Page 102 of 159 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112152 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #1011
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Again absolute hogwash. Example:

    Estate Tax
    Internal Revenue Code 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.

    An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
    Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.

    Now I get that homosexuals want to take advantages of those laws, too. I get that. But homosexuals didn't want those advantages enough to accept them in the form of a civil union, which would have been entirely appropriate given that their unions are NOT for the sake of procreation.

  2. #1012
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.
    Procreation is not a requirment of the marriage contract. BTW gays have children too.

  3. #1013
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.
    You don't NEED marriage to procreate....and many people MARRY who cannot procreate or don't choose to do so. There is a good reason by the opponents of marriage equality chose not to make silly arguments based on procreation. They knew that they would be shot down by the Supreme Court quicker than they could make them.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #1014
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,050

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.
    The truth is that current marriage is not about procreation, whether you accept that or not, like that or not. Marriage was not "created" for the sake of procreation. It was created for many reasons, many of them having nothing to do with procreation. The real evidence is clear on this fact. Just because some wanted to at various points in history want to make it about procreation doesn't make it true for all of history or why it has always existed.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #1015
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it wasn't. In fact, even in the earlier times, when Christianity was giving out the licenses, they did not allow divorce or even annulments just for infertility, especially infertility of the woman.

    13 surprising facts about marriage | MNN - Mother Nature Network

    In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

    "The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

    But again, we are discussing the current marriage laws, not what you presume the laws came from or were "always about". You are wrong because they were not always, everywhere about procreation or even raising children.
    Sorry. I'm not the one that is wrong here. All you have to do is look to OUR laws, just as you said I should do.

    A fault divorce is a divorce which is granted after the party asking for the divorce sufficiently proves that the other party did something wrong that justifies ending the marriage.[7] The party filling for the divorce must prove that the other party has done something to justify ending the union.[7] Different states have different requirements for obtaining a fault divorce but in each state the spouse filing for the divorce is required to establish a reason for the divorce and provide evidence of the other parties’ guilt.[7] The specific grounds for receiving a fault divorce include adultery, impotency, infertility or homosexuality of the other party that was not discussed before the union; criminal conviction of a felony or imprisonment of one party for a certain length of time; abandonment or desertion, cruelty, or mental instability of one of the parties.[7]

  6. #1016
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The truth is that current marriage is not about procreation, whether you accept that or not, like that or not. Marriage was not "created" for the sake of procreation. It was created for many reasons, many of them having nothing to do with procreation. The real evidence is clear on this fact. Just because some wanted to at various points in history want to make it about procreation doesn't make it true for all of history or why it has always existed.
    I agree that it has morphed into something else, which is why states are starting to legislate it differently. It was, however, created for the sake of procreation. The argument that gay marriages don't advance the intentions and will of the state for the purpose of marriage as it was created are still valid for states that argue that point. This is why there was no victory of state law in the Supreme Court yesterday. Homosexual marriage is not yet an automatic right because marriage hasn't been completely removed from it's purpose and design yet. We're getting there. I imagine marriage will lose all traces of it's original purpose very soon.

  7. #1017
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.

    Now I get that homosexuals want to take advantages of those laws, too. I get that. But homosexuals didn't want those advantages enough to accept them in the form of a civil union, which would have been entirely appropriate given that their unions are NOT for the sake of procreation.
    So blacks should have been happy with their own drinking fountains, bathrooms and diners.

    That's a really enlightened attitude.

  8. #1018
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by captainawesome View Post
    So blacks should have been happy with their own drinking fountains, bathrooms and diners.

    That's a really enlightened attitude.
    Nope. Your equation of homosexuality to a race is just more specious argumentation from dishonest advocates of homosexuality.

  9. #1019
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,050

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Sorry. I'm not the one that is wrong here. All you have to do is look to OUR laws, just as you said I should do.
    Our laws prove you are wrong. Our current laws.

    Those are still reasons for divorce, not annulment. And a person who did not know they were infertile prior to the marriage cannot legitimately be "faulted" for that and/or penalized for that in their divorce (and if they did know and told the partner, this is even more true). They still do not force an infertile couple to divorce or make their marriage void.

    No-fault divorces are available in all states now though so it is not logical to assume that there could possibly be fault laid on a person who either didn't know they were infertile or revealed their infertility to their partner prior to marriage in the question of a divorce.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #1020
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Nope. Your equation of homosexuality to a race is just more specious argumentation from dishonest advocates of homosexuality.
    It is a legitimate.

    Separate is not equal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •