Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 142

Thread: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That was there before the wedding night.
    Next you'll tell me that your sex life didn't take a nose dive after that day.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Again, why would I? I get more benefits this way and so does she.

    It has nothing with making our relationship stronger though, sorry to disappoint you.

    Our relationship was just as strong before we were married.
    Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?
    And the RELATIONSHIP would be, but we would lose benefits, so again why would I get a divorce?

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    And the RELATIONSHIP would be, but we would lose benefits, so again why would I get a divorce?
    I doubt that.

    What benes would you lose that are more important that your relationship?

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    I doubt that.

    What benes would you lose that are more important that your relationship?
    Nothing is more important to our relationship, but being married or not has no impact on it.

    You are asking me to get a divorce just to get one. That is beyond stupid.

  6. #106
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    When married, the law of the state defines the rights and privileges enjoyed by each spouse, and how these things interact with other laws.


    Sure... but then the obligations and the rights conferred by them are defined by the contract, not the law, and are limited to what can be conveyed by literal contract.. The literal contract cannot convey some of the rights that the law does -- protection against a spouse being forced to testify, tax benefits/penalties, immediate transfer of joint property upon death, etc.

    So, while those contracts might be able to convey many of the same benefiots, they cannot convey them all because many of the rights/privliges eminate solely from the state.
    I agree. What, then, would be the purpose of the law limiting the ability to enter into these contracts on the basis of gender?

    Should not the basis for allowance be something of greater substance than simply the genders of the parties involved?

    What is the purpose of the government defining the marriage contract as only being applicable to those unions that are between one man and one woman?



    NOTE: I am in favor of an individual state's right to decide the issue at hand, my question is related to actual reasons why the state itself would have a vested interest in keeping with the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of the marriage contract instead of a less gender specific definition.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #107
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Next you'll tell me that your sex life didn't take a nose dive after that day.
    That also happened before the wedding night. (We have been together for 12 years, but only married for 3 of them)
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Nothing is more important to our relationship, but being married or not has no impact on it.

    You are asking me to get a divorce just to get one. That is beyond stupid.
    Now I'm confused. Marriage is of the utmost importance to your relationship, but has no impact on your relationship?

    I'm asking you, for the sake of argument, to consider what a divorce would do to your relationship, not necessarily to get one. My guess is that it would be potentially devastating.

  9. #109
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I agree. What, then, would be the purpose of the law limiting the ability to enter into these contracts on the basis of gender?

    Should not the basis for allowance be something of greater substance than simply the genders of the parties involved?

    What is the purpose of the government defining the marriage contract as only being applicable to those unions that are between one man and one woman?
    Ultimately?
    That's how the people want to define marriage.

    NOTE: I am in favor of an individual state's right to decide the issue at hand,
    I agree with this, except that it may then create a situation where OH must recognize the laws of CA even if they violate the OH constitution.

  10. #110
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?
    In truth, the only reason to get a divorce is if the relationship is already as weak as it can get. The divorce itself does not make it weaker, it only ends the contract.

    If I were to divorce my wife for the specific reason of ending the contract, let's say there was a financial reason for this, not an emotional reason such as ending the relationship, there would be no weakening of said relationship.

    It would be just as strong as it was prior to the divorce.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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