Marriage means nothing anymore

Marriage means nothing anymore

Posted in the Brentwood Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1 Jun 27, 2013
The government wants to destroy America, destroy the nuclear family. Its a lot easier to enslave the population when there is no sense of community, no common ground, no cohesive cultural identity, no common moral belief system.

So , its not really about marriage. Marriage is a great example of something the government has no business or interest in regulating in the first place, and what they have done is merely a tactic to erode the American family.

In the governments view there is no difference between citizens and aliens, no difference between a real family and the pathetic fantasies of a couple of fags. Essentially they have made it the law that people who aren't the same be treated the same. It makes no sense. People are all different. This fiction that they aren't, is idiotic.

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#2 Jun 29, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
The government wants to destroy America, destroy the nuclear family. Its a lot easier to enslave the population when there is no sense of community, no common ground, no cohesive cultural identity, no common moral belief system.

So , its not really about marriage. Marriage is a great example of something the government has no business or interest in regulating in the first place, and what they have done is merely a tactic to erode the American family.

In the governments view there is no difference between citizens and aliens, no difference between a real family and the pathetic fantasies of a couple of fags. Essentially they have made it the law that people who aren't the same be treated the same. It makes no sense. People are all different. This fiction that they aren't, is idiotic.
If you feel it will erode family, don't have a gay marriage. This decision gives every American the opportunity to have a family. And you're right, the government really should have no interest or business in marriage, which is why we the people changed that. I'm a heterosexual woman. But I fully support gay marriage. Because you really have no control over who you love. And if our constitution affords each person the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness..the right to marry the person you love should be included.

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#3 Jun 29, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
The government wants to destroy America, destroy the nuclear family. Its a lot easier to enslave the population when there is no sense of community, no common ground, no cohesive cultural identity, no common moral belief system.

So , its not really about marriage. Marriage is a great example of something the government has no business or interest in regulating in the first place, and what they have done is merely a tactic to erode the American family.

In the governments view there is no difference between citizens and aliens, no difference between a real family and the pathetic fantasies of a couple of fags. Essentially they have made it the law that people who aren't the same be treated the same. It makes no sense. People are all different. This fiction that they aren't, is idiotic.
Does your marriage to your wife mean any less today than it did Wednesday night?
Wayne Wastier

Grand Prairie, TX

#4 Jun 29, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
The government wants to destroy America, destroy the nuclear family..
How is the government responsible for the 50% divorce rate?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#5 Jul 1, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your marriage to your wife mean any less today than it did Wednesday night?
It doesn't have anything to do with me. It has to do with the government having no business in being involved. What is their interest in regulating marriages?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#6 Jul 1, 2013
Wayne Wastier wrote:
<quoted text>How is the government responsible for the 50% divorce rate?
Not talking about the divorce rate. Talking about the policies which encourage and do not discourage nuclear families. BTW, the government does make divorce expensive and negative already. Who knows what the divorce rate would be if it were not such an ordeal. But the point is, the government should not be regulating marriage. Why do they care - what is the legitimate State interest in a marital relationship?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#7 Jul 1, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
If you feel it will erode family, don't have a gay marriage. This decision gives every American the opportunity to have a family. And you're right, the government really should have no interest or business in marriage, which is why we the people changed that. I'm a heterosexual woman. But I fully support gay marriage. Because you really have no control over who you love. And if our constitution affords each person the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness..the right to marry the person you love should be included.
Every American can have a family already, no need for any marriages, or any government regulation that affects having a family, not having a family. Why do you insist that the government regulate the formation of families or marriages, however you want to describe the process? What point is there to the government saying that some people can get married, or issuing them a "license" or differentiating in any fashion between individuals who are not married and those who are? What is the purpose? Where is the authority for the government to do this in the first place? Show me where in the Constitution of the United States does government have any power to regulate marriage or families. Go on, show me.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#8 Jul 1, 2013
http://constitutionus.com/

Happy to have you point it out to me.

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#9 Jul 1, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>Every American can have a family already, no need for any marriages, or any government regulation that affects having a family, not having a family. Why do you insist that the government regulate the formation of families or marriages, however you want to describe the process? What point is there to the government saying that some people can get married, or issuing them a "license" or differentiating in any fashion between individuals who are not married and those who are? What is the purpose? Where is the authority for the government to do this in the first place? Show me where in the Constitution of the United States does government have any power to regulate marriage or families. Go on, show me.
I don't think the government should regulate marriage. I think Thursday's decision was a step in getting the government out.

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#10 Jul 1, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>Every American can have a family already, no need for any marriages, or any government regulation that affects having a family, not having a family. Why do you insist that the government regulate the formation of families or marriages, however you want to describe the process? What point is there to the government saying that some people can get married, or issuing them a "license" or differentiating in any fashion between individuals who are not married and those who are? What is the purpose? Where is the authority for the government to do this in the first place? Show me where in the Constitution of the United States does government have any power to regulate marriage or families. Go on, show me.
I never did insist the government regulate marriage. In fact, I agreed with you in the fact that the govt really has no business in marriage.

But, in today's world, a marriage license is pretty important. In terms of health insurance and life insurance and the like. Even taxes. I don't agree that the govt should be required to issue these in order for someone to get married. But if that's the only way to get married, then yeah, their role is important. Not saying I agree with it. Just like the government shouldn't control a woman's body, they shouldn't control marriage.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11 Jul 8, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the government should regulate marriage. I think Thursday's decision was a step in getting the government out.
No, its a step towards MORE regulation. That's the whole point. More people's relationships will now be regulated. Its the worst way to go. The government shouldn't be in people's relationships, and yet it is. For no purpose at all, that it can articulate.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12 Jul 8, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
I never did insist the government regulate marriage. In fact, I agreed with you in the fact that the govt really has no business in marriage.
But, in today's world, a marriage license is pretty important. In terms of health insurance and life insurance and the like. Even taxes. I don't agree that the govt should be required to issue these in order for someone to get married. But if that's the only way to get married, then yeah, their role is important. Not saying I agree with it. Just like the government shouldn't control a woman's body, they shouldn't control marriage.
Look...anyone can enter into a contract; the only reason that marital status even enters into the issues you raise is because of the government's stupid regulations. They regulate insurance and health care - whatever silly and irrational requirements exist in those industries is solely due to the effect of their interference in the market.

Get the government out of these markets, and they will actually function the way a market should - with competition driving better services and lower costs for the participants.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13 Jul 9, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
People are all different.
People are different that's a fact......that's why we live in a diversified society........however laws are not applied differently and seeing as the State is the one that regulates marriage and sets the marriage requirements........it is allowed to define it as it sees fit!!!!

There is NO reason to deny the right to marry to Gays and Lesbians.......regardless of how you personally feel about it!!!

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#15 Jul 9, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>Look...anyone can enter into a contract; the only reason that marital status even enters into the issues you raise is because of the government's stupid regulations. They regulate insurance and health care - whatever silly and irrational requirements exist in those industries is solely due to the effect of their interference in the market.

Get the government out of these markets, and they will actually function the way a market should - with competition driving better services and lower costs for the participants.
That would be great to get the government out or marriage all together. But that's an entire different hurdle. Until then people have to fight for individual rights. And that's exactly what the overturning of prop 8 was.

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#16 Jul 9, 2013
The Real Anon wrote:
<quoted text>Look...anyone can enter into a contract; the only reason that marital status even enters into the issues you raise is because of the government's stupid regulations. They regulate insurance and health care - whatever silly and irrational requirements exist in those industries is solely due to the effect of their interference in the market.

Get the government out of these markets, and they will actually function the way a market should - with competition driving better services and lower costs for the participants.
So at least I won't be waiting 20-30 years from now when marriage is free of government regulation to attend my cousin's wedding. He now has the right to marry the guy he has loved for over five years. It's babysteps. But it's a step in loosening the government's regulation of marriage. I completely agree with you, the government has no place in marriage. But unfortunately it does. But I believe that last week's Supreme Court decision was a step in the right direction in terms of breaking regulation that once was. Even if it was a govt entity that broke that regulation. We've got to start somewhere.

But for you Anon, I have a feeling this issue (made clear in your first post about some "fags" just wanting to get married) goes deeper than just government regulation of marriage and actually sits more within a hatred of gays and/or gays getting married.

They're here, they're queer, and they're GETTING MARRIED!!

Get used to it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17 Jul 9, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be great to get the government out or marriage all together. But that's an entire different hurdle. Until then people have to fight for individual rights. And that's exactly what the overturning of prop 8 was.
Wrong, the reason Prop 8 got tossed is because there was NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST to remove the right to marry from just a particular group of individuals when 18,000 legally married Sam-Sex Couples were still legally married!!!

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#18 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, the reason Prop 8 got tossed is because there was NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST to remove the right to marry from just a particular group of individuals when 18,000 legally married Sam-Sex Couples were still legally married!!!
Yeah, and the case was brought by a group of people (or two people) fighting for their cause..their right to marry.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#19 Jul 9, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and the case was brought by a group of people (or two people) fighting for their cause..their right to marry.
It was more than just the two couples......it was for all the Gays and Lesbians in the State who have been denied the right to marry!!!

I've been following and fighting over the Prop 8 case for almost 5 years..........it never personally affect my marriage per say as my marriage was done way before the passage of Prop 8.......but because my marriage remained legal, valid and recognized regardless of the wording in Prop 8......I'm glad that the proponents lost!!!

Since: Mar 11

Livermore 94551

#20 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>It was more than just the two couples......it was for all the Gays and Lesbians in the State who have been denied the right to marry!!!

I've been following and fighting over the Prop 8 case for almost 5 years..........it never personally affect my marriage per say as my marriage was done way before the passage of Prop 8.......but because my marriage remained legal, valid and recognized regardless of the wording in Prop 8......I'm glad that the proponents lost!!!
It never affected me, and never would as I'm a straight woman. But I have long supported gay marriage and gay rights. I voted against the initial prop in 2008 (the first time I was old enough to vote) and have supported its repeal ever since. I think it's just the way I was raised. I was taught equality. And that it doesn't really matter who you love. And as I've gotten older, I figure as long as marriage is kept among adults and within humans..I don't care what your genitals say. Love is love.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#21 Jul 9, 2013
Ssophiiee wrote:
<quoted text>
It never affected me, and never would as I'm a straight woman. But I have long supported gay marriage and gay rights. I voted against the initial prop in 2008 (the first time I was old enough to vote) and have supported its repeal ever since. I think it's just the way I was raised. I was taught equality. And that it doesn't really matter who you love. And as I've gotten older, I figure as long as marriage is kept among adults and within humans..I don't care what your genitals say. Love is love.
My apology if I came across the wrong way.......thank you for your support:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roadshow: Parking in front of a neighbor's hous... (Aug '09) 22 hr CURIOUS 295
News $1M of Measure C funds spent on administration,... Jan 16 Sky zeng 1
How has Antioch changed over the last 20 years? Jan 14 dkatayama 5
FRAUD Velocity Cheer Gym - Antioch, CA Jan 13 Spirit_FX 1
News Guest commentary: There is a five-alarm brewing... (Oct '15) Jan 11 Rainman 3
Why we hate surenos in other words why we hate ... (Dec '09) Jan 11 209blud 19
BethelIslandRealty Inc. Bottom 7% of his peers (May '16) Jan 10 Delta girl 8

Brentwood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brentwood Mortgages