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

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

I responded by saying power of attorney solves these issues. Look in my earlier posts on power of attorney info.

Besides what about drawbacks? Marriage is the leading cause of divorce which involves legal hell for many people. Attorneys love the govt. involvement of marriage. They make a fortune off of divorce cases and pre-nups. My solution makes divorce simple. I could say 'I divorce you' and walk away and I am divorced. Govt. wouldn't care either way in my scenario.

[Ovisterra]

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce which involves legal hell for many people.

I'd call it the only cause of divorce.

[Freiheit Reich]

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?)

Right now it is a legal contract. My idea is to get the 'legal' out of marriage and make it merely ceremonial.

If it is ceremonial a man could marry a bottle of his own urine if he desires. The govt. wouldn't care anymore. The marriage contract would have the same value as toilet paper in the govt. eyes.

Legal guardian paperwork can be done without marriage. If no paperwork is filed and no custody battle is fought than likely both parents get equal guardianship. Plenty of non-married people have children and manage to deal with that issue.

Wills can be made without spouses. I could give all my stuff to my aunt when I die. We are not married but she could get all my stuff if I wanted her to. You can put anybody you want in your will.

[Ravenvalles]

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.

I am new to this thread, so if this has been said please disregard.

Yes it is complicated, costly, and whether it will be recognized by health care providers, etc. is iffy. However, common usage, and economies of scale will solve those issues over time. An example of this is what has happened with wills, and real estate sales agreements.

[Lemanrussland]

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?)

Right now it is a legal contract. My idea is to get the 'legal' out of marriage and make it merely ceremonial.

If it is ceremonial a man could marry a bottle of his own urine if he desires. The govt. wouldn't care anymore. The marriage contract would have the same value as toilet paper in the govt. eyes.

Legal guardian paperwork can be done without marriage. If no paperwork is filed and no custody battle is fought than likely both parents get equal guardianship. Plenty of non-married people have children and manage to deal with that issue.

Wills can be made without spouses. I could give all my stuff to my aunt when I die. We are not married but she could get all my stuff if I wanted her to. You can put anybody you want in your will.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Fundamentally, the legal components of marriage (the ones that actually matter, which marriage simply groups together and codifies) you're talking about would still be enforced (in the form of a number of legal contracts instead of just one), and wouldn't be able to be arranged between a "man and a bottle of urine". You could say "I'm married to this bottle of urine", but you're not really, in any sort of meaningful way.

Edit: I would support your idea, as long as access to these legal contracts aren't arbitrarily denied to people.

[AiliailiA]

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?

Did I mention America?

*checks*

Nope. Marriage is institutionalized in all sorts of governments, democratic or not. Republics or not. If you want to scale back government involvement in marriage then I'm with you. But let's identify what we find most unfair and socially harmful, and have at that.

I don't agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. At the very least, I expect government to remain a book-keeper of who is married and who isn't. The contracts which come bundled cheap with marriage (legal attorney, default inheritance) are useful by being cheap; I agree with you that such contracts should be easily obtained without marriage, though it gets somewhat complicated if different people hold different contracts. Those two examples (power of attorney, and right to inherit in lack of a will) very obviously conflict if held by different people. But I'd absolutely go for removing all tax benefits for married couples.

So what mattters most to you? What is the greatest injustice perpetrated by government in their enforcement and incentivizing of marrriage? Let's be practical about this: no government which isn't an iron-fisted dictatorship could "exit this area of our lives" without being overthrown. Making government just go away is not practical. You don't get your ideal system just by saying "I want this". Marriage IS institutionalized. To separate it from government, you must start somewhere.

What most offends you about government involvement in marriage? Perhaps it offends other people too, and you can form a coalition to reform that.

[Ravenvalles]

Right now it is a legal contract. My idea is to get the 'legal' out of marriage and make it merely ceremonial.

If it is ceremonial a man could marry a bottle of his own urine if he desires. The govt. wouldn't care anymore. The marriage contract would have the same value as toilet paper in the govt. eyes.

Legal guardian paperwork can be done without marriage. If no paperwork is filed and no custody battle is fought than likely both parents get equal guardianship. Plenty of non-married people have children and manage to deal with that issue.

Unfortunately if you take the legal out of marriage, it makes all of the assumed rights and responsibilities separate issues. This puts them back in the hands of attorneys, instead of the hands of government. I agree that is where they should be, but it will not simplify anything.

Agreed, who cares who a man or woman marries, outside of their holy-man.

This assumes that offspring are owned by the parents, and not the state. As it stands, the state owns our children.

[Freiheit Reich]

Right now it is a legal contract. My idea is to get the 'legal' out of marriage and make it merely ceremonial.

If it is ceremonial a man could marry a bottle of his own urine if he desires. The govt. wouldn't care anymore. The marriage contract would have the same value as toilet paper in the govt. eyes.

Legal guardian paperwork can be done without marriage. If no paperwork is filed and no custody battle is fought than likely both parents get equal guardianship. Plenty of non-married people have children and manage to deal with that issue.

Wills can be made without spouses. I could give all my stuff to my aunt when I die. We are not married but she could get all my stuff if I wanted her to. You can put anybody you want in your will.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Fundamentally, the legal components of marriage (the ones that actually matter, which marriage simply groups together and codifies) you're talking about would still be enforced (in the form of a number of legal contracts instead of just one), and wouldn't be able to be arranged between a "man and a bottle of urine". You could say "I'm married to this bottle of urine", but you're not really, in any sort of meaningful way.

Edit: I would support your idea, as long as access to these legal contracts aren't arbitrarily denied to people.

The power of attorney paperwork would have to be EASIER than it is now due to marriages no longer being automatic power of attorney. Streamlining would be essential. Keeping costs down would also be important.

Sure, we don't need to deny it to people. Perhaps age limits might be important to ensure maturity (16 is possible).

Obviously a man could not give power of attorney to a dog or a bottle of urine.

[Freiheit Reich]

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?

Did I mention America?

*checks*

Nope. Marriage is institutionalized in all sorts of governments, democratic or not. Republics or not. If you want to scale back government involvement in marriage then I'm with you. But let's identify what we find most unfair and socially harmful, and have at that.

I don't agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. At the very least, I expect government to remain a book-keeper of who is married and who isn't. The contracts which come bundled cheap with marriage (legal attorney, default inheritance) are useful by being cheap; I agree with you that such contracts should be easily obtained without marriage, though it gets somewhat complicated if different people hold different contracts. Those two examples (power of attorney, and right to inherit in lack of a will) very obviously conflict if held by different people. But I'd absolutely go for removing all tax benefits for married couples.

So what mattters most to you? What is the greatest injustice perpetrated by government in their enforcement and incentivizing of marrriage? Let's be practical about this: no government which isn't an iron-fisted dictatorship could "exit this area of our lives" without being overthrown. Making government just go away is not practical. You don't get your ideal system just by saying "I want this". Marriage IS institutionalized. To separate it from government, you must start somewhere.

What most offends you about government involvement in marriage? Perhaps it offends other people too, and you can form a coalition to reform that.

The idea is to decrease govt. involvement from our lives and give it limited powers. Marriage is just one example. The govt. has also used marriage to complicate our lives. Look at all the laws relating to marriage (and divorce) in the USA alone. There are even divorce courts which relate to the fact govt. is involved in marriage.

Big govt. offends me. I am not an anarchist but I would like a more limited govt. This won't happen anytime soon though, the Libertarian Party is pretty weak in numbers in the USA.

Obviously, getting rid of big govt. won't start with marriage (for reasons you said-too much a shocker for most people) but once other goals are achieved perhaps marriage could be on the chopping block as well.

Why not have contracts bundled cheap without needing a marriage? This is possible and marriage would not even need to be involved. It would be like a civil union BUT could be between anybody (including child and mother) and disolving the union could be possible as well (disolving would not be the same as divorce-it just means the power of attorney and other privleges are ended).

[Liriena]

Did I mention America?

*checks*

Nope. Marriage is institutionalized in all sorts of governments, democratic or not. Republics or not. If you want to scale back government involvement in marriage then I'm with you. But let's identify what we find most unfair and socially harmful, and have at that.

I don't agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. At the very least, I expect government to remain a book-keeper of who is married and who isn't. The contracts which come bundled cheap with marriage (legal attorney, default inheritance) are useful by being cheap; I agree with you that such contracts should be easily obtained without marriage, though it gets somewhat complicated if different people hold different contracts. Those two examples (power of attorney, and right to inherit in lack of a will) very obviously conflict if held by different people. But I'd absolutely go for removing all tax benefits for married couples.

So what mattters most to you? What is the greatest injustice perpetrated by government in their enforcement and incentivizing of marrriage? Let's be practical about this: no government which isn't an iron-fisted dictatorship could "exit this area of our lives" without being overthrown. Making government just go away is not practical. You don't get your ideal system just by saying "I want this". Marriage IS institutionalized. To separate it from government, you must start somewhere.

What most offends you about government involvement in marriage? Perhaps it offends other people too, and you can form a coalition to reform that.

The idea is to decrease govt. involvement from our lives and give it limited powers. Marriage is just one example. The govt. has also used marriage to complicate our lives. Look at all the laws relating to marriage (and divorce) in the USA alone. There are even divorce courts which relate to the fact govt. is involved in marriage.

Big govt. offends me. I am not an anarchist but I would like a more limited govt. This won't happen anytime soon though, the Libertarian Party is pretty weak in numbers in the USA.

Obviously, getting rid of big govt. won't start with marriage (for reasons you said-too much a shocker for most people) but once other goals are achieved perhaps marriage could be on the chopping block as well.

Why not have contracts bundled cheap without needing a marriage? This is possible and marriage would not even need to be involved. It would be like a civil union BUT could be between anybody (including child and mother) and disolving the union could be possible as well (disolving would not be the same as divorce-it just means the power of attorney and other privleges are ended).

Then you are not against big government. You're just against the government getting to define marriage in ways you don't like.

[YellowApple]

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.

By that logic, every kid should know quantum physics by the time he/she graduates from high school, with virtually everything we observe (and can't observe) in the universe being, in no small part, a product of quantum physics (at least according to current scientific consensus; the field is only one of several candidates for a proposed 'Theory of Everything').

I mean, as much as I'm on your side in agreeing that evolution's pretty damn important to understand in biological fields, there are many different scientific fields outside of biology which have quite a bit of practical application. Chemistry is one. Physics is another. Biology - within which evolution is encompassed - is another. Mathematical fields - algebra, calculus, statistics - are among them as well.

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).

Wait, so your solution to deciding which one to teach - the one that's backed up by several centuries of continuous research confirming it, or the one that's described in a several-thousand-year-old book with no more verified scientific authority than The Little Engine That Could - is to pick neither? I guess that does away with teaching biology in schools entirely, now doesn't it? Considering the United States' education rankings are merely 'average' relative to other countries as of 2010, I don't think we as a nation have much wiggle room to risk falling further back by cutting out more components of primary and secondary education.

[Grenartia]

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.

5. 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. I didn't, actually. Define "major news". Obviously, it wasn't that major, or I would've heard about it, like I heard about the Boston bombings, or the fertilizer plant explosion.

2. Granted.

3. Every other month of the year is "white history month".

4. I bet people would've made the same sort of statements about the Earth being round if there were public schools around when it was discovered that the Earth wasn't flat.

5. But its not cheaper, and not as simple as signing a marriage license.

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.

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? 1. What happened to common knowledge? 2. Besides, I bet he knew about the gay history and just wanted to play games because he dislikes my viewpoints. 3. 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).

1. Common knowledge, beyond a few basics, is highly susceptible to distortion via unconfirmed rumors. What if I told you that it was common knowledge that there were aliens on Mars?

2. Again, I did NOT know about it. However much I disagree with your viewpoints, I would not stoop to such a petty tactic. Its poor form. I find it almost insulting that you'd think I'd resort to such shitty methods. I can understand you not knowing prior to now, but I do happen to have very strict standards of honor that I hold myself up to, and I do take any breaches of said standards VERY seriously. Among those standards is intellectual honesty. I do not knowingly lie in debates, and I admit when I am proven wrong. I try my damned hardest to be a person of my word.

3. Actually, I'd go into a logical analysis about generalizations of large groups of people, if you must know.

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.

I am new to this thread, so if this has been said please disregard.

Yes it is complicated, costly, and whether it will be recognized by health care providers, etc. is iffy. However, common usage, and economies of scale will solve those issues over time. An example of this is what has happened with wills, and real estate sales agreements.

I'd rather pay my $20-$80 marriage license fee, and get on with the rest of my life, spending it with my spouse, and not having to worry about legal procedures, what I could've spent the money on, and whether or not I'd be allowed to visit my spouse in the hospital. Call me old-fashioned.

[Cristos Templars]

What kind of sicko thread is this? Brothers and sisters marrying one another and people marrying animals? WHAT THE F-ING FUCK? This just proves how people in the world are getting dumber and dumber everyday.

[Ainin]

What kind of sicko thread is this? Brothers and sisters marrying one another and people marrying animals? WHAT THE F-ING FUCK? This just proves how people in the world are getting dumber and dumber everyday.

What exactly do you have against these concepts?

[Freiheit Reich]

The idea is to decrease govt. involvement from our lives and give it limited powers. Marriage is just one example. The govt. has also used marriage to complicate our lives. Look at all the laws relating to marriage (and divorce) in the USA alone. There are even divorce courts which relate to the fact govt. is involved in marriage.

Big govt. offends me. I am not an anarchist but I would like a more limited govt. This won't happen anytime soon though, the Libertarian Party is pretty weak in numbers in the USA.

Obviously, getting rid of big govt. won't start with marriage (for reasons you said-too much a shocker for most people) but once other goals are achieved perhaps marriage could be on the chopping block as well.

Why not have contracts bundled cheap without needing a marriage? This is possible and marriage would not even need to be involved. It would be like a civil union BUT could be between anybody (including child and mother) and disolving the union could be possible as well (disolving would not be the same as divorce-it just means the power of attorney and other privleges are ended).

Then you are not against big government. You're just against the government getting to define marriage in ways you don't like.

We have powers of attorney now right? I didn't add anything, I just increased the number of people that would want it BUT proposed making it easier.

However, I did reduce govt. involvement in marriage. My idea got rid of 1 thing without adding any extra laws. In fact I killed 2 things (marriage and divorce laws).

[Lemanrussland]

WHAT THE F-ING FUCK?

Why censor the first "F bomb", but then drop it on the very next word?

[YellowApple]

What kind of sicko thread is this?

Good question.

Brothers and sisters marrying one another

Why does this repulse you?

and people marrying animals?

Thankfully, very few folks have actually advocated the institutional rape of animals.

WHAT THE F-ING FUCK? This just proves how people in the world are getting dumber and dumber everyday.

No, it's proven that folks are still inclined to plaster up repeatedly-debunked slipperly-slope 'arguments' about how legalizing homosexual marriage supposedly leads to incest, polygamy, and - most hilariously - bestiality and pedophilia, a sign that the idea of "consent" is completely ignored by those making such arguments. The implications from such folk that "gays are equivalent to animals" and "all homosexuals target young boys" are equally amusing.

[Britanno]

Some woman in the US got married to a building

[YellowApple]

Some woman in the US got married to a building

I hear that woman has had romantic interests in a number of different buildings. They tend to be tall ones.

The phallic association is a nice bonus to that story.

[Ainin]

Some woman in the US got married to a building

Show your proof.

[Desperate Measures]

Some woman in the US got married to a building

Sounds wonderfully impossible.

[YellowApple]

Some woman in the US got married to a building

Show your proof.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=woman+married+to+building

[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.

5. 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. I didn't, actually. Define "major news". Obviously, it wasn't that major, or I would've heard about it, like I heard about the Boston bombings, or the fertilizer plant explosion.

2. Granted.

3. Every other month of the year is "white history month".

4. I bet people would've made the same sort of statements about the Earth being round if there were public schools around when it was discovered that the Earth wasn't flat.

5. But its not cheaper, and not as simple as signing a marriage license.

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? 1. What happened to common knowledge? 2. Besides, I bet he knew about the gay history and just wanted to play games because he dislikes my viewpoints. 3. 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).

1. Common knowledge, beyond a few basics, is highly susceptible to distortion via unconfirmed rumors. What if I told you that it was common knowledge that there were aliens on Mars?

2. Again, I did NOT know about it. However much I disagree with your viewpoints, I would not stoop to such a petty tactic. Its poor form. I find it almost insulting that you'd think I'd resort to such shitty methods. I can understand you not knowing prior to now, but I do happen to have very strict standards of honor that I hold myself up to, and I do take any breaches of said standards VERY seriously. Among those standards is intellectual honesty. I do not knowingly lie in debates, and I admit when I am proven wrong. I try my damned hardest to be a person of my word.

3. Actually, I'd go into a logical analysis about generalizations of large groups of people, if you must know.

I am new to this thread, so if this has been said please disregard.

Yes it is complicated, costly, and whether it will be recognized by health care providers, etc. is iffy. However, common usage, and economies of scale will solve those issues over time. An example of this is what has happened with wills, and real estate sales agreements.

I'd rather pay my $20-$80 marriage license fee, and get on with the rest of my life, spending it with my spouse, and not having to worry about legal procedures, what I could've spent the money on, and whether or not I'd be allowed to visit my spouse in the hospital. Call me old-fashioned.

1. OK, I apologize since you didn't know about it. Maybe you don't live in the USA. The tactics would be petty but not against forum rules which is why I thought you used them. They would be clever tactics but highly annoying as well. Perhaps I thought it was bigger news than it was. The issue shocked me and really stood out. Maybe it didn't shock everybody to the same degree.

3. OK: source about 'white history months' in school. This sure wasn't listed at my school.

4. Science is good but better sidestep evolution since it upsets many people with religious beliefs that teach against this. Plenty of other science facts can be discussed instead. Natural selection is acceptable to teach, humans coming from monkees is not as acceptable.

5. Non-marriage contract with the power of a civil union could be made that has all the power of a marriage contract but anybody could participate (to include mother and daughter, man and three wives, brother and sister, etc.). This contract would have nothing to do with romance. It would be a legal contract with all powers of attorney, etc. The difference is it could be easily dissolved and could even include time limits if the participants wanted this. This would be a single document and could be $20-50 (to include notary fees). Why don't you think this type of contract wuld be possible?

[Freiheit Reich]

What kind of sicko thread is this?

Good question.

Brothers and sisters marrying one another

Why does this repulse you?

and people marrying animals?

Thankfully, very few folks have actually advocated the institutional rape of animals.

WHAT THE F-ING FUCK? This just proves how people in the world are getting dumber and dumber everyday.

No, it's proven that folks are still inclined to plaster up repeatedly-debunked slipperly-slope 'arguments' about how legalizing homosexual marriage supposedly leads to incest, polygamy, and - most hilariously - bestiality and pedophilia, a sign that the idea of "consent" is completely ignored by those making such arguments. The implications from such folk that "gays are equivalent to animals" and "all homosexuals target young boys" are equally amusing.

Marriage does not mean sex has to occur. A man could marry his dog and not have sex with it.

[Ainin]

Show your proof.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=woman+married+to+building

Huh. According to the fourth link, her husband died six days after their marriage.