Requirements for marriage [Archive] - Debate Policy

Noir

02-24-2011, 01:51 PM

Nothing twisted in my mind. They are all unnatural acts. The twisted ones are those that allow such acts and condone them. I have no religious convictions so don't bother going there.

Oh, unnatural acts?
Can you please define a natural act, because, tbh if you are going to have nature as your guideline then youd believe that once girls start releasing eggs they are ready for sex, as nature has decided they are.

In which case what is wrong with the 'natral act' of a 25 year old having sex with a egg releasing 12 year old?

Gaffer

02-24-2011, 03:01 PM

Oh, unnatural acts?
Can you please define a natural act, because, tbh if you are going to have nature as your guideline then youd believe that once girls start releasing eggs they are ready for sex, as nature has decided they are.

In which case what is wrong with the 'natral act' of a 25 year old having sex with a egg releasing 12 year old?

Your changing the subject and trying to bring ethics and societal laws into play here. What is natural is procreation, ie: man and woman. Same sex, child sex or animal sex is deviant behavior, ie: queer. Man is the only animal that engages in such behavior because man is the only animal that doesn't act on instinct.

A 25 year old man with a 12 year old girl is deviant and unethical. It is not unnatural however.

Noir

02-24-2011, 03:14 PM

Your changing the subject and trying to bring ethics and societal laws into play here. What is natural is procreation, ie: man and woman. Same sex, child sex or animal sex is deviant behavior, ie: queer. Man is the only animal that engages in such behavior because man is the only animal that doesn't act on instinct.

A 25 year old man with a 12 year old girl is deviant and unethical. It is not unnatural however.

This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Sorry what?

Gaffer

02-24-2011, 03:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Sorry what?

Junk science to promote the liberal tolerance of queer and deviant behavior.

Noir

02-24-2011, 03:58 PM

Junk science to promote the liberal tolerance of queer and deviant behavior.

Mkay, can't you provide counter sources to discredit the info presented or did you just make that judgement yourself?

Gaffer

02-24-2011, 04:40 PM

Mkay, can't you provide counter sources to discredit the info presented or did you just make that judgement yourself?

I made that judgment myself. I'm not interested in researching anything about queers.

Noir

02-24-2011, 04:46 PM

I made that judgment myself. I'm not interested in researching anything about queers.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Reminds me of a quote by Richard Dawkins one 'what is science' when he said "Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence"
If you want to live in your ignorance fair enough, but that doesn't say much for you, just saying.

jimnyc

02-25-2011, 07:16 AM

Mkay, let's play a game, anyone can join in.

Your Son comes to your house one day, say, 25 years old, and says 'Mum, Dad, I a) am gay b) am a pedophile c) have sex with animals.
Which of the three options would you rather. Or are they all the same in your eyes?

If it were my son?

a) - I would be more than happy to pay for the intensive psychiatric therapy he needs. (My son is now 10, and we have already discussed the issue and HE stated to me that it is wrong and HE cannot understand why people are like that)

b) - If I had evidence of him being a pedophile I would call the cops, have him arrested for his crimes & then help him get the appropriate help after he pays his debt to society.

c) - If I had evidence of him having sex with animals, he would be "persona non grata" with me until that sick act was out of his life and he has somehow repented for his actions.

Which would I "rather"? NONE! As a parent, we would see them all as a sickness, be disheartened that our son was sick, but be realistic and get him the appropriate help.

Noir

02-25-2011, 07:44 AM

If it were my son?

a) - I would be more than happy to pay for the intensive psychiatric therapy he needs. (My son is now 10, and we have already discussed the issue and HE stated to me that it is wrong and HE cannot understand why people are like that)

b) - If I had evidence of him being a pedophile I would call the cops, have him arrested for his crimes & then help him get the appropriate help after he pays his debt to society.

c) - If I had evidence of him having sex with animals, he would be "persona non grata" with me until that sick act was out of his life and he has somehow repented for his actions.

Which would I "rather"? NONE! As a parent, we would see them all as a sickness, be disheartened that our son was sick, but be realistic and get him the appropriate help.

You also believe it's behavioral rather than biological I guess,

If I can ask, would there be any heterosexual acts youd pay for your son to be corrected from? Like, say he had a foot fetish, or get couldn't get off unless his patner was dressed as a furry? Or some other such oddity?

jimnyc

02-25-2011, 08:14 AM

You also believe it's behavioral rather than biological I guess,

If I can ask, would there be any heterosexual acts youd pay for your son to be corrected from? Like, say he had a foot fetish, or get couldn't get off unless his patner was dressed as a furry? Or some other such oddity?

Well, first off, lets take the pedophilia and sex with animals off the table - as both of those are illegal acts in the US. No parent should condone/support illegal actions from their children.

I believe homosexuality is a sickness, and a learned sickness through behavior and/or environment. Not for a split second do I believe queers are born that way. My belief is that's an excuse to make them feel better about their decisions.

If my son had a "sexual dysfunction", of course I would help him pay to seek therapy or whatever it was that could help with his dysfunction. But his dysfunction would neither be illegal or a "sickness" that would REQUIRE intensive therapy.

BTW - You say I "think" its behavioral and not biological... I'm confident that with the thousands and thousands and thousands of doctors and scientists in the world, they would have found SOME evidence that homosexuality was biological. I find it odd that NOTHING has ever been found to support that argument.

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 06:58 AM

Noir

02-26-2011, 07:05 AM

(not directed specifically at you, Noir!)

Why is it that those in support of homosexuality tend to disappear from threads that bring up the topic of "born that way" or "biological" when you ask for scientific or medical evidence? While Noir has brought that up here, there is a long history of similar on this board and many others I belong to.

Almost every other "condition" I can think of that people claim to be "born with" is backed up scientifically, 'cept for queerism.

One question I ask of people who think it can be altered with psychology treatment? (I dont think I've asked it here before) is could I be turned gay with the right psychological treatment? Seems only senseable if ghats what someone believes.

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 07:52 AM

One question I ask of people who think it can be altered with psychology treatment? (I dont think I've asked it here before) is could I be turned gay with the right psychological treatment? Seems only senseable if ghats what someone believes.

I would imagine that if you went under intensive therapy by a whackjob, and his therapy was to "teach" you that being heterosexual was deviant and that being queer was normal and how you would find peace and happiness in this world - yes, I think it's possible. Possible with everyone? No. But just like other ailments and diseases, some can be cured and some cannot.

Until such time that PROOF is found that it's not an ailment and simply a biological gene or whatever they want to call it - it's nearly impossibly but to believe it is learned behavior of some sort. As the old saying goes - "We can land a man on the moon and cure forms of cancer - but not a single person can find any proof of homosexuals "being born" that way".

Noir, do you think maybe there's a concerted effort throughout the scientific and medical fields to cover up information proving what the homos believe? With ZILCH as proof, why would you think they are born this way?

Missileman

02-26-2011, 08:50 AM

(not directed specifically at you, Noir!)

Why is it that those in support of homosexuality tend to disappear from threads that bring up the topic of "born that way" or "biological" when you ask for scientific or medical evidence? While Noir has brought that up here, there is a long history of similar on this board and many others I belong to.

Almost every other "condition" I can think of that people claim to be "born with" is backed up scientifically, 'cept for queerism.

We don't know which gene screwed up and caused a baby to be born blind, so obviously it is choosing not to see. :rolleyes:

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 09:22 AM

We don't know which gene screwed up and caused a baby to be born blind, so obviously it is choosing not to see. :rolleyes:

Show me JUST ONE incident where a human being was/is born blind and the doctors/scientists cannot tell them or their parents why. JUST ONE.

As MFM liked to say - "I'll wait".

** Edit **

Here's a starting point for you:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7k3GDGlNqhwA02NXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&p=babies+born+blind&rs=0&fr2=rs-top

Missileman

02-26-2011, 10:28 AM

Show me JUST ONE incident where a human being was/is born blind and the doctors/scientists cannot tell them or their parents why. JUST ONE.

As MFM liked to say - "I'll wait".

** Edit **

Here's a starting point for you:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7k3GDGlNqhwA02NXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&p=babies+born+blind&rs=0&fr2=rs-top

Here's an ending point for you:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthdefects.html

For most birth defects, the cause is unknown.

And yet they exist.

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 11:48 AM

Here's an ending point for you:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthdefects.html

And yet they exist.

Wrong, and not what I asked for. In those cases they know exactly what the defect is and where - they just don't know HOW they got the defect. In the case of queers, there is no known "defect" or "gene" or ANYTHING biological.

And back to your original point, if a baby is born blind, they will know WHY, they just might not know how the defect came to be. In other words, the biological aspect of the defect they are born with is known.

Feel free to try again though.

Missileman

02-26-2011, 02:09 PM

Wrong, and not what I asked for. In those cases they know exactly what the defect is and where - they just don't know HOW they got the defect. In the case of queers, there is no known "defect" or "gene" or ANYTHING biological.

And back to your original point, if a baby is born blind, they will know WHY, they just might not know how the defect came to be. In other words, the biological aspect of the defect they are born with is known.

Feel free to try again though.

It takes a special type of logic to conclude that being sexually attracted to the same gender is NOT a defect.

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 02:45 PM

It takes a special type of logic to conclude that being sexually attracted to the same gender is NOT a defect.

Some would say the same about drug addicts, alcoholics, murderers... Seems like they are "defective", but they sure as shit weren't born that way, they learned their behaviors and acted on impulse.

Again, and open to EVERYONE, I'd be happy to see the proof that any of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of doctors and scientists have come up with to show that queers are "born that way". If its a defect as you say, MM, then surely this defect can be identified. That's logic 101.

Palin Rider

02-26-2011, 03:05 PM

Until such time that PROOF is found that it's not an ailment and simply a biological gene or whatever they want to call it - it's nearly impossibly but to believe it is learned behavior of some sort.

That's where your logic breaks down. Do you have any control over who you're attracted to? Of course not.

That doesn't necessarily mean you were born to become attracted to certain types of people, but it definitely shows that it's not "learned" behavior.

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 05:13 PM

That's where your logic breaks down. Do you have any control over who you're attracted to? Of course not.

That doesn't necessarily mean you were born to become attracted to certain types of people, but it definitely shows that it's not "learned" behavior.

We all have control and we all learn it over many years from the day we are born. We are constantly learning by our environments, families, friends, schools, parents... Absent proof of something physical/biological - it must be learned, or one must be of the belief that there is a "gay gene" or deformity within queers that the entire worlds worth of doctors and scientists cannot identify. I'll ask you the same as I asked MM - show me another "defect" or something that people are born with that cannot be identified. Cancer, leukemia, dwarfism, blood disorder, tumor... All can be identified by the medical community. Being a faggot can only be identified by their deviant behavior.

Palin Rider

02-26-2011, 07:05 PM

We all have control and we all learn it over many years from the day we are born. We are constantly learning by our environments, families, friends, schools, parents... Absent proof of something physical/biological - it must be learned,

Did you learn to be sexually attracted to some people and not to others? Of course not: it's an involuntary response, which is purely physical.

I'll ask you the same as I asked MM - show me another "defect" or something that people are born with that cannot be identified. Cancer, leukemia, dwarfism, blood disorder, tumor... All can be identified by the medical community. Being a faggot can only be identified by their deviant behavior.

So what are you saying? That a homosexual who marries a woman and has sex with her to cover up being gay isn't really a homo? :confused:

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 07:22 PM

Did you learn to be sexually attracted to some people and not to others? Of course not: it's an involuntary response, which is purely physical.

Through my upbringing, surroundings, lifestyle, parenting, friends, schooling - yes, I learned what normal people are like and how they are supposed to act. I didn't get sexually excited when I was 2 - it was something that came later in life as I learned about sexual activity.

Let's assume for a minute that you are born on an island only inhabited by men, and you're male yourself. All the men on the island are homosexuals. But you are "born that way" liking women. You'd yearn for the female sex, since it's biological?

So what are you saying? That a homosexual who marries a woman and has sex with her to cover up being gay isn't really a homo? :confused:

No, I'm saying that there are no physical/biological features in which to identify faggots. If you think you can find what the worlds doctors/scientists cannot, feel free to share with us.

Missileman

02-26-2011, 07:56 PM

Some would say the same about drug addicts, alcoholics, murderers... Seems like they are "defective", but they sure as shit weren't born that way, they learned their behaviors and acted on impulse.

Again, and open to EVERYONE, I'd be happy to see the proof that any of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of doctors and scientists have come up with to show that queers are "born that way". If its a defect as you say, MM, then surely this defect can be identified. That's logic 101.

How much more identification of a defect do you need than same-gender-sexual attraction? This argument that the defect doesn't exist because you can't see it on an X-ray is highly amusing.

BoogyMan

02-26-2011, 08:06 PM

This is only "true" if you buy into the liberal stupidity that creates the stereotypical dipstickery that is the basis of such tripe.

Trufax are true

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/photo-116.png

jimnyc

02-26-2011, 08:15 PM

How much more identification of a defect do you need than same-gender-sexual attraction? This argument that the defect doesn't exist because you can't see it on an X-ray is highly amusing.

I find it amusing that you continue to ignore requests for proof and blindly proclaim something exists. The only thing defective is their upbringings, parenting, schooling, friendships & most of all their lifestyle choices.

But following your logic...

I guess you also believe in God or another deity. I mean, one need not have any proof, or the ability to actually prove something, for it to exist, right? The fact that things happen that scientists cannot explain proves this logic, right?

Missileman

02-26-2011, 08:46 PM

I find it amusing that you continue to ignore requests for proof and blindly proclaim something exists. The only thing defective is their upbringings, parenting, schooling, friendships & most of all their lifestyle choices.

But following your logic...

I guess you also believe in God or another deity. I mean, one need not have any proof, or the ability to actually prove something, for it to exist, right? The fact that things happen that scientists cannot explain proves this logic, right?

The same gender attraction IS the defect...I don't have to proclaim it exists...it does. Or maybe you'd like to argue that there's no such thing as a homosexual and perfectly normal heterosexuals are engaging in homo sex for shits and giggles.

Palin Rider

02-26-2011, 10:05 PM

Through my upbringing, surroundings, lifestyle, parenting, friends, schooling - yes, I learned what normal people are like and how they are supposed to act. I didn't get sexually excited when I was 2 - it was something that came later in life as I learned about sexual activity.My point is that no man alive can learn how to control who gets him hard and who doesn't. Any guy who claims otherwise is full of it.

Let's assume for a minute that you are born on an island only inhabited by men, and you're male yourself. All the men on the island are homosexuals. But you are "born that way" liking women. You'd yearn for the female sex, since it's biological?You couldn't yearn for something that you aren't aware exists. But if the other men on the island encouraged you to have homo sex, you'd probably find it preferable to masturbation. (shrug)

No, I'm saying that there are no physical/biological features in which to identify faggots. If you think you can find what the worlds doctors/scientists cannot, feel free to share with us.
Scientists have definitely found a few genetic markers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gene) that are "correlative." Meaning that a much higher percentage of people who have the markers live gay lives, compared to the percentage of people without the markers.

Psychoblues

02-27-2011, 12:19 AM

I know many homosexuals. All of them claim to have known about their "difference" for as long as they knew there was a "difference". Although some have occasional bi-sexual proclivities they all insist homosexual activities are their "true" selves. Jimbo, you go on and on and on about all these thousands and thousands and thousands of doctors that cannot explain homosexuality but you don't admit that those same doctors recognise homosexuality not as any defect or personal insanity or deviance but as who they are and nothing significantly more. Your homophobia is certainly a problem and it can be treated quite successfully if you follow your doctor's advise. I think that is usually just a bit of education and a willingness to end all that wilful ignorance. But, that's just thinking.

Psychoblues

jimnyc

02-27-2011, 05:48 AM

The same gender attraction IS the defect...I don't have to proclaim it exists...it does. Or maybe you'd like to argue that there's no such thing as a homosexual and perfectly normal heterosexuals are engaging in homo sex for shits and giggles.

Well, we both agree that they are defective. Short of ANY proof, I stand by my stance that their defect is from a life of learning/experiences.

My point is that no man alive can learn how to control who gets him hard and who doesn't. Any guy who claims otherwise is full of it.

Agreed if it was a one time adult challenge. But we all have to have that "first time" - and I think before that it is years of learning from all the areas I have described, then we learn more, then one day it happens.

You couldn't yearn for something that you aren't aware exists.

Even if you were born that way? Sounds like you are saying you need interaction with the same sex and life experiences in order to have that yearning.

But if the other men on the island encouraged you to have homo sex, you'd probably find it preferable to masturbation. (shrug)

Through learned experience and surroundings you believe someone might turn to homo sex? Thanks for unwittingly proving my points.

Scientists have definitely found a few genetic markers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gene) that are "correlative." Meaning that a much higher percentage of people who have the markers live gay lives, compared to the percentage of people without the markers.

Sorry, while I do use Wiki myself often, it's for general facts. Both sides of this argument toss out "paperwork" all over the place that are full of shit. Even Wiki states on another page that family influences and their environment cause many aspects, but I won't use those pages as "proof". Definitive and peer reviewed paperwork is the only acceptable proof on matters such as this. Good luck finding definitive proof that doctors/scientists from across the spectrum agree and approve of - it doesn't exist.

Palin Rider

02-27-2011, 02:46 PM

My point is that no man alive can learn how to control who gets him hard and who doesn't. Any guy who claims otherwise is full of it.Agreed if it was a one time adult challenge. But we all have to have that "first time" - and I think before that it is years of learning from all the areas I have described, then we learn more, then one day it happens.
Sexually, I am completely turned off by obese women. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing; it's just the way I am. I didn't learn this, nor do I control it.

I strongly doubt that I could become a "Fat-Admirer" just through psychotherapy or any other kind of learning.

Psychoblues

02-27-2011, 03:19 PM

Sexually, I am completely turned off by obese women. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing; it's just the way I am. I didn't learn this, nor do I control it.

I strongly doubt that I could become a "Fat-Admirer" just through psychotherapy or any other kind of learning.

Fat bottom women make the world go 'round!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

Palin Rider

02-27-2011, 03:22 PM

Fat bottom women make the world go 'round!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

:laugh:

Yeah, I know. I've known some very cool chicks who happened to be fat, and they were fun to hang out with. But friends with benefits? No way.

Psychoblues

02-28-2011, 10:51 AM

:laugh:

Yeah, I know. I've known some very cool chicks who happened to be fat, and they were fun to hang out with. But friends with benefits? No way.

I've known some rather heavy women that were so entirely interesting that just their company and conversations were plenty, but if something more primitive came up I remained open to suggestions.

:laugh2:

Psychoblues

fj1200

02-28-2011, 03:29 PM

Requirement? A church to marry you.

Palin Rider

02-28-2011, 09:28 PM

Requirement? A church to marry you.

So you object to hetero atheists getting married by a judge?

fj1200

03-01-2011, 08:03 AM

So you object to hetero atheists getting married by a judge?

That would follow wouldn't it? Why would two atheists want to be "married" given it's religious underpinnings?

Noir

03-01-2011, 08:19 AM

That would follow wouldn't it? Why would two atheists want to be "married" given it's religious underpinnings?

Well, legal rights for a start.

fj1200

03-01-2011, 09:34 AM

Well, legal rights for a start.

Such as?

Noir

03-01-2011, 09:46 AM

Such as?

Click and learn :3
http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/marriedornot/LegalOverview.htm

fj1200

03-01-2011, 10:00 AM

Click and learn :3
http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/marriedornot/LegalOverview.htm

So what's new there except that it's all from the UK? :rolleyes: Nevertheless marriage is nothing more than a contract and should be governed under contract law. Most on that list can easily be covered by a civil contract and the remaining issues will be as well once the state sanctioning of marriage is removed.

Noir

03-01-2011, 10:37 AM

So what's new there except that it's all from the UK? :rolleyes: Nevertheless marriage is nothing more than a contract and should be governed under contract law. Most on that list can easily be covered by a civil contract and the remaining issues will be as well once the state sanctioning of marriage is removed.

Of course it can be covered by a civil contract, and should, anyone that wants to have a civil contract with the exact same legal protections should be able to have one, the difference then is only name, and really, I don't care what people want to call their union, and that should be of little concern to anyone tbh.

fj1200

03-01-2011, 11:06 AM

Of course it can be covered by a civil contract, and should, anyone that wants to have a civil contract with the exact same legal protections should be able to have one, the difference then is only name, and really, I don't care what people want to call their union, and that should be of little concern to anyone tbh.

Well there you go.

Abbey Marie

03-01-2011, 06:18 PM

Sexually, I am completely turned off by obese women. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing; it's just the way I am. I didn't learn this, nor do I control it.

I strongly doubt that I could become a "Fat-Admirer" just through psychotherapy or any other kind of learning.

In a society that all but worships thinness, all throughout the media as well, how do you know you haven't learned this?

Noir

03-01-2011, 07:24 PM

Well there you go.

Exactly, but to all intents and purposes they are getting married. Just not in a church but by a judge, and with a few words changed around, other than that everything else will be exactly the same. And who's to stop these two people calling it a marriage if they want? No one

Also let's look at the definition of marriage;

1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband*and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people*to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

You seem to imply that marriage is only a religious institution, when it clearly isn't, it can be OR it can be legal and non-religious. In that sense I don't see why you have a problem with atheists getting married in a non-religious, legal ceremony.

Palin Rider

03-01-2011, 08:28 PM

logroller

03-02-2011, 04:05 AM

Exactly, but to all intents and purposes they are getting married. Just not in a church but by a judge, and with a few words changed around, other than that everything else will be exactly the same. And who's to stop these two people calling it a marriage if they want? No one

Also let's look at the definition of marriage;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

You seem to imply that marriage is only a religious institution, when it clearly isn't, it can be OR it can be legal and non-religious. In that sense I don't see why you have a problem with atheists getting married in a non-religious, legal ceremony.

The issue I take up is rather a religious organization could be legally required to marry an atheist or face discrimation suits. I think you look to evidence the obvious rather than, through logical extension, how such equality may be detrimental to another's liberty. I'd rather see legal marriage abolished than tarnished.

fj1200

03-02-2011, 10:32 AM

Exactly, but to all intents and purposes they are getting married. Just not in a church but by a judge, and with a few words changed around, other than that everything else will be exactly the same. And who's to stop these two people calling it a marriage if they want? No one

Also let's look at the definition of marriage;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

You seem to imply that marriage is only a religious institution, when it clearly isn't, it can be OR it can be legal and non-religious. In that sense I don't see why you have a problem with atheists getting married in a non-religious, legal ceremony.

Wow, fancy hyperlink. Watch your inferences there, I didn't say it was religious only and I've clearly stated that the state shouldn't, IMO, have a say in the matter so at that point what is the purpose of the judge?

I didn't say I had a problem with it. Two people can commit to each other in the presence of their friends, sign a binding contract if they like, and 'til death do them part.

You seem to be arguing that the state should have a role, if you grant the state the power to allow something today you grant the state the power to disallow tomorrow.

He doesn't really have a PROBLEM with anything, Noir. He just enjoys being annoying.

1, 2. Yup, no substance.

fj1200

03-02-2011, 10:35 AM

The issue I take up is rather a religious organization could be legally required to marry an atheist or face discrimation suits. I think you look to evidence the obvious rather than, through logical extension, how such equality may be detrimental to another's liberty. I'd rather see legal marriage abolished than tarnished.

Good point, look to the suits against the Boy Scouts re: gay troop leaders and against eHarmony re: not accepting gay singles.

Noir

03-02-2011, 10:53 AM

Wow, fancy hyperlink. Watch your inferences there, I didn't say it was religious only and I've clearly stated that the state shouldn't, IMO, have a say in the matter so at that point what is the purpose of the judge?

The purpose of the judge is to preside of the legal ceremony of two people getting married/civiliy-partnered/whatever who do not wish it done by a priest/minister etc for whatever reason. Someone is going to have to do it, and if not a judge then who?

I didn't say I had a problem with it. Two people can commit to each other in the presence of their friends, sign a binding contract if they like, and 'til death do them part.

You seem to be arguing that the state should have a role, if you grant the state the power to allow something today you grant the state the power to disallow tomorrow.

Ofcourse the state has a role to play. Heck, I could scribble a contract between me and my gf, declaring use married, and we could live asif we are so, but that contact would noprotect us legally. The state already has the power to allow and disallow marriages (or in my made up case, who chose which to recognize and which not to) is that nt what happened in California? The state regignoized same sex marriage/partnership before it was then changed after prop 8?

fj1200

03-02-2011, 10:58 AM

The purpose of the judge is to preside of the legal ceremony of two people getting married/civiliy-partnered/whatever who do not wish it done by a priest/minister etc for whatever reason. Someone is going to have to do it, and if not a judge then who?

Why, I said the state should have no role other than contract law. Does a partnership between two businesspeople go before a judge to ratify the legal agreement?

Ofcourse the state has a role to play. Heck, I could scribble a contract between me and my gf, declaring use married, and we could live asif we are so, but that contact would noprotect us legally[/B]. The state already has the power to allow and disallow marriages (or in my made up case, who chose which to recognize and which not to) is that nt what happened in California? The state regignoized same sex marriage/partnership before it was then changed after prop 8?

What legal protections do you require that could not be handled under contract law? I do recognize that some legal changes would be necessary under my scenario.

I know the state has that power, I suggested a change.

Noir

03-02-2011, 11:08 AM

Why, I said the state should have no role other than contract law. Does a partnership between two businesspeople go before a judge to ratify the legal agreement?

The business people will either be experienced in contact law or they will have solicitors/barristers acting not their behalf. I'd be happy enough to replace the judge with a solicitor, but you would certainly need someone with legal knowledge to preside over the contract and make it legally binding.

What legal protections do you require that could not be handled under contract law? I do recognize that some legal changes would be necessary under my scenario.

I know the state has that power, I suggested a change.

Mkay so under your system, who do you go to ta get married, who writes the contracts and empowers them and Who presides over the signing?

logroller

03-02-2011, 12:22 PM

Ofcourse the state has a role to play. Heck, I could scribble a contract between me and my gf, declaring use married, and we could live asif we are so, but that contact would noprotect us legally. The state already has the power to allow and disallow marriages (or in my made up case, who chose which to recognize and which not to) is that nt what happened in California? The state regignoized same sex marriage/partnership before it was then changed after prop 8?

Prop 8 was subsequently declared null and void. In actuality, CA still recognizes civil marriages from other jurisdictions[states], regardless of rather the union could be executed legally in CAli; so long as they were legal in the other jurisdiction (excluding those odious to public policy, ie same-sex or polygamous). Conversely, CA doesn't recognize a union which was entered into without legal merit in another juridiction, regardless of rather it could have been legally entered into in CA. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, DOMA allows for a state to not prescribe to the principles of comity (reciprocity), but doesn't forbid it either.

fj1200

03-02-2011, 01:49 PM

The business people will either be experienced in contact law or they will have solicitors/barristers acting not their behalf. I'd be happy enough to replace the judge with a solicitor, but you would certainly need someone with legal knowledge to preside over the contract and make it legally binding.

You overestimate some business people. BTW a contract is not required to be in writing although it's helpful if there is a misunderstanding. But no, your last statement is incorrect. Besides I'm sure legalzoom.com could whip something up no problem.

There is no required contract at present but some states do have laws regarding community property, etc.

Mkay so under your system, who do you go to ta get married, who writes the contracts and empowers them and Who presides over the signing?

I imagine all you would need are two witnesses. You seem to be overthinking all of this.