Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[padren]

I was actually focused toward other posters, as I've been arguing about the validity of the lamp post for a week or so on two threads I don't find a problem if someone wants to marry one, and honestly would be the first to try, but my definition has been inclusive exclusively of people.

 

Lampophiles think they want to marry lamps but at the end of the day, most would end up unhappily going through the monotony of changing lightbulbs or getting divorced and paying it's electrical bill for the rest their life.

[Dudde]

Lampophiles think they want to marry lamps but at the end of the day, most would end up unhappily going through the monotony of changing lightbulbs or getting divorced and paying it's electrical bill for the rest their life.

 

I don't know... as long as you pay the electric bill, you'll never need to find a way to ignite sparks in your relationship! Albeit it may be unconventional and quite painful, I think it's worth a shot

[scrappy]

Can you please explain exactly when the GLBT crowd asked to redefine your definition of marriage?

 

 

Where are you getting this "not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to" from? All anyone has asked (as I stated in the very post you quoted) is that you respect their right to have a slightly different definition. We already exist as a society with very different definitions of what it means to be a priest for instance, and we can all agree to disagree without fighting over who's definition of "priest" is "super-duper right" to the exclusion of all others.

 

Am I completely off base here? If some church allows women to be priests and the state will recognize a wedding performed by one just the same as a male priest or a judge - even if the majority of the population believes a priest must be a man - then why all this fighting over exclusive ownership to the term marriage?[/b] Is this logic sound, or am I so off base that it's not worth addressing? If it has a big giant hole in the logic let me know because I must have a blind spot and I need to get those wires to uncross.

You'll need to support your statement that I've bolded with some facts. I seriously doubt if the majority of the population cares one twit about the sex of a priest. Furthermore, could you cite a law that makes any reference at all to priests of either sex? I think the majority of the population cares much more about the homosexual activities of priests, especially the pedophilic ones.

[Pangloss]

Rofl.

 

Actually I want to marry the point-in-time instance of Claudia Cardinale in 1963's The Leopard. I need a time-traveling marriage license, please!

 

 

Just insert me in place of Alain Delon.

[iNow]

That would be like, in the face of having a "coloreds only" water fountain for the "help" at a business, they decided to have a "patrons" and "staff" fountain with a wink-wink allowance for white staff to use the patron's water fountain so they don't have to suffer the humiliation of drinking from the same one as black people. Since it's technically a "staff" fountain the quality would have to be equal - so they'd get the same quality out of it - but push the bigotry just a little further out of sight.

 

To me that would be parallel to this issue, and a solution that I feel "could work" but not one I'd be proud of. The civil rights movement was more than just rights, it was a rejection of bigoted indignance as public policy. It was established that regardless of people's views or how offended they may be by things such as integration, that the state cannot indulge those views at the expense of a group of people. That's what I want to see come out of this struggle - not some mutual face saving way to brush the issue under the rug for another ten years.

 

QFT. Very well said, man. Very well said, indeed. I've been trying to make a similar point for a while now. This really IS about more than just obtaining/protecting the right of two same sex people to be legally recognized as married by the state. It's about rejecting unconstitutional bigotry and indignance from our policies and laws.

 

My take is that, if we did change the terminology to Registered Partnership (or whatever the heck we're agreeing on now) then it would be seen as a win for those trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage." You alluded to this quite well with your water fountain example. "As long as we call it a "Staff" fountain, then no problems."

 

BS, I say. It's a marriage. The term has already been taken up by the collective, religious and non-religious or atheist alike, and the government sanctions it. There is ZERO reason to accept a change in terminology that is anything more than "trying to appease the bigots."

 

 

Sorry guys. You all make some good points (except for Scrappy, obviously... my comment is more for ParanoiA), I'm just unwilling to "accept less" to make the ignorant ****-wits feel better. I'm tired of seeing us sacrifice what is right in favor of what is popular, and I'm drawing a very definite line in the sand on this issue.

 

These are human beings in love, and they simply don't want to be treated differently. Calling their union anything other than a marriage, even if we start doing the same for heterosexual couples, would be a rejection of the core principles of our nation, and a blaring demonstration of how spineless we have become as a people. I'm not willing to die for a compromise setup only to appease the ignorant bigot, but I am willing to die for the principle of equality.

 

It's a marriage, regardless of the sex of those uniting. We all know it. It's a marriage, and always will be.

[padren]

You'll need to support your statement that I've bolded with some facts. I seriously doubt if the majority of the population cares one twit about the sex of a priest. Furthermore, could you cite a law that makes any reference at all to priests of either sex? I think the majority of the population cares much more about the homosexual activities of priests, especially the pedophilic ones.

 

Well there is:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/

 

That's "the Catholic Church" right there, that's 67,117,016 people or 22% of the US population.

 

As for the next largest churches:

 

This gives the Catholic Church the third highest total number of churches in the U.S., behind Southern Baptists and Methodists. However, because the average Catholic parish is significantly larger than the average church from those denominations, there are about 3 times as many Catholics as Southern Baptists and almost 5 times as many as Methodists.

 

Baptists do allow women to be priests, but not to be pastors. In Massachusetts Catholics represented nearly half of the population in 2000, so you could argue based on that fact alone it's likely the majority in that state believe only men can be priests.

 

Nation wide perhaps not the majority believe that (I'd have to research the other smaller protestant factions further to be 100% sure) - you'd have to include the gender bias against pastors for a majority bias - but 22% are clearly demonstrable to hold that contention.

[ParanoiA]

I argument is an emphatic no it's not, but I see the DOMA as an attempt to hijack the dictionaries much like Prop 8 and use that to promote bigotry by claiming their bigotry is somehow tied to an absolute (re)definition of a word and thus beyond reproach. My arguments regarding "ruling the dictionary" is more along the lines of saying it has to be a defacto demilitarized zone. I have no interest in forcing DOMA supporters that the definition of marriage includes same sex couples. I want DOMA supporters to accept that the whole damn world doesn't revolve around them and their petty definitions and that there are entire subcultures within this country that have completely different definitions all that have respectfully allowed them to live their lives their way without interfering and it's about time they afford others the same respect.

 

We're in agreement here, for sure. I don't believe either side should succeed in a legal definition of marriage. And I too, enjoy pushing these things back on the conservatives since they're the ones sporting the freedom false-front. Of course, that's just one example of what pushes thinking conservatives into libertarians...

 

Also, wanted to say great post. I think we're in agreement more than it may appear. It's been a good discussion, good points all around. I know it's helped me nail this down a little, though it may be contrary to most.

[scrappy]

Well there is:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/

 

That's "the Catholic Church" right there, that's 67,117,016 people or 22% of the US population.

By my calculation, 22% falls a little short of "the majority of the population."

 

Baptists do allow women to be priests, but not to be pastors. In Massachusetts Catholics represented nearly half of the population in 2000, so you could argue based on that fact alone it's likely the majority in that state believe only men can be priests.

 

Nation wide perhaps not the majority believe that (I'd have to research the other smaller protestant factions further to be 100% sure) - you'd have to include the gender bias against pastors for a majority bias - but 22% are clearly demonstrable to hold that contention.

Yes, perhaps, 22% is not a very convincing "majority of the population." So what's you point? And how does it relate to the OP question "Should the government drop the word "marriage"?

[iNow]

No... Of course, Scrappy's not trolling.

[scrappy]

No... Of course, Scrappy's not trolling.

Now that's a perfect example of a troll's post.

 

iNow, if you are unable to contribute rationally in this discussion then please leave this thread. Otherwise, a moderator may need to the bad finger on you.

[ParanoiA]

scrappy, if you can't keep up with the context of your arguments then you're as good as a troll.

 

Your tack, thus far, is to respond; not to offer any meaningful arguments. And you can't seem to get any deeper than surface level specious reasoning. I realize you're taking on much of the room here, so you can't answer everyone, and it's a tough position, but you're failing at it because you're not processing anyone's points with any depth and therefore you can't reply with any either. If this is your method, then why bother discussing? What's the point of follow up? You just keep repeating yourself.

 

The last thing I'd ever want to do is insult a new person, but your debate style is insulting and disrespectful to the intellectual work folks in here are exercising. Anybody can do what you're doing because you're not offering anything but one liner retorts that don't apply to the context of the quote since you lost track of the conversation, or purposely never tracked it to begin with.

 

So why should we bother going to the trouble to understand you and invest all of the time and energy going over your points when you won't even attempt the same, in return?

[scrappy]

scrappy, if you can't keep up with the context of your arguments then you're as good as a troll.

 

Your tack, thus far, is to respond; not to offer any meaningful arguments. And you can't seem to get any deeper than surface level specious reasoning.

You'll need to document your accusation. I just reviewed my posts in this thread and found nothing untoward or illogical. Maybe you and yours just can't stand the heat of a rational challenge.

 

...you're failing at it because you're not processing anyone's points with any depth and therefore you can't reply with any either. If this is your method, then why bother discussing? What's the point of follow up? You just keep repeating yourself.

And you don't? How do you differentiate a good opinion from a bad one on this thread? Is a bad opinion, as iNow believes, one that runs contrary to your own?

 

The last thing I'd ever want to do is insult a new person, but your debate style is insulting and disrespectful to the intellectual work folks in here are exercising.

You mean if someone claims support from "the majority of the population," but can only account for 22% of it, that he/she has done any "intellectual work"?

 

Anybody can do what you're doing because you're not offering anything but one liner retorts that don't apply to the context of the quote since you lost track of the conversation, or purposely never tracked it to begin with.

That's ridiculous. Prove it.

 

So why should we bother going to the trouble to understand you and invest all of the time and energy going over your points when you won't even attempt the same, in return?

You're entitled to your opinion. Is there something else beside opinion that anyone here has to offer concerning the OP question: "Should the government drop the word "marriage" ?

[ParanoiA]

Ok then. In one ear - kicked ego in the nuts - and out the other.

 

You'll need to document your accusation. I just reviewed my posts in this thread and found nothing untoward or illogical. Maybe you and yours just can't stand the heat of a rational challenge.

 

We're still looking for a rational challenge from you. Something other than "96% haha mother****ers..."

 

And you don't? How do you differentiate a good opinion from a bad one on this thread? Is a bad opinion, as iNow believes, one that runs contrary to your own?

 

iNow and I consistently but heads, thread after thread, and we consistently respect each other and take the time to absorb each other's points. That's how you know how to counter effectively, by locating the crux of their position and then assailing it. It's how we productively argue, and sometimes change each other's opinions, even if ever so slightly.

 

So agreement with me is not a prerequisite, and not much fun either. Sometimes, I take a contentious position just for the academic exercise. I love "contrary to my own".

 

Good and bad opinion is purely subjective and irrelevant to my comment. I was talking about depth, not value. This is kind of proof of that...

 

You mean if someone claims support from "the majority of the population," but can only account for 22% of it, that he/she has done any "intellectual work"?

 

No, because someone claims support from a segment of the population to make a point you lost track of several posts ago. You have no idea why Padren is talking about women priests because you forgot where you are in your conversation with him, or you never tracked it to begin with. The latter is the work of a troll.

 

 

You can easily prove me wrong by responding to my post # 138. If you can just keep up with the context - alone - I'll happily post an apology.

Edited March 21, 2009 by ParanoiA

[scrappy]

You can easily prove me wrong by responding to my post # 138. If you can just keep up with the context - alone[/i'] - I'll happily post an apology.

 

Firstly, I'm not the one who went trolling for women priests using bad statistics, which, of course, had nothing to do with this thread's topic: "Should the government drop the word "marriage."

 

From your post #138:

 

No one has said majority opinion doesn't matter, they've said that majority opinion isn't enough to make laws. And they're right. Revisit the constitution if you need reminding - WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. So democratic arguments fail miserably.

Well, for starters, if we’re not a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy then I need to sue all my public school teachers for telling me lies. The bastards!

 

And as for minority opinion, this is where your argument shows serious weakness, whether it is due to emotion or bad information I cannot say. Let’s face reality—the reality of living in America in the twenty-first century—and accept the fact that we are a democracy and we make laws by voting, whether it is public voting, legislative voting, or judicial court voting. Majority opinion ALWAYS rules. Given that, then, isn’t it better to know what kind of a horse you’re riding on so as to learn how to steer it in the direction you want to go?

 

There are many, many good things about the gay movement, but emotional arguments and temper tantrums are not among them. I want to see them succeed. Why isn’t my tough love appreciated?

 

If the majority wants to hang scrappy by the balls from an oak tree, they can't. Because scrappy is protected by our constitution.

There you go again. It is just as illegal to hang a gay man by his balls from an oak tree than it is to do so to scrappy. (Don't play that card; it's worthless.)

 

This marriage debate is about whether or not marriage rights fall into that same pocket of protection from the tyrannical majority.

I’m afraid that the only alternative to the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a minority. Which one would you prefer?

 

What do you think is the function of the "constitutional republic" part? You only seem to revere the democracy part. If majority opinion is so valuable, then why is a constitution needed? We can all have opinions and count the number of hands all day long without that long winded document.

I’m trying to be polite with your, but I fail to see any intelligence in this.

 

Pay attention. That IS the constitution, scrappy. That's the nature of our laws and how the constitution was realized. It was based on the notion that democracies oppress as much or more than solitary rulers. This republican experiment was designed with the intention of maximizing liberty; restricting behavior only when it infringes on someone else's "rights"...your rights end where mine begin. You can't exercise your freedom to stab me, since it violates my right to live. It's that simple.

And who interprets the Constitution? And how do they decide on an issue of constitutionality? They do so by way of opinions and a vote. Please help me out here if I have it wrong.

 

I described the mechanics of our system - the system you live under. And you don't even recognize it?

No, I have described the mechanics of the system—the one we both live under—and you just don’t get it.

 

Again, majority opinion isn't valuable or relevant for that argument.

…gosh, you make me struggle to be polite. So, please carry on with your fantasy.

[Phi for All]

The way to avoid having this thread on suicide watch is to leave the egos behind and discuss - in context - the merits of each other's positions.

[ParanoiA]

Well I am impressed you did manage to keep more of your rebuttals in context than I expected, so I'll keep my end of the bargain... I'm sorry, happily.

 

Firstly, I'm not the one who went trolling for women priests using bad statistics, which, of course, had nothing to do with this thread's topic: "Should the government drop the word "marriage."

 

Of course it didn't, it had to do with the context of where your conversation went with him - and you apparently lost the trail and continually default back to the OP when you do this and pretend as if this is where you were the whole time. It's bullshit.

 

Well, for starters, if we’re not a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy then I need to sue all my public school teachers for telling me lies. The bastards!

 

That's the first time you've acknowledged we're not a democracy. Glad you're on board.

 

And as for minority opinion, this is where your argument shows serious weakness, whether it is due to emotion or bad information I cannot say. Let’s face reality—the reality of living in America in the twenty-first century—and accept the fact that we are a democracy and we make laws by voting, whether it is public voting, legislative voting, or judicial court voting. Majority opinion ALWAYS rules. Given that, then, isn’t it better to know what kind of a horse you’re riding on so as to learn how to steer it in the direction you want to go?

 

And there's the part you're missing. You've noticed the consistent them of democracy, employing voting for the various teirs of the system. What you haven't grasped is why we have constructed various groups who's resultant votes are teired in value. In other the words, you haven't appreciated nor made the connection on how this allocation of democracy undermines absolute democracy.

 

You keep bringing up "the majority". Which one? The public? The legislature? The supreme court? Answer: The public

 

The public majority is irrelevant if the constitution protects gay marriage.

 

The legislative majority is irrelevant if the constitution protects gay marriage.

 

Only the SC majority is relevant since they determine if the constitution protects gay marriage.

 

You didn't make the distinction, nor that argument. It's this arrangement that transcends us beyond oversimplified titles such as "democracy". That word says nothing about the arrangement of power and vote value. A citizen's vote is applied at a level entirely different than a legislator's vote, and entirely different from the level of a SC Justice's vote. These levels and their charge as dictated by our recorded document make us much more than a mere "democracy".

 

And finally, it was ratified by all 13 states that made up the union, and each amendment enjoys a 3/4 majority by the states - that's a freakin' majority opinion that we hold to higher esteem than any other twist on public majority. Maybe you forgot the constitution enjoys a majority also?

 

There you go again. It is just as illegal to hang a gay man by his balls from an oak tree than it is to do so to scrappy. (Don't play that card; it's worthless.)

 

No, you've competely missed the mark. My point was that the majority is not sufficient alone to make laws. It requires compliance with the constitution ( a previously established majority opinion, as covered ).

 

I’m afraid that the only alternative to the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a minority. Which one would you prefer?

 

False dichotomy. I prefer the one we have now, a constitutionally restricted majority.

 

I’m trying to be polite with your, but I fail to see any intelligence in this.

 

Right, you fail to understand the reasons why our government is built the way it is, and how democracy is negotiated within its structure.

 

And who interprets the Constitution? And how do they decide on an issue of constitutionality? They do so by way of opinions and a vote. Please help me out here if I have it wrong.

 

No, you've got it right...here. The opinions of 9 people we've elevated to higher esteem than ourselves, not the state of California or any other representation.

 

You don't have to agree with my take on the way rights are philosophically distributed, particularly since half of our laws nowadays don't seem to reflect it either, but for libertarian-ish minded people, like myself, the concept of "your rights end where mine begin" is the formula for maximized personal liberty. And I believe in it utterly.

 

No, I have described the mechanics of the system—the one we both live under—and you just don’t get it.

 

You described it as "democracy" and "democratic principles". Well, that's about 15% of it. Where's the rest?

Edited March 21, 2009 by ParanoiA

[scrappy]

You don't have to agree with my take on the way rights are philosophically distributed, particularly since half of our laws nowadays don't seem to reflect it either, but for libertarian-ish minded people, like myself, the concept of "your rights end where mine begin" is the formula for maximized personal liberty. And I believe in it utterly.

...which makes me want to ask: Why would a libertarian even want to have the government involved in an institution like marriage. Doesn't a libertarian want the government to stay out of his wallet, out of his bedroom, and out of his life?

 

You described it as "democracy" and "democratic principles". Well, that's about 15% of it. Where's the rest?

The rest is smoke and mirrors, otherwise known as of The Grande Shopping Mall of Opinions. It may not be pretty, it may not be fair, but unless you've got something better it's all there is. It's Rush Limbaugh twittering into one ear and Ellen Degeneres twirping into the other. It takes an adroitly interpreted Constitution to sort this all out.

 

Thanks for trying to do your part.

[ParanoiA]

...which makes me want to ask: Why would a libertarian even want to have the government involved in an institution like marriage. Doesn't a libertarian want the government to stay out of his wallet, out of his bedroom, and out of his life?

 

 

Yep. And if you scroll up you'll see I've made that argument with other folks. In my mind, the government's only valid jurisdiction concerning this concept is it's legal consequences.

 

Most of us take for granted that when our spouse is incapacitated, we become the arbiter of their wishes, and to make life and death decisions. Same-sex couples are denied this respect since they're denied recognition of marriage by the state. That's pretty dramatic and fuels a lot of justified indignation. Imagine being trumped by the parents of your life partner, whom disowned him decades ago cause he's "icky" and "shamed" the family - and they have more say about his wishes or his interests than you.

 

And that is also a demonstration of rights being infringed, as opposed to the DOMA crowd, vacant with evidence. There's inheritance laws too. Tax laws. A hundred others I can't think of at the moment.

 

It's those legal implications that concerns government, in my opinion. And that requires some kind of legal title of some kind, and I don't think the word "marriage" is appropriate for it.

 

But I'm not going to rehash my position, it's well established at this point and most here are tired of hearing it.

[scrappy]

In my mind, the government's only valid jurisdiction concerning this concept is it's legal consequences.

If I understood this sentence I'd respond to it. Are you saying the law should extend further than the limit of its jurisdiction? Or are you saying that it shouldn't? In either case, what's the point?

 

Most of us take for granted that when our spouse is incapacitated, we become the arbiter of their wishes, and to make life and death decisions. Same-sex couples are denied this respect since they're denied recognition of marriage by the state.

Why wouldn't fully legalized DPs solve this problem? Why would they need to be called "married" to get help for their incapacitations?

 

That's pretty dramatic and fuels a lot of justified indignation. Imagine being trumped by the parents of your life partner, whom disowned him decades ago cause he's "icky" and "shamed" the family - and they have more say about his wishes or his interests than you.

I'd drop the "icky" fluff. Nobody cares about the term except the gays.

 

And that is also a demonstration of rights being infringed, as opposed to the DOMA crowd, vacant with evidence. There's inheritance laws too. Tax laws. A hundred others I can't think of at the moment.

I guess the 94% majority is terribly wrong. I guess we're just an evil non-democracy that has abandoned its Constitution and persecutes the downtrodden minorities for being trivial in their persuits.

 

It's those legal implications that concerns government, in my opinion. And that requires some kind of legal title of some kind, and I don't think the word "marriage" is appropriate for it.

I agree! The title "domestic partnership" would take care of everything, or at least it should.

[Dudde]

A fairly small but pretty emcompassing list of rights and obligations can be found on Wikipedia - I searched several other sites, and seemed to get partially what Wiki said with maybe one or two extra.

 

I don't see the relevance to call into question about why a libertarian would want the government interfering to begin with - that's a whole other debate altogether. The fact is that they're interfering, and justifying mental abuse toward a group of people who have different tastes than a majority.

 

nice.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If I understood this sentence I'd respond to it. Are you saying the law should extend further than the limit of its jurisdiction? Or are you saying that it shouldn't? In either case, what's the point?

 

You can't be serious. It looks like his point is that while the government doesn't have any legal jurisdiction in this realm, you do get legal benefits for doing it - the heterosexual ones anyway. Would you strip legal benefits from something complicated as a marriage? The governments are the only entities that have the ability to bestow legal rights

 

Why wouldn't fully legalized DPs solve this problem? Why would they need to be called "married" to get help for their incapacitations?

 

The point made against this earlier, is that changing the word is essentially giving a majority a right to still persecute and maintain an unrightful bias against the GLBT crowd by refusing to admit them into an institution, or definition of the 'word.' Relenting shows that our government system truly is broken, and we should push people around as long as there are more of us.

 

 

I'd drop the "icky" fluff. Nobody cares about the term except the gays.

 

Neither naivety nor ignorance can justify this statement. Go outside and experience the world, you'll find this to be quite accurate

 

 

I guess the 94% majority is terribly wrong. I guess we're just an evil non-democracy that has abandoned its Constitution and persecutes the downtrodden minorities for being trivial in their persuits.

 

Let's stop talking about the already established 94%, since we're trying to explain why we believe them to be unconstitutional. This is the equivelant of explaining why you shouldn't eat beef from a cow with mad cow disease, and your rebuttal arguing that most of the cows have it anyway so you might as well.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Dudde
wrong tags

[iNow]

[jackson33]

Most of us take for granted that when our spouse is incapacitated, we become the arbiter of their wishes, and to make life and death decisions. Same-sex couples are denied this respect since they're denied recognition of marriage by the state. That's pretty dramatic and fuels a lot of justified indignation. Imagine being trumped by the parents of your life partner, whom disowned him decades ago cause he's "icky" and "shamed" the family - and they have more say about his wishes or his interests than you.

 

And that is also a demonstration of rights being infringed, as opposed to the DOMA crowd, vacant with evidence. There's inheritance laws too. Tax laws. A hundred others I can't think of at the moment.

 

It's those legal implications that concerns government, in my opinion. And that requires some kind of legal title of some kind, and I don't think the word "marriage" is appropriate for it.

 

But I'm not going to rehash my position, it's well established at this point and most here are tired of hearing it.

 

As you, rehashing arguments over the same issues, is really getting boring..

 

However short of Federal Tax Laws, States have the authority today to treat any individual with or without regards to gender preference. Think 6 have no State Income Tax and most others are based on what is paid to the Federal.

Federal Grants to States are made on population, not how many married couples, on and on...As for City/County and/or Property Taxes (School Taxes), they are based on the property, not who lives on the property. Might add SS/Medicare is based on the worker, not his/her status as are the payouts.

 

Any person, can enter into a Contract with another or a number of others to determine most anything they please. If incapacitated, this person or that will make my decision or that person will be in charge of something else, child care, estate or whatever. As for inheritance law, without a formal will and in some cases with a will, you would be surprised how States differ on whats legal or can be probated. In one State, you can will an estate to one of five children in total or various amounts, but in many others (if you have moved) your estate will automatically be divided between the total.

 

Having said all this, I would always advise any married couple, any couple period or any individual to establish a 'Living Trust' when in doubt, which over rides most State Laws on a number of issues and can be set up for about the price of 'Last Will & Testament'. Donating body parts, distribution of assets, turning off/on life support and other issues can be addressed and the parties involved can be any person you want...

[Dudde]

I don't think you understand how expensive it's going to be for a same sex couple to obtain the same rights, and how much of a ***** the process will be - which is ridiculous, because they're already included with a marriage license.

 

How is this relevant? Are you saying that same sex couples are not discriminated against, because they can pay out the wazoo and spend enormous amounts of time signing legal documents? I understand that each state does it differently, but it starts at a federal baseline, which is much lower for non-married citizens.

 

I agree with your point regarding the Living Trust however, that is extremely prudent planning, especially when you may be too vulnerable or distracted when the time comes to actually need it to fight the state.

[ParanoiA]

If I understood this sentence I'd respond to it. Are you saying the law should extend further than the limit of its jurisdiction? Or are you saying that it shouldn't? In either case, what's the point?

 

You had to work to misunderstand me. Nice trolling.

 

Why wouldn't fully legalized DPs solve this problem? Why would they need to be called "married" to get help for their incapacitations?

 

DP would solve it brilliantly. And if you could keep up with the conversation you'd know that has NOTHING to do with my point in any way, shape, or form. I wasn't even arguing, I was describing the reason why I think government has a role in "marriage" or "domestic partnerships".

 

This is what I mean by you getting lost. I was replying to your comment about libertarians. You asked. I answered. Since it was more than two sentences, you got lost. Again.

 

I guess the 94% majority is terribly wrong. I guess we're just an evil non-democracy that has abandoned its Constitution and persecutes the downtrodden minorities for being trivial in their persuits.

 

No. Again...the overwhelmingly majority ruled constitution trumps the 94%. That's why it's in the courts. Nice trolling, again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, just for fun, here's that same post replied to, crappy style....(here's what you're doing scrappy, we call it trolling)

 

If I understood this sentence I'd respond to it. Are you saying the law should extend further than the limit of its jurisdiction? Or are you saying that it shouldn't? In either case, what's the point?

 

So you're saying if you don't understand it, then there's no point? I think that 94% has a point and you don't understand it.

 

Why wouldn't fully legalized DPs solve this problem? Why would they need to be called "married" to get help for their incapacitations?

 

Legalize double penetration all you want, they don't need to be married to be fully incapacitated.

 

I'd drop the "icky" fluff. Nobody cares about the term except the gays.

 

Nobody cares about icky gays? Then what's wrong with married ones then? Will that offend the straights? How about the shorts? The talls? The fats? The skinnies? Can we all be labeled by arbitrary attributes that you find detestable?

 

I guess the 94% majority is terribly wrong. I guess we're just an evil non-democracy that has abandoned its Constitution and persecutes the downtrodden minorities for being trivial in their persuits.

 

Well you're one of the straights. So, yeah, I'm sure it seems trivial to abandon the constitution to persecute "the gays".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

You're right. So, damn right. I'm done.

 

We should have listened to you from the very beginning.

Edited March 21, 2009 by ParanoiA
Consecutive posts merged.

[scrappy]

Legalize double penetration [DP] all you want, they don't need to be married to be fully incapacitated.

I'm trying to picture double penetration. Would I need to bend over for that? And how badly would I be incapacitated?