This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The law says gays can't get married... legalizing it would UNDO that law, thus REDUCING their authority.
No... repealing it would be undoing that law. Making ANOTHER law would be increasing the governmental authority. Sure, authority in line with how you see it, but still authority.
I would vote to repeal the anti gay laws. I would not vote for laws to support gay marriage.
Don't you see the difference?
Edit: to everyone that wants us out of the recycleing bin... too bad. I don't try to kick you guys out when you do interenet memes in repetition for dozens of pages...
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
EluraE
The thread is awesome.
The conversation, on the other hand...
Lets ignore them and talk about something else. :)
Post by
MyTie
This is what happens every time. I make great points. I make an undeniable case for my arguement. Then, Laihendi exits stage left, and in about 2 days he will quote single phrases out of my arguement in other threads to take me out of context and make me into the bad guy.
This is why I hate debating with him.
Post by
TheMediator
I make an undeniable case for my arguement.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. If it was undeniable, then there would be no debate.
Post by
Sagramor
The thread is awesome.
The conversation, on the other hand...
Lets ignore them and talk about something else. :)
Like what you pretend to do with you army of non impressive boys?
Post by
Laihendi
The law says gays can't get married... legalizing it would UNDO that law, thus REDUCING their authority.
No... repealing it would be undoing that law. Making ANOTHER law would be increasing the governmental authority. Sure, authority in line with how you see it, but still authority.
They would be granting a freedom to a group of people, such a law would give protection against any legal action to take away their rights.
And if marriage is not a legal institution, and there are none of the legal bindings and privileges of marriage such as custody agreements (gay couples can adopt) and other things, then there is really no point in marriage.
This is what happens every time. I make great points. I make an undeniable case for my arguement. Then, Laihendi exits stage left, and in about 2 days he will quote single phrases out of my arguement in other threads to take me out of context and make me into the bad guy.
Seriously? You can't wait EIGHT MINUTES for a reply? Maybe Laihendi has some other stuff to do than argue with people over the internet right now... and he's trying to multitask.
Post by
MyTie
The law says gays can't get married... legalizing it would UNDO that law, thus REDUCING their authority.
No... repealing it would be undoing that law. Making ANOTHER law would be increasing the governmental authority. Sure, authority in line with how you see it, but still authority.
They would be granting a freedom to a group of people, such a law would give protection against any legal action to take away their rights.
And if marriage is not a legal institution, and there are none of the legal bindings and privileges of marriage such as custody agreements (gay couples can adopt) and other things, then there is really no point in marriage.
The people have that freedom. It doesn't take government to grant it to them. The right is inaliable by the constitution. Further laws are unconstitutional. And,means just as much, and more, than the legal bindings attatched to it. If it only means the judical implications attatched to it, then you shouldn't get married.
Post by
TheMediator
Seriously? You can't wait EIGHT MINUTES for a reply? Maybe Laihendi has some other stuff to do than argue with people over the internet right now... and he's trying to multitask.
Lies, we all know that you're a half troll half robot cyborg that roams around battling the denizens of the Randomness.
Post by
EluraE
Like what you pretend to do with you army of non impressive boys?
Dude, we're taking over the world. You're gonna wish you were non impressive.
Post by
Sagramor
But...an army that takes over the world is impressive, therefore your army cannot.
Hah!
Post by
TheMediator
And,means just as much, and more, than the legal bindings attatched to it. If it only means the judical implications attatched to it, then you shouldn't get married.
Homosexuals have had gay relations for quite some time, and will continue to despite the inability to be recognized by the law as a couple. They're just saying that there's no reason why the law shouldn't be able to recognize a same sex couple, other than a dusty old tome (no offense, but it is pretty old and dusty).
Post by
EluraE
But...an army that takes over the world is impressive, therefore your army cannot.
Hah!
No, I'm impressive, I'm the one taking over the world. They're just there because they're pretty and I want an army.
Post by
Dorean
But...an army that takes over the world is impressive, therefore your army cannot.
Hah!
Paradox ftw
Post by
Sagramor
But...an army that takes over the world is impressive, therefore your army cannot.
Hah!
No, I'm impressive, I'm the one taking over the world. They're just there because they're pretty and I want an army.
If you're taking over the world, what are you gonna do with your army?
Are you impressive enough to conquer the world?
Do I not think so?
Find out in the next episode!
Post by
EluraE
You'll see.
Yes.
You love me.
OH, can't wait.
Post by
266586
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
The people have that freedom. It doesn't take government to grant it to them. The right is inaliable by the constitution. Further laws are unconstitutional. And,means just as much, and more, than the legal bindings attatched to it. If it only means the judical implications attatched to it, then you shouldn't get married.
You don't have to get married to show you love someone, and (although admittedly he is no constitutional expert) Laihendi has never heard of it saying in the constitution that gay marriage is in inalienable right.
Love is not a benefit of marriage... love doesn't require marriage. Here's a list of things that require marriage.
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity.
Many people will probably think... "well if gays just wanna get married for that maybe they don't deserve marriage." To those of you, Laihendi says "maybe you take these things for granted".
And gay couples can raise children if they adopt.
Post by
MyTie
And,means just as much, and more, than the legal bindings attatched to it. If it only means the judical implications attatched to it, then you shouldn't get married.
Homosexuals have had gay relations for quite some time, and will continue to despite the inability to be recognized by the law as a couple. They're just saying that there's no reason why the law shouldn't be able to recognize a same sex couple, other than a dusty old tome (no offense, but it is pretty old and dusty).
What I am saying is that the law shouldn't recognise my marriage to my wife. Man - Woman relationship. It shouldn't recognise that star trek guy's marriage. Man - Man relationship. I'm saying that marriage has nothing to do with court. It has nothing to do with law or any of that. If you want the state to recognise you as joined to someone in law, then file for a limited partnership, or a civil union, since they are legally the same thing. I'm saying that government uses marriage to regulate us. I disagree with that.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
