Shadious,
I really wish you'd bother to do some goddam research before you go off and start trying to tell people they are wrong about shit.
1) "Marriage" was once only a religious status. The concept was then later adopted into legal language so as to establish rights for persons getting out of marriage. Basically, it's legal definition only exists because of the invention of divorce. That, and husbands who abused their wives.
2) "Completely and utterly false. If this were true there would be no marriage benefits that were not associated with children."
NO SHITFUK, it's true. Look it up. It's called an "incentive." Maybe you've heard of the term. Marriage "benefits" are the result of legal theorists who back in the day decided that marriage promoted a stabler society with regards to the acceptance of authoritarian rule as well as steady population growth. Things quite desirable for a nation ever so concerned with spreading its dominion over a continent. There's plenty of legal scholarship on the issue and I'm sure I could go digging through my lawbooks and find a bunch of that shit for you, but fukk that. Uneducated assholes who go around talking shit about others being "completely and utterly false" without first taking the time to research such a claim don't deserve that kind of respect.
Also, and this is a very crucial thing to understand: not all laws were written in the same era in which you grew up. [READ: There was a time before condoms shithole.] A time when marriage benefits didn't have to be "associated with children" because back then it was pretty much a fukking given. Believe it or not, government officials used to write laws with a bit more respect and honor for the populace, and tempting folks to have children faster simply for the sake of monetary relief would have seemed a bit undignified. Wouldn't you say? Or maybe not. Apparently you can't read a damn thing that conflicts with your view of the world without ensuring yourself it must be inaccurate.
There's an old saying that goes something like this... "The right to be critical is only born to those who have taken the time to make sure they are right." It comes from a time long before the television and internet, back thousands of years ago to the ancient Greeks in a time when democracy had to be conducted in person at a specific time and place. Back then, in a mob of 1,000 people having traveled days by horseback, efficiency was a top priority. There wasn't the time or patience to let ignorant assholes open their mouths and get in the way of business. So if you had to interrupt someone, or correct someone's point, you had better been right. Or you stood the risk of getting flogged or thrown of a cliff. Certainly no one was going to listen to your ass anymore. Now granted, we don't have the dire need for such rules here today on internet forums, but that same sort of respect for other people's time and efforts would still be greatly appreciated.
3) "What does this even mean?"
There are those who believe homosexuality is a behavior that is not innate. There are others who believe that innate behaviors can become learned in others. Gay marriage laws, whether you understand the Constitutional implications or not, are designed to one day legally define sexual orientation in such a way that those who refute such definition could stand to suffer civil litigation and possibly even criminal punishment.
4) You only think I'm a bigot because you don't give a shit about people who think differently than yourself. Which actually makes YOU the bigot. And I'm sure that prejudice of yours will find it hard to reconcile with the fact that I voted against the recent anti-gay marriage amendment here in North Carolina. See, I'm friends with gay people, but that doesn't mean I can't separate my support and love for them from seeing/understanding the inevitable consequences of poorly worded (or deliberately diabolical) laws. These laws are generally a bit more complicated than some "YAY FOR GAYS!"/"fukking queers" argument. Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by prejudice for those you disagree with you would see that.
And yes, sexual orientation can negatively impact people's lives. Maybe you've never worked in an office place where it was a problem, but many Americans have. Don't get me wrong, it's really not the orientation per se that's the problem, but rather how one's sex life or orientation becomes a public distraction, unfortunately, discrimination lawyers have seen to it that when it comes to homosexuals there's no distinction in a court of law. There are countless other examples that extend beyond the workplace, but you don't strike me as either willing or competent enough to grasp them. Sorry. I'm not trying to be an asshole, perhaps you can tell my patience in responding to your bullshit ignorance/or stupidity is running out.
5) "How is gay marriage more government?"
Well, for one you are creating a whole new status for a whole new batch of people which was previously unattainable. This in and of itself creates more government. Not for homosexuals mind you, just in general. Not to nit-pick, but anytime you change a law to grant somebody something that will require more paperwork it equals more government. This of course isn't the unique problem here and I've never heard of anyone suggest it as such. The problem lies in the language of these laws. The "devil's in the details" as they like to say. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of homosexuals and their struggle for equality in this country. I suggest you go take some time and read into it. Specifically focus on anything that deals with "identity" issues or the "search for validation." Perhaps when you are done reading some of that you will come to better understand the people pushing most desperately for gay rights and why. (Hint: It's not about tax breaks or health benefits.) And maybe then you'll come to see some very hazardous conflicts that might arise from passing these laws. Or not. Maybe you've got a rooster up your ass.
I really wish you'd bother to do some goddam research before you go off and start trying to tell people they are wrong about shit.
1) "Marriage" was once only a religious status. The concept was then later adopted into legal language so as to establish rights for persons getting out of marriage. Basically, it's legal definition only exists because of the invention of divorce. That, and husbands who abused their wives.
2) "Completely and utterly false. If this were true there would be no marriage benefits that were not associated with children."
NO SHITFUK, it's true. Look it up. It's called an "incentive." Maybe you've heard of the term. Marriage "benefits" are the result of legal theorists who back in the day decided that marriage promoted a stabler society with regards to the acceptance of authoritarian rule as well as steady population growth. Things quite desirable for a nation ever so concerned with spreading its dominion over a continent. There's plenty of legal scholarship on the issue and I'm sure I could go digging through my lawbooks and find a bunch of that shit for you, but fukk that. Uneducated assholes who go around talking shit about others being "completely and utterly false" without first taking the time to research such a claim don't deserve that kind of respect.
Also, and this is a very crucial thing to understand: not all laws were written in the same era in which you grew up. [READ: There was a time before condoms shithole.] A time when marriage benefits didn't have to be "associated with children" because back then it was pretty much a fukking given. Believe it or not, government officials used to write laws with a bit more respect and honor for the populace, and tempting folks to have children faster simply for the sake of monetary relief would have seemed a bit undignified. Wouldn't you say? Or maybe not. Apparently you can't read a damn thing that conflicts with your view of the world without ensuring yourself it must be inaccurate.
There's an old saying that goes something like this... "The right to be critical is only born to those who have taken the time to make sure they are right." It comes from a time long before the television and internet, back thousands of years ago to the ancient Greeks in a time when democracy had to be conducted in person at a specific time and place. Back then, in a mob of 1,000 people having traveled days by horseback, efficiency was a top priority. There wasn't the time or patience to let ignorant assholes open their mouths and get in the way of business. So if you had to interrupt someone, or correct someone's point, you had better been right. Or you stood the risk of getting flogged or thrown of a cliff. Certainly no one was going to listen to your ass anymore. Now granted, we don't have the dire need for such rules here today on internet forums, but that same sort of respect for other people's time and efforts would still be greatly appreciated.
3) "What does this even mean?"
There are those who believe homosexuality is a behavior that is not innate. There are others who believe that innate behaviors can become learned in others. Gay marriage laws, whether you understand the Constitutional implications or not, are designed to one day legally define sexual orientation in such a way that those who refute such definition could stand to suffer civil litigation and possibly even criminal punishment.
4) You only think I'm a bigot because you don't give a shit about people who think differently than yourself. Which actually makes YOU the bigot. And I'm sure that prejudice of yours will find it hard to reconcile with the fact that I voted against the recent anti-gay marriage amendment here in North Carolina. See, I'm friends with gay people, but that doesn't mean I can't separate my support and love for them from seeing/understanding the inevitable consequences of poorly worded (or deliberately diabolical) laws. These laws are generally a bit more complicated than some "YAY FOR GAYS!"/"fukking queers" argument. Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by prejudice for those you disagree with you would see that.
And yes, sexual orientation can negatively impact people's lives. Maybe you've never worked in an office place where it was a problem, but many Americans have. Don't get me wrong, it's really not the orientation per se that's the problem, but rather how one's sex life or orientation becomes a public distraction, unfortunately, discrimination lawyers have seen to it that when it comes to homosexuals there's no distinction in a court of law. There are countless other examples that extend beyond the workplace, but you don't strike me as either willing or competent enough to grasp them. Sorry. I'm not trying to be an asshole, perhaps you can tell my patience in responding to your bullshit ignorance/or stupidity is running out.
5) "How is gay marriage more government?"
Well, for one you are creating a whole new status for a whole new batch of people which was previously unattainable. This in and of itself creates more government. Not for homosexuals mind you, just in general. Not to nit-pick, but anytime you change a law to grant somebody something that will require more paperwork it equals more government. This of course isn't the unique problem here and I've never heard of anyone suggest it as such. The problem lies in the language of these laws. The "devil's in the details" as they like to say. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of homosexuals and their struggle for equality in this country. I suggest you go take some time and read into it. Specifically focus on anything that deals with "identity" issues or the "search for validation." Perhaps when you are done reading some of that you will come to better understand the people pushing most desperately for gay rights and why. (Hint: It's not about tax breaks or health benefits.) And maybe then you'll come to see some very hazardous conflicts that might arise from passing these laws. Or not. Maybe you've got a rooster up your ass.