Civil Unions for everyone.

Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

Basically every marriage is a civil union that the government takes care of. The ceremony is the religious aspect.

Governments should allow civil unions to everyone but it should be up to the church whether or not they allow people to get “married” since that is the religious aspect and they can treat their religion as they want.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
ya, pretty much what he said.
I was going to write it, but didn’t feel like it

SOTW Theme Voting* SOTW Management* SOTW Winners

.....My views..

it depends..
the bill my state almost passed...would have changed a LOT more than that, so ..it was a toug hchoice... but they voted no in th eend..
not like it’d affect me personally..but....

idk...

watermelon man wrote: Basically every marriage is a civil union that the government takes care of. The ceremony is the religious aspect.

Governments should allow civil unions to everyone but it should be up to the church whether or not they allow people to get “married” since that is the religious aspect and they can treat their religion as they want.

But I don’t think the stae should give out “marriage licenses” or anything like that.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

COLOR ME!

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a life long spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Convince the Govn' and Senate about that. I do not care much about bonding or contracts unless it involves money and more money. Spiritual bond is dead.

COLOR ME!

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Convince the Govn' and Senate about that. I do not care much about bonding or contracts unless it involves money and more money. Spiritual bond is dead.

My point exactly.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Convince the Govn' and Senate about that. I do not care much about bonding or contracts unless it involves money and more money. Spiritual bond is dead.

My point exactly.

'Kay.

COLOR ME!

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a life long spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Wow. You know I thought Itachi Uchiha was an asshole but that sentence set a completely new record for Theistic bigotry. Are you saying that just because we’re atheist or secular that we can’t feel love? Or that the fact that there are types of love other than your own which you don’t understand means that those types of love are completely meaningless and that we should belittle them all just because some people don’t take it all seriously anymore? How is giving gay and/or polygamous people their own defined type of marriage called homosexual marriage or polygamous marriage discrimination if monogamists and heterosexuals have their own type of marriage also and the only real difference would be the name is different depending on the number and gender of people involved?

Love loses meaning sometimes, alright, it’s just the way life is. Would you rather people stick with each other even if one member is a wife beater or a child molester or get divorced?

Your comment on love having lost meaning in modern society is bullshit also. In fact, I think it’s never been more meaningful than it has now; In the 1800’s interracial marriages were forbidden, in the early 1900’s it was legal to marry a 10 year old, before WW2 women were just mothers who had to stay at home and couldn’t get a job or a life for themselves, in Medieval Europe you could beat your wife with a stick as long as it was thinner than your thumb, before the 20th century parents often chose people’s wives/husbands for them... et cetera, et cetera. Does love as it was in the past still sound more meaningful to you?

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote:

D.W. wrote:

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

True, but at least it’s something.

Just making state recognized marriage a business contract rather than a life long spiritial bond seems to be the best idea for society today. We are a secular nation right?

Wow. You know I thought Itachi Uchiha was an asshole but that sentence set a completely new record for Theistic bigotry. Are you saying that just because we’re atheist or secular that we can’t feel love? Or that the fact that there are types of love other than your own which you don’t understand means that those types of love are completely meaningless and that we should belittle them all just because some people don’t take it all seriously anymore? How is giving gay and/or polygamous people their own defined type of marriage called homosexual marriage or polygamous marriage discrimination if monogamists and heterosexuals have their own type of marriage also and the only real difference would be the name is different depending on the number and gender of people involved?

Love loses meaning sometimes, alright, it’s just the way life is. Would you rather people stick with each other even if one member is a wife beater or a child molester or get divorced?

Your comment on love having lost meaning in modern society is bullshit also. In fact, I think it’s never been more meaningful than it has now; In the 1800’s interracial marriages were forbidden, in the early 1900’s it was legal to marry a 10 year old, before WW2 women were just mothers who had to stay at home and couldn’t get a job or a life for themselves, in Medieval Europe you could beat your wife with a stick as long as it was thinner than your thumb, before the 20th century parents often chose people’s wives/husbands for them... et cetera, et cetera. Does love as it was in the past still sound more meaningful to you?

If same sex couple get their own definition of marriage it would be considered discrimination by many because we are putting them in a certain catagory. The best thing we could do seriously is just keep the state out of marriage in general. If you wanted to hear some bigotry I could have told you that gays shouldn’t have the right to be together at all but I didn’t say that did I? And yes their has always been corruption in the male dominated society which is getting beside the point. And nowadays the divorce rate is so high that its like marriage no longer means a perminant bond like it should be.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

or perhaps replace the current marriage with a civil union, then keep marriage, but get rid of divorce, leaving the only way for the two to be separated is by death, or maybe long term coma.

*facepalm*

Link wins.

kev360 wrote: or perhaps replace the current marriage with a civil union, then keep marriage, but get rid of divorce, leaving the only way for the two to be separated is by death, or maybe long term coma.

we shouldn’t allow the stae to define marriage. civil unions are at least neutral.

Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!

some one new wrote:

kev360 wrote: or perhaps replace the current marriage with a civil union, then keep marriage, but get rid of divorce, leaving the only way for the two to be separated is by death, or maybe long term coma.

we shouldn’t allow the stae to define marriage. civil unions are at least neutral.

well, strictly speaking, that is what marriage was ORIGINALLY supposed to be. combine that with the freedoms we have today, and you get something...interesting. you get something that you can have no doubts about if you enter into. something that is an absolute symbol of trust, and something that if you screw up in, its something your going to have to live with.

idk, i think it opens up interesting prospects.

watermelon man wrote: Basically every marriage is a civil union that the government takes care of. The ceremony is the religious aspect.

Governments should allow civil unions to everyone but it should be up to the church whether or not they allow people to get “married” since that is the religious aspect and they can treat their religion as they want.

Wouldn’t that be discriminatory to people who aren’t part of that religion?

Join “The Zeitgeist Movement”

some one new wrote:

Sean of the Living wrote:

some one new wrote: Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.

“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?

Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.

You see marriage as a business contract... yep, I can see your true character now.

And spiritual bond isn’t dead. Just because it’s not religious doesn’t mean it’s not spiritual.

Join “The Zeitgeist Movement”