With Our Victory Of Roe Being Overturned, Next Target--Same Sex Marriage!

[kaz]

Governments reward behaviour they want. Marriage is the foundation of society. Couples having children are what allow us to go on so of course the government should be giving benefits to people having children. Your nation is in trouble because not enough people are having babies. You're not replacing your population.

The only thing you said that's true is the red. What government wants are blind, obedient servants. You know, you ...

 

[surada]

If there was no marriage license issued or registration of the marriage, would state divorce laws take effect?

If you aren't married and you don't fit the criteria for common law marriage you would have no recourse in the courts.

 

[kaz]

Oh Canada ♪ ♫ ♪♪ ♫ ♫......

Dragonlady doesn't realize she isn't American, LOL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Governments reward behaviour they want. Marriage is the foundation of society. Couples having children are what allow us to go on so of course the government should be giving benefits to people having children. Your nation is in trouble because not enough people are having babies. You're not replacing your population.

1. Having children has never been a requirment for marriage

2. Gays and Lesbians have and aquire children in a varity of ways just like heterosexuals do

Try again

 

[Dragonlady]

1. Having children has never been a requirment for marriage

2. Gays and Lesbians have and aquire children in a varity of ways just like heterosexuals do

Try again

There was nothing in my post that disagreed with everything you posted, or which said gay families don't have children. Many do, and without marriage, many of these families are torn apart if something happens to their biological parent. It is BECAUSE gay families have children that couples need the right to marry - and the "next of kin" protections marriage implies, to protect their family if something happens to the biological parent.

It doesn't change the fact that the tax and social benefits which are granted to married couples given by the government are to encourage marriage and having families, as the foundation of society.

 

[surada]

Calling marriage a "contract" is a misnomer. Contracts are agreed to by the parties, not an outside force. And the marriage contract continues to change, again without the say of the people in it.

It's not a contract. No business person like me who has negotiated many contracts would agree to such a contract ever.

But then you're wasting your time, arguing with a Canadian who knows nothing about our Constitution other than she's a leftist and she wants it ...

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. It's very simple legal theory.

 

[kaz]

1. Having children has never been a requirment for marriage

2. Gays and Lesbians have and aquire children in a varity of ways just like heterosexuals do

Try again

Dragonlady is confused. She's Canadian you know. She doesn't know about this Constitution stuff ...

 

[kaz]

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. It's very simple legal theory.

Address my points, moron. Obviously you can't because you don't know anything about contracts. But I gave you HUGE differences

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

2. Gays and Lesbians have and aquire children in a varity of ways just like heterosexuals do

Yes but gays want to aquire children to groom them for sexual abuse. Gays are pedophiles deep down. They're mentally unstable. They are a danger to children. They should be prohibited from adopting them.

 

[kaz]

Yes but gays want to aquire children to groom them for sexual abuse. Gays are pedophiles deep down. They're mentally unstable. They are a danger to children. They should be prohibited from adopting them.

I hope that's tongue in cheek. If you mean it, you need to get to know some gays because that's clearly not true of them all. Though sexual abuse of children is more correlated with gay than straight. But not most gays, who just want to live their lives, other than the radical left gays who are authoritarian leftists like other Democrats

 

[surada]

Address my points, moron. Obviously you can't because you don't know anything about contracts. But I gave you HUGE differences

Consenting adults can also negotiate their marriage contract. The State's only real interest is that they don't want to raise your offspring.

 

[kaz]

Consenting adults can also negotiate their marriage contract. The State's only real interest is that they don't want to raise your offspring.

The State doesn't give a shit about helping people, it's about dividing the country and manipulating that for power, like they do with everyone else. Looks like the Latino vote is going to blow up in your faces. Grow up.

You still didn't address my points about the difference between marriage and actual contracts, which again you obviously know nothing about.

1) Contracts are negotiated BETWEEN PEOPLE. They are not assigned by someone else. If you have a marriage "contract" defined by government, a contract could only be between you and government

2) Contracts similarly only change when the parties agree to those changes. Government marriage changes again when a third party (government) changes it

3) Contracts have to involve consideration by both parties. What is that consideration with government marriage?

And what States allow you to create your own marriage contract? That's ridiculous

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There was nothing in my post that disagreed with everything you posted, or which said gay families don't have children. Many do, and without marriage, many of these families are torn apart if something happens to their biological parent. It is BECAUSE gay families have children that couples need the right to marry - and the "next of kin" protections marriage implies, to protect their family if something happens to the biological parent.

Agreed. But I would change "biological parent " to legal parent

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It doesn't change the fact that the tax and social benefits which are granted to married couples given by the government are to encourage marriage and having families, as the foundation of society.

Yes families are the foundation of society. But families do not necessarily have to include children. People have many different reasons for marriage. We have been married for 30 years and chose to raise cats.

 

[surada]

The State doesn't give a shit about helping people, it's about dividing the country and manipulating that for power, like they do with everyone else. Looks like the Latino vote is going to blow up in your faces. Grow up.

You still didn't address my points about the difference between marriage and actual contracts, which again you obviously know nothing about

The marriage contract is just a contract like other contracts. You should have this conversation with a lawyer. You aren't going to listen to me.

 

[bodecea]

Yep. Even ROBERTS sided with those horrible constitutionalists! 6-3 decision! 6 Americans vs, 2 POS Obumma activists and one Bidenista Tard who don't know what a woman is.

Have fun in November.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes but gays want to aquire children to groom them for sexual abuse. Gays are pedophiles deep down. They're mentally unstable. They are a danger to children. They should be prohibited from adopting them.

Save the damned bullshit! That is beyond ignorant!! Do you have a fuctioning brain or can you do nothing more than regurgitate bigited shit that you are spoon fed in your bubble of moronic minions?

 

[Ralph Norton]

Have fun in November.

We're going to. Thanks

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fact that you call yourself a “macho man” is an obvious indication you are not one.

The fact that you fancy yourself a "critical thinker" via your avatar is an obvious indication you are not one.

 

[bodecea]

Same sex marriage would not be a POLITICAL issue if not for the fact that our state and federal governments have gotten deeply involved in the institution by bestowing countless cash and prizes to married people.

If the government was not involved in marriage, then same sex marriage would be strictly between the individuals involved.

But because the government IS involved by bestowing these benefits by law, then the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" is in play.

Clarence Thomas blatantly omitted any mention of Loving v. Virginia in this recent decision for two reasons.

One, he's married to a white woman.

But more importantly, he excluded Loving in his opinion because the Loving decision stated you could not ban interracial marriage without a rational basis for doing so.

And he knows this. He knows a ban on same sex marriage has no legal led to stand on.

Keep in mind that same sex marriage was happening in churches decades before it was legal civilly.