2.) LMAO oooooh so another backpedal and another but but but, sorry but i still have facts and you still dont. Now you are just trying to deflect. LOL seriously do you have anything relvant to add since you just been wrong and off topic the whole time? You have taught nothing but how to dance around the facts and make stuff up that you think means something to the discussion.
3.) you are free to think that but again since we are the government and they have to protect and enfore rights and freedoms they do
4.) again you changed nothing it would be something new from start to finish and its not discriminatory in a legal sense at all LOL
5.) nope still isnt and you havent given one logical or factual reason why it is
6.) Of course YOU think that lmao but its just a flat out lie, you have no factual, logical or intellectual path to take so you try to deflect and use failed inults but yet have provided NOTHING to support your meaningless, false and off topic claims.
let me know when that changes.
Ill be here waiting with facts and standing up for equal rights, let me know what you want to do lol
2) How am I backpedaling? My stance all along was that today's marriage laws have been influenced by Christianity. You are literally making things up now...
4)yes, it is, it excludes some consenting adults.
5) I did provide a logical reason
6) I am not lieing about anything, please point out what I am lying about.
How are you standing up for equal rights when you still exclude people from benefits just because it doesn't fit your preconception of what marriage is?
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings
objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin.
Objective-J believes that not all consenting adults are eligible for the marriage contract.
Objective-J does not believe that all two or more consenting adult groups should have equivalent rights that other two consenting adults do.
Objective-J is not always for equal rights, but only situationally when his definition of a martial relationship is met.
I mean, the family/marriage contract concept is radical culturally, but Legally it is sound. This would define the marriage contract as simply two consenting adults that want to enjoy these benefits and responsibilities, no sexual connotations.
Last edited by celticwar17; 12-11-12 at 03:08 AM.
^ This would also include friends/business parneters, etc.
but i did not put that in there because I didn't want to assume you had a problem with this... but the problem would come in on the attitude of courts and divorce court. Because you couldn't inherently assume that these two individuals are having a romantic/sexual relationship with rules and regulations, exept other than the benefit's and responsibilities in the contract.
LMAO you just made a complete fool of yourself
I know i asked you before but you didnt answer are you from america?
1, i never said i believe ANY of that, so that is lie number one LMAO
2.) do you understand what equal rights are?
NOBODY has those rights you are talking about so that would not be an EQUAL rights issues LMAO
it would be like i said something new and is MEANINGLESS to gay equal rights
so again please stop lying