People are lazy, I'm counting on that

Post #307,169 by drook 4/11/09 6:52:43 PM Reply	People are lazy, I'm counting on that When someone today says they're married, do we ask if they said "I do" in a church or a courthouse? Nope. If they say they're married, they're married. Except when a gay couple says it, then the fundies say, "Oh no you're not!" Unless it was in Vermont ... or California, for a while ... or ... is it Idaho now? Can't remember. But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. -- Drew
Post #307,180 by jay 4/11/09 11:32:44 PM Reply	There would be But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. There would be very quickly, or we would be right back where we are now. Because either the two are legally defined to be entirely separate and that distinction is somehow forced on the public. Or the religious would be right back trying to outlaw civil unions for certain people, because the marriage word is only allowed to be used in certain ways. To separate the two, you have to change the language. And doing that by government fiat is very hard. Jay
Post #307,201 by drook 4/12/09 11:48:53 AM Reply	I'm not trying to change the language people use Just the language the government uses. Strike all references to marriage and all its permutations from all laws. Ooh, here's an idea for an ad campaign: Can a government bureaucrat define "love"? No. So why do we think they can define "marriage"? Let the government stick to taxes. I'll decide for myself who I love, and who I want to marry. -- Drew
Post #307,209 by boxley 4/12/09 12:15:10 PM Reply	can we use a fade away shot of a guy calling his german shepard? cause if you dont the whack jobs will
Post #307,217 by jay 4/12/09 2:47:42 PM Reply	Which isn't enough My point was that just changing the language of the government isn't enough. Lets say Dan and Bob decide to get a civil union. Dan refers to it as getting married at work. A fundy coworker sends a complaint to management and Dan gets fired. Now a suit can't be raised on discrimination, because Dan was't fired for being gay or being in a gay marriage, he was fired for telling a lie at work. And because marriage is a purely religious matter in your system, the state doesn't get a say in deciding what definition of married will be accepted or not. Jay
Post #307,218 by boxley 4/12/09 3:14:26 PM Reply	in the real world the fundie gets fired for insulting Dan's religious beliefs. What a fundie calls marriage is his definition, Dan has his own and they are allowed to be different. Can a muslim be fired for talking about his marriage to his 3rd wife back in pakistan? Dont think so
Post #307,219 by boxley 4/12/09 3:22:44 PM Reply	actually a real world example link picture http://www.firstpeop...-three-wives.html about half way down the link http://www.indianz.c...=1377&whichpage=4 One of my favorite stories of Quanah though is that after he surrendered, the Indian agent told him that he had to cut off his hair and that he could only keep one wife. According to the story his wives were standing around giving that good mean woman look when the agent told him this. Quanah said, "I will NOT cut off my hair. As to my wives...you tell THEM that." Quanah kept his hair and his wives.
Post #307,220 by beepster 4/12/09 3:39:28 PM Reply	What? telling a lie at work?? You gotta do better than that. There may be a few good examples...this isn't one of them. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!