|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Maine legalizes gay marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
This is coming completely off topic. I already offered to continue discussion in a new thread.
You keep saying this article shows that Fannie Mae is responsible for the economic crisis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
quote: Wow are you idealistic. People have never let other people live the way they want. Local governments and state governments have always shown a propensity to enforce the will of the majority upon the minority. The Constitution has mechanisms in it to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Your views are idealistic not not practical in the real world. Since the days of the signing of the Constitution we have had some changes because States tyrannized the minority. Women and Blacks can now vote, slavery is illegal. Many of the founding fathers were very in favor of a strong Federal government. You speak as if the founding fathers all wanted a weak federal government. This is not true. Have you heard of the Federalists vs the Demoratic-Republicans? The states rights issue has been a huge issue throughout US history. I disagree with your simplistic take on it. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stagamancer Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 174 From: Oregon Joined: |
Heaven forbid anything should happen that would make Stagamancer uncomfortable.
Your sardonicism is not conducive to a decent debate, and my comment was not about what makes me comfortable or not.
And sure, why shouldn't anybody be able to marry anyone else if they claim to be a religion so long as they are adults? They should, but the legal aspects of that contract demand that some sort of order be kept. Without any oversight at all, what's to prevent people from marrying a whole bunch of people solely for the tax benefits?
but do you honestly think a hospital would refuse a spouse to be at their loved one's side if there wasn't a government overseer?
Yes. It's happened before. Again, what you've failed to realize and address is that there is religious marriage and civil marriage. In the same way that Catholic confession absolves a Catholic of his sins but not his civil crimes, a religious marriage binds two people souls but does not bind them legally. There are no religious rites that have legal standing, why should marriage be different? Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given. We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? -Dan Ariely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Stagamancer writes:
We can chalk that up to me being grumpy. I am human after-all
Your sardonicism is not conducive to a decent debate
Stagamancer writes:
I am not saying there should be NO oversight. Notice my definition still included the marriage of one individual to another.
Without any oversight at all, what's to prevent people from marrying a whole bunch of people solely for the tax benefits?
Your point is relevant though, in that it could be manipulated for tax benefits in the form of polygamy. There is a sect of FLDS that manipulate the system anyway, without the need of legally being married. They call it "bleeding the beast". If you aren't familiar with it, you should look it up sometime.
Stagamancer writes:
How would you know what I have and have not realized?
Again, what you've failed to realize
*
Stagamancer writes:
I believe I qualified that question with the word 'spouse'. A 17 year relationship does not qualify as a marriage, just the same as it doesn't qualify as a marriage for a straight couple.
Yes. It's happened before.
* Stagamancer writes:
Hmmm, good point. Since marriage has been a religious rite longer than it has been a legal one, I would say by your own logic, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state at all.
There are no religious rites that have legal standing, why should marriage be different?
Some great points you have made thus far. Edited by Michamus, : inserted * to *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Non-sequitor. We are discussing federal gov't.
Local governments and state governments have always shown a propensity to enforce the will of the majority upon the minority.
Theodoric writes:
A great portion of them did want a weak federal government. In fact, it should be quite obvious from reading the Bill of Rights, that this was their desire.
You speak as if the founding fathers all wanted a weak federal government.
Theodoric writes:
I am pretty sure anyone with even a decent US History education knows about the Federalists. Who the heck are the Demoratic-Republicans? I mean, I've read about the Democratic-Republicans...
Have you heard of the Federalists vs the Demoratic-Republicans?
Theodoric writes:
And I disagree with your simplification of my take on it
I disagree with your simplistic take on it.
Edited by Michamus, : fixed last qs tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
quote: No it isn't a non-sequitpr. It is my point why we need a strong federal.
quote: actually no, it was pretty much an even split.
quote: Would you like a tutorial on early US history? Or are you happy with your fantasy rendition? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
ROFL! You make me laugh.
Would you like a tutorial on early US history? Or are you happy with your fantasy rendition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Nice rebuttal to my points.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stagamancer Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 174 From: Oregon Joined: |
Hmmm, good point. Since marriage has been a religious rite longer than it has been a legal one, I would say by your own logic, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state at all. That's not using my logic at all, I'm not talking about which came first or which has been around longer. We have an established legal definition of marriage, and we need to keep it separate from religious marriage whether they were once one in the same or not.
I believe I qualified that question with the word 'spouse'. A 17 year relationship does not qualify as a marriage, just the same as it doesn't qualify as a marriage for a straight couple. No, but gay couples get singled out more for this kind of treatment. A gay couple needs the backing of the law more often because I guarantee you that once gay marriage is legal, then people in hospitals will still require they prove it much more often than they will straight couples. It just the nature of prejudice. We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? -Dan Ariely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Michamus,
I believe I qualified that question with the word 'spouse'. A 17 year relationship does not qualify as a marriage, just the same as it doesn't qualify as a marriage for a straight couple. Actually it does qualify as a marriage for straight couples, in certain states. It's refered to as Common Law Marraige, and is recognized as a legally binded marriage.
quote: However, in none of the US states that allow for CLM would a gay couple be considered married by common law. Here's the Common Law Marriage in the US specifics.
quote: Again, the same rights extended to straight couples are not available for gay couples. Each states specifically says "husband and wife". - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
What's left really? You provide ad-hominem, I provide ad-hominem. End of story.
Nice rebuttal to my points.
Unless you believe that any discussion on US History, and a strong vs weak federal government is relevant to gay rights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Stagamancer writes:
And we are agreed that the prejudice needs to end.
It just the nature of prejudice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Hi oni,
Common Law marriage is understandable, but in those states which do not recognize common-law marriage (such as Florida) whether the couple was straight or same gender would not have mattered.
onifre writes:
I agree with you, which is why that specification needs to be changed or removed completely.
Again, the same rights extended to straight couples are not available for gay couples. Each states specifically says "husband and wife".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Common Law marriage is understandable, but in those states which do not recognize common-law marriage (such as Florida) whether the couple was straight or same gender would not have mattered. Actually, I'm from Florida and have studied this for my own defense - lol - since I tend to live with random chicks every now and then J/K. You're right, Florida doesn't have a common law marriage "law" BUT they do recognize other states common law marriages.
Florida Common Law Marriage.
quote: A better question would be, if other states DID consider gay couples CLM'ied, would Florida recognize that too? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
onifre writes:
That is a good question, and I would say in all fairness they should, but would they?
A better question would be, if other states DID consider gay couples CLM'ied, would Florida recognize that too?
onifre writes:
I have that same problem too, hopefully there will never be a chicken flu epidemic.
since I tend to live with random chicks every now and then
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024