California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nah, too boring and I don't give a ****. Instead, I'll go have a beer with my married gay friends. Go California!

Cycloptichorn

Fascism is awesome when you're the one in charge!
Just don't delude yourself into thinking you are a "liberal".

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Why not let the state stay IN marriage, and then just let everyone marry who they want? It is far easier than what you propose and nobody is harmed by it at all.

Because while under state control marriage has lost almost all meaning, so now there is no benefit to having a centrally controlled institution called Marriage. It is now just another contract, the be entered into at will and dissolved at will, government regulation brings no added benefit at all. Government has completely failed at the marriage business, in order to save marriage we need to take it out of the hands of government, let people go back to the churches for meaningful marriages, or the local BDSM club, or PETA, Or WICCA, we could have DEM, GOP and Tea Party marriages where the contracts conform to party values....which presumably would have GOP and Tea party contracts more difficult to get out of....and gays would be rejected as candidates.

Then when people say they are married they would say what kind of marriage they have, and we could decide for ourselves if this marriage corresponds to our values, and we could get a measure of who we are speaking with. Yes it would be more complicated but it also would be more meaningful.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nah, too boring and I don't give a ****. Instead, I'll go have a beer with my married gay friends. Go California!

Cycloptichorn

Fascism is awesome when you're the one in charge!
Just don't delude yourself into thinking you are a "liberal".

It doesn't bother me if you want to call me names or make wild statements. You can say whatever you like. Go America!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It doesn't bother me if you want to call me names or make wild statements. You can say whatever you like. Go America!

It wasn't a slander, but a factual description.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

You want the state to force all of society to accept your specific interpretation of marriage. I want the state to get out of marriage so that everyone can marry who they want.

Um... an interesting argument Nero.

One I can agree with but can you?

If the state can't recognize marriage than it can't provide any benefits to married people
1. The spouse can't inherit without a will.
2. No longer can a spouse be declared a dependent on income tax forms. All people would have to file as single.
3. Without marriage, the state would have to find a different way to designate parents. This would mean children may no longer count as dependents.
4. The states would have to change child custody laws since there is no recognition of parents marriage.
5. Divorce will no longer be valid from state to state.
6. Without state recognition of marriages, I doubt any Insurance company would recognize those marriages. No family health policies. It would complicate the process of getting life insurance.
7. There would be no ability to get a civil marriage since there would be no way to record those marriages and prove they exist.
8. The state would require a judicial name change if a married couple wanted to have the same last name.
9. Spouses would not be able to make legal decisions for the other one if incapacitated.
etc, etc

The upshot is that there would be no societal benefit to being married. It would reduce marriages to practically non existent.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why not let the state stay IN marriage, and then just let everyone marry who they want? It is far easier than what you propose and nobody is harmed by it at all.

Because while under state control marriage has lost almost all meaning

No, it hasn't. That may be YOUR opinion. But legally - which is what the State is concerned with - Marriage is the same it's always been.

Your personal opinion as to the state of marriage is immaterial to this discussion and the issue as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that YOUR marriage is/was a failure, which is why you are so interested in these things. I assure you that MY marriage is strong and happy and meaningful, and the fact that my friends are allowed to be married as well only strengthens that... nothing about letting gays marry weakens my union in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It doesn't bother me if you want to call me names or make wild statements. You can say whatever you like. Go America!

It wasn't a slander, but a factual description.

Actually, it was just a slanderous assertion. Not that I care.

Go Debate Knowledge!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Hey spendius, do you agree that the government should get out of marriage, so that everyone can marry in their church according to their beliefs, instead of government forcing everyone to accept one standardized interpretation of marriage?

No.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You seem to say that the government should 'get out' of marriage, but there are complex financial matters involved with marriage that have no other option but to be regulated by a governing body. You don't seem to have actually put any real thought into your 'solution' at all...

Bloody hell and heckie peckies. I agree with Cyclo on something and for the same reason.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Have you ever stopped a heterosexual marriage? Did they guarantee to have a family? What if they adopt children? Are they still considered married in your eyes? Can they still claim their adopted children as dependents?

What happens when they divorce - which happens to happen frequently to heterosexual marriages.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Hey spendius, do you agree that the government should get out of marriage, so that everyone can marry in their church according to their beliefs, instead of government forcing everyone to accept one standardized interpretation of marriage?

No.

Why not?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

you're just another speed bump on the road to equality, to be ran over and forgotten just like the anti-women's equality forces and the anti-blacks.

Hang on Cyclo. Blacks don't have the magnetic pulling power women have. Equating those two categories is serious male chauvinism. But no surprise to me.

0 Replies

@parados,

1. The spouse can't inherit without a will. Write it in into the contract
2. No longer can a spouse be declared a dependent on income tax forms. All people would have to file as single. Exactly
3. Without marriage, the state would have to find a different way to designate parents. This would mean children may no longer count as dependents. Genetics and cohabitation give parental rights
4. The states would have to change child custody laws since there is no recognition of parents marriage.Genetics and cohabitation give parental rights
5. Divorce will no longer be valid from state to state. Divorces will no longer be in front of the states unless there is a dispute, the contract is ended according to the procedures outlined in the original contract. If there is a dispute that ends up in court then there would be a record of the demise of the contract, just as there is now.6. Without state recognition of marriages, I doubt any Insurance company would recognize those marriages. No family health policies. It would complicate the process of getting life insurance. Marriage is not required for any of this, employers are free to cover whom ever they want, set what ever rules they want, even now. I think so far as the fed government goes a person can sign up one additional adult to their policy, marriage is not required...all employers would be free to do this
7. There would be no ability to get a civil marriage since there would be no way to record those marriages and prove they exist. And the problem is? Most states don't recognize common law marriages today8. The state would require a judicial name change if a married couple wanted to have the same last name. So? It is a simple process
9. Spouses would not be able to make legal decisions for the other one if incapacitated. If it was in the contract they could

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I do realise that much of this imagination is still continuing today but the mass is waking up and they are pissed off.

The mass, of which I reluctantly admit to being a component of, is always pissed off. It is insatiable. It will always be. Media is in the business of making it pissed off.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

If you want to present an argument, provide supporting evidence and documentation and logic for your position. Simply asserting that something is true isn't an argument.

Hey Cyclo--write it out in large letters on a big card, pin it on your wall and read it over ten times a day. Do yourself a favour.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
You want the state to force all of society to accept your specific interpretation of marriage. I want the state to get out of marriage so that everyone can marry who they want.

Um... an interesting argument Nero.

One I can agree with but can you?

If the state can't recognize marriage than it can't provide any benefits to married people
1. The spouse can't inherit without a will.
2. No longer can a spouse be declared a dependent on income tax forms. All people would have to file as single.
3. Without marriage, the state would have to find a different way to designate parents. This would mean children may no longer count as dependents.
4. The states would have to change child custody laws since there is no recognition of parents marriage.
5. Divorce will no longer be valid from state to state.
6. Without state recognition of marriages, I doubt any Insurance company would recognize those marriages. No family health policies. It would complicate the process of getting life insurance.
7. There would be no ability to get a civil marriage since there would be no way to record those marriages and prove they exist.
8. The state would require a judicial name change if a married couple wanted to have the same last name.
9. Spouses would not be able to make legal decisions for the other one if incapacitated.
etc, etc

Kudos parados, you're not a mindless repeater of slogans.

My answers:

1. Make private contracts. We would all just get used to having a will. Just as we are are all used to having to make sure that our car works.
2. Yes, let all file as single. Or just abolish income taxes, they are unconstitutional anyways.
3. We'd find some legal way to designate parents.
4. Yes they would.
5. What makes you think that?
6. We'd find some way for insurance companies to recognize families. Insurance companies could just decide who they want to give family policies to. Alternatively families could simply attain the "family" rating from Johnson's family-status rating agency, and insurance companies could decide what ratings agencies they accept.
7. We could still record marriages. The state could keep a record of people who declare themselves married. Or the churches that marry people could record it.
8. Yes.
9. We'd find some legal way for spouses to make legal decisions. - Make private contracts.

parados wrote:

The upshot is that there would be no societal benefit to being married. It would reduce marriages to practically non existent.

It would be your personal responsibility, not that of the state. Stage a marriage ceremony as pompous as you need to think of yourself as married. Make as many private contracts with your spouse as you need to consider yourself married. But marriage will always be your personal responsibility. Loving your children and not cheating on your spouse will always be personal responsibility. If the history of the last century has shown one thing, then it is that the state can't replace personal responsibility.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Nah, too boring and I don't give a ****. Instead, I'll go have a beer with my married gay friends. Go California!

Weeeehhheeeee!!! That's the "triumphalism" failures mentioned peeking out.

0 Replies

can we all at least agree that the world would be a better place if everyone was killed at birth

1 Reply

@djjd62,

The US attempted to do that by building enough nuclear weapons to destroy this world many times over. I guess that what the "closest call" so far in human history.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Fascism is awesome when you're the one in charge!
Just don't delude yourself into thinking you are a "liberal".

He can't stop himself your divinity.

PS-- How is Poppaea Sabina going on. Old Nero did cut his own throat to avoid the sentence passed on him by the Senate.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know