Your head exploded
you do realize that there are straight couple out there who for various reasons can't procreate with each other but some how still manage to HAVE kids right?Originally Posted by cadet
Being a parent isn't about getting a woman pregnant or becoming pregnant, any fucking tool can accomplish that.
Banned
Read your first comment. You state no one should. But this also has to mean that when the Government has no business in any of it, they can't decide some age is correct, some person may not enter polygamy and other things I have said can happen.
End your logic lesson with your concluding remark.
All done for you on this forum at no charge at all.
Liberal moonbat
OK, let's move the subject to a different plane -- give me a good, legal reason why gays or lesbians should not be allowed to get married.
Procreation is not a valid reason. There are a great many couples (including my husband and I) who are unable to have children. We adopted.
Your head exploded
Robert, read very carefully
The LAW says that a contract can't be made with children. A marriage from whomever would be considered a CONTRACT as far as the government is concerned. Ipso facto , any contract with a child would be null and void.
Also, "married" or not a person who has sex with a minor has committed statutory rape and can be arrested.
There's LOGIC for you.
And you can paypal me a dollar, I don't work for free.
Your head exploded
Gabby, seems like most who are participating in the thread agree with you, let gets marry who cares.
You're going to have to wait for the fake conservatives to find this thread to have someone to argue that point with.
Liberal moonbat
He can take it out of the weekly amount he pays his female servant.
Banned
I happen to believe that government should butt out of marriage if we mean the Federal Government. Since states have powers that the Feds lack, it depends on the constitution of each state.
I have no idea why the state constitutions are virtually never brought up.
She is carping over what some states have decided to do. But as to the Feds, I also say butt the hell out.
As you said, it also means no tax benefits by the Feds. No federal laws of any type about marriage. The Feds do not pass out rights to a certain religion yet some claim marriage is religion too but seem to want the Feds involved in a rite they claim is religion.
I am so puzzled by Gabby. She first says keep govertnment out but reverses herself by saying they need to sanction it. She has to pick one view or some other.
Your head exploded
let me be clear. When I say government out, I mean ALL government out. it's not a governmental matter at all. Not federal, not state, and not local.
OUT OF MARRIAGE and if that means my one exception to my rule about the word marriage never being used in a government document meaning a federal law directing that no jurisdiction may pass laws concerning marriage , so be it.
Banned
You know, when I studied law in college, we were taught who created our laws and why. I knew long ago that this country has a blend of laws about women, children and marriage and said privilidges.
In tax courses i also took in college along with the tons of tax lectures for credit I took to try to understand tax matters, we also learned more about the law as to why some benefits were put into law.
Your post should be read by every poster and studied in depth.
Marriage has nothing to do with religion as to federal law. I can't say that about each state since I have never studied each and every state constitution trying to ferret this out.
I tend to doubt I will ever read each state constituiton. Most of them have no impact on me.
Thus marriage has no impact on me other than perhaps the reasons you cited are good reasons.
Banned
Best to put numbered points to talk to me. That way I can deal with items you and I don't agree on better.
We completely agree. The fact it is considered a contract is the basis of a lot of government interference yet you stated in another post that you want all government out of marriage. While you are correct in your explanation, does it conflict with your concept that one keeps government out of all marriages?
The law says for instance.
We also agree on statutory rape. I was trying to explain to Gabby her idea of keeping government out of marriage contracts has flaws.
My fees for logic are higher than yours and since we agree on both your points, maybe you owe me something, I owe you nothing for validating my own points.
Copacetic
Better yet, give me one valid legal reason for heterosexuals to get married. I think doug Stanhope said it best, "this shit's so good baby, we gotta get government involved!" From a legal perspective, marriage is a boilerplate contract. Have and to hold, better or worse, time-honored vows before God etc, not legally binding.
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99
Banned
his post was dead on point to yours
It was not on point to me. And why don't you explain to the board just how it was dead on point to my post?
Your head exploded
Australians would be surprised to learn that they are primitive people
Rome was tolerant of other religeons until they became a Christian Empire? Is that really where you want to go with that?
In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.
No one said it was a Christian concept, just a religious one. a common one among nearly every religion.
Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).
Not only can you not prove that marriage provides any sort of social security, you can't even provide a constitutional basis for declaring that the government has dominion over social security.
Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.
As for inheritance issues and such, that is what contracts are for.
Again, eliminate marriage from the equation, sign a contract. You got married in a church? Big whoopie, that means nothing to the State. sign a contract or you get no benefits.
The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.
I think a fairly convincing argument could be made that as a rule Middle Easterners are much more family centric than Americans.
Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on.
so single men can't have kids?
With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state
Once again, the people in Africa actually tend to group together as villages to raise children, they don't do the "single mother" thing.
. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer.
Also, since roughly half of the marriages in this country end in divorce your point is moot.
Sure there is, it's called a contract.
There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.
Fine, but you still haven't actually proven that a state sanctioned marriage has ANYTHING to do with prosperity.
So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.
Banned
The HE you speak of has no female servant.
Young punk
Here's a better question, why do gays WANT marriage so badly?
they're tied down to one partner by a piece of paper, no religion involved, just a contract that say's they can only be with that one person.
Kinda sucks if you think about it.
Or are all gays just needy and thriving for attention, and this is the best way to do it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote