- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,256
- Reaction score
- 97,643
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Where in the constitution is the word "marriage" at all?
see post #2
Where in the constitution is the word "marriage" at all?
Well, it's a discussion on gay marriage (specifically the Federal government recognizing your marriage). If the Federal government now recognizes your marriage, how is that a negative for you?
Well, it's a discussion on gay marriage (specifically the Federal government recognizing your marriage). If the Federal government now recognizes your marriage, how is that a negative for you?
I'm not answering for him, but I'm going to answer. Marriage is a shoddy, careless contract and shouldn't be recognized by the government. Contracts for partnerships of any level or type should have proper, fully disclosed, completely detailed, written and signed contracts. Additionally, since it costs considerably less to live as a couple than a single, all the tax breaks etc that recognizing marriage offers are counterintuitive to how they should be distributed, if at all.
Ok, I'm whatever you want me to be.
What is the difference between a gay libertarian and a straight libertarian?
Say I am gay, say I am straight, how are my politics influenced by any of that nonsense?
They aren't, I was just saying.
How old are you 12-teen?
How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?
Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.
see post #2
Except that the contract of marriage already covers an enormous number of things (the hospital visits and automatic recognition of inheritances and such are two of the most publicized rights), and so MrNick should appreciate these benefits now that same sex marriage is becoming legal. That he doesn't is counterproductive for himself.
I did, hence my response to that exact post. That post only spoke about there not being "gay marriage" in there, I wrote that there was not even the mention of the word marriage at all.
I'm not answering for him, but I'm going to answer. Marriage is a shoddy, careless contract and shouldn't be recognized by the government. Contracts for partnerships of any level or type should have proper, fully disclosed, completely detailed, written and signed contracts. Additionally, since it costs considerably less to live as a couple than a single, all the tax breaks etc that recognizing marriage offers are counterintuitive to how they should be distributed, if at all.
Ad homs are against forum rules. Please control yourself.
So are you saying that you're not getting married, or that your own marriage is now defunct?
I'm kind of wondering how the issues of inheritance, child rearing, medical decisions for unconcious spouses, etc. could be properly handled without government-sanctioned marriage. I am not a big fan of government dictating who can and cannot marry, but at the same point I don't see scrapping the whole thing as a viable alternative. I'd be fine with just enforcing the 14th amendment and allowing all consenting adults to marry.
There wasn't an ad-hom there genius.
Don't forget the "ad" in your nonsense.
How old are you 12-teen?
How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?
Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.
Same as they are once the marriage is in divorce, legal contracts, which is how they should have started imo.
a. I am not married.
b. I do not live in the US and in our laws marriage is not only mentioned but also regulated.
Let me refresh your memory:
(bold mine)
So again, control yourself. You're clearly taking this topic too personally. Relax.
Let me refresh your 5th grade memory - that is not an "Ad".
Figure it out yourself...
We should really stay on topic here.
So what would be the difference?
Do you even know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
Let me refresh your 5th grade memory - that is not an "Ad".
Figure it out yourself...