2
0

Heh Heh...... (Marriage in OK)


 invite response                
2014 Jan 25, 1:45am   15,100 views  48 comments

by mell   ➕follow (9)   💰tip   ignore  

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227937

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma. The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

Comments 1 - 40 of 48       Last »     Search these comments

1   Tenpoundbass   2014 Jan 25, 2:16am  

The US Constitution or Obamatution?

Because I don't expect anything this man's administration had don't, to make it past 2020.

But I do expect a more sensible legal definition of an official domicile unit, to change to be more secular. As it should be.

Gay people can't marry, they just can't it defies the not legal definition of marriage, it defies what marriage IS.

If the State/Country want's to recognize official household units and grant them the same rights, power, privileges, and incentives as the current definition of "Married" people get. Then I think that is the only sensible thing to do. But it's not marriage.

I also think then the that definition shouldn't ONLY include people who live together and FUCK, it should also include siblings who lived together for decades, or even friends who have lived together for x amount of years. As far as tax breaks and things goes.

But for couples who need monogamous, and other spousal legal protections, there should also still be an official license of couples living together for the purpose of fucking with legal recourse powers when one is jilted, that wish those rights.

2   Tenpoundbass   2014 Jan 25, 6:27am  

Basically recognizing a gay couple as "Married" is a like recognizing Bruce Lee for his comedic genius.

3   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 6:47am  

It's not about legal access it's about hijacking the word. Millions of couples have entered matrimony based on the word and what it stands for. And now you fucks want to come along and disenfranchised them. Fuck you. Get your owm word.

4   lostand confused   2014 Jan 25, 6:51am  

While I support gay marraige, I just don't understand why they want to? Who wants to enter the world of alimony, splitting half your assets, maintaining someone in the lifestyle they were used to and having the gubmnt/courts in your business, telling you how you can live your life?? Gays have true freedom in their personal life.

5   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 6:54am  

Lets hijack the word "gay".
From now on we will include rapists thieves and murderers as being "gay".
So how do you gay folks like having your word hijacked? Feels good don't it?

6   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 6:56am  

MrEd says

It's not about legal access it's about hijacking the word.

You seem to have that precisely backwards. If "the word" in this context is "the word" of a particular deity, then His/Her/Its self-proclaimed representatives have hijacked the statute books. Seriously, as an exercise, try this:
1) copy and paste your state's laws pertaining to marriage, e.g. from Cornell's free online law library;
2) search and replace "marriage" with "the Holy Sacrament of Marriage;"
3) search and replace "spouse" or "party" with "the divinely blessed partner united by God for all eternity."
Read the result, and ask yourself honestly, is that a law or a liturgy?

MrEd says

having your word hijacked?

You seem to miss the point. The laws of the republic do not belong exclusively to one sect or another. They belong equally to each citizen. Read the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, section 1.

7   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 6:59am  

No u have it wrong. Its not about any deity or whatever the hell they supposedly said. Its about the word "marriage"

8   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:01am  

MrEd says

Its [sic] about the word "marriage"

Then copy and paste your state's definition of that word. In New York, for example, it is defined as a civil contract. (Domestic Relations Law, section 10.) That definition goes back at least to the 19th century, probably longer, and hasn't changed.

9   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:07am  

Marriage has alway been between .man and woman. For centuries. Show me the gay marriages from history 1970 back...you cant. New york calls it a contract so can you.

10   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:08am  

Read John Boswell on that subject, tracing same-sex marriage back thousands of years.

11   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:13am  

First you wager war on Christmas
Then you wage a war on health care
Now you want to disenfranchisa married people.
Keep it up and we will redefine "gay" to include shit you won t like.
The tactic of redefining can be worked from both sides of the aisle.

12   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:15am  

MrEd says

First you wager [sic] war on Christmas...Now you want to disenfranchisa [sic] married people.

Wow that's a remarkable conspiracy you're imagining. When you say "we", I don't know whom you are referring to, but I'm guessing it's you and the imaginary voices in your head, together calling yourself Legion, for you are many. Show me where married people have lost the right to vote, if you don't want to look like a lying idiot. Meanwhile, your avatar shows the wrong end of the horse.

13   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:24am  

Has nothing to do with the right to vote.
People have been getting married for.centuries under the understanding that they are entering i to a pact that is reserved for a male and a female. Centuries of marriages give it precedent. One reason they marry is to separate their union from other types. This is what is being disenfranchised.

14   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:25am  

You do know that being disenfranchised has more than one meaning didn't you?

15   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:27am  

You keep using that word, disenfranchise. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZSSW3YNgzNQ

You seem to have the same issue with marriage, i.e. you arrogate to yourself the unilateral ability to define terms. If you want to call yourself gay, there's nobody stopping you, but if you want to call yourself married, you'll need to find someone else who agrees with you.

16   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:27am  

I can reverse my avatar if you want to kiss it now...

17   lostand confused   2014 Jan 25, 7:29am  

MrEd says

I can reverse my avatar if you want to kiss it now...

The horse or the man?

18   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:33am  

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\Function: transitive verbDate: 1664: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege.

You are disenfranchising married people of the priviledge of being a part of a union that is defined by innumerable examples as that of being between male and female. 

19   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:36am  

MrEd saysI can reverse my avatar if you want to kiss it now...The horse or the man?

Im not sure. Which do you think he prefers?

20   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:36am  

That is like saying white people were "disenfranchised" by being denied the right to send their kids to whites-only public schools.

21   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:38am  

Yes it is.

22   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:40am  

MrEd says

Yes it is.

At least you're clear about your opinion, but most people would say there isn't a right to whites-only public institutions, or whites-only marriage. If the only reason certain people went to school was because it only allowed white people, that is their loss, but they aren't disenfranchised.

Your attempt to substitute a limited subset of examples for a definition does not displace the actual definition. The fact that most people who got married in America, for most of American history, were white doesn't limit marriage to whites only.

It is interesting though that you choose as an avatar Sherman Hemsley, who never married and was widely thought to be gay (whether he was or not I don't know).

23   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:41am  

And they were. But that is an exceptional example that was necessitated for the greater public good.

24   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:43am  

There is no greater public good being served by redefining marriage. While it serves gay people iit disenfranchises married people.

25   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:46am  

The only attempts to redefine marriage were in the opposite direction, e.g. the unconstitutional "DoMA", which sought to redefine marriage for the purpose of discriminating against gay couples. No good was accomplished by that, no one got any benefit from it, except politicians because it appealed to ignorant voters who wanted to feel superior despite being stupider than a horse's ass.

26   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:47am  

Whats more interesting is your topic redirect from disenfranchised married people to racial issues. But that is an expected diversion from those commenting from the left.

27   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:48am  

I stole the horse's head from the web I didn't know Hensley was on the backend as a gif..

28   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:55am  

Your statement ignores the precedent of millions of marriages throughtout hisfory.
That is why it is to be recognized as false.

The only attempts to redefine marriage were in the opposite direction, e.g. the unconstitutional "DoMA", which sought to redefine marriage for the purpose of discriminating against gay couples.

29   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 7:55am  

Again, the example (or precedent) of millions of white couples getting married doesn't restrict marriage to whites only. It doesn't affect the definition at all.

I'm just wondering, is your motivation really about a word? Did you get this worked up about the historical definition of facsimile, when fax machines became popular? Even if you didn't know that same-sex marriages go back further in history than Christmas or even Christianity, why would your ignorance on that point become so important to maintain? Most people support same-sex marriage, so I'm curious why it bothers you so much?

30   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 7:59am  

Precisely my point. Why all the hubbub?
Define your own word.
I have no problem with you getting all legal benefits has married couples.
  I'm just wondering, is your motivation really about a word?

31   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 8:00am  

Words have meaning don't disenfranchised married people by stealing their word

32   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 8:01am  

MrEd says

I have no problem with you....

MrEd says

stealing their word

You don't know anything about me, but I support the Constitution including the 14th amendment and therefore I have a problem with you trying to hijack the laws of my country. The word marriage, as defined in law, is not the private property of one particular horse's ass or sect or even of married couples specifically. And since you refer to married couples in the third person, you seem to be undertaking your attack on same-sex marriage as an unauthorized effort supposedly on behalf of people who mostly disagree with you. Why don't you let some married couples speak for themselves about what marriage means to them, instead of asserting they got married because gay couples weren't allowed to, and now feel deprived of that "right" to discriminate against other couples?

33   mell   2014 Jan 25, 8:08am  

sbh says

Cap I can't understand a thing you've said, as usual. Mell, how does this further OK's conservatives' efforts to legally ban gay marriage? If all you need is a priest, or a ceremony, then how can gays be prevented? If the cons think by de-legalizing marriage for everyone they've somehow robbed gay marriage of accessing legal spousal benefits, are they really willing to rob everyone's access just in order to keep it away from gay people?

While this may be another effort of a conservative to prevent gay marriage, if the outcome is that institutionalized marriage is removed, then I support it. Government has no business meddling in people's relationships. You can argue that it is not very likely that the government will get out of marriage and therefore it is better to include as many lifestyles as possible in an effort to be non-discriminatory, but that's not how I want to do politics. Modern, government sanctioned marriage is a farce and not a civil right.

34   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 8:10am  

There's grandma there's grandpa. They wanted their union to be special. So they got married based on what that word meant to them and the precedent that was set over time. And now you want to shit on their graves by clumping their heterosexual uniom in with what they would consider to be deviant and abhorrent.
Why can't you show some civility and just choose another goddamn word?

35   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 8:12am  

mell says

that's not how I want to do politics.

Ah, but that's because you're not a politician. From the perspective of the Oklahoma politicians behind this latest farce, the purpose is to keep voters distracted in order to rob them. "Look, elephant! Look, gay couples "disenfranchising" you! Look, unicorns!" If Mike Turner can't use marriage to distract Horse's Behind and misrule people, he's not interested. BTW, like Horse's Behind, Turner isn't married, though he's "active" in his church.

36   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 8:22am  

And there is your blindspot.
Having different words for different circumstances is not discrimination.
Man fucking man is different than man fucking woman or woman fucking woman or curiouz kissing mrEd's ass.
But nooooo! You want to clump it all together and disenfranchised everybody.

Well sorry but heteros got the dibs on the word marriage through history and precedent.
And if you persist in hijacking words well then...whats good for the goose....

Why don't you let some married couples speak for themselves about what marriage means to them, instead of asserting they got married because gay couples weren't allowed to, and now feel deprived of that "right" to discriminate against other couples?

37   mell   2014 Jan 25, 8:23am  

curious2 says

mell says

that's not how I want to do politics.

Ah, but that's because you're not a politician. From the perspective of the politicians behind this latest farce, the purpose is to keep voters distracted in order to rob them. "Look, elephant! Look, gay couples "disenfranchising" you! Look, unicorns!" If Turner can't use marriage to distract Horse's Behind and misrule people, he's not interested. BTW, like Horse's Behind, Turner isn't married, though he's "active" in his church.

If the only two choices are marriage for straight couples only and marriage for straight and gay couples only, then I support marriage for straight and gay couples. But as you can see with bills like these even possible and being discussed (no matter what the motivation is), times are changing and I believe, esp. with the grand Obama disillusion, there is significant potential for real change towards liberty. And why can't somebody be unmarried and active in church?

38   mell   2014 Jan 25, 8:30am  

MrEd says

Having different words for different circumstances is not discrimination.

Man fucking man is different than man fucking woman or woman fucking woman or curiouz kissing mrEd's ass.

But nooooo! You want to clump it all together and disenfranchised everybody.

The problem is that there are "perks" for the married (though far less then people assume and a lot of disadvantages esp. for the man) and therefore an argument can be made for discrimination. If you don't make a distinction between positive and negative discrimination, then you will have a hard time defending the position that only men and woman can marry. But then a lot of currently existing laws would be discriminatory and need to be thrown out, such as affirmative action and gender-specific laws. If the government would only give tax/money incentives for married straight couples, then I don't see anything but "positive" discrimination which IMO is legal and used every day by every government. As soon though as you give married couples certain rights just for being married that unmarried couples don't have, then it gets dicey and into discriminatory territory.

39   MrEd   2014 Jan 25, 8:31am  

I support Unions of straight and gay couples with equal benefits for all.
I support calling straight unions 'marriages'.
I support calling gay unions anything that does not disenfranchise another group of individuals.

40   curious2   2014 Jan 25, 8:33am  

mell says

And why can't somebody be unmarried and active in church?

He can be, of course, many are, and some are even married.

MrEd says

I support calling gay unions anything that does not disenfranchise another group of individuals.

That would be anything then, including marriage. Your attempts to redefine "disenfranchise," like your morbid attempts to redefine "marriage" by purporting to channel dead grandparents, do not fool anyone other than yourself about your motivations. When I see photos of you picketing the manufacturers of fax machines for "hijacking" the word facsimile, I'll believe you are really obsessed with definitions, and not something else.

Comments 1 - 40 of 48       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions