Isn't the biggest cause of divorce marriage?

Nope. It's male ADD and testosterone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 26 2006, 10:33 PM) [snapback]292949[/snapback]</div>

That makes me want to think you're female . In my last relation, it was the female that caused the most problems. Not blaming a gender... just saying how my personal experience doesn't correlate with yours .

 

and the leading cause of death is birth?

 

I always thought that marriage was a religious thing and that the government's authority was to civil unions and they were done by Justices of the Peach or down at the county clerk by a judge.

I see no reason why any American should be denied a civil union. If two Americans wish to make a legal commitment, the government has no business denying them the legal benefits a union allows.

However the government has no business telling religions who they can or cannot marry or how the ceremony takes place.

If a religion says they won't marry you, fine. But the government is obligated to perform a civil union for consenting adults of legal age.

 

Well, for a number of us who post a lot, the leading cause may be spending too much time on Priuschat and out polishing the car!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 01:38 AM) [snapback]293031[/snapback]</div>

How about a request by 5 guys, 2 grandmothers, a 9 year old boy, a 7 year old girl, a milk cow, and a corvette....

Does the government have any business telling them they can not all be married? Wouldn't it be great if only one of them had a job and the rest had benefits, including the corvette. Does the government have any place telling a religion that the marriage may have been performed, but is not legal with the government..

I think it has to be defined by the government because you'll get off the wall religions popping up to endorse anything if the right amount of money is brought to the ceremony.

One man and one woman with minimum age requirements....

 

For an interesting read on marriage-related issues and some insight into a less well known part of American history, I highly recommend John Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140003280...ie=UTF8&s=books

While you can talk all day about people choosing how to live their own lives, there are some interesting reasons in this book why that may not always be ideal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 05:57 AM) [snapback]293060[/snapback]</div>

Out of curiosity, how do you feel setting the standard at "Two consenting legal adults" would lead to married corvettes any faster than "One man and one woman..." rules?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 05:57 AM) [snapback]293060[/snapback]</div>

Good point...

 

I disagree, Squid. It's not a good point at all. Multiple partners and bestiality don't have anything more to do with homosexuality than they do with heterosexuality. Such ridiculous arguments do absolutely nothing to support your cause of gay bashing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 27 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]293153[/snapback]</div>

You know, I WAS going to reply on why it is a good point, but your warrantless accusation of "gay-bashing" (yet another concept, much like Judaism, if you're not down with it, you're suddenly a card carrying Nazi, or in this case, a "gay basher" :lol: (which I hope it does really make you feel better ), made me change my mind. You're a big-boi and can figure it out for YOU-self!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 05:57 AM) [snapback]293060[/snapback]</div>

Children can't legally give consent in such a situation, and child abuse laws likely cover the handling of anybody who would want or consent to having child in such a way.
Animals are similiar. They are legally property, and thus can't enter into a contract. There are animal welfare laws for the rest.
If they are legally adults, then there is no problem with age differences.
Polygamy, and polyandry, shouldn't be an issue with consenting adults, and the contract was fair to all parties.
The corvette is in the same boat as the cow. It's property. Though if the government wants to let me claim the prius as a dependent, I'm cool with that.

 

As long as gays/lesbians have all the rights granted to married couples, I would have no issue with the marriage classification only going to a man and a woman.

 

First off, I can't believe this group would blatently discriminate against children and cows. I'm greatly offended and feel 'bashed' for your suggestions that we not include them in legal marriages.

Secondly, many of the cars on this forum have names. Let's face it, many here 'love' their cars, so I can't imagine why 'thinking' people would leave them off the marriage license. The corvette stays on the radar, or I'm finding myself a judge that agrees with me and will rule in my favor!!!

Don't you people have any sensitivity. Cows and kids and corvettes should have rights!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 04:57 AM) [snapback]293060[/snapback]</div>

*Sigh* Misdirection again.

There are already laws for this.

Corvette - inanimate object

Cow - animal

7 & 9 year old - underage.

The rest...that would be polygamy.

I think the laws are fine the way they are. They just discriminate against a minority population.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]293189[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not marrying my car or my dog unless they go out and get a job that pays enough for me to retire and be a "housewife". It's get a job or take care of the house. And I don't care for the way the dog washes the dishes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]293273[/snapback]</div>

I think heterosexuals have screwed up marriage enough as it is and they certainly have not held it "sacred" except to keep it away from the homosexual community.

If I could find a guy like my dad or my brother-in-law, son-in-law, it might be worth a dip in the pool but for now I'll do the dishes and all else. The dog probably makes less mess than a husband would and she doesn't hog the remote or leave the toilet seat up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]293273[/snapback]</div>

Not according to my religion... My religion says cows are holy, and I can, in fact, marry them. Now the Gov. better damn well recognize it, or I'm claiming religious discrimination/persecution. A cow is a mammal just like us, so what if it only eats grass and has a small brain. As a matter of fact, the cow might be more "functional" than a low functioning, obese, retarded (insert color here) woman. h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 06:32 PM) [snapback]293456[/snapback]</div>

but the real question is what are you doing about it?