• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

us-states-color-coded-gay-marriage-laws.gif


EnGAYged Weddings - LGBT Wedding Directory - Same-Sex Wedding Planning
 
Articles on WND don't count as books.

Rome fell for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality.

And Sparta was one of the major Greek powers for hundreds of years and openly practiced homosexuality. It was 300 Spartans supported by a few hundred other Greeks who stopped the massive Persian war machine for days.

And let's ignore that Athens, essentially the birth place of the Western World had homosexual relations as the norm.

Rome fell for reasons entirely unrelated to homosexuality.

Always annoying when people put words in your mouth you never said and then try to get you to defend what you never said but thats life in this forum, oh well.
 
Always annoying when people put words in your mouth you never said and then try to get you to defend what you never said but thats life in this forum, oh well.

So your basically saying we're all genocidal lactose intolerant Zimbabwean-Italians?
 
Most historians agree that changing the language on Roman marriage licenses caused the collapse of the Roman empire. :roll:
 
Most historians agree that changing the language on Roman marriage licenses caused the collapse of the Roman empire. :roll:

You mean the great "Persona Alpha et Persona Beta" controversy?
 
We all know that the logical next step is bestiality. Followed by mandatory gay marriage. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.






On a side note, why is it only partisan hyperbole when a Liberal does it?

Actually since NAMBLA was much more active in the 1970's and indistinguishable from and part of the gay rights movement I'm gonna have to go with a resurfacing of that as being the next logical step.

PETA is very anti bestiality since animals can't give consent. I live in an area where this is a very serious topic of discussion. :thinking
 
Always annoying when people put words in your mouth you never said and then try to get you to defend what you never said but thats life in this forum, oh well.

Always annoying when those who hold incredibly stupid positions that have absolutely no support whatsoever aside from a wholesale rewriting on history try to attack others for the massive gaping holes in their arguments.

Anyone who thinks that Homosexuality had anything to do with Rome's fall is completely and utterly ignorant of that time period in our history.
 
Actually since NAMBLA was much more active in the 1970's and indistinguishable from and part of the gay rights movement I'm gonna have to go with a resurfacing of that as being the next logical step.

PETA is very anti bestiality since animals can't give consent. I live in an area where this is a very serious topic of discussion. :thinking

this is simply nonsense NOBODY educated, non-bigoted, honest and object has, had or will ever have trouble distinguishing the obvious difference between equal rights and NAMBLA. WOW talk about such inane mendacious silliness.
 
It would appear that those who oppose gay marriage DEMAND that in states the legalize gay marriage men are called "brides" and women are called "grooms" for gay marriages.

Thus, those who oppose gay marriage DEMAND that the words "bride" and "groom" become gender neutral. Surprising they want gay men to have the word "bride" and gay women to have the word "groom" by formal government edict. I would think they would oppose that.

Why can't they be bride/bride or groom/groom? I don't understand why the terminology has to change when they could just be allowed to choose the combination of their choice.
 
Do you wear panties ?? the form should remain HUSBAND AND WIFE...whats next they are going to write a law I have to call my wife my partner so as not to offend a handful of people that are differnt and overbearing suckers...lol...pfffffffffffffft

"Wearing panties" is not a requirement of marriage, for either spouse. You are complaining about the semantics on a government document? It's ridiculous. And petulant.
 
this is simply nonsense NOBODY educated, non-bigoted, honest and object has, had or will ever have trouble distinguishing the obvious difference between equal rights and NAMBLA. WOW talk about such inane mendacious silliness.

It can't be nonsense since it's true. Unless you are saying that it was nonsense for the gay rights movement to ever be affiliated with those guys in which case I would agree with you, smartest move on their part was distancing themselves from people like David Thorstad and Harry Hay. Both founding members of gay rights organizations with the former also the founder of NAMBLA and the latter one of their supporters. One of the less admirable products of the sexual revolution.
 
Dont even try that...YOU ARE THE ONE that expects straights to change their entire way of life for a few...because THEY WANT IT...just when I start to soften up a little about gay marriage they pull jerkoff **** like this and turn full bore against it....not only do they want what they BELIEVE is equal rights they want it worded to accomodate them too...and "F" everyone else and they way theyve had it all their lives....they dont want equal rights they want to impose their will on me...and I personally dont get on my knees for anyone..straight or gay...

As a straight, married person, I would like to say that you are the one who has insulted straight people, particularly wives and/or those who take less traditional gender roles on within their marriages, more in this thread than anyone else could ever do. I don't know what is up with your view of marriage that you feel that changing words on a legal document between you and your spouse changes your marriage, but it is a personal problem of yours. My marriage is just fine. What the document says shouldn't have any effect on your marriage. I personally barely paid attention to what the marriage license I signed says. I just found out the other day that it in fact says "bride" and "groom" but we are only called by those words til the license is signed, ceremony over. Are you going to start calling your wife "person A or B" because of this change? If so, may I suggest looking for a good divorce attorney now.
 
So, are people going to get on one knee and ask "will you be my Person B?" This is just stupid, keep it as husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife.

This is an ignorant comment. Apparently people only worry about what the marriage license says when it is an issue involving gays.

I personally asked my husband when we were going to get married. But everyone I know who did get a proposal, didn't check the marriage license first to find out what it referred to each person as in order to "ask correctly". For my husband and I, when my ring came in, he asked if I would be his wife. Guess what? Our marriage license says "bride" and "groom". So I guess my husband is in trouble now. He didn't ask me to be his "bride", as it was annotated on the marriage license.
 
To everyone: That was sarcasm... I'm picking fun at terminology and personally find "person A and person B" or "spouse A and spouse B" to be ridiculous.
 
To everyone: That was sarcasm... I'm picking fun at terminology and personally find "person A and person B" or "spouse A and spouse B" to be ridiculous.

I was showing why it shouldn't matter. No one cared two bits about what the marriage license said until same sex marriage became legal in this state, and now people are complaining about something changing that the majority likely didn't even look at except to make sure they actually were writing in the right block to begin with. It just isn't that big of a deal to change it, would be more expensive to have multiple forms, having multiple choices could easily get mixed up (heck at my annual health assessment for the Navy the guy filling out my paperwork marked me as "M" out of M/F), and honestly whoever this change bothers needs to really sit back and think why it is such an issue. It is just a legal form. It doesn't make it illegal to call yourself a wife or husband, or bride or groom. It simply makes it easier for the clerks recording your information into the system.
 
To everyone: That was sarcasm... I'm picking fun at terminology and personally find "person A and person B" or "spouse A and spouse B" to be ridiculous.

I can only speak for myself, but I knew you were being sarcastic. I was actually demonstrating exactly how ridiculous it is to find the terminology ridiculous. You personally feeling "person A and Person b" or Spouse A and Spouse B" ridiculous is identical to finding the term "dependents" ridiculous on a tax form. It's identically absurd to find such legal terminology ridiculous enough to care about it in any way.

But people don't find "dependent" ridiculous because people usually don't have a moral objection to tax deductions... er... I mean children. They do have moral objections to gay marriage. Ergo, their irrational outrage.
 
As a straight, married person, I would like to say that you are the one who has insulted straight people, particularly wives and/or those who take less traditional gender roles on within their marriages, more in this thread than anyone else could ever do. I don't know what is up with your view of marriage that you feel that changing words on a legal document between you and your spouse changes your marriage, but it is a personal problem of yours. My marriage is just fine. What the document says shouldn't have any effect on your marriage. I personally barely paid attention to what the marriage license I signed says. I just found out the other day that it in fact says "bride" and "groom" but we are only called by those words til the license is signed, ceremony over. Are you going to start calling your wife "person A or B" because of this change? If so, may I suggest looking for a good divorce attorney now.

This kind of post so full of gibberish nonesense and a very weak attempt to try and degrade someones view to make yours more important...is meaningless and know what? merits no more of a response than a smirk and gbye...bye
 
This kind of post so full of gibberish nonesense and a very weak attempt to try and degrade someones view to make yours more important...is meaningless and know what? merits no more of a response than a smirk and gbye...bye

So what is your problem with using the words "person A or B" on a legal document? Did you research the marriage license before you got married to see what the "proper" term was for your spouse?

And you started by telling others that one spouse had to "wear the panties" and same sex spouses needed to choose their roles. This position is insulting. It wrongly infers that there are specific gender roles in marriage to begin with that only one gender is able to fulfill.

And then you went on about how gays made this change (which isn't true), and how it changed your position on same sex marriage (not very likely as the truth since such a thing is a stupid reason for any sensible person to change their position on something). They aren't asking you for anything and I'm pretty sure not a single person asked you to get down on your knees for anything either, not on this thread anyway.
 
It can't be nonsense since it's true. Unless you are saying that it was nonsense for the gay rights movement to ever be affiliated with those guys in which case I would agree with you, smartest move on their part was distancing themselves from people like David Thorstad and Harry Hay. Both founding members of gay rights organizations with the former also the founder of NAMBLA and the latter one of their supporters. One of the less admirable products of the sexual revolution.

"founding member" member of what? equal rights for gays? sorry but thats what makes it nonsense, they were NEVER distinguishable to anybody educated, non-bigoted, honest and object and you saying otherwise certainly doesnt make it true.

People associating with others or people CLAIMING two things are alike doesn't make it so, those movements were always separate in reality.
 
"founding member" member of what? equal rights for gays? sorry but thats what makes it nonsense, they were NEVER distinguishable to anybody educated, non-bigoted, honest and object and you saying otherwise certainly doesnt make it true.

People associating with others or people CLAIMING two things are alike doesn't make it so, those movements were always separate in reality.

First of all bigot is an overused word, and no longer holds any meaning because people throw it around in every other sentence like a used rag doll.

Second, I'm not sure what the problem is here. They were are part of the same movement in the 1970's and NAMBLA marched with and as a gay rights organization until people came to their senses and disassociated with them.

wiki source:
By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"[24] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.[24]
North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GLBTQ:
Activists in the early 1980s mustered a battery of recent research to demonstrate that young people were capable of informed consent to sex, even of soliciting sex themselves. They claimed a long history and pan-cultural relevance for intergenerational sex, and argued that the benefits of such relations far outweighed their potential abuses.

glbtq >> social sciences >> NAMBLA


I'm not making this stuff up, it's history, it was a part of the sexual revolution starting in the 1970's.
 
I can only speak for myself, but I knew you were being sarcastic. I was actually demonstrating exactly how ridiculous it is to find the terminology ridiculous. You personally feeling "person A and Person b" or Spouse A and Spouse B" ridiculous is identical to finding the term "dependents" ridiculous on a tax form. It's identically absurd to find such legal terminology ridiculous enough to care about it in any way.

But people don't find "dependent" ridiculous because people usually don't have a moral objection to tax deductions... er... I mean children. They do have moral objections to gay marriage. Ergo, their irrational outrage.

It's not ridiculous to be resistant to change, its just human. Small things like changing the words on a marriage license may seem like nothing to you but in actuality its just a small piece of the larger picture, the slipping away of a tradition these people have always known and relied upon on.
 
First of all bigot is an overused word, and no longer holds any meaning because people throw it around in every other sentence like a used rag doll.

Second, I'm not sure what the problem is here. They were are part of the same movement in the 1970's and NAMBLA marched with and as a gay rights organization until people came to their senses and disassociated with them.

wiki source:



GLBTQ:



I'm not making this stuff up, it's history, it was a part of the sexual revolution starting in the 1970's.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The fact is that, today, same sex marriage is an important issue for the left and uncomfortable truths like this need to be expunged from the record. By the time they're done it will probably be a crime to even suggest something so "outrageous". But, hey... it's progress, right?
 
It's not ridiculous to be resistant to change, its just human. Small things like changing the words on a marriage license may seem like nothing to you but in actuality its just a small piece of the larger picture, the slipping away of a tradition these people have always known and relied upon on.

What nonsense. Their marraiges are not affected in any way by the change in terms. Their fears are irrational, as are their reactions.
 
1.)First of all bigot is an overused word, and no longer holds any meaning because people throw it around in every other sentence like a used rag doll.

2.)Second, I'm not sure what the problem is here. They were are part of the same movement in the 1970's and NAMBLA marched with and as a gay rights organization until people came to their senses and disassociated with them.

wiki source:



GLBTQ:



3.)I'm not making this stuff up, it's history, it was a part of the sexual revolution starting in the 1970's.

1.) thanks for your opinion on that word but that has no impact to my statements
2.) there is no problem, what you are talking is nonsense, just because you say a person was part of the same movements and that causes YOU to think those movements were "indistinguishable" thats your issue and your problem, its not reality, black panthers marched with every day blacks for rights, so did Muslim brother hood, nobody is uneducated enough to say that makes them the SAME movement and "indistinguishable" because theres no logic to support that.
3.) didnt say you made stuff up what im saying only somebody with broken logic would say they were NEVER distinguishable and again to anybody educated, non-bigoted, honest and object that simply doesnt make RATIONAL sense because the movments were ALWAYS different because they have different goals. Its basic common sense.
 
What nonsense. Their marraiges are not affected in any way by the change in terms. Their fears are irrational, as are their reactions.

You don't think their resistance to change in this case has to do with them seeing the tradition that they have always known, slipping away?
 
Back
Top Bottom