Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#627 Aug 12 2010 at 4:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Keylin wrote:
Quote:
As luck would have it, it usually intersects with the social concept of marriage (tell someone you're "married" but without ever taking formal legal vows and they'll usually roll their eyes; tell them that you got married in a 5 min Vegas ceremony and they'll say "OMG you got married!") and with the religious concept of marriage (try telling your Catholic priest that you want him to conduct a marriage ceremony but you won't be providing a legal marriage license because you don't intend to inform the county)


Actually, that is what we call a "common law marriage", or if you live long enough with a person of the opposite sex, and present yourself as a married couple, you don't need to fill out a license or anything. You are, as far as the state is concerned, married.

For anyone interested, I would suggest reading up on the history of legal structure of marriage. It's an interesting read, and it plays directly into this thread.


Not all states have common law anymore. Tennessee did away with it years ago. You can live together for 20 years here, but if you want to be recognized by the state, you gotta give 'em some money and sign a paper.
#628 Aug 12 2010 at 6:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Keylin wrote:
Actually, that is what we call a "common law marriage", or if you live long enough with a person of the opposite sex, and present yourself as a married couple, you don't need to fill out a license or anything. You are, as far as the state is concerned, married.

It's also no longer an option in most states and, in states where it is/was, it was a multi-year process as opposed to spending two minutes before a Justice of the Peace. Going back to the statement of mine that you quoted, it's also not going to pass with the Church ("give us our vows and then we'll just common-law marry down the road") and is socially considered to be the action of backwards, uneducated people. Whether that's correct or not, there's an obvious social stigma to common law marriage.

Quote:
For anyone interested, I would suggest reading up on the history of legal structure of marriage. It's an interesting read, and it plays directly into this thread.

I have. It definitely reinforces my belief that allowing same sex marriages is the logical and proper thing to do.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 7:12am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#629Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The sentence was poorly written and I rewrote it. Now, what's the problem? Seems to me you have no content or substance, so you attack grammar. I've explained before why some of my sentences come out garbled, but I later rephrase them for a better understanding if someone points it out.
#630 Aug 12 2010 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
The sentence was poorly written and I rewrote it. Now, what's the problem? Seems to me you have no content or substance, so you attack grammar. I've explained before why some of my sentences come out garbled, but I later rephrase them for a better understanding if someone points it out.

The fact that you hide behind grammar is indicative of your general ineptitude.


The problem remains that you're claiming to be some kind of genius despite all signs to the contrary.

And, er, hiding behind it how? It's not some kind of personal attack because you've made some point about gay marriage I can't counter; I am not and never have been arguing with you about that. I'm insulting you because you're a fucking imbecile.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 1:05pm by Kavekk
#631 Aug 12 2010 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, you're not insulting him, exactly - some people are damn near impossible to insult.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#632Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 7:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I didn't claim to be a genius, I said I was intelligent. There's a difference. Just as with the rest of the words, look them up. You continue to further display your lack of understanding.
#633 Aug 12 2010 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

The problem remains that you're claiming to be some kind of genius despite all signs to the contrary.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#634 Aug 12 2010 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Being intelligent or being considered a genius is not equivalent to being perfect. Ever heard the term "Musical Genius"? One of my flaws is that I type too fast while changing my thoughts, which causes errors in TYPING . If I talked like that or wasn't able to recognize and or fix those mistakes, your claim would have more value. Since that is not the case, you have no merit in your claim.


No, they're errors in syntax. The last three sentences here are prime examples.

Plus, I find it kind of hard to believe that your problem is thinking too quickly.
#635 Aug 12 2010 at 7:46 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
You're also very defensive and intent on justifying yourself. all the signs of an insecure teenage girl.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#636Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 7:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Believe as you wish, but unlike the rest of you all, I'm not afraid to admit to my own errors. That's how I improve.
#637 Aug 12 2010 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, if you don't see a purpose, then why do you believe the government got involved in the first place by giving benefits?

Because people agitated for them. Why they agitated for them was for varying reasons depending on the benefit and frankly I've wasted my time with explaining it before and have no interest in doing so again in this thread.

Gbaji's major flaw is his mistaken belief that the government provides marriage benefits as an incentive. They don't and they never did. Marriage benefits are a series of reactions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#638Almalieque, Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 8:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What part of "I'm only 12 years old" don't you understand? I'm not yet a teenager..
#639 Aug 12 2010 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't agree that failing to give someone something hurts them, much less infringes their rights.


Be sure to explain that to the next gay man or woman who isn't allowed to visit their dying partner in the hospital. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that denying them the right to visit their in-name-only spouse isn't hurting them.


And... We're back to this. Sigh...

I'm not denying them that. There is nothing preventing them from entering into a contract with a joint medical power of attorney provision. In fact, most of the things which people erroneously claim are being denied to gay couples are not actually associated with the state status of marriage at all and are freely available via contract agreement between any two people at any time.


Then explain to the gay couple how forking over $10,000 to a lawyer to get said "contract" doesn't hurt them (especially while their heterosexual counterparts only have to pay $90).

This will be an amusing conversation.
#640 Aug 12 2010 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've wasted my time with explaining it before and have no interest in doing so again in this thread.

How do you ever expect to get to 50k with that kind of an attitude?!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#641 Aug 12 2010 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I've wasted my time with explaining it before and have no interest in doing so again in this thread.

How do you ever expect to get to 50k with that kind of an attitude?!
I'm pretty sure Joph's postcount goes up a few points every time he clears his throat or shifts in his chair slightly.
#642 Aug 12 2010 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Almalieque is really 12? What the fUck is the point in even acknowledging its presence then?
#643 Aug 12 2010 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Almalieque is really 12? What the fUck is the point in even acknowledging its presence then?


Smiley: facepalm
#644 Aug 12 2010 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Almalieque is really 12? What the fUck is the point in even acknowledging its presence then?


Smiley: facepalm
Well is he/she 12 or isn't he/she? I don't know, I generally avoid Alma threads like the plague.
#645 Aug 12 2010 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
I've stated in every single thread such as this, that I suck at grammar. I do math and science, not grammar. In any case, that does not take away from the concept that is being discussed. Posters only turn into Grammar ***** when they have nothing else to argue about and they look silly trying to perfect sentences in a debate on the Internet, when the meaning is understood. I'm sure if you looked at the past 12 pages, you'll see other posters' posts with bad syntax as well. You are only pointing me out because we don't agree on anything.


Actually, you're often so incoherent as to be incomprehensible. That aside, it's not that I don't have anything to add to the debate, it's just that I feel pretty much anything else in the entire fucking world is a better use of my time.

Also, it's not that we don't agree with each other about anything - I don't even know how true that is, seeing as you only pop up for the same three issues - but rather that pretty much everything you've said and done has led me to think you're very, very stupid. When you boast about how incredibly clever you are, I feel this misguided urge to try and inject some sanity into your thick little skull.

That's not irony, by the way; I recognise any attempt to persuade you of anything, or get you to understand anything, is pretty much doomed from the start.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 2:18pm by Kavekk
#646 Aug 12 2010 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Almalieque is really 12? What the fUck is the point in even acknowledging its presence then?


Smiley: facepalm
Well is he/she 12 or isn't he/she? I don't know, I generally avoid Alma threads like the plague.
No he isn't 12. He's in the military so at least 18, but I beleive somewhere in his early 20's.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#647 Aug 12 2010 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Debalic wrote:
You're also very defensive and intent on justifying yourself. all the signs of an insecure teenage girl.


What part of "I'm only 12 years old" don't you understand? I'm not yet a teenager..
Clearly, as boobies are all the justification necessary around here.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#648 Aug 12 2010 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
No he isn't 12. He's in the military so at least 18, but I beleive somewhere in his early 20's.


Which doesn't change the fact he acts like a 12 year old girl.
#649 Aug 12 2010 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I could link dozens of legal sites which clearly talk about civil marriage being a "contract". That the state ends out being an interested (senior) party in a statutory marriage doesn't change the ultimate nature of the beast.

Marriage

Quote:
The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.


Obviously, this specific definition includes the "man and woman" requirement, but the point is that it's a contract. Only the most semantically focused twit would make a point of the phrase "marriage contract" in this context.


And only the simplest fool would fail to recognize that in legalese, everything's a fucking contract.

This contract you speak of is a Social Contract. Richer for poorer, health and sickness, Death do us part.

The rest of it is nonsense that addle brains like yourself get caught up in. For your transgressions, just stop using the words "marriage, contract,". You have no right to them.
#650 Aug 12 2010 at 8:30 AM Rating: Decent
Ash,

Quote:
Almalieque is really 12?


lmao...scientist you say.
#651 Aug 12 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
No he isn't 12. He's in the military so at least 18, but I beleive somewhere in his early 20's.


Which doesn't change the fact he acts like a 12 year old girl.
And the only one who would dispute that is Alma, herself.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 242 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (242)