California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@parados,

Quote:

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.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Back to the monkey troupe where the Darwinists are leading us.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

... nothing about letting gays marry weakens my union in the slightest.

See what I mean about the big letters on the card and reading it ten times a day. That's an assertion and not an argument. Some would say it is whistling in the dark. Your friends go home to a completly different thing than you do. They do a conundrum about what date is Christmas day and you do one which Einstein never solved.

You just insulted your wife and I hope she didn't see it. Unless you have turned her head with your sophistries and got her to deny her unique divinity. In which case--shame on you.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

For reasons parados gave a superficial and materialistic answer for.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

That's the tip of the iceberg. Back to the monkey troupe where the Darwinists are leading us.

Quite the contrary. Whenever we attempt to outsource our personal responsibilities to the state, the effects have been counter-productive and destructive! The best thing we could do for the sanctity of marriage was getting big government out of it. Because then it is our personal responsibility to make it work.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

That's the tip of the iceberg. Back to the monkey troupe where the Darwinists are leading us.

Marriage already has lost most meaning, and it can be entered and departed from at will and largely with ease....the collective has already abdicated what was before now considered its responsibility to uphold and protect marriage which is the base of family life....the collective no longer has any claim to regulate that which has already been largely distroyed.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
... nothing about letting gays marry weakens my union in the slightest.

See what I mean about the big letters on the card and reading it ten times a day. That's an assertion and not an argument.

I don't have to make an argument when discussing my own marriage. It's my opinion, and fortunately that's all that counts.

Quote:

You just insulted your wife and I hope she didn't see it. Unless you have turned her head with your sophistries and got her to deny her unique divinity. In which case--shame on you.

She not only saw it, she's laughing at you with me, right now.

As our married gay friends are both women, I'm sure you would agree that they are double divine. I assure you that I think of them that way.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Because then it is our personal responsibility to make it work.

Yeah--we are very responsible people I know. Especially without any authority directing us.

Try suspending the murder laws for 24 hours.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Marriage already has lost most meaning

I assert that it has lost no meaning at all, and what more, that you are projecting your own personal situation on to the collective.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Try suspending the murder laws for 24 hours.

that would be great, but i don't need 24 hours, i keep my enemies close

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I assert that it has lost no meaning at all, and what more, that you are projecting your own personal situation on to the collective.

What does marriage mean today?

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Because then it is our personal responsibility to make it work.

Yeah--we are very responsible people I know. Especially without any authority directing us.

Try suspending the murder laws for 24 hours.

What has the Leviathan ever done for us? We need no authority directing us, authority has always been destructive.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

it's a joke, i feel it always has been, so you see, no loss

1 Reply

@djjd62,

granted i take my jokes very seriously

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I assert that it has lost no meaning at all, and what more, that you are projecting your own personal situation on to the collective.

What does marriage mean today?

What, you pretend that it has a universal meaning, that everyone has regarded it the same throughout time? It has no fixed meaning 'today' from a moral and ethical sense. It never did.

However, it has a LEGAL meaning, and that hasn't changed in the slightest. And allowing gays to marry won't change that meaning in the slightest either.

C'mon, dude, try thinking above a 5th grade level for a minute and you won't ask such silly questions.

Are you willing to assert that you are not in fact projecting your personal situation onto society in this conversation?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

Privileges can be deemed unconstitutional too... if it is found they violate the constitution. It was once a "privilege" for white folks to exclusively sit up front on a bus while blacks were relegated to the back seats... Twisting words does not negate inequality...

2 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Quote:

It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

Privileges can be deemed unconstitutional too... if it is found they violate the constitution. It was once a "privilege" for white folks to exclusively sit up front on a bus while blacks were relegated to the back seats... Twisting words does not negate inequality...

Can you believe these assholes, Rex?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Quote:

It is an a priori fact, that something you receive from the government is a privilege, not a right. Are you denying that fact?

Privileges can be deemed unconstitutional too...

Indeed, but the ones with the case to do so have the burden of proof.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What, you pretend that it has a universal meaning, that everyone has regarded it the same throughout time? It has no fixed meaning 'today' from a moral and ethical sense. It never did

Great, since you are admitting that marriage has no standard meaning you will not object if we stop trying to force all marriages through the same hole. You will let people negotiate agreements that conform tho their version of what marriage is, and let them certify them through organizations that represents their values and their ideal of what a union is.

Though I disagree that marriage never had a shared meaning...it certainly did when our civilization was stronger.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

As our married gay friends are both women, I'm sure you would agree that they are double divine. I assure you that I think of them that way.

I told you that you are a closet hetero ages ago. Neither the Church nor the state has ever condemned girls cuddling and stroking each other. No genetic material is wasted when they do you see.

This debate is not about ladies even if it suits you to pretend it is. The question is-- would your wife, who has my sympathy, think of your friends as double divine if they were men. One imagines from "double divine" that you would be okay, if you know what I mean by being okay, in a threesome with your two friends assuming you had permission of course. Would your wife be okay in the same position if they were chaps?

Ask her.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What, you pretend that it has a universal meaning, that everyone has regarded it the same throughout time? It has no fixed meaning 'today' from a moral and ethical sense. It never did
Great, since you are admitting that marriage has no standard meaning you will not object if we stop trying to force all marriages through the same hole.

No, I won't stop objecting. You're not trying to do anything of the sort, that you are saying here; you're trying to discriminate against gay folks, b/c you're a bigot. You just try and wrap it up in better-sounding language.

Quote:

You will let people negotiate agreements that conform tho their version of what marriage is, and let them certify them through organizations that represents their values and their ideal of what a union is.

No, I'm not going to do that. I don't care what people's 'version' or 'vision' of marriage is, only care about the legal definition and legal applications of it.

Quote:

Though I disagree that marriage never had a shared meaning...it certainly did when our civilization was stronger.

No, it didn't. This is just an assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up, because you are searching for a way to justify your bigotry.

I think I probably hit the nail right on the head with my assessment of your situation, Hawk, didn't I?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know