Jon Stewart FTMFW

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

And what you're saying is utterly impractical and frankly naive.

And you are delusional if you truly think marriage can ever be separated from its religious roots, regardless of how you try to twist the definition and semantics.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

And what you're saying is utterly impractical and frankly naive.

And you are delusional if you truly think marriage can ever be separated from its religious roots, regardless of how you try to twist the definition and semantics.

It has been redefined consistently as separate from religion for decades now, especially with inter-racial couples. Please educate yourself, you're misinformed.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

when a foreign immigrant marries a US citizen would be one example.

 

[Farang]

If you don't understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples then you must have never been around a divorce. My parents for example, my mom is a college grad and she could've pursued a career but by marrying my Dad she had to stay home and raise kids. So everything is in his name and he is the moneymaker but not because she is lazy, because they mutually decided he would go to an office and she would raise children. When they divorce after 30 years, she should not be left out on her ass with no savings and no right to their assets. Technically the paycheck was in his name but it was a union that included work from both of them, and the government should recognize that.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

when a foreign immigrant marries a US citizen would be one example.

i understand there are a multitude of reasons that exist, i dont understand WHY they do.
in this particular example, i don't see any reason why becoming a citizen should have anything to do with marital status.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Farang
If you don't understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples then you must have never been around a divorce. My parents for example, my mom is a college grad and she could've pursued a career but by marrying my Dad she had to stay home and raise kids. So everything is in his name and he is the moneymaker but not because she is lazy, because they mutually decided he would go to an office and she would raise children. When they divorce after 30 years, she should not be left out on her ass with no savings and no right to their assets. Technically the paycheck was in his name but it was a union that included work from both of them, and the government should recognize that.

So why was everything in his name again?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

citizenship. inheritance. property division. custody rights and legal guardianship. paternity suits. support claims. debt repayment. gov't benefits. etc ad fucking nauseum. you kidding?

about 1400 rights confer with marriage. here's a summary:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

now, you wanna fill out 1400 forms or just have the govt recognize your relationship?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Farang
If you don't understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples then you must have never been around a divorce. My parents for example, my mom is a college grad and she could've pursued a career but by marrying my Dad she had to stay home and raise kids. So everything is in his name and he is the moneymaker but not because she is lazy, because they mutually decided he would go to an office and she would raise children. When they divorce after 30 years, she should not be left out on her ass with no savings and no right to their assets. Technically the paycheck was in his name but it was a union that included work from both of them, and the government should recognize that.

So why was everything in his name again?

I suppose they could have had joint accounts for everything from cars to the house to bank accounts and stocks. But without marriage I wonder what kind of process that would be to split those things up, especially when he is the one making all of the deposits and purchases with his paycheck.

 

[OCGuy]

So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

his public position on gay marriage is wrong. bye troll.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

actually the gov't used to ask the canonical courts to determine that. and it was a lot easier to be married under the canonical courts' rules than modern common law marriage

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

actually the gov't used to ask the canonical courts to determine that. and it was a lot easier to be married under the canonical courts' rules than modern common law marriage

Not in this country. And weren't there restrictions on women inheriting property anyway, didn't it go to their oldest son or other male relative who would then tolerat the crone's presence in his house?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

citizenship. inheritance. property division. custody rights and legal guardianship. paternity suits. support claims. debt repayment. gov't benefits. etc ad fucking nauseum. you kidding?

about 1400 rights confer with marriage. here's a summary:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

why is anyone granted citizenship merely due to marriage?
why does the govt. have any bearing on who i choose to leave my money to?
property is a non-issue if the proper owners are documented. any controversy and you can take it to the courts like everyone else
parternity/custody/support/guardianship issues can be resolved without having to label a husband and wife... can start with a mother and father, and go from there
debt repayment? same as property, if you are sharing assets and debts, it will all be legally documented
why are gov't benefits given to spouses at all?

like i said earlier, im not contesting the fact that there are laws built off this concept, im questioning the need to approach it in this manner.

women are no longer property. recall that they were once not even allowed to vote! in that day and age, laws like this made sense. now, everyone is their own man/woman. its time to start thinking about it in this way.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

when a foreign immigrant marries a US citizen would be one example.

i understand there are a multitude of reasons that exist, i dont understand WHY they do.
in this particular example, i don't see any reason why becoming a citizen should have anything to do with marital status.

becoming a citizen doesn't have anything to do with marital status however getting a green card does.

 

[Farang]

You're given citizenship based on marriage so that your spouse isn't a second class citizen for the rest of his or her life with you.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Farang
You're given citizenship based on marriage so that your spouse isn't a second class citizen for the rest of his or her life with you.

actually marriage allows one to become a legal resident with a green card. the process of gaining citizenship is the same for those with a green card, no matter how they achieved it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all

citizenship. inheritance. property division. custody rights and legal guardianship. paternity suits. support claims. debt repayment. gov't benefits. etc ad fucking nauseum. you kidding?

about 1400 rights confer with marriage. here's a summary:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

why is anyone granted citizenship merely due to marriage?
why does the govt. have any bearing on who i choose to leave my money to?
property is a non-issue if the proper owners are documented. any controversy and you can take it to the courts like everyone else
parternity/custody/support/guardianship issues can be resolved without having to label a husband and wife... can start with a mother and father, and go from there
debt repayment? same as property, if you are sharing assets and debts, it will all be legally documented
why are gov't benefits given to spouses at all?

like i said earlier, im not contesting the fact that there are laws built off this concept, im questioning the need to approach it in this manner.

women are no longer property. recall that they were once not even allowed to vote! in that day and age, laws like this made sense. now, everyone is their own man/woman. its time to start thinking about it in this way.

oy vey. just to make this simple i'll respond to one of the above. multiply the problem by 1000 and you'll see what happens if the gov doesn't recognize marriage/unions of couples.

'why does the govt. have any bearing on who i choose to leave my money to?"

Say you die without a will. Who gets your property? what about your debts? the "wife" you live with? Your kids? your step kids? Your kids from a previous relationship? In what proportion? What if you die at the same time as your wife? what if your wife kills you?

is the picture starting to clear up? having litigation over every intestate death would result in chaos. that's just one area of the law. mutliply it out.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Farang
You're given citizenship based on marriage so that your spouse isn't a second class citizen for the rest of his or her life with you.

actually marriage allows one to become a legal resident with a green card. the process of gaining citizenship is the same for those with a green card, no matter how they achieved it.

Becoming a legal resident is the first step on the path to citizenship so technically yes, marriage does not equal citizenship but if the government did not recognize marriage your spouse would have to be an illegal immigrant or otherwise obtain a visa, which obviously is extremely difficult.

 

[cubby1223]

Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

So being able to reproduce is a prerequisite of marriage? Should all infertile couples be given forced annulments?

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

who called Huckabee a racist, bigot or tyrant?

by your logic, if a couple does not have children then they should not be allowed to be married.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

pardon my ignorance regarding marriage and citizenship. becoming a citizen is way more complicated than it should be, but that is for a different thread

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

that's ok, they are dying out pretty quickly. a few decades should cleanse about 80% of the problem.

 

[Farang]

You guys talking about social conservatives dying out are nuts, they say the same thing about pot and have been for 50 years but it is still illegal.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

that's ok, they are dying out pretty quickly. a few decades should cleanse about 80% of the problem.

they will always be there, its the same people who fought against the civil rights and womens rights movements.