Gay Marriage: To Approve or Not To Approve

[PaintMyHouse]

Deal with reality. In order for a marriage to be valid here the State has to approve. That's not going to change.

Do you ever slow down to listen to any other point of view? You are so quick to argue that your opinions get dismissed as quickly as you make them. You are combative and rude. You are the reason (not the sole reason) that people don't get along.

Hell is other people. Now you know. And it you wouldn't present dumbshit BS I wouldn't be so quick to knock it down. You are posting in a gay marriage thread. Gay marriage is over and done with. If you want a rational debate, pick a subject that matters. This ain't it.

You have taken time out of your busy day to post in a thread that YOU say is irrelevant. Why not spend your precious time elsewhere? Why are you in this thread if you have nothing to add? Why waste your time? If it is indeed "done with" then I assume you can simply go about your business and let us have a civilized discussion without you interference.

What I do with my time is my business little man. And if you don't want your posts attacked don't post BS we've all seen a thousand fucking times before and then get pissy when it gets beat like a carpet. And if my time was precious I sure as hell wouldn't be here so obviously I'm just killing time.

As for gay marriage there is nothing to discuss. You have enough of a working brain to pick a better subject so, do so.

The irony of you posting "there is nothing to discuss" in a DISCUSSION thread is priceless. You are precious!

What I am making comment on is your inability to see that your dog won't hunt, and that we killed and buried it long ago. That's neither a discussion nor a debate since there is nothing to debate or discuss.

 

[g5000]

Got links for the history PaintMyHouse?

Would be appreciated.

Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

"8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States."

Not many benefits in 1639, if any eh?

There was the benefit of being allowed to live together and fuck each other's brains out without ending up in stocks in the town square.

 

[g5000]

Deal with reality. In order for a marriage to be valid here the State has to approve. That's not going to change.

Tell us the real world difference between a "valid" marriage and an invalid one.

I bet you can't answer without mentioning the government benefits. Which has been Bronco's entire point.

Without government involvement in marriage, same sex marriage would a completely moot issue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Got links for the history PaintMyHouse?

Would be appreciated.

Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

"8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States."

Not many benefits in 1639, if any eh?

There was the benefit of being allowed to live together and fuck each other's brains out without ending up in stocks in the town square.

Most got that by, .....................................wait for it,...................................not living in town. And yep, that would be a benefit alright but the point is the same, the marriage didn't arrive the same times as the tax code...

 

[g5000]

Got links for the history PaintMyHouse?

Would be appreciated.

Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

"8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States."

Not many benefits in 1639, if any eh?

There was the benefit of being allowed to live together and fuck each other's brains out without ending up in stocks in the town square.

Most got that by, .....................................wait for it,...................................not living in town. And yep, that would be a benefit alright but the point is the same, the marriage didn't arrive the same times as the tax code...

So being able to live in town together was one of the first government benefits bestowed upon marriage. Okey dokey!

Tax breaks are just one of several cash and prizes awarded to married couples by the government, which have accumulated to a substantial amount over time.

And it is those government cash and prizes which are the real issue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Deal with reality. In order for a marriage to be valid here the State has to approve. That's not going to change.

Tell us the real world difference between a "valid" marriage and an invalid one.

I bet you can't answer without mentioning the government benefits. Which has been Bronco's entire point.

A valid marriage is either one approve by the state because you have a state-issued and legally enforceable, therefore valid, state marriage license. Or you have a common-law marriage (sui juris marriage) that the state recognizes without benefit of said license. Neither of those has anything to do with benefits. It has to do with legal standing, do you have a spouse or not? How we figure that out is using one of the two above.

 

[g5000]

Deal with reality. In order for a marriage to be valid here the State has to approve. That's not going to change.

Tell us the real world difference between a "valid" marriage and an invalid one.

I bet you can't answer without mentioning the government benefits. Which has been Bronco's entire point.

A valid marriage is either one approve by the state because you have a state-issued and legally enforceable, therefore valid, state marriage license. Or you have a common-law marriage (sui juris marriage) that the state recognizes without benefit of said license. Neither of those has anything to do with benefits. It has to do with legal standing, do you have a spouse or not? How we figure that out is using one of the two above.

"Legal standing" is utterly meaningless unless it comes with legal benefits. Ipso facto.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Deal with reality. In order for a marriage to be valid here the State has to approve. That's not going to change.

Tell us the real world difference between a "valid" marriage and an invalid one.

I bet you can't answer without mentioning the government benefits. Which has been Bronco's entire point.

A valid marriage is either one approve by the state because you have a state-issued and legally enforceable, therefore valid, state marriage license. Or you have a common-law marriage (sui juris marriage) that the state recognizes without benefit of said license. Neither of those has anything to do with benefits. It has to do with legal standing, do you have a spouse or not? How we figure that out is using one of the two above.

"Legal standing" is utterly meaningless unless it comes with legal benefits. Ipso facto.

Nope. Do you have standing or not? If you do, regardless of benefits, you can file suit or make a claim. If not, then fuck you.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a legal contract between two parties that establishes a new legal entity. The requirements are: the two individuals must not have a previous next of kin relationship, must be of legal age and must consent to entry into the contract.

The state has mechanisms in place to dissolve the contract. They're called Divorce Courts.

Access to these portions of our system of jurisprudence should not be restricted from those who qualify as the marriage contract provides benefits and protections not available to those not entered into the contract. Governments do not sanctify marriages. Churches do.

The argument for allowing SSM is that they are mature willing companions and it's no one's business even the governments if they desire to marry... Therefore the government would be violating the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act if they disallowed any mature willing companions forming marriage groups as they see fit..... Even if they are close relatives.

The government needs to get out of all mature willing companions business and allow them to form marriage groups as they please.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The government got in the business of sanctioning marriage when they decided to start giving tax breaks to married couples and families.

Gays aren't necessarily looking for a "sanctified" marriage, many of them are happy to be married by a JP, and for those that want a church marriage, many churches are happy to oblige.

The main thing they want is for their unions to be recognized so that they can get the same benefits that other couples do. Stuff like being able to go into a hospital room, the right to inherit their partner's stuff, and oh yeah...............the tax and legal benefits that go with being in a legally recognized union.

Which is exactly why the government, and everyone else, needs to get out of all mature willing companions business and allow them to form marriage groups as they see fit.

Hallelujah!

*****CHUCKLE*****