Oh jesus fuck I'm done.Marriage is not currently a contract
Oh jesus fuck I'm done.Marriage is not currently a contract
Seems like a slippery slope type of thought. Some laws/rights should never change and some laws/rights should absolutely change. If laws never changed because we wanted concrete standards of life, then we might all still be able to own slaves and segregate entire races in the USA.
[QUOTE=DEATHETERNAL;24411787
Marriage is not currently a contract. [/QUOTE]
So why do they call it a marriage contract? And why is it illegal in many states to violate said contract with an affair?
READ and be less Ignorant.
For something to be a contract, does it and should it have to be willingly entered into by all who are part of it? Answer that question then my reason can be made apparent.
I challenge you to find where I ever stated such was true. Until such time as you complete such an impossible tank, I suggest you make arguments instead of false insinuations.
Last edited by DEATHETERNAL; 2013-12-23 at 10:02 PM.
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
Revelation 6:8
State law should never contradict federal law... The federal government is responsible for the countries safety and well being, and the federal law should therefore always trump state law.
It is a huge problem in the USA, and one of the main reasons why the country doesn't function properly.
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."
How is religious "authority" usurping civil rights? Look, I am for gay marriage. But I find that people often speak past each other when it comes to this issue. Those gay-marriage opponents who are not completly crazy religious nutjobs are usually not opposed to gay people have the same rights, having the same ability to be lawfully bound to another person and have the same benefits and recognition before the law. What they usually are against is that they should be able to me "married", which is a purely Religous and Symbolic thing, with no effect before the law. All the legal stuff between 2 individuals should be open to everyone, no matter the sex of these two individuals. But marriage is a religous thing part of individual Christian churches that are private organizations. And if you want you religion to be that of a God who thinks marriage is a union between a man and a woman, shouldn't people have the freedom to excercise this religion privately? Surely, gays can form their own Christian Church if the current ones wouldn't accept them, but is it the role of the state to interfer with a religious institution and force them to include anyone who wants to enter their religious organization to be able to do so? Should the state force religious institutions to change their religious beliefs? That seems wrong, as if a Conservative Party would be forced by law to accept Socialists to join their party and be forced to change their view of the role of the government to accomodate the beliefs of these Socialists. Seems wrong to me.
I think a key point of the gay-marriage opponents is that marriage is a Christian religous thing and that the state/government has no business in defining what that should be, and feel that sure gays can have the same rights but not use the word "married". I mean should the state go in and put legislation that states that anyone should be able to have a Bar Mitzva, no matter the sex? No, of course not. Government has nothing to do with that, that's a thing for the various institutions of Judaism to decide for themselves. And a Bar Mitzva is a thing for males only, as it has been for thousands of years, and which used to be true for marriage as well.
So the real decisions is should the government/state hi-jack the terminology marriage and have that be the name for the civil legal contract two consenting adults regardless of gender can enter into? Religious people will object to this. I think they kind of shot themselves in the food by forcing Christianity upon everyone in the West back in the days, so now in modern days when not everyone is a Christian anymore they kind of have to let go of this word and accept that we make this into a word for a secular legal contract. So I am pro gay-marriage. Should the state/government force individual churces to enact religious/symbolic marriages between two people of the same sex? I don't think so. Would I ever want to be part of a Church that doesn't allow that? Hell no. But that is my choice. If someone does, that is none of my business. Then again, I wouldn't want to be part of any Church.
Of course if there is no civil union available that grants the exact same legal rights for gays this is a civil rights issue, but if such a legal contract is available this is not a civil rights issue but an issue over terminology and ownership of a word.
Since when is Marriage exclusively a Christian thing? Or exclusively religious for that matter....
I think you wandered into the wrong discussion. Nobody's talking about getting gay married in a church, the state had banned "civil unions" as well. A law built on "religious morals."
hence why I think states rights are bullshit. however given how fucked our federal government is it makes me (a socialist) cheer when states are the ones decriminalizing weed and passing gay marriage equality before the feds can and maybe ever will. what a world.
Crucifying Christians was also status quo.
So legal disagreements over what is meant by other non-marriage contracts never happens, because they're perfect and written in a completely unambiguous manner?
contract law attorneys must be filing for bankruptcy in your little world.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Sorry about the broad remark. So used to seeing such arguments lumped in with other anti-government arguments that I read between the lines.
My point remains. Who arbitrates in case of dispute? Even if its not a contract as you say, a judge would be involved. A judge who was appointed by the government. Not every divorce for example requires litigation or even lawyers. But some do, and they use the government judiciary. There's nothing arbitrary at all about that.
Yes I would support it as I am against State interference in family business - that is I'm against Marriage institution and special financial benefits for married people which is discriminatory to single/childless people.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side