If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Let the lawyers fight it out, like we do now.

 

[bodecea]

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

So...you admit it's gender discrimination.

Nope. Men can marry women, women can marry men. No discrimination at all.

So you are encouraging people to be cut off legally from those fellow, law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults who they are attracted to...................why?

Nope. They can have the same legal relationship as any other two fellow law abiding tax paying consenting adults they are attracted to but not married to.
What about this is difficult?

So, you want them cut off from the legal protections and benefits other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens get for........what valid reason?

 

[The Rabbi]

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Yes I do. The benefits are offered to anyone meeting the criterion. This is identical to benefits for farmers, people who install solar heating, people who derive income from municipal bonds or anything else. Anyone can enter into these categories and reap the tax benefit, regardless of gender preference or whatever.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gay Marriage Scares Oklahoma Rep So Much He Proposes Banning All Marriages

If this isn't the most petulant thing I've read from the Right wing today........

Really? Why not? The Government may reject any support for "legal families". moreover social programs for these families are senseless. I am interested What would you say about Christian wedding ceremony as a religious tradition??

No problem. We got married in a Christian wedding ceremony a decade before we could marry legally. It's funny that anyone would think that getting rid of legalized marriage and going to religious weddings only would stop gay marriage.

Answer the question, why should the state be involved in marriage? Why do you want Big Brother in the bedroom?

Why should the state be involved with marriage?

Marriage is a CONTRACT that establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. Marriage creates, in effect, a new legal entity with protections and privileges to two individuals.

We have courts to deal with the dissolving of that contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages according to their own ritual and dogma, but the state license provides the legal scaffolding to establish the married couple as an entity to themselves and in the eyes of the state.

 

[bodecea]

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

 

[G.T.]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Establish ground rules / precedent for each and dont be a retard

 

[The Rabbi]

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

 

[bodecea]

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

 

[Jarhead]

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

that is an intentional diversion from the point I made...which speaks volumes..

You can not have the argument of "gays should be allowed to marry so they, too can have the legal advantages of marriage"....and then say "tough shit ugly people with lousy personalities."

There should be no advantages of marriage to anyone.

Because not all people get to enjoy the experience of marriage...even if they want to.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Establish ground rules / precedent for each and dont be a retard

Gorund rules are also called "laws" dipshit.

 

[bodecea]

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

that is an intentional diversion from the point I made...which speaks volumes..

You can not have the argument of "gays should be allowed to marry so they, too can have the legal advantages of marriage"....and then say "tough shit ugly people with lousy personalities."

There should be no advantages of marriage to anyone.

Because not all people get to enjoy the experience of marriage...even if they want to.

Ok.

 

[The Rabbi]

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

And that argument was struck down by the SCOTUS in 1967.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years. -

See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[bodecea]

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

 

[G.T.]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Establish ground rules / precedent for each and dont be a retard

Gorund rules are also called "laws" dipshit.

Thanks for the refresher course in douche

 

[The Rabbi]

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

And that argument was struck down by the SCOTUS in 1967.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years. -

See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Argument #2.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

 

[bodecea]

Because those people, if and when they DO find someone, they have that choice to do so. Fortunately, we are getting there too.

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Argument #2

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Your defeat on this point is acknowledged.

 

[konradv]

Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.