SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

BDBoop · Jun 4, 2011

Hugh_Akston said:
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

AWESOME! Yes! Half the states should be for gays to marry in, and half for straights. And then everybody will have to move to the appropriate state if theirs is not the right State.

Perfect.

AGENT J · Jun 4, 2011

Hugh_Akston said:
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.

It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

Probably because there's nothing simple about "moving" to another state.
Packing up and leaving is VERY "damned complicated" for the vast majority of people I would guess. Especially if you are in Hawaii, Alaska or if the discriminating state you want to leave or move to is a couple states away.

Yes that is very damned complicated.

roguenuke · Jun 4, 2011

Hugh_Akston said:
It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.

It is very different. If it was a valid argument to say that those who don't wish to be subject to discriminatory marriage laws should move to a state without them and stay in that state, then the Lovings would have lost their case in Loving v. VA. In fact, their punishment for living as a married couple in the state of VA was to be kicked out of the state. The SCOTUS ruled that they had a right to be married in whatever state they wanted to live in.

The SCOTUS will most likely make a similar ruling once one of the SSM cases heading to the SCOTUS within the next decade or less makes it to them.

If states were actually restricting marriage completely based on ability to procreate, instead of sex/gender of those involved, they would probably be able to justify those restrictions. The way they are restricting marriage now, however, is considered discrimination and has to be justified at the appropriate level of scrutiny by the state to be in place in order to meet a state interest.

Alyssa · Jun 4, 2011

Centrist77 said:
if you dont like semantics don't talk them.
I however am talking facts, legal facts that stand right now, all you have to give me is stories and qualifies and opinions etc etc, thats semantics.

Trying to split hairs between the meaning of severed and separating is semantics, and you made the original distinction. I have argued that I support gay marriage, but ultimately this issue will likely remain deadlocked. Therefore I am arguing that hypothetically marriage has become useless, and somewhat of a laughing stock in today's society. Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney. So what use is it other than to create this drama? People aren't following the basic precepts of marriage anyhow, and divorce rates are still high. The same people who condemn gay marriage don't seem to have much of an issue with divorce.

Jesus himself left no reference at all about gay marriage. All we have are the rantings of Paul. Like it or not, this does effect current laws concerning marriage, because-

Marriage and religion are not completely separate.

Centrist77 said:
Fact remains legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage they are in fact separate and the constitution and laws make them that way. A magistrate or singing elvis can marry me tomorrow and religion would play ZERO role. Those are the facts.

Most marriage licenses say something to the effect of: "You are hereby authorized to join together in the HOLY STATE of Matrimony..." and then it varies from there. It may be secular, but it is not entirely separate from religion.

Centrist77 said:
no matter how many times you say it LEGAL marriage and god are totally separate, accept this fact or don't, it doesn't change LMAO

Interesting because before you argued that you didn't believe that the relationship between religion and marriage was entire severed.

:arrow:

centralist77 said:
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't change the fact they are separate. Nor did I imply the relationship is "severed".

But then you did argue that it was separate. Damn, semantics again.

Centrist77 said:
God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage. Not sure why these facts bother you?

If God is meaningless to legal marriage, why can't gays marry?

Centrist77 said:
didnt go over my head you changed your stance and tried a back pedal

Codswallop. I haven't changed my stance a single time in this thread. I am only offering up a hypothetical situation. What if marriage wasn't a civil issue? That was my original premise. Why should it be? Any protections people are seeking in marriage for can be done by other means.

Centrist77 said:
the saying goes "I couldnt care less" meaning you dont care at all and its impossible for you to care any less

W-T-H? Now you're splitting hairs over how I tell you that I don't care about ad populum based arguments. Brilliant.

Centrist77 said:
and lastly people agreeing with you has nothing to do with FACTS, facts remain the same whether you agree or not and the only fallacies stated were in your post. :2wave:

You must have missed the entire point of every last one of my posts. No matter.

eace

roguenuke said:
I never swore any vows to or under God when I got married. God was not mentioned in my ceremony at all, and I wore a dress, had bride's maids and rings, it wasn't done by a JotP, etc. God does not have to be a part of marriage if a couple does not want God or any other higher power to be part of their marriage.

Government involvement in marriage is vary necessary, if only to keep track of who is married in order to protect each person within the relationship. But in tracking the relationship, it also helps the government avoid being screwed over by people who might take advantage of any "extras" that are offered with marriage.

I already mentioned that people could request that God not be mentioned. And also, marriage isn't necessary for anyone's protection. If the tax status was removed, the "extras" wouldn't be an issue.
And actually, the government provides incentives for social behavior using these tax benefits and so on. That's one of the many reasons I would rather the government not be involved an people's relationships at all. It's about control.

roguenuke · Jun 4, 2011

evanescence said:
I already mentioned that people could request that God not be mentioned. And also, marriage isn't necessary for anyone's protection. If the tax status was removed, the "extras" wouldn't be an issue.
And actually, the government provides incentives for social behavior using these tax benefits and so on. That's one of the many reasons I would rather the government not be involved an people's relationships at all. It's about control.

There are more things than just tax incentives given for marriage.

I am a military spouse. I get a lot of government incentives for being married, including housing, very reduced price medical and dental, very affordable life insurance, tuition assistance from the government, base access, etc.

Plus, to get my name legally changed, all I had to do was show my marriage certificate to the SS office and my chain of command (I was active duty when I got married).

And there is at least one protection offered by the government only to people who are legally married, and that is spousal privilege when it comes to testifying in court. A legal spouse cannot be ordered by the court to testify against their spouse about any conversation the couple may have had during their legal marriage. This is not available with any other legal paperwork.

I also brought up earlier (in this thread or another thread) that one thing that legal marriage does for a couple is set up a legal status where all the money earned/made during the marriage by either spouse is considered joint property, including social security tax money. This is why spouses are eligible for each other's SS when they retire, since the law says that if the money was earned during the marriage it legally belongs to both of them.

And I didn't ask to exclude GOD specifically. My husband and I specifically picked our ceremony out of a book the officiant had with her. We didn't have to tell anyone about the decision. No request was made.

And I have known many people who just went to the JotP or Vegas to get a legal marriage quickly, then had a wedding ceremony later.

The marriage license is just a civil contract between two people. Just because most people choose to have a wedding ceremony and have that license signed pretty much with that ceremony does not mean that God is involved in any way with that contract. The contract is separate from the ceremony and God. And marriage is the best word to describe certain relationships, no matter if religion is involved in any way with that relationship.

AGENT J · Jun 4, 2011

evanescence said:
Trying to split hairs between the meaning of severed and separating is semantics, and you made the original distinction. I have argued that I support gay marriage, but ultimately this issue will likely remain deadlocked. Therefore I am arguing that hypothetically marriage has become useless, and somewhat of a laughing stock in today's society. Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney. So what use is it other than to create this drama? People aren't following the basic precepts of marriage anyhow, and divorce rates are still high. The same people who condemn gay marriage don't seem to have much of an issue with divorce.

Jesus himself left no reference at all about gay marriage. All we have are the rantings of Paul. Like it or not, this does effect current laws concerning marriage, because-

Marriage and religion are not completely separate.

do you think I would fall for this deflection? who is arguing against your last statement? NOBODY lol thats you back pedaling and playing more semantics which you said you dont like. I said religion has NOTHING to do with LEGAL marriage and that fact wont change. I also said religion has everything to do with RELIGIOUS marriage but Legal Marriage and religious marriage are two totally separate things and thats a plain simple fact whether you accept it or not LMAO

Sorry you are 100% wrong and no amount of twisting words will change that. Legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things and the law and constitution makes it that way.
Also "power of attorney" is not marriage and another separate issue.

evanescence said:
Most marriage licenses say something to the effect of: "You are hereby authorized to join together in the HOLY STATE of Matrimony..." and then it varies from there. It may be secular, but it is not entirely separate from religion.

Funny my parents doesnt mention god or holy, like I said 100% separate unless the people involved dont want it that way but LEGALLY which is what we are talking about they are separate LMAO

evanescence said:
Interesting because before you argued that you didn't believe that the relationship between religion and marriage was entire severed.

do you not understand adjectives? LMAO
LEGAL marriage is totally different thanReligious marriage, this fact hurts your feelings for some reason and I dont know why LMAO

evanescence said:
But then you did argue that it was separate. Damn, semantics again.

No its you trying to ignore the adjectives in front of marriage seems you have comprehension issues would you like me to quote myself?

"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate"
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage."
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage"
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage."

seems you have an issue with adjectives, Im guessing its because you falsely believe legal and religious marriage are the same and they are not, oh well :shrug: lol

evanescence said:
If God is meaningless to legal marriage, why can't gays marry?

Gays can marry just not every where yet and the answer is the same as for why blacks couldnt marry whites in the past. Selfish and or bigoted people.

evanescence said:
Codswallop. I haven't changed my stance a single time in this thread. I am only offering up a hypothetical situation. What if marriage wasn't a civil issue? That was my original premise. Why should it be? Any protections people are seeking in marriage for can be done by other means.

Well it IS a civil issue and marriage makes it EASIER to get those rights and protections than the MANY other courses you have to take up and those currently arent as concrete. Many legal documents have been defeated by LEGAL family. Marriage makes your spouse LEGAL family and therefor more concrete and protected.

Removing legal marriage at this point is time is a meaningless debate because its never going to happen its unreasonable and irrational to think its an option.

evanescence said:
W-T-H? Now you're splitting hairs over how I tell you that I don't care about ad populum based arguments. Brilliant.

thanks I know

evanescence said:
You must have missed the entire point of every last one of my posts. No matter.

I didnt miss them at all, in fact I hit everyone out the park, you just didn't like it

Yesterday, right now and tomorrow, Legal marriage is totally separate form religious marriage. FACT
They only go together if the people getting married want them to and even then LEGALLY it doesnt matter.

:2wave:

evanescence said:
I already mentioned that people could request that God not be mentioned. And also, marriage isn't necessary for anyone's protection. If the tax status was removed, the "extras" wouldn't be an issue.
And actually, the government provides incentives for social behavior using these tax benefits and so on. That's one of the many reasons I would rather the government not be involved an people's relationships at all. It's about control.

you're right except taxes marriage offers no protections:roll: LMAO

Alyssa · Jun 4, 2011

Centrist77 said:
do you think I would fall for this deflection?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What deflection?

Centrist77 said:
who is arguing against your last statement? NOBODY lol thats you back pedaling and playing more semantics which you said you dont like.

You seem to be arguing with every last point I make, which is odd since I have clearly argued in favor of gay marriage, and only offered a hypothetical situation in which marriage was no longer a civil issue. If religion and civil marriage are not connected in some way, I doubt gay marriage would be such a controversial issue. After all, any sensible person has to admit that gay marriage isn't a threat to society. But it does offend them religiously. Those people vote, unfortunately.

Centrist77 said:
I said religion has NOTHING to do with LEGAL marriage and that fact wont change. I also said religion has everything to do with RELIGIOUS marriage but Legal Marriage and religious marriage are two totally separate things and thats a plain simple fact whether you accept it or not LMAO

Yes, I noticed that you attempted to make that distinction. The problem is, my point still stands. Religious people affect policies which influences civil laws. Otherwise, why can't gays get married?

Centrist77 said:
Sorry you are 100% wrong and no amount of twisting words will change that. Legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things and the law and constitution makes it that way.

The only one twisting words here is you. But it does look like you're getting a good laugh, at least.

Centrist77 said:
Also "power of attorney" is not marriage and another separate issue.

No ****. I didn't say power of attorney was marriage. I said people can get many of the same benefits with a power of attorney.

Centrist77 said:
Funny my parents doesnt mention god or holy, like I said 100% separate unless the people involved dont want it that way but LEGALLY which is what we are talking about they are separate LMAO

Holy Matrimony is used because of the relationship between marriage and religion.

Centrist77 said:
do you not understand adjectives? LMAO

Do you?

Centrist77 said:
LEGAL marriage is totally different thanReligious marriage, this fact hurts your feelings for some reason and I dont know why LMAO

I don't know why you're laughing your ass off, either. Being different has nothing to do with having a relationship.

Centrist77 said:
No its you trying to ignore the adjectives in front of marriage seems you have comprehension issues would you like me to quote myself?

"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate"
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage."
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage"
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage."

seems you have an issue with adjectives, Im guessing its because you falsely believe legal and religious marriage are the same and they are not, oh well :shrug: lol

No issues here, thanks.

Centrist77 said:
Gays can marry just not every where yet and the answer is the same as for why blacks couldnt marry whites in the past. Selfish and or bigoted people.

Well it IS a civil issue and marriage makes it EASIER to get those rights and protections than the MANY other courses you have to take up and those currently arent as concrete. Many legal documents have been defeated by LEGAL family. Marriage makes your spouse LEGAL family and therefor more concrete and protected.

Removing legal marriage at this point is time is a meaningless debate because its never going to happen its unreasonable and irrational to think its an option.

thanks I know

For every benefit of marriage, there are problems. It seems as if something so beneficial, in fact, has generally fallen out of style.

Centrist77 said:
I didnt miss them at all, in fact I hit everyone out the park, you just didn't like it

Yesterday, right now and tomorrow, Legal marriage is totally separate form religious marriage. FACT
They only go together if the people getting married want them to and even then LEGALLY it doesnt matter.

You've missed a critical point. Gays cannot marry because those bigots you mentioned earlier believe that homosexuality is a sin. It offends their religious sensibilities. The Moral Majority is influential. That is the main connection I am trying to get you to comprehend.

Centrist77 said:
:2wave:

you're right except taxes marriage offers no protections:roll: LMAO

Can you please reword that last sentence? I have no clue what you were trying to say here LMAO.

just kidding.

Lakryte · Jun 4, 2011

Badly worded poll. The "wrongness" of something is not the basis for legality. You can believe it is both wrong but still legal. In my opinion, we should completely remove government from all marriage activities and leave it to private contracts. You shouldn't have to get a marriage license from government to be "officially" married.

AGENT J · Jun 4, 2011

evanescence said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What deflection?

You trying ti change what I said or saying things nobody argued is the deflection.
You closed with "Marriage and religion are not completely separate"

Well nobody said they were LOL what was said is that LEGAL marriage and Religious marriage are separate and that fact stands

evanescence said:
You seem to be arguing with every last point I make, which is odd since I have clearly argued in favor of gay marriage, and only offered a hypothetical situation in which marriage was no longer a civil issue. If religion and civil marriage are not connected in some way, I doubt gay marriage would be such a controversial issue. After all, any sensible person has to admit that gay marriage isn't a threat to society. But it does offend them religiously. Those people vote, unfortunately.

Whether you are for it or not doesnt change the inaccuracy of what you said. LOL

And I know people that are against it religiously but would never stop it because they are smart enough to understand how america works and arent pompous enough or bigoted enough to actually believe its any of their business.

It is a shame hypocrites get to vote but again thats meaningless to the topic at hand and Id never take away their right to vote because they are hypocrites.

evanescence said:
Yes, I noticed that you attempted to make that distinction. The problem is, my point still stands. Religious people affect policies which influences civil laws. Otherwise, why can't gays get married?

No your original point does NOT stand by any stretch of the imagination. Your original point is 100% false. You could try to CHANGE it now or give qualifiers or move the goal post or better explain but what you originally said is false. Religious people do affect polices, thats true, but not what you said. So do crazy people, old people, young people, gay people, criminals, racists, etc etc. whats you point?

Also its not me, I am not attempting to make any distinction, the facts make them different period, It has nothing to do with me lol

Heres an example of how your logic is broken, you ask the question if religion isnt tied to legal marriage why cant gays get married. You think this is solid logic and means something, it doesnt.

Well lets apply your "logic" in reverse, if religion is tied to legal marriage how come religious ceremonies alone don't make you legally married?

Ill give you 3 guess but a smart person only needs one

evanescence said:
The only one twisting words here is you. But it does look like you're getting a good laugh, at least.

Nope I'm stating facts you are trying to dance around them, play words games and offer semantics, but I do agree with you it is cracking me up lol

evanescence said:
No ****. I didn't say power of attorney was marriage. I said people can get many of the same benefits with a power of attorney.

whoooooa are you cussing now are you mad? LOL
Nope that is NOT what you said, THIS is EXACTLY what you said "Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney."

This is NOT true, two people can not achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney UNLESS you simply ignore some and leave some out.

are you sure you dont try to change what you say and play semantics. hahaha

evanescence said:
Holy Matrimony is used because of the relationship between marriage and religion.

Thats nice thanks for that info to bad its not used in all LEGAL marriages and certainly isnt required lol

evanescence said:
Do you?

obviously thats why im stating facts and you are confused, im honestly trying to help you

Its hard for me to believe that you dont understand these facts I honestly believe you are just F'in with me LOL

evanescence said:
I don't know why you're laughing your ass off, either. Being different has nothing to do with having a relationship.

Im laughing cause you are funny and this one is funny too LOL "relationship"

is this your NEW buzz word and the semantics you are going to play now. Are you going to say legal and religious marriage have a "relationship" LOL

is that what we are going with, is this the new back pedal? Well guess wat gays have a relationship with marriage and religion then too??

Im REALLY not trying to be a smart ass but posts ago you said semantics were "boring" but yet its almost all you have been offering???

evanescence said:
No issues here, thanks.

Good im glad you agree with the facts now then

evanescence said:
For every benefit of marriage, there are problems. It seems as if something so beneficial, in fact, has generally fallen out of style.

You are welcome to this opinion but it has nothing to do with the topic.

evanescence said:
You've missed a critical point. Gays cannot marry because those bigots you mentioned earlier believe that homosexuality is a sin. It offends their religious sensibilities. The Moral Majority is influential. That is the main connection I am trying to get you to comprehend.

I didnt miss it, I comprehend it just fine, problem is they (religious/legal marriage) are still separate whether those people feel that way or not.

evanescence said:
Can you please reword that last sentence? I have no clue what you were trying to say here LMAO.

just kidding.

Are you gonna be mad if I correct you again? I dont think You want me to reword it, I think you want me to add commas

I have HORRIBLE typing issues cause I'm usually doing many thing while on here and my brain is a way ahead of my fingers. I leave out parenthesis, commas, periods etc all the time. :/

here ill make it proper "You're right, except taxes, marriage offers no protections :roll:"

Also dont feel attacked cause thats not what Im trying to do, I just think you misspoke and instead of saying so, you tried to reworded it, and the jerk that I am I wouldnt let you

Alyssa · Jun 4, 2011

Centrist77 said:
You trying ti change what I said or saying things nobody argued is the deflection.
You closed with "Marriage and religion are not completely separate"
Well nobody said they were LOL what was said is that LEGAL marriage and Religious marriage are separate and that fact stands

And I'm still telling you that they are not completely separate. No one can deny religion's influence over civil policy. I could give examples of other civil laws influenced by religion but that would derail this thread.

Centrist77 said:
Whether you are for it or not doesnt change the inaccuracy of what you said. LOL

And I know people that are against it religiously but would never stop it because they are smart enough to understand how america works and arent pompous enough or bigoted enough to actually believe its any of their business.

Unfortunately, reasonable people don't make up the majority of the population, especially amongst the religious. That being said, there are some religious people who believe in liberty. Good for them.

Centrist77 said:
It is a shame hypocrites get to vote but again thats meaningless to the topic at hand and Id never take away their right to vote because they are hypocrites.

No one's talking about taking away someone's right to vote, but I am expressing my disappointment that so many idiots do vote.

Centrist77 said:
No your original point does NOT stand by any stretch of the imagination. Your original point is 100% false. You could try to CHANGE it now or give qualifiers or move the goal post or better explain but what you originally said is false. Religious people do affect polices, thats true, but not what you said. So do crazy people, old people, young people, gay people, criminals, racists, etc etc. whats you point?

There is no point at this juncture. You clearly have no intention of considering other ideas than your own, especially hypothetical ones.

Centrist77 said:
Also its not me, I am not attempting to make any distinction, the facts make them different period, It has nothing to do with me lol

You are wrong. Influence counts much more than many people are apparently willing to consider. If people do not support a gay person's right to marry, they are likely voting against that. Their religious beliefs then pollute civil laws. It happens. Although there is a distinction between marriage and religion, they are not completely separate.

Centrist77 said:
Heres an example of how your logic is broken, you ask the question if religion isnt tied to legal marriage why cant gays get married. You think this is solid logic and means something, it doesnt.

Well lets apply your "logic" in reverse, if religion is tied to legal marriage how come religious ceremonies alone don't make you legally married?

Ill give you 3 guess but a smart person only needs one

I'm sorry, but I'm in no mood for your games. Since we don't live in a Theocracy, religious figures cannot make civil law. duh.

Centrist77 said:
Nope I'm stating facts you are trying to dance around them, play words games and offer semantics, but I do agree with you it is cracking me up lol

whoooooa are you cussing now are you mad? LOL

Cussing isn't always a sign of anger. But I'm guessing you already know that. Your attempt at flamebait is rather weak here, and I do wish that we could return to the topic.

Centrist77 said:
Nope that is NOT what you said, THIS is EXACTLY what you said "Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney."

There's not much that one cannot do with a power of attorney.

Centrist77 said:
This is NOT true, two people can not achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney UNLESS you simply ignore some and leave some out.

Which ones?

Centrist77 said:
are you sure you dont try to change what you say and play semantics. hahaha
Thats nice thanks for that info to bad its not used in all LEGAL marriages and certainly isnt required lol
obviously thats why im stating facts and you are confused, im honestly trying to help you

I seriously doubt that. You're trying to illicit a negative reaction from me. Sorry, not going to play. Imo, I have demonstrated how civil marriage is not completely separate from religion because of its influences.

Centrist77 said:
Its hard for me to believe that you dont understand these facts I honestly believe you are just F'in with me LOL

I'm only trying to have a discussion here.

Centrist77 said:
is this your NEW buzz word and the semantics you are going to play now. Are you going to say legal and religious marriage have a "relationship" LOL

I've tried several other adjectives. None seem to get my point across.

Centrist77 said:
is that what we are going with, is this the new back pedal? Well guess wat gays have a relationship with marriage and religion then too??

Im REALLY not trying to be a smart ass but posts ago you said semantics were "boring" but yet its almost all you have been offering???

Bull patties. Of course you're trying to be a smart ass, although you're doing it rather poorly.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Gays influence marriage-which is why gay marriage has come up on the ballot at all. The religious also influence marriage which is why gays can't marry. Right now, religion has more of an influence over civil law than reasonable discourse. This is why, out of frustration, I have tried to come up with scenarios where the government simply has no control of personal relationships.

Centrist77 said:
Good im glad you agree with the facts now then

You are welcome to this opinion but it has nothing to do with the topic.

I didnt miss it, I comprehend it just fine, problem is they (religious/legal marriage) are still separate whether those people feel that way or not.

Then you dismiss the importance of influence. Fine.

Centrist77 said:
Are you gonna be mad if I correct you again?

More flamebait. What's the point?

Centrist77 said:
I dont think You want me to reword it, I think you want me to add commas

I have HORRIBLE typing issues cause I'm usually doing many thing while on here and my brain is a way ahead of my fingers. I leave out parenthesis, commas, periods etc all the time. :/

here ill make it proper "You're right, except taxes, marriage offers no protections "

o.k.

Dishonest interpretation of what I said. Completely.

Centrist77 said:
Also dont feel attacked cause thats not what Im trying to do, I just think you misspoke and instead of saying so, you tried to reworded it, and the jerk that I am I wouldnt let you

Sure.

AGENT J · Jun 4, 2011

evanescence said:
And I'm still telling you that they are not completely separate. No one can deny religion's influence over civil policy. I could give examples of other civil laws influenced by religion but that would derail this thread.

Unfortunately, reasonable people don't make up the majority of the population, especially amongst the religious. That being said, there are some religious people who believe in liberty. Good for them.

No one's talking about taking away someone's right to vote, but I am expressing my disappointment that so many idiots do vote.

There is no point at this juncture. You clearly have no intention of considering other ideas than your own, especially hypothetical ones.

You are wrong. Influence counts much more than many people are apparently willing to consider. If people do not support a gay person's right to marry, they are likely voting against that. Their religious beliefs then pollute civil laws. It happens. Although there is a distinction between marriage and religion, they are not completely separate.

I'm sorry, but I'm in no mood for your games. Since we don't live in a Theocracy, religious figures cannot make civil law. duh.

Cussing isn't always a sign of anger. But I'm guessing you already know that. Your attempt at flamebait is rather weak here, and I do wish that we could return to the topic.

There's not much that one cannot do with a power of attorney.

Which ones?

I seriously doubt that. You're trying to illicit a negative reaction from me. Sorry, not going to play. Imo, I have demonstrated how civil marriage is not completely separate from religion because of its influences.

I'm only trying to have a discussion here.

I've tried several other adjectives. None seem to get my point across.

Bull patties. Of course you're trying to be a smart ass, although you're doing it rather poorly.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Gays influence marriage-which is why gay marriage has come up on the ballot at all. The religious also influence marriage which is why gays can't marry. Right now, religion has more of an influence over civil law than reasonable discourse. This is why, out of frustration, I have tried to come up with scenarios where the government simply has no control of personal relationships.

Then you dismiss the importance of influence. Fine.

More flamebait. What's the point?

o.k.

Dishonest interpretation of what I said. Completely.

Sure.

Wow dude just give up, you were wrong, get over if. No amount of back pedaling or moving the goal post is going to change that. Since you just wish to play games Ill just state the facts again.

Heres the FACTS, not my opinion, that you can not change:
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate" Fact
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage." Fact
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage" Fact
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage." Fact

you were also wrong when you said

"Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney."

this is wrong as power of attorney does not give you all the rights currently under marriage with out tax status

Now that those FACTS are out of the way, if you want to move the goal post, reword things, talk in hypotheticals etc etc thats fine, feel free to do that now but the above facts wont change and Ill gladly talk "hypotheticals" once you acknowledge the facts.

BDBoop · Jun 5, 2011

Lakryte said:
Badly worded poll. The "wrongness" of something is not the basis for legality. You can believe it is both wrong but still legal. In my opinion, we should completely remove government from all marriage activities and leave it to private contracts. You shouldn't have to get a marriage license from government to be "officially" married.

The poll was worded just fine. I am talking to people who believe SSM is wrong.

Alyssa · Jun 5, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Wow dude just give up, you were wrong, get over if. No amount of back pedaling or moving the goal post is going to change that. Since you just wish to play games Ill just state the facts again.

Thanks for posting that. It makes your intentions obvious, and I no longer need to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you.

Centrist77 said:
Heres the FACTS, not my opinion, that you can not change:
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate" Fact
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage." Fact
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage" Fact
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage." Fact

Simply repeating incorrect statements while ignoring earlier points doesn't make anything fact.

Centrist77 said:
you were also wrong when you said

"Two people can achieve the legal rights currently allowed under marriage (without special tax status) by signing a power of attorney."

this is wrong as power of attorney does not give you all the rights currently under marriage with out tax status

How so? That's right, you really don't know.

Centrist77 said:
Now that those FACTS are out of the way, if you want to move the goal post, reword things, talk in hypotheticals etc etc thats fine, feel free to do that now but the above facts wont change and Ill gladly talk "hypotheticals" once you acknowledge the facts.

I wont bother to discuss new ideas or hypothetical situations with people who can't comprehend them.

Have a good day.

AGENT J · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
Thanks for posting that. It makes your intentions obvious, and I no longer need to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you.

Simply repeating incorrect statements while ignoring earlier points doesn't make anything fact.

How so? That's right, you really don't know.

I wont bother to discuss new ideas or hypothetical situations with people who can't comprehend them.
Have a good day.

Thanks for conceding since I stated legal facts and you had nothing but "hypotheticals" LMAO

Your "points" dont change the facts and thats the reality, sorry you cant understand that.

I DARE you to disprove the above legal facts, until you can prove them wrong you have NOTHING:lamo I have asked over and over again and all you offered were semantics and hypotheticals. Well sorry I need FACTS that the legal facts stated were wrong and you couldnt do it.

Not my fault you said things untrue and THEN said "oh wait I dont REALLY mean them I mean in theory or hypothetically" :2rofll:

Oh and just to put MORE egg on your face with your other WRONG statement, you said I don't know any way power of attorney can't give you the rights and protection of a marriage. LOL Well even though some were already stated in this thread earlier and you DODGED them like every other fact, Ill state one for you.

Can power of attorney stop spouses from testifying against one another? NOPE!
:laughat:

Like I said the facts don't change whether you agree or not, they are funny like that. So you believe what you want because in REALITY and not fantasy hypothetical world, the facts dont care. :2wave:

You also have a good day, I know I will

Alyssa · Jun 5, 2011

Anyhow, I think the over abundance of emoticons and ego are using up too much bandwidth here. Besides, no sources have been presented which disproves a single point that I made, nor were specific points properly addressed. ah well..it's a sunny day where I'm at so I guess I'm off to enjoy it. btw, laws concerning whether spouses are required to testify against each other also vary by state.

AGENT J · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
Anyhow, I think the over abundance of emoticons and ego are using up too much bandwidth here. Besides, no sources have been presented which disproves a single point that I made, nor were specific points properly addressed. ah well..it's a sunny day where I'm at so I guess I'm off to enjoy it. btw, laws concerning whether spouses are required to testify against each other also vary by state.

LMAO
More deflection, now you are seriously desperate and the facts still remain, thanks

"btw, laws concerning whether spouses are required to testify against each other also vary by state."

And? whats that mean? NOTHING lol Its still a benefit power of attorney cant provide.

Let me know when you can disprove the legal facts I listed.

Alyssa · Jun 5, 2011

I noticed no facts. Please stop trying to derail this thread. Thanks in advance.

AGENT J · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
I noticed no facts. Please stop trying to derail this thread. Thanks in advance.

Im already aware that YOU noticed no facts as you keep proving this, but the facts dont need you to notice them neither does the law LMAO

No derailment here at all, nothing has changed from the original rail I have been on. Im still asking you to disprove the listed legal facts and you keep dodging or offering hypotheticals.

Again let me know when you can cause Ill gladly discuss them and prove them wrong even though none exist, I don't even understand why you would try to argue against these facts.

Its like arguing that 2+2=4 isnt actually true if you think about it hypothetically.

All Im asking is for you to back up your statements with facts, not semantics or hypotheticalls, thats not a derail, its called HONEST debate

Removable Mind · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
I noticed no facts. Please stop trying to derail this thread. Thanks in advance.

Nor will there be any facts. Thanks for drawing this back to the actual point of this thread. Those who want to play with the word "wrong" to manipulate this thread...are those very folks who won't offering any type of sources to support their arguments other than biblical references. Empirical arguments are minimal because "as you've so kindly pointed out"...there's really not many.

Thanks evanescence...

AGENT J · Jun 5, 2011

Legal Facts 101
in reality
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate"
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage."
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage"
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage."

roguenuke · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
Besides, no sources have been presented which disproves a single point that I made, nor were specific points properly addressed. ah well..it's a sunny day where I'm at so I guess I'm off to enjoy it. btw, laws concerning whether spouses are required to testify against each other also vary by state.

Here are some sources to back the point that there is no way that the military is going to accept various legal POAs and/or other legal contracts to determine who is legally married and who is just trying to get certain bennies that come from being a spouse, including the base access.

Military Marriage Benefits - Ask.com

For all those who are unfamiliar with the military, a person's spouse affects the person's security clearance and has to be checked out by the US government for security purposes. A person's spouse gets unescorted access to bases. This is an accepted security risk because there are things on base that the spouse needs access to, including the commissary, exchange, medical, dental, gym, childcare, command legal, command personnel dept. to take care of paperwork, college office, and even at times, their spouse's ship or building. This means that the military needs to ensure that a person's spouse is not going to be a security risk. That is why a person who claims they are married in the military must provide the marriage license to prove that so that their spouse can be checked out. In fact, many commands request that anyone planning on getting married, actually request to get married as a formality so that the command can get a security check going on the spouse-to-be early.

How do you suggest the military determine which relationships are worthy allowing certain privileges and which aren't? And who will pay for the extra security checks involved if we just say that anyone that a servicemember indicates should have access would get those privileges even if neither of them are willing to take on the extra responsibilities of actually being in a relationship that is close to legal marriage? How do we determine if a relationship is worth allowing a servicemember to get the privilege of living off base or not? And, no, we cannot afford to have all servicemembers living off base. Married servicemembers get the privilege because the military understands that these servicemembers have taken on the responsibility of at the very least, another person, their spouse. And the military holds people to that agreement.

Marriage also comes with some risks being taken, that wouldn't normally be taken in every relationship, on the part of the individuals involved that set up the relationship in a manner where they are agreeing that all money and assets gained during the relationship are considered joint assets. This is so that a person doesn't get screwed over by being a stay at home spouse while the other earns money and the one earning the money decides to leave and claim the money as all theirs because they earned it eventhough the other spouse was taking care of the domestic responsibilities for both of them and possibly their children.

And spousal privilege is available in all states in one form or another. There are some exceptions to what can be forced, generally dealing with spousal abuse, but it still exists in every state and is only given with legal marriage (as recognized by the state) and some states with same sex partnerships where legal marriage is not allowed for them but such legal partnerships are. All spousal privilege laws are based on the state recognizing that certain relationships deserve protection because of the nature of the relationship and the trust level that each person is willing to legally state they have in the other person.

https://www.judicialview.com/Law-Articles/Employment/Time-for-a-New-Privilege/Allowing-Unmarried-Cohabitating-Couples-to-Claim-the-Spousal-Testimony-Privilege/22/6020
Note: I don't agree with the proposal of this article but it does provide some info on spousal privileges.

The best and simplest way to ensure that we have of ensuring that people have their rights afforded them in relation to the amount of legal responsibility that they are willing to take on when it comes to another adult is a single legal document that sets up that relationship in that manner, i.e. the marriage license. For those who are unwilling to take on such responsibilities, they need to understand that the reason for certain privileges afforded to those in a legal marriage is because of the level of responsibility within that relationship.

Alyssa · Jun 5, 2011

roguenuke said:
Here are some sources to back the point that there is no way that the military is going to accept various legal POAs and/or other legal contracts to determine who is legally married and who is just trying to get certain bennies that come from being a spouse, including the base access.

Military Marriage Benefits - Ask.com

For all those who are unfamiliar with the military, a person's spouse affects the person's security clearance and has to be checked out by the US government for security purposes. A person's spouse gets unescorted access to bases. This is an accepted security risk because there are things on base that the spouse needs access to, including the commissary, exchange, medical, dental, gym, childcare, command legal, command personnel dept. to take care of paperwork, college office, and even at times, their spouse's ship or building. This means that the military needs to ensure that a person's spouse is not going to be a security risk. That is why a person who claims they are married in the military must provide the marriage license to prove that so that their spouse can be checked out. In fact, many commands request that anyone planning on getting married, actually request to get married as a formality so that the command can get a security check going on the spouse-to-be early.

How do you suggest the military determine which relationships are worthy allowing certain privileges and which aren't? And who will pay for the extra security checks involved if we just say that anyone that a servicemember indicates should have access would get those privileges even if neither of them are willing to take on the extra responsibilities of actually being in a relationship that is close to legal marriage? How do we determine if a relationship is worth allowing a servicemember to get the privilege of living off base or not? And, no, we cannot afford to have all servicemembers living off base. Married servicemembers get the privilege because the military understands that these servicemembers have taken on the responsibility of at the very least, another person, their spouse. And the military holds people to that agreement.

Marriage also comes with some risks being taken, that wouldn't normally be taken in every relationship, on the part of the individuals involved that set up the relationship in a manner where they are agreeing that all money and assets gained during the relationship are considered joint assets. This is so that a person doesn't get screwed over by being a stay at home spouse while the other earns money and the one earning the money decides to leave and claim the money as all theirs because they earned it eventhough the other spouse was taking care of the domestic responsibilities for both of them and possibly their children.

And spousal privilege is available in all states in one form or another. There are some exceptions to what can be forced, generally dealing with spousal abuse, but it still exists in every state and is only given with legal marriage (as recognized by the state) and some states with same sex partnerships where legal marriage is not allowed for them but such legal partnerships are. All spousal privilege laws are based on the state recognizing that certain relationships deserve protection because of the nature of the relationship and the trust level that each person is willing to legally state they have in the other person.

https://www.judicialview.com/Law-Articles/Employment/Time-for-a-New-Privilege/Allowing-Unmarried-Cohabitating-Couples-to-Claim-the-Spousal-Testimony-Privilege/22/6020
Note: I don't agree with the proposal of this article but it does provide some info on spousal privileges.

The best and simplest way to ensure that we have of ensuring that people have their rights afforded them in relation to the amount of legal responsibility that they are willing to take on when it comes to another adult is a single legal document that sets up that relationship in that manner, i.e. the marriage license. For those who are unwilling to take on such responsibilities, they need to understand that the reason for certain privileges afforded to those in a legal marriage is because of the level of responsibility within that relationship.

Thank you for that, roguenuke. Your last point was very convincing.

The divorce rate has steadily increased since decades past, and such a serious contract between two people can be swiftly dissolved. People seem to change partners like they change their underwear, and the ideals of marriage has become a lie. To further complicate things, many of the same people who have either served divorce papers to their spouses, or support people's right to a divorce want to prevent gays from marrying. I find the entire institution to be a sham. It would be nice is the government weren't involved, though.

BDBoop · Jun 5, 2011

evanescence said:
It would be nice is the government weren't involved, though.

I kinda think the judicial branch will have to do something to "make it so" ... but it will more likely be legislative.

DemonMyst · Jun 5, 2011

Centrist77 said:
Legal Facts 101
in reality
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate"
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage."
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage"
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage."

That is not entirely accurate.. The marraige you get from a JOP is the same as you get in a church.. All the same paperwork is filled out.. Instead of being signed by a judge it is signed by a priest or minister.. But the end result is you are married.. And you will have to go through the same process to get unmarried reguardless of how you got married..

roguenuke · Jun 5, 2011

DemonMyst said:
That is not entirely accurate.. The marraige you get from a JOP is the same as you get in a church.. All the same paperwork is filled out.. Instead of being signed by a judge it is signed by a priest or minister.. But the end result is you are married.. And you will have to go through the same process to get unmarried reguardless of how you got married..

Yes, but the reason that the legal marriage is the same is because the state decided that it is much easier to allow clergy and other people who will perform the ceremony to sign the marriage license, rather than forcing all those couples who choose to have their ceremony done by someone other than the JotP to have to say their "I do"'s twice. It isn't because the ceremonies are the same or that a person has to have a religion to even get married or that religion is involved in anyone's marriage.

SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

It isn't, and should be available to all gay couples

Being gay is wrong, so they can't get married

The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. *cough* ... see?

It will set a bad example for Christian youth

I don't honestly have a good reason, but I still say no

Other (please explain)

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Irremovable Intelligence

"If you ain't first, you're last"

¡Selah!

Well-known member

The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. cough ... see?