To Hell with "Gay Marriage"!

[Oddball]

I don't disagree with you. But I guess I don't have a personal enough investment in it (I have no desire to marry a man) to actually put the effort in.

What if I wanted to marry straight a man, whom I truly loved, and he wanted to marry me, just for the statutory privileges?

Go ahead, straight couples do it all the time.

Yes they do...Nice to see you catching on to the point.

 

[Luissa]

And you have been showed many times at a state level marriage is defined as a right, and Loving did rule on statutory marriage as you say. They ruled the state's written law/statutory law violated the Due Process clause and equal protection.

If the Loving case affirmed any right to a state marriage license, we wouldn't be having this argument right now, would we?

They affirmed marriage is a right, so I think they did.
I won't show you what they wrote, because I know you have been shown many times.
You should just admit you are wrong when it comes to this.

 

[Luissa]

What if I wanted to marry straight a man, whom I truly loved, and he wanted to marry me, just for the statutory privileges?

Go ahead, straight couples do it all the time.

Yes they do...Nice to see you catching on to the point.

I think you are the one who needs to catch up, I have seen people show you many times what the Supreme Court has ruled and pointed out that your wrong. You should really just except it and move on.

 

[Toronado3800]

Dude I think we agree here. Its a nice peaceful feeling for a change!

The state recognizes marriage for two reasons:
1. so judges can divide up joint property somehow after marriage goes wrong.
2. so tax and insurance breaks can be given to married folks under the theory it creates stable households which are good for the economy.

Dude, I much admire ya but don't want to get married again btw. Who would be the "wife"?

 

[Oddball]

Go ahead, straight couples do it all the time.

Yes they do...Nice to see you catching on to the point.

I think you are the one who needs to catch up, I have seen people show you many times what the Supreme Court has ruled and pointed out that your wrong. You should really just except (sic) it and move on.

SCOTUS ruled that there is a right to a common law contractual agreement called "marriage".

They did NOT rule that there is any such right to the privilege of a state licensed statutory marriage.

You're long on political activism and short on actual law.

Accept it.

 

[Oddball]

Dude I think we agree here. Its a nice peaceful feeling for a change!

The state recognizes marriage for two reasons:
1. so judges can divide up joint property somehow after marriage goes wrong.
2. so tax and insurance breaks can be given to married folks under the theory it creates stable households which are good for the economy.

Dude, I much admire ya but don't want to get married again btw. Who would be the "wife"?

Here's a man who gets it!!!!!

Your application for tenderfoot libertarian has been forwarded to the proper authorities.

 

[Modbert]

Course, we could get the whole term "marriage" out of the legal term of what should be civil unions. But that's too simple.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Just a question... If two guys, regardless of their sexual preferences, get married to each other I wonder how things would work out? Imagine this scenero. It's Friday night. Both have worked hard all week and they meet at the local bar to toss a couple of well-earned drinks back. As they sit and talk, how could they bitch about their wives?

 

[Oddball]

Course, we could get the whole term "marriage" out of the legal term of what should be civil unions. But that's too simple.

Or "common law".....But the statutory law whores are more interested in the politics......Go figure.

 

[rightwinger]

Consenting adults should be allowed to marry. This means that children, animals and your Wii are excluded.

I don't care if polygamy is allowed.

If I am legally alowed to have a wife and a mistress on the side and have children with each, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry both.

If the state wants you to have just one wife, they can only recognize one marriage for legal purposes

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is absolutely no reason same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying.

Is there ever a valid reason for denying law abiding, productive, contributing members of society participation in all rights, benefits and privileges of said society?

As an aside it is my opinion that the state should never recognize as legal marriage performed by a religious institution.

 

[FireGod]

Consenting adults should be allowed to marry. This means that children, animals and your Wii are excluded.

I don't care if polygamy is allowed.

If I am legally allowed to have a wife and a mistress on the side and have children with each, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry both.

If the state wants you to have just one wife, they can only recognize one marriage for legal purposes

You were doing so good till the end.
And what business does the state have in limiting the number of wives or husbands to one?

 

[The Rabbi]

There is absolutely no reason same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying.

Is there ever a valid reason for denying law abiding, productive, contributing members of society participation in all rights, benefits and privileges of said society?

As an aside it is my opinion that the state should never recognize as legal marriage performed by a religious institution.

Fags already have all rights, benefits and privileges that everyne else does. What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying. They can go to any religious authority, or secular authority they want and get married. But they state won't recognize that. WHy should they?
How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

 

[xotoxi]

The term "marriage" should no longer be a word that appears in state law.

A term like "civil union" should be used, and it would essentially be an exclusive legal contractual obligation between two consenting adults (and only those two adults).

This could be a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, two brothers, a brother and a sister, a mother and an adult son, etc...

There would be no implication of love. There would be no implication of sex. The state is NOT and should NOT be in the business of issuing licenses for LOVE or SEX.

This union would give the two individuals certain tax rights, property ownership rights, inheritance rights, and decision rights, similar to what is currently seen in statutory marriage. This union would be a legal contract, just as two businesses join through a legal contract, or just as a salaried employee enters into an employment contract with their employer.

The state would NOT recognize religious marriages, unless the party marrying in the church filled out the proper paperwork for civil union and it was filed in the city hall or whereever.

That's the way it should be.

 

[rightwinger]

Consenting adults should be allowed to marry. This means that children, animals and your Wii are excluded.

I don't care if polygamy is allowed.

If I am legally allowed to have a wife and a mistress on the side and have children with each, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry both.

If the state wants you to have just one wife, they can only recognize one marriage for legal purposes

You were doing so good till the end.
And what business does the state have in limiting the number of wives or husbands to one?

The last statement is in response to the government making polygamy a crime. How can it be a crime if the state does not recognize the second marriage anyway? If they don't want to offer tax incentives and legal recognition to a second marriage, they don't have to. But a second marriage should not be a criminal activity

 

[xotoxi]

How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

You and Dude are gay lovers?


As for sponging off his benefits...you would still be paying the premium, correct?

I suppose the alternative would be for you to remain a non-unified individual and get medicaid.

 

[xotoxi]

How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

And in the same scenario, what if you and Echo Zulu got married for the same reason.

Wouldn't that be a farce of marriage?

 

[FireGod]

Consenting adults should be allowed to marry. This means that children, animals and your Wii are excluded.

I don't care if polygamy is allowed.

If I am legally allowed to have a wife and a mistress on the side and have children with each, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry both.

If the state wants you to have just one wife, they can only recognize one marriage for legal purposes

You were doing so good till the end.
And what business does the state have in limiting the number of wives or husbands to one?

The last statement is in response to the government making polygamy a crime. How can it be a crime if the state does not recognize the second marriage anyway? If they don't want to offer tax incentives and legal recognition to a second marriage, they don't have to. But a second marriage should not be a criminal activity

I agree with the crime aspect. I disagree with the non state sanctioning aspect though. Here is the rub why is there legal monetary benefits attached to heterosexual monogamy? Do not even bring holy books into the argument we are talking government not religion. Take those arguments and apply to other types of relationships. It is not that hard nor is the logic that far off. I also posit that the benefit for society as a whole outweighs any negatives. The first is disposing of this particular wedge issue.

 

[rightwinger]

You were doing so good till the end.
And what business does the state have in limiting the number of wives or husbands to one?

The last statement is in response to the government making polygamy a crime. How can it be a crime if the state does not recognize the second marriage anyway? If they don't want to offer tax incentives and legal recognition to a second marriage, they don't have to. But a second marriage should not be a criminal activity

I agree with the crime aspect. I disagree with the non state sanctioning aspect though. Here is the rub why is there legal monetary benefits attached to heterosexual monogamy? Do not even bring holy books into the argument we are talking government not religion. Take those arguments and apply to other types of relationships. It is not that hard nor is the logic that far off. I also posit that the benefit for society as a whole outweighs any negatives. The first is disposing of this particular wedge issue.

An entirely different can of worms. Why do married people pay less in taxes than single people anyway?
A topic for a different thread

 

[FireGod]

Fair enough