free country??? U.S. county bans all marriages!!!

what is going on in this world???

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040324/od_uk_nm/oukoe_rights_gays

a county in oregon bans ALL marriages gay and heterosexual!!!

i feel they have no right to do this no matter what kind of "trouble" they are having...

free country...HA...

Tim Nashif, the spokesman for the Defence of Marriage Coalition, said; "Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all."

Yeah and you're probably the only country in the nation that is made up of complete jack@$$es and fools. This is ridiculous.

"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."

Why should equal rights seem odd? That is the problem. Either everyone can do it or no one can do it?

This is what this country is coming to? We must be a bunch of idiots for this to go this far. Everyone in this world should have the right to marry whomever they choose. And that is that. I don't want to hear about relgion. I'm sick and tired of people defending hateful agendas by envoking god. This is not about god. This is not about religion. This is about two people in love who want to commit to each other and be recognized under the law. Why is that such a problem for some people? What barring could it possibly have on anyone elses lives but their own?

NOTHING.

Originally posted by Garon
This is about two people in love who want to commit to each other and be recognized under the law. Why is that such a problem for some people? What barring could it possibly have on anyone elses lives but their own?

NOTHING.

The problem I have with that is that it opens the doors to people wanting to marry their brothers, sisters, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, dog's, milk jugs, etc. A mother and a son can love eachother as much, if not more, than a gay couple but I dont think it's right for them to marry either.

But I digress, that's niether here nor there, because there are plenty of other threads discussing the rights/wrongs of the gay marriage thing. Lets just discuss this one foolish Oregon county.

Originally posted by Faisca

The problem I have with that is that it opens the doors to people wanting to marry their brothers, sisters, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, dog's, milk jugs, etc. A mother and a son can love eachother as much, if not more, than a gay couple but I dont think it's right for them to marry either.

Give me a break. Can anyone pose a viable arguement without involving incest, beasiality, or sex with inanimate objects?

This isn't so foolish. For sake of argument...maybe marriage should be abolished all together? clearly it is an institution that doesn't work. It fails 50% of the time right?

After researching this issue for a debate in the debate forum I can understand this response that seems radical on the first look but may not be so radical when legal precedence is taken in to account, unfortunatly I also believe this move is not anti same sex marriage as presented but just another way to force the majority to accept a minority view by denying legal marriage to couples that obviously qualify under current law for marriage. This is their way of forcing the issue to court where the majority can be once again overruled based on mis-interpretation of the law combined with mis-representation by the media.

I am not opposed to civil unions, but actual marriage opens up a legal pandoras box that eventually will destroy marriage as a concept that you can positively point your children to as an ideal to achieve.

Same sex marriage

Oregon's AG is somewhat of a progressive. There's a good chance he's going to stand by Benton. And as a former resident of Benton, a large majority will take pride in the decision. The case has merit and it should be interesting to see the legislature's reaction..

Originally posted by Garon

Give me a break. Can anyone pose a viable arguement without involving incest, beasiality, or sex with inanimate objects?

This isn't so foolish. For sake of argument...maybe marriage should be abolished all together? clearly it is an institution that doesn't work. It fails 50% of the time right?

Why must you be given a break? Can you give me a viable argument against the idea of incest or bestiality being opened up after this? You're merely skirting around the issue.

I dont think abolishing marriage is a great idea either. It's a societal practice that has been around forever in many forms, it will never be gotten rid of all together.

Can you give me a viable argument against the idea of incest or bestiality being opened up after this?

Maybe he can't but I can. Animals cannot consent. Nor are non-human animals humans, therefore they don't get the same rights as humans. And incest, well, it screws up bloodlines. Deformed kids, etc, etc.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Cutwolf]

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Can you give me a viable argument against the idea of incest or bestiality being opened up after this?

Maybe he can't but I can. Animals cannot consent. Nor are non-human animals humans, therefore they don't get the same rights as humans. And incest, well, it screws up bloodlines. Deformed kids, etc, etc.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Cutwolf]

What about age, suppose some stranger convinces your daughter at the age of 12 that marriage is in her best interest and she believes it hook line and sinker, they sue to get that right based on precedence then existing and win - what option do you have now? shoot the SOB?

Originally posted by Cutwolf

And incest, well, it screws up bloodlines. Deformed kids, etc, etc.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Cutwolf]

About the deformed kids. What about kids who grow up messed in the head because they had two mommies or two daddies when everyone else in their classes had a mommy and a daddy and picked on them for having weird parents? Gay parents will screw with kids heads, which is as bad as being deformed.

free country...HA... ....why do we even need a 'license' to 'marry'.........what purpose does it serve?? to tax?.. is 'marriage' now a 'federaly given priviledge'?? I thought the constitution gave the states the authority to decide this issue........

Originally posted by clearmind
free country...HA... ....why do we even need a 'license' to 'marry'.........what purpose does it serve?? to tax?.. is 'marriage' now a 'federaly given priviledge'?? I thought the constitution gave the states the authority to decide this issue........

Yes thats true but there is a clause in the US constitution that basically says that what is made law in one state must be honored by each of the states, thereby making it law of the land. So if your state says no to marriage of same sex parners it must acknowledge and honor those unions from other states irregardless of the law in your state.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by they see ALL
a county in oregon bans ALL marriages gay and heterosexual!!!

Good.
Now close-minded adult heteros know how adult gay couples who want to marry feel.
This is truly an example of government doing the right thing.

-B.

OK, to address this and Garons little rant, we need to look at who "owns" this rite of marriage.

Traditionally it HAS been religious, it is a public declaration of a life long commitment to each other before God and man.

So to say that you can't use a Religious arguement is illogical.

Secondly if you want the material and legal benefits of marriage, then either you have them enshrined in law already, for stable relationships over a period of time such as 3 years, or you can work out a contract that both parties enter into to share assets on ending of the marriage. You don't NEED to be married to achieve those legal objectives.

So then what is the purpose of getting "married" for a gay or lesbian couple?

The white wedding, music and all that romantic crap tha goes with it? Then throw a pary and do it yourself

The legal piece of paper that say you are married? Get your lawyers to put one together yourselves.

Acceptance of the populace at your decision to commit to each other? Well you won't get that via the marriage route, and if you hunger for affirmation and back patting then you have other issues that need addressing before marriage.

So whats the fuss? Why can't gay's and lesbians leave the issue of marriage in the realm of the hetro's where it has been for 1000's of years? Whats with the insecurity "me too" demands?

Originally posted by Garon
...maybe marriage should be abolished all together? clearly it is an institution that doesn't work. It fails 50% of the time right?

I agree with this... i think if you want to commit with someone for life (which in itself doesnt make sense to me) you shouldnt need god to sanction it or a certificate to show it... and as for the county in Oregon... i think they have the right idea... if you wont let everyone do it... sont let anyone do it

This was what I proposed as a solution to the problem months ago.

If marriage is to be illegal for some, make it illegal for all. I'm sure any loving couple who wants to enter into holy matrimony in the sight of God can still do so at any church in the county, they just won't get a licence for it.

Nor will they get tax breaks, or reduced insurance premiums, or favortism in the workplace and society as a whole.

But they will still be joined in holy matrimony. You don't need a licence for that.

Silly mortals...
DeltaChaos