HtownWxBoy Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I haven't been following the topic almost at all because it isn't of great interest to me, but just to insert a couple of cents:I do not support marriage or civil unions. I do not support differing tax treatments for married or single people. Government ought not be in any way shape or form involved in the relationships of its citizens. It is not their business.By default, this means that I do not support gay marriage, but I do support equal rights for gays.Well, right now gay people do not have equal rights. What do you feel more strongly about... not supporting gay marriage or supporting equal rights? What I mean is, if you were able to vote YES or NO on allowing gays to get married which in turn would get them the same rights that straight people get, would you vote YES b/c you knew it would get them equal rights, or would you vote against equal rights b/c you don't support gay marriage. I am really just curious. I am gay. I don't really care about "marriage", I would just like to have equal rights. If i find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with I am going to do that marriage or not... an actual ceremony won't change anything. The big problem with "marriage" is that it involves church and state together which should NEVER happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 The big problem with "marriage" is that it involves church and state together which should NEVER happen.Marriage only involves religion if you want it to. Atheists are allowed to marry, as long as their dangly bits differ significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Like Redscare said, you have to have all 3 elements and since they were not in agreement to be married, an informal marriage never existed. BUT in your scenario it appears you would have conflicting sides since the female is trying to get half the property and she would argue they were in agreement. It is all a question of fact for the jury. An agreement can be inferred by circumstantial evidence so it is not hard to prove. She would need to file for divorce to get half the community property within the 2 years after they are no longer cohabitating and intend to be seperated. If outside of the two years, it is presumed that an informal marriage never existed. But this presumption can be rebutted.Damn, are you a lawyer? That was spot on. I was involved in a case a couple of years ago where there was no written evidence of a marriage at all...just the woman saying they agreed to be married, and the guy saying they didn't. I believe there were some other witnesses supporting each side, but it was all verbal evidence, no tax returns, leases or health insurance. The jury found an informal marriage existed.So, to answer reef's question, yes, that lease could be enough to find an inferred agreement to be married. The lesson to be learned is, make it clear to everyone that you are only shacking up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Somewhere, out there, there is sweet little honey (female) who could change your mind. Patience young man.Oh, there's no doubt that such a creature exists, except that I'm not a fan of cult ritual, and nor is she.Well, right now gay people do not have equal rights. What do you feel more strongly about... not supporting gay marriage or supporting equal rights? What I mean is, if you were able to vote YES or NO on allowing gays to get married which in turn would get them the same rights that straight people get, would you vote YES b/c you knew it would get them equal rights, or would you vote against equal rights b/c you don't support gay marriage. I am really just curious. I am gay. I don't really care about "marriage", I would just like to have equal rights. If i find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with I am going to do that marriage or not... an actual ceremony won't change anything. The big problem with "marriage" is that it involves church and state together which should NEVER happen.I think we're in agreement, except that I ought to qualify that I'm against civil unions as well.Provided a simple yes or no vote, I'd either vote yes or abstain. I'm conflicted on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Marriage only involves religion if you want it to. Atheists are allowed to marry, as long as their dangly bits differ significantly.Either way, straight people are allowed to join into a union and receive additional rights and privileges through the government. Gay people are denied those rights b/c they were born gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayshoota Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Damn, are you a lawyer?Will be this time next year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I think we're in agreement, except that I ought to qualify that I'm against civil unions as well.Provided a simple yes or no vote, I'd either vote yes or abstain. I'm conflicted on that.So you would vote YES to gay marriage even if you don't agree with it b/c you would like gays to get equal rights? That's what I was wondering. Take me for instance... I don't like the idea of abortions... I would never recommend someone get one (unless their life was in danger or maybe in a severe case where incest is involved or rape)... I think a child would be much better off being adopted by someone who wants a child... I believe the child should be given some chance at life.... BUT... I am pro choice... not b/c I am OK w/ abortions, I am not, but because above all I believe that a person's body is their body and they should be able to do whatever they want to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 So you would vote YES to gay marriage even if you don't agree with it b/c you would like gays to get equal rights? That's what I was wondering.I might abstain from voting on that one. I definitely wouldn't vote no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 For the people that still don't understand how a lack of gay marriage rights in 48 states affects LGBT people, tune in tmrw. to watch Freeheld on Cinemax tmrw night.www.freeheld.com/trailer.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Ah, the human element. How touching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Ah, the human element. How touching.Did you even watch the trailer? If you and your wife were in the same position as these women - you wouldn't be so flippant about this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders. Without Breeders there would be no gay people.Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.Not necessarily. The trend over the past two or three decades (holding real household income steady) has been toward fewer children per couple and more instances of couples delaying parenthood into their 30's...business has been good for fertility specialists as I understand it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders. Without Breeders there would be no gay people.Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.Two points:1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens.2. Now let's talk about your not wanting to "water-down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind." So if you are to be consistent, you must feel that every couple who has fertility problems and cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry, or should be required to have their marriage annulled, because obviously they are watering down what marriage means since they aren't making babies for man-kind. Every couple who chooses not to have children should likewise not be allowed to marry. Let's forget for a minute that, at nearly 7 billion people, the world is already overpopulated, and does not really need more babies made to produce more waste and consume more resources. Basically you are saying that any heterosexual couple who cannot have children or chooses not to have children is watering down what marriage means, and should not be allowed to call what they have a marriage.Your argument rests on a foundation of quicksand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The fact that there are 7b people, infertile coules, and DINKS has nothing to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married. Even though the traditional family unit has taken a beating in the last few decades, I still belive its model is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Let's forget for a minute that, at nearly 7 billion people, the world is already overpopulated, and does not really need more babies made to produce more waste and consume more resources.I'd take issue with that. The United States and Western Europe need a lot more babies (or immigrants), actually, in order to sustain population levels, maintain a level of economic growth by way of which to maintain geopolitical balance relative to places like China, and also to have highly productive younger people paying for older people's healthcare...I'd rather just let the older folks fend for themselves, but that's a political impossibility because they actually vote.As a political concern, we do need a mechanism for breeding. I'm not sure that marriage necessarily has anything at all to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 ...and Western Europe need a lot more babies (or immigrants), actually, in order to sustain population levels, maintain a level of economic growth by way of which to maintain geopolitical balance relative to places like China, and also to have highly productive younger people paying for older people's healthcare...Not to derail this topic, but maybe we could send them our illegal immigrants.And not to inject any more fuel to this fire, but there are millions of children in foster care now. We don't need more children, we need to take care of the ones we have already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The fact that there are 7b people, infertile coules, and DINKS has nothing to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married.Okay, fine, ignore the population argument - I said to forget it for a moment anyway.However, you opened the can of worms about infertile couples and couples who choose not to have kids when you said "let's not water down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind". Your logic is:A. The meaning of marriage is to make babies; andB. Gay couples cannot make babies; thereforeC. Gay couples should not be married.That means you must also accept:A. The meaning of marriage is to make babies; andB. Infertile heterosexual couples cannot make babies; thereforeC. Infertile heterosexual couples should not be married.You made infertile couples and DINKS have everything to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married when you said "let's not water down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind." Saying now that they have nothing to do with each other requires vacating that statement.And you did not respond to this:1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 B. Gay couples cannot make babies; thereforeIt turns out that making babies is much easier than raising them. Some gay couples are willing to raise them, even if they can't contribute all of the genetic material needed to create them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 And you did not respond to this:1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens.The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.But I am not the one you have to worry about. Worry about your elected officals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 So I can take your nonresponse to the issue of childless couples as you conceding that your argument about gay marriage watering down the purpose of marriage (making babies) was preposterous?The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.But I am not the one you have to worry about. Worry about your elected officals.I happen to be a married breeder myself, of a 1 yo daughter.The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.Are you seriously going to advance this as an argument? You sound like a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids "I was here first - go find your own."There is no trademark on the term "marriage"As I said, if it walks like a duck, it's a duck. With civil unions, they have the rights, they have the emotional committment to each other, they have united their daily lives together. Gay couples, even in jurisdictions that don't recognize gay marriage, are having ceremonies and calling themselves married, just as the first Christians to have christian marriage ceremonies in ancient Rome called themselves married even though SPQR didn't recognize their marriages. They are marriages, no matter what you call them. You can stick your fingers in your ears, say "nahnahnahnahI-can't-hear-you" as loud as you want, but that won't change the fact that these people are married. You do nothing more than expose your bigotry. One day, history will look back on people like you the same way it now looks upon people who insisted "separate but equal" was fair enough for black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 You sound like a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids "I was here first - go find your own."Let's be careful here, kids. Keep it on-topic and non-personal. I'm keeping an eye on this thread and will close it if it goes astray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yawn, Reefer. In my eyes marriage is between a man and a woman. Pope Benedict XVI agrees, having described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony."There really is nothing to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yawn, Reefer. In my eyes marriage is between a man and a woman. Pope Benedict XVI agrees, having described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony." There really is nothing to debate. Midtown and the Pope decree the definition of marriage. Well guess that settles it. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Midtown and the Pope decree the definition of marriage. Well guess that settles it. Case closed. I couldn't have said it any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Pope and Midtown's decree is no different that those who want to rewrite the definition in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Pope and Midtown's decree is no different that those who want to rewrite the definition in the first place.So Benedict XVI says that gay marriage isn't real marriage, so it must be true.Benedict XVI also said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Benedict XVI also said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefmonkey Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Notice the captial "C" in "Churches."It has meaning.It's patronizing and demeaning any way you try to spin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 It's patronizing and demeaning any way you try to spin it.Truth is truth. It's not B16's fault that you can't see it. "Patronizing" and "demeaning" are spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.