Full Interview: Kim Davis Talks To Megyn Kelly About Gay Marriage Licenses

a reply to: Annee
ya, I've looked into those critters a little, would like to know just what those contracts say.
in so many ways, they are like sharia law, and well, I have a feeling that if push came to shove, one could get out of those contracts simply by stating that they don't want to ruled under them.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

ya, but here they are saying that gee if we don't want the kids, we shouldn't have the sex...
and now it seems that they are saying if we don't have the sex, we aren't married....
it's amazing how some will twist and turn, shape themselves into a pretzel even, to justify one position.
they don't want gays to marry, and they will go so far as to deny the marriages of thousands of heterosexual couples to get what they want!!

I know.

Legal government Marriage is a contract - - that protects rights, property, and person - - in addition to offering certain "perks" not available via any other means.

Governments promote marriage and offer incentives because marriage/families create stability. Families tend to stay put more and get involved in local communities.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick

so, are you saying that if a couple gets married but chooses to not have sex since they want to wait to have children, they aren't married? or during those times throughout their marriage that the love wanes for whatever reason, they aren't?

is that really what defines a marriage to you? sex and love?

that is a pretzel.

not at all what I said

imagine two sisters living together for life and never getting the same consideration for benefits as the marriage crowd.

there are vastly more than sisters missing. it is anyone not having sex that is penalized by the system.

after all the movement is said to be about rights

a reply to: carewemust

The Pope doesn't make Laws for one, and for two.. looks like he didn't read the 14th Amendment than...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee
ya, I've looked into those critters a little, would like to know just what those contracts say.
in so many ways, they are like sharia law, and well, I have a feeling that if push came to shove, one could get out of those contracts simply by stating that they don't want to ruled under them.

Oh, I'm sure.

Question: how many Legally Married Christians do you think would give up those perks if it was declared everyone now has to have a civil union without government benefits or protections?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: carewemust

The Pope doesn't make Laws for one, and for two.. looks like he didn't read the 14th Amendment than...

Seriously, who really cares what the Pope says in regards to America's laws.

The American Catholics I know - - kinda just do their own thing. They don't really listen to the Pope or the Vatican

a reply to: deadeyedick

umm...but if one of those sisters for some reason can't make enough money to support herself, I do believe that they can still claim that they share the expenses and she can get assistance from the gov't, regardless of the sister's income, while the wives income will always be entwined with her husbands, and she might also be responsible for his bills if she isn't careful.
so along with perks, there can also be some pretty big disadvantages.
and, since people can be married and can go through some rather long stretches without having sex, well, no, you're statement is inaccurate.

a reply to: Annee
no one has said that civil unions could not have the same benefits as marriage currently does.

what would the point be?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee
no one has said that civil unions could not have the same benefits as marriage currently does.

what would the point be?

They wouldn't though.

But, that is not my question.

a reply to: dawnstar

inaccurate?

again head still in sand.

millions of people are in extended living arrangements without receiving and not eligible for benefits

those are the ones you all forgot under the bus.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee
no one has said that civil unions could not have the same benefits as marriage currently does.

what would the point be?

They wouldn't though.

But, that is not my question.

just another wrong opinion.

they would if the law was written correctly

a reply to: deadeyedick

what would be the point to telling couples who have been married for decades that they have to redefine their marriage to meet your belief as to what it is?? you think they are gonna care what you and others think, or what the gov't says, they aren't when it comes to gov't forms they will still be claiming they are married.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick

what would be the point to telling couples who have been married for decades that they have to redefine their marriage to meet your belief as to what it is?? you think they are gonna care what you and others think, or what the gov't says, they aren't when it comes to gov't forms they will still be claiming they are married.

nobody would have to redefine their marriage

gov=contract
religion=marriage ceremony

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee
no one has said that civil unions could not have the same benefits as marriage currently does.

what would the point be?

They wouldn't though.

But, that is not my question.

just another wrong opinion.

they would if the law was written correctly

We already know from history that "Separate, but Equal" does not work.

a reply to: Annee



I love your responses!, and i agree with

a reply to: deadeyedick

look, my Common Law Marriage has the word MARRIAGE on it. My husband an I have been MARRIED for over 30 years, we raised three sons to adulthood, and my husband passed away this year so it was a MARRIAGE, till death do we part!
My Common Law Marriage was far more a marriage than the three or four that the little country clerk has had!
and yes, you do appear to be trying to strip the word marriage out of our relationship, insisting instead that it be considered a civil union, since well, in your little head, only a marriage that includes a ceremony deserves to have the word MARRIAGE, related to it.

a reply to: dawnstar

only a marriage that includes a ceremony deserves to have the word MARRIAGE, related to it.

yes
other wise it is a civil union.

keep spinning around those under the bus

a reply to: deadeyedick

No, Marriage is Marriage no matter if you are Same-Sex or Opposite-Sex. you are so hung up on a word that is it blinding you

a reply to: deadeyedick

and you're not redefining marriage and expecting couples who've been married for decades to accept that they aren't married, just based on the words of you and your buddies....
and just whom am I throwing under the bus?

a reply to: dawnstar
what do you mean by getting married?

Do you mean being in a contract to get benefits? That is a civil union

Do you mean a ceremony that recognizes the spiritual aspect of your union? That is marriage

Do you feel that your government has some type of spiritual powers that do something for your coupling other than give it rules and benefits?

You are trying to make ceaser God by giving him false powers.