Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let me respond with the exact same response I provided the other 374 times.
Gays can't marry the healthy consenting adult that they love, which straights can.
Yes, the person who says gays can marry any straight person they want is the one who everyone recognizes as the intellectual authority on this board.
Gays have exactly the same rights to marry other people that straight people do. Quit pretending otherwise.
They can't marry the healthy consenting adult they love, for the 376th time, like straights do.
I just wish you'd change your style and try honesty for a change. Just say you don't like guys, that's why you don't want gays to have equal rights. It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously then.
If a marriage contract is broken, you of course go through the government, for our justice system is provided by the government. Getting government out of marriage does not mean legal issues will be ignored anymore than they are with every other private contractual agreement.Just get government out of marriage. I am shocked conservatives insist on having government interfere with their own private heterosexual marriage practices.
Do you also want government out of divorce, child custody, inheritance, bankruptcy, real estate and about half a dozen other areas where marriage law intrudes?
Gays have exactly the same rights to marry other people that straight people do. Quit pretending otherwise.
They can't marry the healthy consenting adult they love, for the 376th time, like straights do.
I just wish you'd change your style and try honesty for a change. Just say you don't like guys, that's why you don't want gays to have equal rights. It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously then.
Of course they can. Quit lying. They can marry any eligible adult they love of the opposite sex. Just liek anyone else.
Gays have equal rights. We've demonstrated that a dozen hundred times.
If you wanted to be honest for a change just say you want gays to have extra rights that others don't have.
Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.If a marriage contract is broken, you of course go through the government, for our justice system is provided by the government. Getting government out of marriage does not mean legal issues will be ignored anymore than they are with every other private contractual agreement.Just get government out of marriage. I am shocked conservatives insist on having government interfere with their own private heterosexual marriage practices.
Do you also want government out of divorce, child custody, inheritance, bankruptcy, real estate and about half a dozen other areas where marriage law intrudes?
Explain to me why it is necessary to have a government provided marriage license to do any of those things when instead you could have a regular private contract like almost every other agreement made between individuals in society.
They can't marry the healthy consenting adult they love, for the 376th time, like straights do.
I just wish you'd change your style and try honesty for a change. Just say you don't like guys, that's why you don't want gays to have equal rights. It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously then.
Of course they can. Quit lying. They can marry any eligible adult they love of the opposite sex. Just liek anyone else.
Gays have equal rights. We've demonstrated that a dozen hundred times.
If you wanted to be honest for a change just say you want gays to have extra rights that others don't have.
No, we want straight people to be allowed to marry other straight people too.
Why does government get to determine who gets to preside over a marriage?I'm informed that most of them are INSISTING on marrigage v civil unions because, despite that law, insurance companies and the like are still dragging their feet about giving civil unions "marriages" the same consideration as more traditional marriages.
I find that rathter difficualt to believe (since civil unions have always been recognized as married) , but that's the reports I'm getting.
'
If Civil Unions were the same as Marriages, there would be no problem. They are not because they are not treated as the same.
OK, a question. If I get married in a church by a priest, that's considered a marriage. If I get married by a justice of the peace, is that a marrage or a civil union?
As well as being completely incorrect.How many additional benefits do you share with you wife because your married? Taxes? Christ.
Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.
Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Why does government get to determine who gets to preside over a marriage?If Civil Unions were the same as Marriages, there would be no problem. They are not because they are not treated as the same.
OK, a question. If I get married in a church by a priest, that's considered a marriage. If I get married by a justice of the peace, is that a marrage or a civil union?
Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter. Marriage used to be between husband, wife, and God. Now marriage is between husband, wife, and the state.Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.If a marriage contract is broken, you of course go through the government, for our justice system is provided by the government. Getting government out of marriage does not mean legal issues will be ignored anymore than they are with every other private contractual agreement.Do you also want government out of divorce, child custody, inheritance, bankruptcy, real estate and about half a dozen other areas where marriage law intrudes?
Explain to me why it is necessary to have a government provided marriage license to do any of those things when instead you could have a regular private contract like almost every other agreement made between individuals in society.
If you eliminate marriage then there is no general agreement on what constitutes a marriage. And there is thus no way to adjudicate competing claims.
Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.If a marriage contract is broken, you of course go through the government, for our justice system is provided by the government. Getting government out of marriage does not mean legal issues will be ignored anymore than they are with every other private contractual agreement.
Explain to me why it is necessary to have a government provided marriage license to do any of those things when instead you could have a regular private contract like almost every other agreement made between individuals in society.
If you eliminate marriage then there is no general agreement on what constitutes a marriage. And there is thus no way to adjudicate competing claims.
Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.
I believe the amendment says to the states, or to the people. My question was why does government get to determine who gets to preside over marriage, and not the people?Why does government get to determine who gets to preside over a marriage?OK, a question. If I get married in a church by a priest, that's considered a marriage. If I get married by a justice of the peace, is that a marrage or a civil union?
10th Amendment to the Constitution?
In fact almost anyone can preside over a marriage.
I believe the amendment says to the states, or to the people. My question was why does government get to determine who gets to preside over marriage, and not the people?Why does government get to determine who gets to preside over a marriage?
10th Amendment to the Constitution?
In fact almost anyone can preside over a marriage.
Illegality and socially unacceptable are two completely different things. You response to my argument is "there was no gay marriage in Washington's day." Tell me: how does that refute the point that government should be out of marriage? I provided the historical reality that until the 1800s marriage was a private societal agreement and worked just fine. Marriage licenses came into existence to prevent interracial marriage. There is no reason to have government issue marriage licenses in today's society.Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.
If you eliminate marriage then there is no general agreement on what constitutes a marriage. And there is thus no way to adjudicate competing claims.
Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.
I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.
That answers why government makes the choices it does, not why government should be given the authority to make those choices. Again, why should government get to determine who can preside over a marriage and not the people?I believe the amendment says to the states, or to the people. My question was why does government get to determine who gets to preside over marriage, and not the people?10th Amendment to the Constitution?
In fact almost anyone can preside over a marriage.
Because they traditionally did so. Just like divorce. Or inheritance. Or a dozen other issues.
But hey, start writing letters and see where it goes.
Of course they can. Quit lying. They can marry any eligible adult they love of the opposite sex. Just liek anyone else.
Gays have equal rights. We've demonstrated that a dozen hundred times.
If you wanted to be honest for a change just say you want gays to have extra rights that others don't have.
No, we want straight people to be allowed to marry other straight people too.
lol.
A true conservative should not give a crap about gay marriage. A true conservative should not involve himself/herself with the affairs of others.
I have no issue with gay marriage....well...I have one issue with it....now that it is legal in NY state, my wife and I have been invited to no less than 10 weddings in September through November. Gonna get pretty expensive for us.
Gay bastards!
It's the gay agenda to persuade everyone that gays are just like normal people. That's it. Everything else is bullshit ginned up to make this pass. Gays are denied nothing. They are not discriminated against at all. It is all bullshit.
Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.
If you eliminate marriage then there is no general agreement on what constitutes a marriage. And there is thus no way to adjudicate competing claims.
Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.
I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.
Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.Contract law presupposes an extensive common law, statute, and legal history about contracts that measures the one in question against an "ideal" contract. All of it presupposes that there is general agreement on what constitutes a contract.
If you eliminate marriage then there is no general agreement on what constitutes a marriage. And there is thus no way to adjudicate competing claims.
Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.
I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.
