Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Grenartia]

Source, it is required, now.

Also, by that logic, we shouldn't start teaching basic algebra until college.

1. Hey, did you hear about this awesome new website called Google? It allows you to type in what you want to search for and shows the results in seconds. It is simple and fast to use. I recommend you try it.

Other websites that do this amazing task are yahoo.com, bing.com, and ask.com

Here is a list on the awesome Google website (seriously, give it a try):

2. http://www.google.com.hk/search?newwind ... C%E5%B0%8B

One source that says it is a law:

3. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488 ... -classroom

4. Algebra is useful for most tasks. Much more used than the theory of evolution.

http://www.mathworksheetscenter.com/mat ... gebra.html

1. Its called burden of proof. It falls on YOU to prove a claim that YOU make. Not me.

2. Half the results on there are in Chinese.

3. I fail to see the problem. Its not that much different, than Black History Month, really.

4. Tell that to people in the medical field, among others.

The Bible accepts polygamy.

Yes, I know. As I said, get the govt. out of marriage and we can have polygamy as well.

And as I said, "get the government out of marriage" is a shitty and childish idea.

Dammit, Indi, this is getting sigged AND AQ'd.



1. Why fucking wait?

2. How so?



How does the majority know when it should defer to experts if they don't know enough to know that they don't have enough expertise in a given field to dictate policy decisions?



I think a lot of them are the same people who beat/abuse their kids, because "SPAIR TEH RAWD, SPOYL TEH CHILD". After all, no chance of getting reported for child abuse to the ebil, totalitarian government if your bruised kid stays home all damn day.



Source on that science oympiad thing?

Also, source on that "better education" bit? One instance of a homeschool group winning a science oympiad doesn't automatically make homeschooling the best educational system ever. The fact is, if an idiot parent is homeschooling their kids, chances are, the kids are going to be idiots too.



What about hospital visitation rights? Or medical decision rights? Or funeral/final/real estate decisions? How do those get guaranteed in a manner as simple or cheap as a civil marriage?

The whole "get government out of marriage" spiel REEKS of total ignorance of the complexities of marriage, and also reeks of the childish "if I can't have X MY WAY, then NOBODY can have it at all!!" (followed by a temper tantrum).



The simple fact is that you need a broad education to prepare you for college, so that you can be prepared for the career you wish to be in (and if you choose to just get a job out of high school, you STILL need a rather broad education).



As somebody who wants to double major in Aerospace Engineering and Astrophysics, I deny EVERYTHING Newton came up with.

*builds a rocket to the moon that explodes on the launchpad*

1. Make power of attorney easier and cheaper to get. 2. Have a simplified form available off the internet and only needing a notarized seal and a witness to the signatures (as well as ID proof for signers). 3. Make this easy to do at a courthouse for a small fee (maybe $10-15).

4. This is cheaper than marriage (which often costs thousands of dollars although of course it can be done much cheaper).

5. Most people marry for reasons other than saving a few bucks on power of attorney.

6. Everybody can have marriage, it just wouldn't be important in the govt. eyes. Simplify the govt. This also allows gays to get married as well as people wishing to marry their dog, sister, and Barbie doll.

1. How exactly do you propose doing that?

2. That's getting the government involved.

3. That's pretty much what the procedure already is, as I recall.

4. If you're going to have a big massive ceremony, yeah it could very well cost thousands of dollars. But I very much doubt that more than $200 of that cost actually goes to the government as a part of the marriage license fees. I'd be very suprised if that cost were higher than $80.

5. True, but power of attorney is one of the very important rights granted to married couples that should be guaranteed to married couples. I can see the logic behind the opposition to the tax benefits, I honestly can. However, power of attorney is something I cannot abide taking away from married couples, and is the key reason I wholeheartedly disagree with "getting the government out of marriage".

6. Implying that soo much of the government's time and human resources are tied up in granting benefits to married couples. Which I cannot believe.

You think power of attorney is about being cheap? Damn. OK power of attorney means the person with power of attorney gets to make decisions for a person, including medical decisions, if the person is unable (you know coma, brain dead, unconscious, mentally incapable that sort of thing) to. This is one of the most important rights in a marriage. Also, marriage will always be important to the government because there are certain rights that directly involve the government that cannot be taken care of through anything non government. Even if you were to pare the institution down to those rights, they wold still be marriage.

I meant that marriage would not be needed to be recognized by the government because people can get power of attorney without marriage.

The govt. does not need to be involved in marriage and could easily exit this area of our lives if they wished to.

Getting that power of attorney involves a shitton of paperwork (most of which probably can't be streamlined, just as a guess, or else it would be streamlined already), involves dragging lawyers in (which already drives the cost of obtaining it higher than just paying the marriage license fee), and, as I recall, your power of attorney STILL isn't as secure as it would be if you were married.

[AiliailiA]

As for the original OP...

Obviously, given that animals can't consent to contracts, etc., people will not be allowed to marry them. Typical nutjob fear-mongering.

As to incestuous marriage... as others pointed out earlier, banning incestuous marriage doesn't actually ban incestuous sex, or incestuous procreation.

The main argument against such is birth defects, inherited disorders...

That's the argument against incestuous procreation. Even that isn't very strong.

However, I'm not sure how I feel about that line of reasoning. My significant other has a chronic condition passed down through genetics. That same condition is present in at least one member of my family. I'm not sure I even want to have kids, but given our genetic background, that whole line of reasoning, that two people should be prohibited from sex due to their future children having genetic conditions... makes me uneasy.

There is embryo screening. You and your significant other can conceive, then have the embryo tested for the heritable condition. Abort and try again if the heritable condition is present ... of course, this assumes your interest in creating a child exceeds your abhorrence of abortion. I shouldn't assume on behalf of yourself and your significant other, those are your decisions to make.

[AiliailiA]

The govt. does not need to be involved in marriage and could easily exit this area of our lives if they wished to.

No. Government is already deeply involved in marriage, and the political party or the ruling majority which even proposes to "exit this area" would die suddenly. It would be political suicide.

[The Interstellar Mongol Khanate]

I feel like It's going to come up sooner or later.

As far as I can tell, Liberals are pushing for more and more civil liberties (which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) and eventually, this is going to come up. Years ago, inter racial marriages were unacceptable, and I'm sure gay marriage was just...unthinkable at the point. Now, we have inter racial marriage, and gay marriage is starting to rise in most of the world except for a few nations that are refusing to let go.

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

I hope you're just high on crack, because those questions you just presented are downright stupid

[AiliailiA]

I feel like It's going to come up sooner or later.

As far as I can tell, Liberals are pushing for more and more civil liberties (which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) and eventually, this is going to come up. Years ago, inter racial marriages were unacceptable, and I'm sure gay marriage was just...unthinkable at the point. Now, we have inter racial marriage, and gay marriage is starting to rise in most of the world except for a few nations that are refusing to let go.

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

I hope you're just high on crack, because those questions you just presented are downright stupid

Marriage to non-human animals is pretty stupid. Marriage between blood relatives isn't though. The prohibitions on that are classic examples of moralistic law: "I would NEVER do that, so no-one else should be allowed to!"

Both partners must be adults, and let's apply an older age requirement for prospective marriage partners who are related by blood ... just as we do with consent to sex (in many and increasing jurisdictions). If the older partner is presumed to have authority over the younger (for instance, a parent, older sibling, teacher, or priest) then raise the age of consent to sex ... or marriage. If the age of marriagiability is generally 16, tack on a couple of years for situations where the prospective partners are related by blood. If the legal marriage age is 18, make it 20 for those related by blood. It's not terribly onorous, and has synergy with many other accepted legal discriminations on the basis of age.

Ultimately, I want to see all age tests replaced with competency tests. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. It's only a tiny minority of adults who want to marry a family member (related by blood) but I take their claim seriously. Allowing it would cause very little harm to society, or to the gene pool. Nor would it achieve much good. As something to do, it seems rather futile.

But here's the thing. It's not something that government would do. It's something which government would STOP doing. It's one more law repealed, one more prohibition removed. Absent any measurable harm or benefit to society, there is no reason to hold to nor repeal laws against incest or their reflection in laws against incestuous marriage. As I liberal I oppose unnecessary laws, so I say REPEAL.

[AiliailiA]

Further to what I just said, I wonder how many same-sex marriage advocates would accept an older age of marriagability for same-sex couples?

That is, if the legislated age of marriage was 18, would you accept same-sex marriage from the age of 20 if the applicants were same-sex?

Note that it would be precisely the same legal status of marriage. Not "separate but equal".

I'm expecting a big fat NO, but it's worth a try. Thoughts?

[SaintB]

OP is holding up a watermelon and calling it a carrot.

[Sociobiology]

Further to what I just said, I wonder how many same-sex marriage advocates would accept an older age of marriagability for same-sex couples?

That is, if the legislated age of marriage was 18, would you accept same-sex marriage from the age of 20 if the applicants were same-sex?

Note that it would be precisely the same legal status of marriage. Not "separate but equal".

I'm expecting a big fat NO, but it's worth a try. Thoughts?

why is it worth a try?

[Sociobiology]

Algebra is useful for most tasks. Much more used than the theory of evolution.

http://www.mathworksheetscenter.com/mat ... gebra.html

only if the task is not preformed or controlled by a human.
human behavior being, in no small part, a product of evolution.

[Lemanrussland]

Algebra is useful for most tasks. Much more used than the theory of evolution.

http://www.mathworksheetscenter.com/mat ... gebra.html

only if the task is not preformed or controlled by a human.
human behavior being, in no small part, a product of evolution.

Not to mention, Evolution is an integral part of modern biology... you cannot have a real understanding of biology without it.

If my doctor told me he was a creationist, I wouldn't want him to treat me.

[Freiheit Reich]

These could be changed as well.

Man allowed to sponsor 1 person at a time (and underage children belonging to sponsored person). The sponsored person can go through a process to get visa and then citizenship. Once a citizen he/she no longer needs a sponsor.

If sponsor no longer wants person in country, he/she can revoke it and the sponsoree will lose visa (along with children).

Sponsoree can't get welfare benefits because the sponsor should provide these benefits (and/or private charities).

Military: No benefits for married soldiers should be given. This encourages people to get married for benefits (a reason military has high divorce rate). Saves govt. money. Military members could be allowed to sponsor somebody as a dependent (similar to sponsorship program). Dependents will be limited-maybe 1 non-family member per soldier. No questions asked revocation allowed as well.

The revocations can cause problems but that is the bad thing about depending on somebody. A reason we should try to be self-reliant as much as possible.

Policies would have to be changed but it can be done. Why treat married people better than single people? Is this fair?

And ye, the government is involved since, you know they control who gets to come in and out of the country, or should the government let anyone in who is sponsored. Source on why the military has high divorce rates.

Govt. would still control who they let in but marriage would no longer be a factor. A background check, person's education level, person's nationality, and other issues would be factored. Married a lady from Iraq who has a 6th grade education? Sorry but she won't likely be allowed to get the visa, you better move to Iraq if you want to be with her. Had a child with her? Child can come in but mother can't (we have to stop people from using children to enter the country). He should have picked a lady with a better nationality to have a child with. Harsh but some nations brought it on themselves. When they are civilized than we can make it easier for them to enter.

Govt. will be involved in immigration but we found a way to get marriage out of the equation.

OK, I was wrong (I am not afraid to admit this). Divorce rate is only slightly higher in military vs. civilian population:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/mil ... 51888872/1

The military does encourage marriage though. They place you in barracks which suck (mine did anyways) and force you to spend countless hours cleaning the barracks and waxing the floors and cleaning up other people's urine (the barracks have alcoholics and some of them made messes). If you get married you get either a housing allowance or on base housing and can live in a more civilized manner. You also get a food allowance. Marriage should not be encouraged or discouraged.

An option would be to provide single housing for soldiers but they must pay a certain fee if they are below a certain rank. Maybe 20% of their pay if they want to have housing by themselves (on-base) regardless of if they have a dependent or not. Perhaps we can make soldiers with children a priority though.

[AiliailiA]

Further to what I just said, I wonder how many same-sex marriage advocates would accept an older age of marriagability for same-sex couples?

That is, if the legislated age of marriage was 18, would you accept same-sex marriage from the age of 20 if the applicants were same-sex?

Note that it would be precisely the same legal status of marriage. Not "separate but equal".

I'm expecting a big fat NO, but it's worth a try. Thoughts?

why is it worth a try?

Because unlike "separate but equal" it's a step in the right direction which doesn't put same-sex couples on a different path.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just asking if it would be an acceptable compromise. A large majority of same sex couples could marry NOW if they so chose, gaining the benefits they seek from marriage. Anyone disallowed now would be allowed two years later. It still denies some people marriage, on the basis of their gender, but it denies far fewer.

I'm guessing your answer is a big fat NO.

[Greed and Death]

The slippery slope argument.
There is a difference between incest and siblings and homosexuality, familial relations and treatment of animals are not a traditional realm of bigotry.
Homosexuals like blacks, like women have been targeted for discrimination systematically in both De jure and Societal ways.
A court should scrutinize discrimination based on sexuality to a higher degree than animal welfare laws and laws they cover family relations.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Gay history is required to be taught in California. How does this prepare people for jobs?

My jobs never required me to know about evolution. If it is field specific than it can be taught in college in major related classes.

You are full of shit.

Given your record, you know better than to respond to people like this. *** Warned *** for the flamebait.

Freiheit Reich - you are really pushing the boundaries with a number of your posts, and you have been made aware of that previously. Watch the tone, watch the content, watch the baiting. You may think you're terribly witty in tapdancing along the line, but I guarantee these things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass. They do not go unnoticed.

Keep on topic, folks. Thanks.

[Ainin]

why is it worth a try?

Because unlike "separate but equal" it's a step in the right direction which doesn't put same-sex couples on a different path.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just asking if it would be an acceptable compromise. A large majority of same sex couples could marry NOW if they so chose, gaining the benefits they seek from marriage. Anyone disallowed now would be allowed two years later. It still denies some people marriage, on the basis of their gender, but it denies far fewer.

I'm guessing your answer is a big fat NO.

But it would be separate but equal. Why would heterosexual couples get to marry 2 years before homosexual ones?

[AiliailiA]

And ye, the government is involved since, you know they control who gets to come in and out of the country, or should the government let anyone in who is sponsored. Source on why the military has high divorce rates.

Govt. would still control who they let in but marriage would no longer be a factor. A background check, person's education level, person's nationality, and other issues would be factored. Married a lady from Iraq who has a 6th grade education? Sorry but she won't likely be allowed to get the visa, you better move to Iraq if you want to be with her. Had a child with her? Child can come in but mother can't (we have to stop people from using children to enter the country). He should have picked a lady with a better nationality to have a child with. Harsh but Govt. will be involved in immigration but we found a way to get marriage out of the equation.

OK, I was wrong (I am not afraid to admit this). Divorce rate is only slightly higher in military vs. civilian population:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/mil ... 51888872/1

The military does encourage marriage though. They place you in barracks which suck (mine did anyways) and force you to spend countless hours cleaning the barracks and waxing the floors and cleaning up other people's urine (the barracks have alcoholics and some of them made messes). If you get married you get either a housing allowance or on base housing and can live in a more civilized manner. You also get a food allowance. Marriage should not be encouraged or discouraged.

An option would be to provide single housing for soldiers but they must pay a certain fee if they are below a certain rank. Maybe 20% of their pay if they want to have housing by themselves (on-base) regardless of if they have a dependent or not. Perhaps we can make soldiers with children a priority though.

I don't know what to do with that. It's an opinion salad. Should I argue with it, pick good bits out of it, or just feed it to my rabbit?

[AiliailiA]

Because unlike "separate but equal" it's a step in the right direction which doesn't put same-sex couples on a different path.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just asking if it would be an acceptable compromise. A large majority of same sex couples could marry NOW if they so chose, gaining the benefits they seek from marriage. Anyone disallowed now would be allowed two years later. It still denies some people marriage, on the basis of their gender, but it denies far fewer.

I'm guessing your answer is a big fat NO.

But it would be separate but equal. Why would heterosexual couples get to marry 2 years before homosexual ones?

It's NOT separate but equal. Married same-sex couples would have exactly the same rights and obligations as opposite-sex couples. Their marriage would be called a marriage. The only difference is in who is eligible: by age. It's not equal rights, true, but nor is it separate. It's not "separate but equal".

[Grenartia]

Govt. would still control who they let in but marriage would no longer be a factor. A background check, person's education level, person's nationality, and other issues would be factored. Married a lady from Iraq who has a 6th grade education? Sorry but she won't likely be allowed to get the visa, you better move to Iraq if you want to be with her. Had a child with her? Child can come in but mother can't (we have to stop people from using children to enter the country). He should have picked a lady with a better nationality to have a child with. Harsh but Govt. will be involved in immigration but we found a way to get marriage out of the equation.

OK, I was wrong (I am not afraid to admit this). Divorce rate is only slightly higher in military vs. civilian population:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/mil ... 51888872/1

The military does encourage marriage though. They place you in barracks which suck (mine did anyways) and force you to spend countless hours cleaning the barracks and waxing the floors and cleaning up other people's urine (the barracks have alcoholics and some of them made messes). If you get married you get either a housing allowance or on base housing and can live in a more civilized manner. You also get a food allowance. Marriage should not be encouraged or discouraged.

An option would be to provide single housing for soldiers but they must pay a certain fee if they are below a certain rank. Maybe 20% of their pay if they want to have housing by themselves (on-base) regardless of if they have a dependent or not. Perhaps we can make soldiers with children a priority though.

I don't know what to do with that. It's an opinion salad. Should I argue with it, pick good bits out of it, or just feed it to my rabbit?

Feed it to your bull. It'll still be the same thing, but you can legally call it bullshit.

[Freiheit Reich]

1. Hey, did you hear about this awesome new website called Google? It allows you to type in what you want to search for and shows the results in seconds. It is simple and fast to use. I recommend you try it.

Other websites that do this amazing task are yahoo.com, bing.com, and ask.com

Here is a list on the awesome Google website (seriously, give it a try):

2. http://www.google.com.hk/search?newwind ... C%E5%B0%8B

One source that says it is a law:

3. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488 ... -classroom

4. Algebra is useful for most tasks. Much more used than the theory of evolution.

http://www.mathworksheetscenter.com/mat ... gebra.html

1. Its called burden of proof. It falls on YOU to prove a claim that YOU make. Not me.

2. Half the results on there are in Chinese.

3. I fail to see the problem. Its not that much different, than Black History Month, really.

4. Tell that to people in the medical field, among others.

Yes, I know. As I said, get the govt. out of marriage and we can have polygamy as well.

And as I said, "get the government out of marriage" is a shitty and childish idea.

1. Make power of attorney easier and cheaper to get. 2. Have a simplified form available off the internet and only needing a notarized seal and a witness to the signatures (as well as ID proof for signers). 3. Make this easy to do at a courthouse for a small fee (maybe $10-15).

4. This is cheaper than marriage (which often costs thousands of dollars although of course it can be done much cheaper).

5. Most people marry for reasons other than saving a few bucks on power of attorney.

6. Everybody can have marriage, it just wouldn't be important in the govt. eyes. Simplify the govt. This also allows gays to get married as well as people wishing to marry their dog, sister, and Barbie doll.

1. How exactly do you propose doing that?

2. That's getting the government involved.

3. That's pretty much what the procedure already is, as I recall.

4. If you're going to have a big massive ceremony, yeah it could very well cost thousands of dollars. But I very much doubt that more than $200 of that cost actually goes to the government as a part of the marriage license fees. I'd be very suprised if that cost were higher than $80.

5. True, but power of attorney is one of the very important rights granted to married couples that should be guaranteed to married couples. I can see the logic behind the opposition to the tax benefits, I honestly can. However, power of attorney is something I cannot abide taking away from married couples, and is the key reason I wholeheartedly disagree with "getting the government out of marriage".

6. Implying that soo much of the government's time and human resources are tied up in granting benefits to married couples. Which I cannot believe.

I meant that marriage would not be needed to be recognized by the government because people can get power of attorney without marriage.

The govt. does not need to be involved in marriage and could easily exit this area of our lives if they wished to.

Getting that power of attorney involves a shitton of paperwork (most of which probably can't be streamlined, just as a guess, or else it would be streamlined already), involves dragging lawyers in (which already drives the cost of obtaining it higher than just paying the marriage license fee), and, as I recall, your power of attorney STILL isn't as secure as it would be if you were married.

1. If something is hard to find I understand you wanting burden of proof but I am guessing you knew about gay history in California schools and just wanted to be annoying and ask me for proof. The gay history was major news recently and should be common knowledge. It was not some minor footnote in a Des Moines newspaper and ignored by the rest of the nation.

Michael Jackson is dead. Do you need a source for that also?

What about the fact that Tokyo is the capital of Japan or that Barak Obama is the president of the USA?

I provide sources if the info can't be found fast. The fact I found the gay history news in 2 seconds on google proves it is easy to find.

2. So what about the Chinese ones. The top results were in English. 3-4 English sources is plenty and the sources were pretty good overall. Stop being nit picky.

3. Black History Month is racist. My school had that month and no White History Month. Why have racial holidays which divide races? Why not have colorblind schools and make every month 'people history month'? Liberals talk about tolerance and then want to divide people to 'celebrate diversity.'

4. The AVERAGE person uses algebra more. Evolutionary biology is useful for certain fields but so is knowing how to put fillings in teeth or learning Korean. Specialized skills can be learned in college. Natural selection is fine to teach but evolution (like we came from monkees) will offend people (including me) and cause deep divides in the school system.

I gave a way to streamline power of attorney. It should be much simpler. How did people manage it before the USA became such a legalistic society where we need lawyers for everything and anything? Actually, it already is done this way (as you said).

If marriage ends than people will need a different document. The govt. would be involved but the difference is this power of attorney could be given between 2 men, brother and sister, etc. The procedure is simple. Shouldn't be complicated.

Lawyer is not needed for power of attorney (but some sites suggest it, probably helpful if you must do complex stuff).

http://www.legalhelpmate.com/power-of-a ... #legal-poa

Give couples warning that the govt. is getting out of marriage. They will have 6 months to 1 year to get their power of attorney via the way I discussed. I would not drop the shocking news without giving time for couples to adjust. If they want, they can give full power of attorney to their spouses. If they ignore the news than that was their fault.

[Ainin]

1. Its called burden of proof. It falls on YOU to prove a claim that YOU make. Not me.

2. Half the results on there are in Chinese.

3. I fail to see the problem. Its not that much different, than Black History Month, really.

4. Tell that to people in the medical field, among others.



And as I said, "get the government out of marriage" is a shitty and childish idea.



1. How exactly do you propose doing that?

2. That's getting the government involved.

3. That's pretty much what the procedure already is, as I recall.

4. If you're going to have a big massive ceremony, yeah it could very well cost thousands of dollars. But I very much doubt that more than $200 of that cost actually goes to the government as a part of the marriage license fees. I'd be very suprised if that cost were higher than $80.

5. True, but power of attorney is one of the very important rights granted to married couples that should be guaranteed to married couples. I can see the logic behind the opposition to the tax benefits, I honestly can. However, power of attorney is something I cannot abide taking away from married couples, and is the key reason I wholeheartedly disagree with "getting the government out of marriage".

6. Implying that soo much of the government's time and human resources are tied up in granting benefits to married couples. Which I cannot believe.



Getting that power of attorney involves a shitton of paperwork (most of which probably can't be streamlined, just as a guess, or else it would be streamlined already), involves dragging lawyers in (which already drives the cost of obtaining it higher than just paying the marriage license fee), and, as I recall, your power of attorney STILL isn't as secure as it would be if you were married.

1. If something is hard to find I understand you wanting burden of proof but I am guessing you knew about gay history in California schools and just wanted to be annoying and ask me for proof. The gay history was major news recently and should be common knowledge. It was not some minor footnote in a Des Moines newspaper and ignored by the rest of the nation.

Michael Jackson is dead. Do you need a source for that also?

What about the fact that Tokyo is the capital of Japan or that Barak Obama is the president of the USA?

I provide sources if the info can't be found fast. The fact I found the gay history news in 2 seconds on google proves it is easy to find.

2. So what about the Chinese ones. The top results were in English. 3-4 English sources is plenty and the sources were pretty good overall. Stop being nit picky.

3. Black History Month is racist. My school had that month and no White History Month. Why have racial holidays which divide races? Why not have colorblind schools and make every month 'people history month'? Liberals talk about tolerance and then want to divide people to 'celebrate diversity.'

4. The AVERAGE person uses algebra more. Evolutionary biology is useful for certain fields but so is knowing how to put fillings in teeth or learning Korean. Specialized skills can be learned in college. Natural selection is fine to teach but evolution (like we came from monkees) will offend people (including me) and cause deep divides in the school system.

I gave a way to streamline power of attorney. It should be much simpler. How did people manage it before the USA became such a legalistic society where we need lawyers for everything and anything? Actually, it already is done this way (as you said).

If marriage ends than people will need a different document. The govt. would be involved but the difference is this power of attorney could be given between 2 men, brother and sister, etc. The procedure is simple. Shouldn't be complicated.

Lawyer is not needed for power of attorney (but some sites suggest it, probably helpful if you must do complex stuff).

http://www.legalhelpmate.com/power-of-a ... #legal-poa

Give couples warning that the govt. is getting out of marriage. They will have 6 months to 1 year to get their power of attorney via the way I discussed. I would not drop the shocking news without giving time for couples to adjust. If they want, they can give full power of attorney to their spouses. If they ignore the news than that was their fault.

1) Why is there no white history month? Say. have the whites been held as slaves and regularly abused in the US?
2) Sources are needed. Telling people to Google it is a bullshit argument.
3) Teaching evolution causes offence to you? Well teaching creation causes offence to me. Ban it.

[Freiheit Reich]

The govt. does not need to be involved in marriage and could easily exit this area of our lives if they wished to.

No. Government is already deeply involved in marriage, and the political party or the ruling majority which even proposes to "exit this area" would die suddenly. It would be political suicide.

This reflects on the American people needing big govt. to be their daddy. If you love your spouse why do you need govt. to tell you wour marriage is valid or not?

[SaintB]

No. Government is already deeply involved in marriage, and the political party or the ruling majority which even proposes to "exit this area" would die suddenly. It would be political suicide.

This reflects on the American people needing big govt. to be their daddy. If you love your spouse why do you need govt. to tell you wour marriage is valid or not?

For all the legal reasons mentioned a hundred god damned times already.

[Freiheit Reich]

I don't know what to do with that. It's an opinion salad. Should I argue with it, pick good bits out of it, or just feed it to my rabbit?

Feed it to your bull. It'll still be the same thing, but you can legally call it bullshit.

I was showing how the govt. could get out of marriage in response to being told this can't be done.

As you can see it can be done if the govt. wants it. This will solve OP concerns regarding marriage between people and animals, siblings, as well as dolls. Who would care if govt. is not involved?

[Lemanrussland]

Feed it to your bull. It'll still be the same thing, but you can legally call it bullshit.

I was showing how the govt. could get out of marriage in response to being told this can't be done.

As you can see it can be done if the govt. wants it. This will solve OP concerns regarding marriage between people and animals, siblings, as well as dolls. Who would care if govt. is not involved?

Marriage is fundamentally a legal contract (whether it's ordained as some special institution by the state or not, you would still need various legal contracts to set up things like who gets what after one partner dies, who is the legal father/mother of the children, etc. etc.), you can't sign a legal contract with an animal or a doll. I wish people like you would stop trotting out this illogical and inane argument (what about action figures, animals, brooms, and washing machines?)

[Freiheit Reich]

1. If something is hard to find I understand you wanting burden of proof but I am guessing you knew about gay history in California schools and just wanted to be annoying and ask me for proof. The gay history was major news recently and should be common knowledge. It was not some minor footnote in a Des Moines newspaper and ignored by the rest of the nation.

Michael Jackson is dead. Do you need a source for that also?

What about the fact that Tokyo is the capital of Japan or that Barak Obama is the president of the USA?

I provide sources if the info can't be found fast. The fact I found the gay history news in 2 seconds on google proves it is easy to find.

2. So what about the Chinese ones. The top results were in English. 3-4 English sources is plenty and the sources were pretty good overall. Stop being nit picky.

3. Black History Month is racist. My school had that month and no White History Month. Why have racial holidays which divide races? Why not have colorblind schools and make every month 'people history month'? Liberals talk about tolerance and then want to divide people to 'celebrate diversity.'

4. The AVERAGE person uses algebra more. Evolutionary biology is useful for certain fields but so is knowing how to put fillings in teeth or learning Korean. Specialized skills can be learned in college. Natural selection is fine to teach but evolution (like we came from monkees) will offend people (including me) and cause deep divides in the school system.

I gave a way to streamline power of attorney. It should be much simpler. How did people manage it before the USA became such a legalistic society where we need lawyers for everything and anything? Actually, it already is done this way (as you said).

If marriage ends than people will need a different document. The govt. would be involved but the difference is this power of attorney could be given between 2 men, brother and sister, etc. The procedure is simple. Shouldn't be complicated.

Lawyer is not needed for power of attorney (but some sites suggest it, probably helpful if you must do complex stuff).

http://www.legalhelpmate.com/power-of-a ... #legal-poa

Give couples warning that the govt. is getting out of marriage. They will have 6 months to 1 year to get their power of attorney via the way I discussed. I would not drop the shocking news without giving time for couples to adjust. If they want, they can give full power of attorney to their spouses. If they ignore the news than that was their fault.

1) Why is there no white history month? Say. have the whites been held as slaves and regularly abused in the US?
2) Sources are needed. Telling people to Google it is a bullshit argument.
3) Teaching evolution causes offence to you? Well teaching creation causes offence to me. Ban it.

1) So you think we should give blacks special treatment due to something that happened over 140 years ago? I believe the last slave died in the 1940's or so? Even if he lived to 100 years old he died in the 1960's. I have no source but I bet all US slaves have been dead for several years. Oh, is Obama abused? I didn't know being president of the USA is a bad job. Oprah Winfrey seems to be living well. We can find abused whites and wealthy blacks and vice-versa. How can you be against somebody saying 'treat all races equally'? Who sounds more racist in this argument?

2) OK, where do we draw the line? I have googled people's statements on here when no source is posted and I wanted to know if it was true. Generally I find the stuff fast and I am not upset. If somebody said Obama is the president of the USA is a source needed? What happened to common knowledge? Besides, I bet he knew about the gay history and just wanted to play games because he dislikes my viewpoints. If I said 'gays are better people than straights' I bet he would not ask for sources to that claim (even though that claim would be harder to prove either way).

3) Solution is easy. Don't teach either. I was not taught either one in high school and I survived. Students that want to know more can go to their local library or the internet or their church (for creationism info).