Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[The Rich Port]

Uhm class warfare would be rich against poor... which already exists. Or have you not seen the Democratic party?

Buddy, I had a hammer and sickle in my flag until YESTERDAY. Trust me, I KNOW.

[Lelouche]

I was Bi for awhile, I'm straight these days. but I do occasionally like things in my ass

And I can make any call I want, regardless of how you feel about it. The key argument used has also been "The benefits of Marriage" this argument was ironically used by both sides.

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

Everybody want's something for nothing

Brother, I don't think I appreciate your attitude... And if you care so little about marriage, how come you're here fighting tooth and nail over it?

Your appreciation of my attitude is neither required nor wanted. and to answer your question

Boredom
Plus I've been drinking, and my GF is only vacation

[The Black Plains]

Uhm class warfare would be rich against poor... which already exists. Or have you not seen the Democratic party?

Buddy, I had a hammer and sickle in my flag until YESTERDAY. Trust me, I KNOW.

I meant that the Dems were the ones using class warfare which, coming from a third party member, trust me they are.

[Dempublicents1]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Whoa, wait, how would taxes get raised?

They wouldn't. In fact, as was shown in the case, CA is currently missing out on a great deal of tax revenue specifically because same sex marriages are not granted.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Things like wanting to make sure your partner is taken care of after you die and doesn't lose his assets (like the house the two of you have lived in) is based just as much in love as it is in economics. Wanting your partner to be with you when you are on your deathbed, and to have that partner be able to make medical decisions for you in that instance is covered by marriage law, but has nothing to do with greed.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

It"s is horribly disgusting. It's morally atrocious. I'm not sure how it's not some sort of mental disorder. They won't just go off, live their lives in this new found freedom, and leave us alone. They'll make us see this shit with their parades and demonstrations ,and push for a bunch of rights and privileges and never go away, never be happy, so you have to shut em up and drive them away as best you can. Also, I've never met a homo worth a lick.

Why would you lick a homosexual, if you are so against them?

Oh, you know... you've been working up a real fury, yelling at all the 'fags', and acting masculine, and then there's that pool-boy all slick and glistening. Is that peanut oil, it couldn't hurt to.... NO, must hate. MUST HATE!!!!

Must it always come to this? I didn't make any jokes about AIDS or stinky peckers, so please leave this level of immaturity for your pals.

You don't get to act all hurt. Your opening gambits in this thread were flamebait, at best.

Also - I have to say, I didn't actually target you in my humour - yet you took it as a personal insult. I think this is more about you, than about me.

I get to do whatever I like.

And excuse me for not seeing that. But I don't think its a huge jump in thinking that if you insult a group of people which I happen to be one of that you are trying to insult me as well.

[Wamitoria]

Uhm class warfare would be rich against poor... which already exists. Or have you not seen the Democratic party?

Buddy, I had a hammer and sickle in my flag until YESTERDAY. Trust me, I KNOW.

I meant that the Dems were the ones using class warfare which, coming from a third party member, trust me they are.

Libertarian, right?

[Lelouche]

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Things like wanting to make sure your partner is taken care of after you die and doesn't lose his assets (like the house the two of you have lived in) is based just as much in love as it is in economics. Wanting your partner to be with you when you are on your deathbed, and to have that partner be able to make medical decisions for you in that instance is covered by marriage law, but has nothing to do with greed.

If the laws make it so only married people can make these kinds of decision regarding finance and deathbed visitation, and medial/hospital stuff, then that is all the more reason to abolish marriage as a state institution, anyone with whom you share that kind of bond should be able to make such decisions, in fact "Power of Attorney" is a current legal practice that gives you exactly the same rights, both financial and medical.

You don't have to be married to designate your partner as a beneficiary on your life insurance, or the executor of your will, or the inheritor of your property, or your medical caretaker.

That is a false dichotomy

[The Black Plains]

Uhm class warfare would be rich against poor... which already exists. Or have you not seen the Democratic party?

Buddy, I had a hammer and sickle in my flag until YESTERDAY. Trust me, I KNOW.

I meant that the Dems were the ones using class warfare which, coming from a third party member, trust me they are.

Libertarian, right?

Anarchist... look the Republicans don't do much. They neither perform nor are capable of getting away with anything that targets any group. The only people who it is safe to target are, of course, the well-to-do. Graduated Income Taxes... or (G.I.T.s) ... the acronym describes its supporters very well. Anyway I will not continue to side track this thread. Get the government out of marriage.

[Apertior]

You would be confused.
Let me explain this to you slowly

1. State "Marriage™" is an institution whereby one receives benefits for engaging in committed financial bonding arrangement with another human being^{Economic Slavery}. (ostensibly, for creating stable family environments, and procreating, but these arguments have since been debunked)
2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed
3. If the argument was about "Love" or "Equality" then people would either be content that they live in a place where you can live with and love whomever you want, without the need for state recognition, or you would push for the abolition of a the barbaric enslavement ritual that makes people subservient to each other, known as "Marriage™"

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.

You are not taking the argument you are supporting to it's logical conclusion. It would apply to straight couples, too.

[The Black Plains]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Whoa, wait, how would taxes get raised?

They wouldn't. In fact, as was shown in the case, CA is currently missing out on a great deal of tax revenue specifically because same sex marriages are not granted.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Things like wanting to make sure your partner is taken care of after you die and doesn't lose his assets (like the house the two of you have lived in) is based just as much in love as it is in economics. Wanting your partner to be with you when you are on your deathbed, and to have that partner be able to make medical decisions for you in that instance is covered by marriage law, but has nothing to do with greed.

Well shit the government shouldn't have a say in THAT either... see once again it is the government at the root of the problem. Go fucking figure.

[Lelouche]

You would be confused.
Let me explain this to you slowly

1. State "Marriage™" is an institution whereby one receives benefits for engaging in committed financial bonding arrangement with another human being^{Economic Slavery}. (ostensibly, for creating stable family environments, and procreating, but these arguments have since been debunked)
2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed
3. If the argument was about "Love" or "Equality" then people would either be content that they live in a place where you can live with and love whomever you want, without the need for state recognition, or you would push for the abolition of a the barbaric enslavement ritual that makes people subservient to each other, known as "Marriage™"

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.

You are not taking the argument you are supporting to it's logical conclusion. It would apply to straight couples, too.

Good, maybe then we'll all get a tax break, regardless of martial status
oh wait, we just abolished that

HUZZAH!!!

[Katganistan]

Welcome to the Ninth Amendment.

Gay marriage is not a right, and a court case resolution is not a constitutional amendment. As I've been saying, the actions of the Courts are unconstitutional.

Exactly. Gays are trying to change what marriage is, so society will accommodate to their culture.

The same way interracial couples tried to change what marriage was so society accommodates them.

[Lelouche]

society shouldn't accommodate anyone

We give the state far to much importance relative to our daily lives

[Grave_n_idle]

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

The only person you're capable of describing here is yourself.

To many people - even the non-religious - there is something important about being married. In my own case - for example - while I am quite vocal in defence of people NOT marrying if they choose, I wanted to be married, for what it would mean to me.

The part I really agreed with was the part about the government staying the fuck out. Which it should. You can do anything religious if you want, but get the government out. The government is bloated enough already.

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

[Lelouche]

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

We don't like, and we have the power to change that. (or specifically the group can change, as the individual is almost entirely powerless in this case)

If marriage is about love, then who really gives a damm about the TV?
I'll just let that one sink in.

[Grave_n_idle]

2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed

So, you ARE claiming that people only get married because they're greedy.

And your evidence for this, is that you don't want to get married.


You're talking through your hat.

[Grave_n_idle]

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

We don't like, and we have the power to change that. (or specifically the group can change, as the individual is almost entirely powerless in this case)

If marriage is about love, then who really gives a damm about the TV?
I'll just let that one sink in.

The TV isn't a problem, unless the contract is broken. Or unless it was a gift to the bride, groom, or couple. Which is why marriage has always been a contractual issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Whoa, wait, how would taxes get raised?

They wouldn't. In fact, as was shown in the case, CA is currently missing out on a great deal of tax revenue specifically because same sex marriages are not granted.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Things like wanting to make sure your partner is taken care of after you die and doesn't lose his assets (like the house the two of you have lived in) is based just as much in love as it is in economics. Wanting your partner to be with you when you are on your deathbed, and to have that partner be able to make medical decisions for you in that instance is covered by marriage law, but has nothing to do with greed.

Well shit the government shouldn't have a say in THAT either... see once again it is the government at the root of the problem. Go fucking figure.

That doesn't follow.

If a hospital won't let you see your loved one - how is that an intrusion by the government.

If government intrusion is what it takes to force the hospital to let you see your loved one, how is government the root of the problem?

[Katganistan]

does the Second Amendment only guarantee the right to bear muskets?

That would be awesome, wouldn't it?

[Lelouche]

2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed

So, you ARE claiming that people only get married because they're greedy.

And your evidence for this, is that you don't want to get married.

actually my evidence for this is the patently obvious, If my gf wanted to get married, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea
Communal property rights of married couples is the greatest proof of this. If I bought the house, and everything in it, why would you be entitled to half of that in the divorce?

And again, I'm referring to state recognized marriage, there exists a concept of marriage outside of legal recognition of the status itself

[Lelouche]

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

We don't like, and we have the power to change that. (or specifically the group can change, as the individual is almost entirely powerless in this case)

If marriage is about love, then who really gives a damm about the TV?
I'll just let that one sink in.

The TV isn't a problem, unless the contract is broken. Or unless it was a gift to the bride, groom, or couple. Which is why marriage has always been a contractual issue.

it's a tv
Rip up the contract
have a marriage without a contract
there are other possibilities other then the narrow minded set you seem to be locked into

[Grave_n_idle]

2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed

So, you ARE claiming that people only get married because they're greedy.

And your evidence for this, is that you don't want to get married.

actually my evidence for this is the patently obvious, If my gf wanted to get married, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea
Communal property rights of married couples is the greatest proof of this. If I bought the house, and everything in it, why would you be entitled to half of that in the divorce?

California law, I believe, splits communal property 50/50. I'm not sure what the law is in other states.

But I'm still confused by the other part... if your girlfriend wanted to get married (obviously, because she's greedy) - then you would marry her... because you are greedy?

[Norstal]

I just realized something interesting.

Gay marriages are now allowed by several states in the union, but prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge. However, the president himself swears under an oath with the bible to lead this country. Not to mention the great Seal itself is "In God We Trust". That clearly means the U.S as a whole is not secular. The church is not separated from the state. Now, in my mind, that is purely ceremonial and that God could be a metaphor for America in general. We, as the public, represented by "God", are watching America.

To religious people, this would mean that the government must adhere to the Bible. After all, there hasn't been an explanation in why we used that motto or take such oaths other than religious reasons. This would mean that gay marriage is illegal, as God forbids it in the Bible.

I'm just saying that many people can use this argument. I myself are trying hard to make a counterargument for this, but really I can't. I can't simply ignore the motto but I can't ignore the constitution either. Bah this is a mindfuck.

You would be confused.
Let me explain this to you slowly

1. State "Marriage™" is an institution whereby one receives benefits for engaging in committed financial bonding arrangement with another human being^{Economic Slavery}. (ostensibly, for creating stable family environments, and procreating, but these arguments have since been debunked)
2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed
3. If the argument was about "Love" or "Equality" then people would either be content that they live in a place where you can live with and love whomever you want, without the need for state recognition, or you would push for the abolition of a the barbaric enslavement ritual that makes people subservient to each other, known as "Marriage™"

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.

You are not taking the argument you are supporting to it's logical conclusion. It would apply to straight couples, too.

Good, maybe then we'll all get a tax break, regardless of martial status
oh wait, we just abolished that

HUZZAH!!!

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

[Grave_n_idle]

The only necessity for government involvement is the legal ramifications of marriage. marriage is - whether we like it or not - a contract.

'God' isn't going to appoint custody of the tv when your S.O. leaves you for a pale European cellist.

We don't like, and we have the power to change that. (or specifically the group can change, as the individual is almost entirely powerless in this case)

If marriage is about love, then who really gives a damm about the TV?
I'll just let that one sink in.

The TV isn't a problem, unless the contract is broken. Or unless it was a gift to the bride, groom, or couple. Which is why marriage has always been a contractual issue.

it's a tv
Rip up the contract
have a marriage without a contract
there are other possibilities other then the narrow minded set you seem to be locked into

You're missing the point. I've always been an advocate of marriage NOT being a necessity in today's modern world.

But that doesn't change what marriage is or what purpose it has historically served. It's a contractual state.

[Maxedon]

All i can say is:

Finally LOL