A Poll: Do you support marriage equality?

SilverishGoldNova

I don't support modern marriage as a whole.

YeshuaBought

@SilverishGoldNova Fair enough. I respect you for being consistant.

SilverishGoldNova

SilverishGoldNova said:

I don't support modern marriage as a whole.

I think marriage simply needs to be a religious decision and the government needs to be taken out of marriage almost entirely.

Sadly modern marriage is essentially a legal contract. Once you’re married you’re basically the same person. You’re responsible for all of their debts, property, etc. And well, in the US extremely biased against men in heterosexual marriages.

And people marry thinking it will magically solve problems in their relationship, or because they think it’s romantic but they don’t realize that it isn’t a good decision.

I have seen several people who consider themselves married (had weddings) without getting legally married and you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with those people or doing that.

Yes, I am quoting my own post and replying to it.

SilverishGoldNova

UVerse just went out in all of Dallas.

I’ve got a phone for a reason.

WordsMatter

@SilverishGoldNova I'm with you. Pull the government out all together. If you want to set terms on next of kin, custody, visitation rights etc. Just get a private contract. You already have to pay a fee to the government to get a marriage license so I don't think going private would lock many people out of a contract. Plus the free market says lawyers will compete to make up some standard contract where you can just come in and pay $50 to sign something standardized. If you wanted custom you could pay more. This would open up gay marriage and even polygamy/polyamory. You can make your own terms on what qualifies a breach of contract rather than the government deciding. For example if you want to marry someone with a history of drug abuse you could write in the contract that if they use again it puts them in breach of contract.

You could still get a religious wedding if you want but it will have absolutely no legal impact.

SilverishGoldNova

@MayCaesar Yeah I don’t have a problem with polyamory or polygamy.

MayCaesar

Legal marriage has always rubbed me the wrong way. I have never seen the need for two or more people's intimate relationship to be officially recognized by any entity. In my opinion, wedding should be merely a tradition, and "marriage" should not be a legal term and should simply refer to the people being in a serious commitment to each other.

There is nothing wrong with a legal contract either, but I do not think that contract should give the group of people some special status. Rather, it should prescribe the distribution of the resources between the partners, what share of the common pool of goods each gets upon breaking the relationship up and so on.

In this regard, I support marriage equality in that I do not think marriage should be a legal entity with regards to any individual(s). It goes without saying that those individuals' relationship or sexual preferences should not affect it in any way.

George_Horse

If it is marriage between two good loving people, regardless of race or gender, then I support it. I am against forced marriages like similar practices found in parts of Pakistan and India, along with some Muslim countries. 

piloteer

"SilverfishGoldNova

Maybe someday you'll realize the double standard you're arguing for. If the government is taken out of marriage policy, then ALL marriages must be legal. Whatever religious preconditions you think should apply, is of no consequence whatsoever. If marriage is legal for anybody, it is legal for ALL!! If government is taken out of marriage, then they can't make it nonbinding if non-heterosexual couples get married, and get all the legal benefit of said marriage. By the way, if you've been burnt in the past because you entered in a legally binding contract and couldn't meet the demands of that contract, I have no sympathy for you. It's not my fault that you don't understand contracts. But if you expect the rest of society to foot the bill for you, perhaps you should be forced to pick up trash on the side of the highway to pay off your debt to society.

SilverishGoldNova

Its “Silverish” first of all. Secondly this seems to be more of a response to what @WordsMatter said. Thirdly if this is a response to what I said I said “almost entirely”

https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/almost

@piloteer

SilverishGoldNova

@piloteer Fourth of all, what is a fallacy about the phrase “I don’t support modern marriage”?

And finally by legal I mean marriage should be a religious commitment not a commitment to the government.

@MayCeaser The problem is there is absolutely no reason for marriage outside of religion. Marriage has been a major religious tradition for a very very long time. The government needs some but far less involvement in marriage than it currently has.

SilverishGoldNova

To make myself more clear I have absolutely zero support for legal marriage and it should not be a thing.

The only time government or more accurately police should be involved in marriage is certain things inside the marriage.

piloteer

"@SilverishGoldNova ;

Gee, Thanx for that rebuttal. That didn't clarify anything. 

If the government is taken out of marriage, that doesn't mean that you will be free from legal action by your spouse for alimony, or child support, or visitation rights. Your spouse has the right to bring up any grievances to a court. The court can, and does make legal marital decisions on a case by case basis. It should remain that way!

Religious tradition is of no consequence when it comes to marriage. It's the public at-large that gets to decide which marriages are legitimate, not religious institutions.

Your name should be SilverFishGoldNova. I think that's waaaaaaaaaaaay cooler like that, and I think that when you think about it, you'll come to the same conclusion. Also, my tablet already has silverfish in the "learned words" tab. So ya, try silverfish. K

SilverishGoldNova

@piloteer ;

“They can still bring it up greivances court”

Please explain why This is a reason for Keeping modern legal marriage. Also my argument was that marrjage should be a religious commitment Not that’s they should decide legitamacy.

I swear the rest of your post Just sounds like you’re trolling.

Zombieguy1987

Marriage:

Expectations: Two people who are deeply in love will live a very happy life together

Reality: a hassle of a contract that puts the woman atop the man because "Feminism" 

ethang5

@YeshuaBought

I couldn't take the poll cause I didn't know what was currently unequal about marriage.

Every man I know, hetero or homo, has exactly the same marriage rights as I do. Where is the "inequality"?

Exactly what right do I have, that some other men don't have?

John_C_87

@ethang5 ;

“Marriage/civil union equality” would be something along the line of. Can a state declare two scientist legally bound in civil union for conceiving a child with the use of donated human sperm and human egg? The scientists are the parents of the child, or children in question not just those who donate the martials.

ethang5

@John_C_87

You said nothing about rights. I still do not see any inequality.

John_C_87

For one. The example describes a united state constitutional Right, addressing an inequality. A male scientist who creates a child with another scientist using donated sperm does not have a legal/religious right to be placed in a united state by judicial separation as the parent of that child. 

John_C_87

How about this?

Every man I know, hetero or homo, has exactly the same marriage right as I do. Where is the inequality? A Homosexual by law cannot have the same rights as heterosexual in marriage. The inequality is based on homosexuality is grounds for divorce by law in relationship to marriage. In order to create equality adopting heterosexual acts as grounds for divorce would need to be written into law. The Three states of couple are not sharing a United State of posterity nor fidelity

Exactly what right do I have, that some other men don’t have? The Constitutional right of Impartiality.

John_C_87

We cannot write heterosexual acts as grounds for separation of witness account which create unions in the formation of a nations domestic citizenship. It is trying to create a legal form of witness tampering.

ethang5

@John_C_87

>A Homosexual by law cannot have the same rights as heterosexual in marriage. The inequality is based on homosexuality is grounds for divorce by law in relationship to marriage.

Huh? Sorry, this is very unclear. Can you make it clearer?

Exactly what right do I have, that some other men don’t have? 

>The Constitutional right of Impartiality.

I have never seen or heard of that right. Can you cite where it is in the constitution?

It appears you are creating a "right" out of thin air. That is fine, but then saying it is inequality is deceptively incorrect. Just come out and admit you want to create a new right for homosexuals.

YeshuaBought

@George_Horse I do too.

dbox

@YeshuaBought ;

How do you define marriage and equality? There is a lot of room for equivocation in the meaning of those terms.

John_C_87

@ethang5 ;

We need to break your questions up to identify/see them with better focus.

 

>A Homosexual by law cannot have the same rights as heterosexual in marriage. The inequality is based on homosexuality is grounds for divorce by law in relationship to marriage.  Adding marriages legal history might help.

Huh? Sorry, this is very unclear. Can you make it clearer?

The legal precedent set by marriage is not equal in law. Binivir first as witness account, for your idea makes no separation from accused or admission... by describing a sexual conduct homosexuality as a shared united state. Marriage laws already state homosexuality and lesbianic choice as grounds for divorce/separation. As marriage in whole truth addresses a registered creation of posterity with United States Constitution, posterity meaning a native born citizens of a Nation. Second there is no creation of impartiality to protect minors as a witness in these matters.

We can include YeshuaBought within this answering of question by stating…  “All men are created equal. All woman are created equal.” Their creator in this matter places all men and woman equal by use of reproduction, a common defense to the general welfare of all woman and men. The location of wording within United States Constitution as impartiality details all common defense as a united state, It is not just held limited by use within American Constitution it is constitutional in general. I am afraid that it is justice which is held in check by the process of order to perfect union, as it is a fabrication on truth, which is not always whole truth, and it is by law of Nature not human lie exclusively.

John_C_87

I cannot tell a lie, I simply may not know or understand the whole truth so help me as part of an axiom.

It does in fact appear as though I am fabricating justice out of thin air for the United States Constitution, I agree it looks that way, I am not. We are debating the “United States Constitutional Right” to earn the prestige and honor of place to be titled as the First United States Constitutional Right. This is a legal question. This a whole new debate itself so to limit words by stating as truth and whole truth. Any Amendment to a Principle be it Constitution or not, it is by basic principle the Bill of Rights starts at 2nd Right and United States Constitutional Rights are by truth First, it is the United States Declaration of Independence which is up until only years ago been left un-amendment and though not ratified……….. yet. The ratification like those made on United States Constitution may come into fruition.

Just come out and admit you want to create a new right for homosexuals.

No I refuse to be forced to commit perjury as it may at some point effect my constitutional civil right to vote. This is more often than not, at some most inconvenient spot in time to suit the bureaucrat. While understanding there needs to be a United State presented before Constitutional law which give a man a way to address accusation of homosexuality made by woman against him by judicial separation. If necessary.

The equality in all woman are created equal is that the process provides the same for woman simply accused of lesbianic behavior without truthful admission to verify.

ethang5

@John_C_87

The best I can come up with, given the gibberish you post, is that because homosexuality can be grounds for divorce, marriage is not equal.

If this is your argument, you are wrong. Infidelity is cause for divorce, not homosexuality.

I am heterosexual and I possess no right a gay man doesn't also possess. There is no such thing as marriage inequality. People just want a new right established for homosexuals.

You might want to post only when you're off the recreational substances John_C, or at least post in English.

John_C_87

No, It is not gibberish, though I have to say you may not understand why we must have this detail om our debate. As a public witness to marriage this particular union is not in a united state with marriage and due to this fact alone I commit perjury. I greatly appreciate your admission to a fact that you are not intelligent enough at this time to prove this lie inside a court of law is perjury yet. But! You may however have a speedy recovery from you memory associated issue and do so in the future.

 No being homosexual or lesbian is grounds for divorce/separation there is a difference in relationship to the person’s choice, now that details have become semantical.  The point is the separation is not constitutional based on fidelity as a united state. The United States there is from the declaration of independence and is connected to safety.

Yes you do have rights a homosexual does not have. A united State created by basic principle and legal precedent mandates it. As a homosexual has right that a heterosexual does not have. The most obvious of Right you hold an Independence, at least if you are American. You may not understand how you have been given this right in relationship to your birth that performed under a declaration of independence from a Monarch. So to say it simple “All men are created equal by their creator.”

A religious right you share with a homosexual as united state is to accuse a of the crime of perjury, a crime I already confessed to publicly, bringing up lots of time without arrest since 1980’s ( Gay Marriage is a illegal) now just fully stating my independence by witness account as a personal declaration. Binivir.

“There is no such thing as marriage inequality. People just want a new right established for homosexuals. You might want to post only when you're off the recreational substances John_C, or at least post in English.”

But Dad! Haven’t you heard America has a Declaration of Independence from the English since 1776.

Of course there is a Marriage inequality there is no declaration of independence made by woman under United States Constitution. The two reference points used are not actual matters held by precedent or united state by marriage.

 

ethang5

@John_C_87

When you learn English, we'll talk again. For now, your writing and spelling is gibberish.

If English is not your mother tongue, that isn't a sin, just stop trying so hard to sound like a native speaker. You sound like you don't know English or you're not sober.

Thanks for the interest.

John_C_87

Or, you just plain ran out of argument. Let me simplify the explanation of marriage inequality one more time. The inequality is created by a witness being directed into perjury as a test of law. I will add this test was created by a layer, with the abuse of a civil suit, never the less. I am the one committing perjury as the witness, I am confessing to this crime. Arrest me. Press charges. If I cannot have representation in a court of law to establish my innocents and who prove to all who is legally to blame. By you lack of ability it does not limit mine in any way. the admission is a tool to which I refuse to be manipulated as a witness. There is marriage.or there is Binivir, or UnosMulier. that what I said and it is not in English, so what get an interpreter. The perjury I am forced to admit by honor is my problem.


Go ahead pick on grammar and spelling. Perjury is a costly crime to neglect by cost, enforcement of law is not equal here and it can creates a very costly effect to a persons constitutional civil right to vote.

John_C_87

You do not understand what I am writing because you have not figured out the true direction of any inequality yet. I am guilt of perjury go down to the police station tomorrow file/press charges against me. You do not have to prove the perjury, I will admit the crime, then detail how I committed the crime, it has been said prior to any legislation the process was a crime to plagiarize marriage this way, so I understood this day was coming. Explaining to the proper authorities the crime as it relates to me is the test of equality in this matter, as it relates to same gender unions set by description of marriage of any kind, the admission of guilt is just a follow through off the original legal objection made.

Marriage is an official licensed agreement that is publicly witnessed.

Yeah sorry about the writing I am pressed for time and the keyboard is crap. That’s how it rolls sometimes.

ethang5

@John_C_87

>Or, you just plain ran out of argument.

Lol. OK. Perhaps you don't know everyone can see that English is not your mother tongue.

>Let me simplify the explanation of marriage inequality one more time.

OK, but in English this time and with your spell check on, OK?

>The inequality is created by a witness.....

Which witness? Witness of what?

>....being directed into perjury as a test of law.

Directed by whom? Who is "testing" whom? Who is testing the law? What law?

>I will add this test was created by a layer,.....

What is a layer? How does it test the law? Why would a a layer create a test of the law?

>...with the abuse of a civil suit, never the less.

Huh? This isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. It makes no sense.

>I am the one committing perjury as the witness,....

Who are you? What are you witnessing? How is it perjury?

>I am confessing to this crime.

What crime? How is it related to marriage?

>Arrest me. Press charges.

Why? No one even yet knows what the crime is.

>If I cannot have representation in a court of law to establish my innocents.....

You have innocents? Who are they? How do you establish them?

How can you be innocent if you confessed to the crime?

>...and who prove to all who is legally to blame.

Legally to blame for what? You've already confessed.

>By you lack of ability it does not limit mine in any way.

Lol. My lack of ability in what? Who am I? What ability of yours is not limited in any way?

>...the admission is a tool to which I refuse to be manipulated as a witness.

What admission? Who is manipulating you? And again, witness of what?

>There is marriage.or there is Binivir, or UnosMulier.

Is this English? Legal terms? What is their relevance to marriage?

>...that what I said and it is not in English, so what get an interpreter.

Sorry. You aren't important enough to me for me to get an interpreter. Use English or get tossed.

>The perjury I am forced to admit by honor is my problem.

OK. Then you can deal with it. Stop posting to me about it.

>Go ahead pick on grammar and spelling.

I don't have a choice moron. It is by grammar and spelling we understand each other. I am not "picking on" grammar and spelling, without it, your post is gibberish.

>Perjury is a costly crime to neglect by cost,.....

Who is neglects it? Who does it cost?

>....enforcement of law is not equal here and it can creates a very costly effect to a persons constitutional civil right to vote.

More gibberish.

I just realized, you are likely using a online digital translator. Sorry, I have better things to do than waste time with someone who may not even be rational.

Bye.

John_C_87

As long as you are not filing any charges against my publicly made confession of perjury what does it matter that you don’t understand. The inequality is working in my favor. There may be something else we legally missed other than possible discrimination, or the danger of losing my right to vote.

Hey! Ethang5 thanks for letting me go………..I really appreciated it, is not everyone who would overlook perjury on an office document that is licensed by a state. Admission of guilt looked like the fastest way to point out an inequality of marriage a person could see, (wink, wink) as a witness. Some people might take advantage of that. Binivir and UnosMulier is just a witness account in a different language that can bind a common law to partners who just might want to save money, and not file any cooperation formation papers, or something else like that.

Have fun………..debate is about seeing perspectives, not winning.

John_C_87

By the way I voted no on the poll. Marriage equality is just a intelligent different way to say witness tampering.

ethang5

@John_C_87

>debate is about seeing perspectives, not winning.

No one can see your perspective if you post gibberish.

>...what does it matter that you don’t understand.

It doesn't.

>Hey! Ethang5 thanks for letting me go………

You were gone long before you met me Sigmund.

Applesauce

@ethang5
I wish I had your level of patience truly I do
it's extremely difficult to decode the gibberish (great word for it) but I think I may have an idea, it's kind of like one of those scrambled word games, so here goes.

he seems to think gays getting married and people knowing about it is equivalent to confessing a crime which is the "admission of guilt", even though it's not, but let's play along.  A formal marriage is an announcement for everyone else, it tells them that 2 people are married, without "witnesses" and "admission" it doesn't exists.  Just like I can turn invisible so long as no one seems me.  I don't know if it's a translation thing or that he extremely obtuse, i think the latter.

ethang5

@Applesauce

Thanks man. Are you a translator?  You got that all just from the disaster he posted?

Sorry, I still dont get it. None- the-less, my long years of internet experience tells me that John is either AI, or a loon.

I think I'll release him back into the wild.

John_C_87

 

@Applesauce

Perjury is a crime, marriage is a licensed registration and carries legal burden to both man and woman equally as a united state.  The argument that is not made in debate, that I bring, a person must admit they are telling the lie or the cost of the perjury is too high, or just to hard for the stressed judicial system to prosecute. It was a brilliant law strategy but poor constitutional common defense. It creates a lean on civil right to vote. Perjury is a felony with a time limit activated only upon its discovery of a crime.  Not that that might be any reason to stall a persons understanding. 

So Binivir, UnosMulier, Marriage, and Civil union are equal by united state. The single state is they are impartial witness accounts to a public form of likely-hood. Do you object? If so what is your legal grounds for objection? Please specify if not please hold your piece, that is hold your burden of the likely-hoods cost on posterity.

In all the times I have said this I have not gotten a public objection yet. Gay or lesbian are admissions and accusation, a public partnership is not limited to sexual acts of increasing its posterity, future generations of a nation. Some people may be simply looking for a way to incorporate or form a business cheaper as they drove tax’s up so high with other burdens as pieces of posterity. they do not know what else to do.

Applesauce

@John_C_87
lying to people about their marital status is NOT perjury and not a crime, therefore admission or denial of marital status is NOT an admission/confession.
You have provided no statue for which any of this would be a crime.  What is the punishment for this crime you are claiming?  Since most of us are in the U.S. and that is what this topic is about/taking place, if you are talking about some other country that's irrelevant.
Perjury Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
attempting to enter into a contract that is not recognized or deemed invalid is not a crime.

you could try to marry a goat, even have someone perform a ceremony, it's not valid/recognized but not a crime, though if you consummate the "marriage" in many states (if not all) that is a crime, but not a contract.

John_C_87

@Applesauce ;

Gees! You are so knowing Applesauce. What was I thinking? What you are saying is in the United States unwillingly giving false, misleading, or incomplete testimony on an official legal document is not perjury. As long as the is unwillingly forced. Because why again? I’m not under oath as the legal witness taking part in the criminal ceremony that relates to declaration of formation of United States citizen ship in a form of citizen who is born into a country?

To tell the true BiniVir/UnosMulier was never legally objected to yet, the imperial witness accounts simply do not have a precedent of likely-hood between man and woman for posterity, future citizen ship. Well unless there is legal medical parents, like I said before maybe people just want a cheaper way to incorporate as legal partners using plagiarism. No offence, I am so glad you are not my lawyer, and are only a witness who can prove my criminal confession is true, the one of perjury on the legal matter of marriage likely-hood.   

A person can try to be business partner in a cooperation with a goat to. It’s not valid/recognized but not a crime in corporate law. Although it more than likely is and again it is just too complicated and not basic principle. What’s the point anyway? Marriage to goat would be a fraud, the same fraud actually as couples of the same gender….which is kind of scary, even if it was a goat of the opposite gender.

 A person who attends a marriage is a witness. A marriage is between a man and woman by its legal precedent of child birth, this is in relationship to citizenship of a nation. This is why marriages are consummated as point of legal public record. Just look at some of the issue with children born between people who are not married and are of different nations, or even scientist who fertilizes human eggs with the human sperm of some-one else and they never know or bear responsibility for life or death of the child they create by blind consent.

Are you sure your American you kind of have no clue Constitution is both basic principle and legal precedent ?

Do you know that under order of law a united state can be a common defense for the general welfare?