Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Maine legalizes gay marriage
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 76 of 92 (508247)
05-11-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Theodoric
05-11-2009 8:47 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:
You keep saying this article shows that Fannie Mae is responsible for the economic crisis.
This is coming completely off topic. I already offered to continue discussion in a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 8:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 77 of 92 (508254)
05-11-2009 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Michamus
05-11-2009 7:58 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
I would prefer to allow people to be people, and let the government worry about what it was founded for... Tariffs, Managing a Navy, and any inter-state affairs.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 2:03 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 78 of 92 (508259)
05-11-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Michamus
05-11-2009 7:58 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Michamus, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:57 AM Stagamancer has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 79 of 92 (508387)
05-13-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stagamancer
05-11-2009 10:03 PM


Stagamancer writes:
Your sardonicism is not conducive to a decent debate
We can chalk that up to me being grumpy. I am human after-all
Stagamancer writes:
Without any oversight at all, what's to prevent people from marrying a whole bunch of people solely for the tax benefits?
I am not saying there should be NO oversight. Notice my definition still included the marriage of one individual to another.
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:
Again, what you've failed to realize
How would you know what I have and have not realized?
*
Stagamancer writes:
Yes. It's happened before.
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.
*
Stagamancer writes:
There are no religious rites that have legal standing, why should marriage be different?
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.
Some great points you have made thus far.
Edited by Michamus, : inserted * to *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stagamancer, posted 05-11-2009 10:03 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Stagamancer, posted 05-13-2009 2:41 AM Michamus has replied
 Message 85 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 12:37 PM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 80 of 92 (508388)
05-13-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
05-11-2009 8:30 PM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:
Local governments and state governments have always shown a propensity to enforce the will of the majority upon the minority.
Non-sequitor. We are discussing federal gov't.
Theodoric writes:
You speak as if the founding fathers all wanted a weak federal government.
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.
Theodoric writes:
Have you heard of the Federalists vs the Demoratic-Republicans?
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...
Theodoric writes:
I disagree with your simplistic take on it.
And I disagree with your simplification of my take on it
Edited by Michamus, : fixed last qs tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 8:30 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 2:26 AM Michamus has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 81 of 92 (508393)
05-13-2009 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Michamus
05-13-2009 2:03 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
quote:
Non-sequitor. We are discussing federal gov't.[
No it isn't a non-sequitpr. It is my point why we need a strong federal.
quote:
A great portion of them did want a weak federal government.
actually no, it was pretty much an even split.
quote:
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...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 2:03 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 2:28 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 82 of 92 (508394)
05-13-2009 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Theodoric
05-13-2009 2:26 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:
Would you like a tutorial on early US history? Or are you happy with your fantasy rendition?
ROFL! You make me laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 2:26 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 2:33 AM Michamus has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 83 of 92 (508395)
05-13-2009 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Michamus
05-13-2009 2:28 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
Nice rebuttal to my points.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 2:28 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:25 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 84 of 92 (508396)
05-13-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Michamus
05-13-2009 1:57 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:57 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:27 PM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 85 of 92 (508443)
05-13-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Michamus
05-13-2009 1:57 AM


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:
Common-law marriage (or common law marriage), sometimes called de facto marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of interpersonal status which is legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry. A common law marriage is legally binding in some jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others. In some jurisdictions without true common law marriages (e.g. Hungary), the term "common law marriage" is used as a synonym for non-marital relationships such as domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries relationship.
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:
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:57 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:32 PM onifre has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 86 of 92 (508447)
05-13-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Theodoric
05-13-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Missed it Taz
Theodoric writes:
Nice rebuttal to my points.
What's left really? You provide ad-hominem, I provide ad-hominem. End of story.
Unless you believe that any discussion on US History, and a strong vs weak federal government is relevant to gay rights?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 2:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 87 of 92 (508448)
05-13-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Stagamancer
05-13-2009 2:41 AM


Stagamancer writes:
It just the nature of prejudice.
And we are agreed that the prejudice needs to end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Stagamancer, posted 05-13-2009 2:41 AM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 88 of 92 (508450)
05-13-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by onifre
05-13-2009 12:37 PM


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:
Again, the same rights extended to straight couples are not available for gay couples. Each states specifically says "husband and wife".
I agree with you, which is why that specification needs to be changed or removed completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 12:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 1:46 PM Michamus has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 89 of 92 (508453)
05-13-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Michamus
05-13-2009 1:32 PM


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 "common law marriage" is one in which the parties may hold themselves out as a husband and wife, and under certain circumstances, be deemed married without a marriage license or ceremony. Florida doesn't have a common law marriage, however Florida does recognize common law marriages that occurred in other states.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 1:32 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Michamus, posted 05-14-2009 1:23 AM onifre has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 90 of 92 (508474)
05-14-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
05-13-2009 1:46 PM


onifre writes:
A better question would be, if other states DID consider gay couples CLM'ied, would Florida recognize that too?
That is a good question, and I would say in all fairness they should, but would they?
onifre writes:
since I tend to live with random chicks every now and then
I have that same problem too, hopefully there will never be a chicken flu epidemic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 05-13-2009 1:46 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 05-15-2009 2:06 PM Michamus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024