Gay Marriage is BAD for Gays
-
Duh… Yea. Quit trying to turn freedom into slavery, by asking for permission to do things that you already have the lawful right to do by using the easy way out because it sounds legally easier and you just don't understand words or definitions or how to open a dictionary. You are destroying our freedoms, and ending our nation. I will not put up with people like you putting our freedoms and our birthright on the line and ending our Constitution because you "just don't get it."
-
So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.
Actually, if you research it, marriage was a state thing before a religious thing.
While you can do legal documents that give another person SOME legal aspects over your life, like in marriage, you still do not get any of the right granted solely by the stats such as Marital Confidentiality.
Also, you need several documents for the various aspects, OR you only need the marriage certificate.
-
In Australia - A standard contract between two people, will never replace or can be seen as a marriage contract and no standard contract can ever give benefits as a marriage contract could, even with tons of legal advice, money and loop-holing. Some aspects can be delivered e.g POAs or a Will etc.
In fact, in Australia it is actually a law that all celebrants must state that, as part of a legal obligation, that "marriage is between a man and a woman", as part of any wedding ceremony. This was brought in in 2004 as some states were contemplating going rogue and were going for the legalising of gay marriage & our prime minister at the time was opposed.
Some people have been known to add to their vows that they do not agree etc - most people/guests just see it as a legal thing and do not assume the couple agrees
-
So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.
Actually, if you research it, marriage was a state thing before a religious thing.
While you can do legal documents that give another person SOME legal aspects over your life, like in marriage, you still do not get any of the right granted solely by the stats such as Marital Confidentiality.
Also, you need several documents for the various aspects, OR you only need the marriage certificate.
This statement is false. There are legal documents that give you ALL the legal aspects over your life if you so desire. You can actually create any legal document imaginable, it's called a contract. Some are public and some are private.
-
Contracts can and are deemed unlawful by courts all the time.
You can not have a contract to be killed and eaten, as an example.
Like your complaint about a marriage certificate, you can only make a contract that allows you to do what is legal.
-
Contracts can and are deemed unlawful by courts all the time.
You can not have a contract to be killed and eaten, as an example.
Like your complaint about a marriage certificate, you can only make a contract that allows you to do what is legal.
Dude, you're making my point. You cannot have a license to rape murder or steal, but you can have one to marry because IT WAS ALREADY LAWFUL TO DO. Difference between legal and lawful is VERY different, but since YOU decided to put me on WARNING without any actual notification or attempt to understand the deeper nature of what I was saying, whatever brah! I have defended you a few times when you were being attacked and you never appreciated it and I'm just not interested in the politics here anymore because its over run by hypocritical libtards who don't get anything. Consider my comments DONE. This is the last comment I'm gonna make. Wish you all the best! And thank goodness Trump fired Comey. BYE!
-
You called someone a "dumb bitch". That is why you got warned.
-
I agree in parts, but when you don't demand a "simple" thing you leave the door open to getting beat up at the street, we already are, so what I'm saying is how it's gonna be managed after that in a larger scope of the society. And you brought up the rape speech, but that's wrong, these matters do not come up together, it's not a combo. You need to see things clearly and not how it works only for you.
Though demanding to get marriage in a church and a cis-man in a white gown and veil is wrong because a church is not supposed to be based on these values (I'm okay with that, but are those cavemen prepared to be okay?), the bible and the other books were written centuries ago, for a population of centuries ago. It takes times to win their hearts, however, we are not begging for them to do that, they somehow have to be okay whether they like it or not because we exist and we are dying just because who we are.
-
There have been so many well composed replies and explanations why people disagree with your point of view, mhorndisk. It doesn't do anyone any good if you refuse to accept that others view things differently and just move on.
Yes, you can enter into a contract with your partner to achieve some of the benefits and privileges that marriage gives you. And yes, you can look at fighting for the right to marry as "begging" for permission to do something you can already lawfully do. But that doesn't change how others feel- marriage as a contract is easier, more thorough, and is a ceremony that means something to them.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they will feel the same, even after they listen to you, and understand your reasons. Don't take it personally. Just move on and let people live the way they choose to, and you do the same.
And for God's sake- learn to reign in your temper or at least stop going off into calling people names. It's what got you warned. Not your opinion- your conduct. Peace!
-
And for God's sake- learn to reign in your temper or at least stop going off into calling people names. It's what got you warned. Not your opinion- your conduct. Peace!
Correct.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login