit definition of marriage does not mean that a state should allow people of the same sex to marry when laws defining terms like "wife," "husband," and "incest" include references that make it clear that marriage is considered a contract between people of opposite sexes.

[TheRealVille]

I've already answered both your hypothetical question and addressed Rhode Island example. I am sure that New Mexico has similar laws, and I have said repeatedly, this is not really a burning issue for me. The absence of an explicit definition of marriage does not mean that a state should allow people of the same sex to marry when laws defining terms like "wife," "husband," and "incest" include references that make it clear that marriage is considered a contract between people of opposite sexes.

I know. Check post times.

[Benchwarmer]

Great

[TidesHoss32]

I'd say there are people on this very board fighting against gay marriage, citing "the sanctity of marriage", that have been married multiple times. 1 out of 2 straight marriages end in divorce. Why would the straights care if the gays give it a try?

My point exactly.

[vundy33]

I didn't say it, God said it.

lol...

So many have people in the world have lived hell on earth because of that exact reasoning...

[TheRealVille]

lol...

So many have people in the world have lived hell on earth because of that exact reasoning...

"God" has caused more deaths than anybody I have ever heard of.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I'd say there are people on this very board fighting against gay marriage, citing "the sanctity of marriage", that have been married multiple times. 1 out of 2 straight marriages end in divorce. Why would the straights care if the gays give it a try?

And maybe there are people on this board who have been married once and really do believe in it.
I will celebrate my ninth wedding anniversary next month with two beautiful children and still believe you should be married once and that its forever between a man and woman.

If gays want to be married and "truly" love each other enough, why dont they move somewhere that permits it? If they cant afford it (cause i know that'll be your argument) then why dont they just live happily together and shut up about it.
If gays believe they deserve the right to marriage, then maybe they should stop sinning and get in a straight relationship and ask for gorgiveness.
They always want to argue rights, well shouldnt it be the "right" of christians to keep gays from marrying since thats part of there religion.
Maybe gays could start there own religion.

[SKINNYPIG]

And maybe there are people on this board who have been married once and really do believe in it.
I will celebrate my ninth wedding anniversary next month with two beautiful children and still believe you should be married once and that its forever between a man and woman.

If gays want to be married and "truly" love each other enough, why dont they move somewhere that permits it? If they cant afford it (cause i know that'll be your argument) then why dont they just live happily together and shut up about it.
If gays believe they deserve the right to marriage, then maybe they should stop sinning and get in a straight relationship and ask for gorgiveness.
They always want to argue rights, well shouldnt it be the "right" of christians to keep gays from marrying since thats part of there religion.
Maybe gays could start there own religion.

It will be 30 years for me and my first and ony bride in July.

[Stardust]

And maybe there are people on this board who have been married once and really do believe in it.
I will celebrate my ninth wedding anniversary next month with two beautiful children and still believe you should be married once and that its forever between a man and woman.

If gays want to be married and "truly" love each other enough, why dont they move somewhere that permits it? If they cant afford it (cause i know that'll be your argument) then why dont they just live happily together and shut up about it.
If gays believe they deserve the right to marriage, then maybe they should stop sinning and get in a straight relationship and ask for gorgiveness.
They always want to argue rights, well shouldnt it be the "right" of christians to keep gays from marrying since thats part of there religion.
Maybe gays could start there own religion.

I don't support it, but did want to correct your flawed thinking of why gays want to legally marry, and that is the right to legally have the same rights that you and I have.

I completely and whole-heartedly support the bible and the instructions that God has given us. But, God did not create the rights to have insurance as a family based on biblical writings. God did not create the divine writing of tax laws that dictates family tax credits. I guarentee you 100% that marriage rights in the states are NOT dictated by the Bible! They are dictated by the Insurance companies and their lobbying efforts. And last I heard, God was not an underwriter for those Insurance companies!

[TheRealVille]

I don't support it, but did want to correct your flawed thinking of why gays want to legally marry, and that is the right to legally have the same rights that you and I have.

I completely and whole-heartedly support the bible and the instructions that God has given us. But, God did not create the rights to have insurance as a family based on biblical writings. God did not create the divine writing of tax laws that dictates family tax credits. I guarentee you 100% that marriage rights in the states are NOT dictated by the Bible! They are dictated by the Insurance companies and their lobbying efforts. And last I heard, God was not an underwriter for those Insurance companies!

Not to mention hospital visitation/decisions reasons. Having a family that has the parents and the kids(adopted) having the same last family name.

BTW, even though you don't approve of gay marriage, thanks for your honesty on some of those issues. I would say most people know those reasons that gays want the same as other married people, they always leave out knowing the reasons though.

[TheRealVille]

And maybe there are people on this board who have been married once and really do believe in it.
I will celebrate my ninth wedding anniversary next month with two beautiful children and still believe you should be married once and that its forever between a man and woman.

If gays want to be married and "truly" love each other enough, why dont they move somewhere that permits it? If they cant afford it (cause i know that'll be your argument) then why dont they just live happily together and shut up about it. If gays believe they deserve the right to marriage, then maybe they should stop sinning and get in a straight relationship and ask for gorgiveness.
They always want to argue rights, well shouldnt it be the "right" of christians to keep gays from marrying since thats part of there religion.
Maybe gays could start there own religion.

No, that won't be my argument. My argument will be that how would you like to be forced to move somewhere you didn't want to because your neighbors didn't want you be there, for any reason. They shouldn't move anywhere, because they shouldn't have to leave the place they call home, for any reason. Like Stardust pointed out, it's just not the living together thing, there are many reasons connected with issue.

[SKINNYPIG]

I don't support it, but did want to correct your flawed thinking of why gays want to legally marry, and that is the right to legally have the same rights that you and I have.

I completely and whole-heartedly support the bible and the instructions that God has given us. But, God did not create the rights to have insurance as a family based on biblical writings. God did not create the divine writing of tax laws that dictates family tax credits. I guarentee you 100% that marriage rights in the states are NOT dictated by the Bible! They are dictated by the Insurance companies and their lobbying efforts. And last I heard, God was not an underwriter for those Insurance companies!

They do have the same rights you and I have...As long as they marry legally.

[TheRealVille]

They do have the same rights you and I have...As long as they marry legally.

Big red truck. That's the issue we are discussing.

[Hoot Gibson]

They do have the same rights you and I have...As long as they marry legally.

Exactly! For more than 200 years in this country, marriage between gays and lesbians has been illegal. Before that, such marriages were illegal in the lands where our anceestors originated for centuries.

Suddenly, as our public school system has deteriorated and the influence of our liberal-dominated media has grown, a very vocal minority of citizens in this country believe that their opinions on the subject should be made law, even over the objections of the majority, which has thousands of years of history on their side. Why? Because the same generation that ranks near the bottom of the charts among devloped countries in math and science ability believe that they are nonetheless more enlightened than all of the generations that preceeded them and that their beliefs are therefore more valid than all those who walked this earth before them.

I don't fault people for advocating legalizing gay marriage but I find their claims to the moral high ground as they attempt to bypass the legislative process to impose their beliefs on the majority very scary. Every time that the courts are used to create new civil rights that are nowhere to b found in the Constitution, this country moves closer to totalitarianism.

[judgementday]

If gays want to be married for the financial benefits of marriage, why not bypass the whole marriage idea and just ask for legislation to grant them benefits to same sex couples? The University of Kentucky does that with health insurance, retirement, etc... It is my feeling that altough the above is the reasoning for gays wanting to legally marry, IMO the majority of them want to do it because someone told them they can't.

I personally do not care if gays want to get married. It has nothing to do with my life whether they are together or not. Other than citing moral reasoning, I am not sure why anyone should care.

Both of my parents are still married and miserable. Have been for ages but do not know any different. My brother and his ex lived together and had a child for 12+ years, got married, divorced in 6 months. As quoted before, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Not so sure it is so "coveted" any more.

In regards to making this a religious issue, Unfortunately everyone wants to make sure everything is politically correct and religion does not exist in politically correct worlds.

Personally, I have been married for 15 years, and married once. I couldn't imagine myself being married to anyone else. But if something were to happen and I wasn't married anymore, I would never get married again.

[TheRealVille]

Exactly! For more than 200 years in this country, marriage between gays and lesbians has been illegal. Before that, such marriages were illegal in the lands where our anceestors originated for centuries.

Suddenly, as our public school system has deteriorated and the influence of our liberal-dominated media has grown, a very vocal minority of citizens in this country believe that their opinions on the subject should be made law, even over the objections of the majority, which has thousands of years of history on their side. Why? Because the same generation that ranks near the bottom of the charts among devloped countries in math and science ability believe that they are nonetheless more enlightened than all of the generations that preceeded them and that their beliefs are therefore more valid than all those who walked this earth before them.

I don't fault people for advocating legalizing gay marriage but I find their claims to the moral high ground as they attempt to bypass the legislative process to impose their beliefs on the majority very scary. Every time that the courts are used to create new civil rights that are nowhere to b found in the Constitution, this country moves closer to totalitarianism.

Should the majority be allowed to have a vote to oppress the minority?

[Hoot Gibson]

Should the majority be allowed to have a vote to oppress the minority?

Only if there are enough votes to amend the US Constitution through the same process that was used to protect the civil rights of minorities - which requires two-thirds majorities in each house of Congress followed by ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Constitutionally speaking, one does not become a member of a minority through one's behavior or thoughts.

Defining marriage as a legal contract between one man and one woman does not violate anybody's civil rights. It does not persecute any minority. It never has. Arguments to the contrary have no basis in fact.

[TheRealVille]

Exactly! For more than 200 years in this country, marriage between gays and lesbians has been illegal. Before that, such marriages were illegal in the lands where our anceestors originated for centuries.

Suddenly, as our public school system has deteriorated and the influence of our liberal-dominated media has grown, a very vocal minority of citizens in this country believe that their opinions on the subject should be made law, even over the objections of the majority, which has thousands of years of history on their side. Why? Because the same generation that ranks near the bottom of the charts among devloped countries in math and science ability believe that they are nonetheless more enlightened than all of the generations that preceeded them and that their beliefs are therefore more valid than all those who walked this earth before them.

I don't fault people for advocating legalizing gay marriage but I find their claims to the moral high ground as they attempt to bypass the legislative process to impose their beliefs on the majority very scary. Every time that the courts are used to create new civil rights that are nowhere to b found in the Constitution, this country moves closer to totalitarianism.

What I find funny about this part, is that you are puttying the liberals into this class, yet the very people that disregard science, are the main fighters of same sex marriage.

[TheRealVille]

Only if there are enough votes to amend the US Constitution through the same process that was used to protect the civil rights of minorities - which requires two-thirds majorities in each house of Congress followed by ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Constitutionally speaking, one does not become a member of a minority through one's behavior or thoughts.

Defining marriage as a legal contract between one man and one woman does not violate anybody's civil rights. It does not persecute any minority. It never has. Arguments to the contrary have no basis in fact.

Certainly it does. It denies same sex couples the same legal marital rights and privileges that married people get. Stardust has already discussed some of these.

[Hoot Gibson]

Certainly it does. It denies same sex couples the same legal marital rights and privileges that married people get. Stardust has already discussed some of these.

No, it does not. They are not members of a constitutional minority. They do not have civil rights above and beyond everybody else simply because of their lifestyle choices. There is nothing unconstitutional in the government recognizing marriage between one man and one woman. If government chooses, through the enactment of laws, to recognize marriage as being only between members of the same sex, there would likewise, be no denial of constitutional rights to heterosexual couples. This is not a constitutional issue. It is a legislative issue. No civil right is at stake.

[Hoot Gibson]

What I find funny about this part, is that you are puttying the liberals into this class, yet the very people that disregard science, are the main fighters of same sex marriage.

I know that, as a liberal, you believe that your intellect is unparalleled, but trust me - it is not. Young people, regardless of intellect, tend to be liberals. Most young people mature into conservatives and moderates but a small minority (15 to 20 percent) of Americans remain snared in the net of liberalism. Those are generally the people who want to turn their opinions into the law of the land by bypassing the legislative process. Conservatives generally want courts to uphold constitutional laws - not nullify them.

As for disregarding science, I have a degree in engineering, advanced training in statistical process control, and I develop computer software for a living. How have I rejected science and how have you embraced it?

I have worked with many liberals and I have worked with many conservatives. I have found no link between intelligence and political philosophy. Some of the smartest people I have known have been liberals and some have been conservatives. Ditto for stupid people. I stopped assuming that liberals are stupid a long time ago. That does not mean that most liberals are not stupid, but I accept that some of them are smarter than me. I find liberals tend to dismiss conservatives as being stupid non-intellectual people who dismiss science, as you just did - regardless of their own understanding of science.

My point is that overall, the level of education in this country has declined in important areas that involve critical thinking skills. There is no reason to believe that the opinions of the minority of people in this country who are clamoring to allow gays and lesbians to marry are any more valid than the majority and there is no reason to think that their opinions are more valid than those of their ancestors who opposed such marriages.

[TheRealVille]

I know that, as a liberal, you believe that your intellect is unparalleled, but trust me - it is not. Young people, regardless of intellect, tend to be liberals. Most young people mature into conservatives and moderates but a small minority (15 to 20 percent) of Americans remain snared in the net of liberalism. Those are generally the people who want to turn their opinions into the law of the land by bypassing the legislative process. Conservatives generally want courts to uphold constitutional laws - not nullify them.

As for disregarding science, I have a degree in engineering, advanced training in statistical process control, and I develop computer software for a living. How have I rejected science and how have you embraced it?

I have worked with many liberals and I have worked with many conservatives. I have found no link between intelligence and political philosophy. Some of the smartest people I have known have been liberals and some have been conservatives. Ditto for stupid people. I stopped assuming that liberals are stupid a long time ago. That does not mean that most liberals are not stupid, but I accept that some of them are smarter than me. I find liberals tend to dismiss conservatives as being stupid non-intellectual people who dismiss science, as you just did - regardless of their own understanding of science.

My point is that overall, the level of education in this country has declined in important areas that involve critical thinking skills. There is no reason to believe that the opinions of the minority of people in this country who are clamoring to allow gays and lesbians to marry are any more valid than the majority and there is no reason to think that their opinions are more valid than those of their ancestors who opposed such marriages.

I was referring to the "religious right" being the biggest fighters of it, yet they disregard the very science you speak of. You are blaming a everything on a generation of people that are failing math and science, yet you fall right in line with some of the people that completely disregard science.