Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

Originally posted by Jeremiah65


The mob DOES NOT rule in a Republic...the Mob ruled In the Soviet Union and Germany...how does that make you feel now? It should make you feel like sh!t....which is what that position is....

Historically incorrect entirely.

Republics are always corrupted and overwhelmed, eventually in some way or another.

Soviet Union?
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Nazi Germany = Culmination of the Weimar Republic
PRC = People's Republic of China
North Korea = Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Cuba = Republic of Cuba
Iran = Republic of Iran

ALL of these were Republics in name and practice.

It is a consistent pattern historically that Republics are usurped by dictatorships, and trample human rights through the institution of totalitarian-authoritarian policies. Easily corrupted and led into madness.

This is even apparent here in the United States of America, where totalitarianism is also present in many many forms.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

In my assessment it appears that people are so emotionally invested into this topic that they are willing to bend things a bit to paint unrealistic pictures of how things actually work in practical reality.

Actually - - I am extremely practical.

I support Federal Marriage - - because contracts tend to protect women and children. For Equality it needs to be available to any consenting adults who want it. You act like its forced. It isn't. No one has to have a Legal marriage.

There is not one realistic reason in 2012 for states to decide who can and can not marry. It's out dated. Churches can refuse to marry anyone via freedom of religion.

States should have rights to what affects the state. Arizona and Louisiana do not have the same geographical - business - weather related needs.

Since I come from an era where there was no such thing as Fair Housing - - - I personally witnessed what happens when laws like this are not in place. And that's only on a small scale.

I'm more then aware what will happen if states are given full rights. Not interested.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I think that a desire of total control of everything is present in background of any government system. That's what government is all about to me. Keeping order through control.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
A marriage should be in a church and have nothing to do with gov.
The government should recognize unions of two people with no definitions of sex or race only they should be of legal age and of human decent.

If you don't want a government marriage - - don't get one.

If you think marrying in church is right for you without a government contract - - - go for it.

Gays have been having "agreement marriages" without a government contract for centuries. They've already had this experience.

Originally posted by tamusan
Keeping order through control.

Serious question. Would you prefer something else?

Keep in mind there is over 300 million people in America.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

There is no right or wrong. There is no good or bad.

So it's all good if we chop people into pieces and eat them?
No problem with the holocaust?

Haha, if you are a human being than there is certainly good and bad.

Good = survival
Bad = not survival

For example punching someone is bad, because it lessens our survival rates as conflicts escalate.
Sex is considered good because it brings children and improves survival. *Unless someone else takes your partner which decreases your personal survival rating thus is considered bad*.
Stealing is bad because it lessens survival.
Giving to the hungry is good because it increases survival.

I could go on and on over every step of the gamut. In each case the determinations of good vs bad are a result of survival concepts or inclinations. This also serves as a useful and powerful methodology for double checking someone's mental disposition, as their credibility will unravel when you determine their good vs bad discriminatory faculties are not operating logically.

reply to post by Annee

I support Federal Marriage - - because contracts tend to protect women

I thought women are equal to men.
What about a gay man that takes on a feminine role in a relationship would they have the same protection as a woman filling the same role?

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

I support Federal Marriage - - because contracts tend to protect women

I thought women are equal to men.

What about a gay man that takes on a feminine role in a relationship would they have the same protection as a woman filling the same role?

Oh look a Feminist challenge.

The primary caregiver is still mostly the woman - - but yes it can be a man (straight or gay). The children need protection by law.

A gay man is a gay man - - - he does not take on a feminine role.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I think that a desire of total control of everything is present in background of any government system. That's what government is all about to me. Keeping order through control.

Yes and not only to control and oppress people but even worse.

It is used by those in power to give themselves more power and wealth, while looting it from the people of which that government oppresses.

Government is just a nice sounding synonym for tyranny after all.
List of other terms synonymous with "Tyranny" in a loose sense:

Authoritarianism
Totalitarianism
Absolutism
Autocracy
Despotism
Domination
Fascism
Imperialism
Monocracy
Oligarchy

And surprisingly enough it also lists "Unreasonableness". I agree, all of these forms of tyranny are utterly unreasonable.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Good post, tenth!!!

It should also apply to heterosexual couples who are not married, but qualify for common law status.
Some states do not recognize common law.

If you going to make changes, it should be fair across the board.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

I support Federal Marriage - - because contracts tend to protect women

I thought women are equal to men.

What about a gay man that takes on a feminine role in a relationship would they have the same protection as a woman filling the same role?

Oh look a Feminist challenge.

The primary caregiver is still mostly the woman - - but yes it can be a man (straight or gay). The children need protection by law.

A gay man is a gay man - - - he does not take on a feminine role.

Thank you for defeating your own positions, this makes it easier for me because now I don't even have to debate these types of prejudiced comments. Now everyone will see what is really going on here.

I really appreciate your candid honesty.

reply to post by Annee


So are men and women equal or not?
Also would you recommend a federal mandate on churches to perform gay marriages or would just having the gov. recognize gay marriages be enough?

While your involved in the made for proles dog and pony show, (gays against straights bible thumpers against??...anyone with a brain?? et cetera) the guvment is about to revoke ALL of our rights and protections..."under watchful eyes" the bureaucrats will be counting your farts as you sleep with infra red camera's. Who knows, too many farts and you could get sent to the corporate Gulag officially know as "The Al Gore Center for Climatalogical eugenics" for retraining to reduce your anal emissions to fight global warming. SEIG HEIL BEOTCHES!

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

So are men and equal or not?
Also would you recommend a federal mandate on churches to perform gay marriages or would just having the gov. recognize gay marriages be enough?

Of course men and women are equal in terms of human rights.

But our discrimination proponent counterparts in the debate will obviously disagree.

They will promote prejudice and discrimination in order to protect their ideal of the "State" having authority over everyone because they FEAR FREEDOM.

The mere revelation that you can get these pro-state ideologues to admit they are highly prejudiced and discriminatory should be enough evidence to rest the case.

Their very own comments will reveal how uncompromising and dogmatic their belief system really is, and how it always shuts out certain people based on mere trivial labeling schemes.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Thank you for defeating your own positions, this makes it easier for me because now I don't even have to debate these types of prejudiced comments. Now everyone will see what is really going on here.

I really appreciate your candid honesty.

You are interpreting.

I'm very practical. Simple. Federal Marriage is a contract that should be the same and available to everyone.

What are contracts? Contracts protect the interest of those who sign it. The most vulnerable in a marriage is the woman and children. (yes there are exceptions where a man is the caretaker and in the vulnerable position)

You've probably had a bad divorce and are blaming the system for it.

reply to post by Annee


I hope I have never said anything, which could lead people to believe, that I am against the government of the United States of America. I descend from it's origin. I believe in the basic principles. I have traveled the world and seen how bad some other places really are. Besides, I would never bite the hand which has not only fed me, but also scratches my back from time to time. I incorporated an export business, with the sole intention of helping this country. I don't need any more money.

Yes, I proclaim an admiration for China, from time to time. Yes, I fully enjoy my Japanese spouse visa. I am still an American, and I believe we will be the last country standing.

What I often dislike is the attitude that has develop among the American public. It disgusts me. I've worked hard, ever since I was 15 years old, and have never thought to complain about the overall system. It works. My parents didn't financially help me find my success. Neither did the government, directly. I looked at the system and asked myself, how can I use it to get myself out of poverty. I come from an upper middle class family, but like many 18 year olds, I found that it's necessary to take care of yourself.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

So are men and women equal or not?
Also would you recommend a federal mandate on churches to perform gay marriages or would just having the gov. recognize gay marriages be enough?

Caretaker - - vulnerable position. Who ever is in that position is equal.

Churches don't have to marry anyone. They refuse people for all kinds of reasons - - and do not have to answer to anyone - - as religious freedom is protected by the Constitution.

There are plenty of churches who have already performed gay wedding ceremonies (minus license). There is no need for a gay person to go to any church who refuses them.

I support Federal Marriage for everyone. It is a Federal Contract - - - the same for everyone who chooses it.

Originally posted by Annee

I'm very practical. Simple. Federal Marriage is a contract that should be the same and available to everyone.

What are contracts? Contracts protect the interest of those who sign it. The most vulnerable in a marriage is the woman and children. (yes there are exceptions where a man is the caretaker and in the vulnerable position)

You've probably had a bad divorce and are blaming the system for it.

All you need is two signatures for a contract.
Therefore are you suggesting that single people can get a married contract too?

Like Person X + Federal Govt = marriage.
A two legal 'person' but ONE human marriage.

"Available to everyone" you claimed. That would include everyone especially single people who don't have human partners.

My semantic debate is a result of your misuse of terminology forming contradictory statements.

Now you are judging my character too! For your information I have been with the mother of my children for 9 years now. And we have no plans on separating. We both agreed that we will not obtain a marriage license because we are pro-freedom types and do not support totalitarian oppression.

Totally predictable character attack. That shows me I am getting under your skin with my excellent diction capabilities. Not only that I cunningly set up mental traps that I doubt you will anticipate which will create cognitive dissonance within and result in making silly admissions of the true prejudiced and discriminatory nature of this fallacious belief system you are espousing.

I do not however judge you personally for your mistakes, and I am very forgiving.
All you have to do is admit, "Hey I am totally wrong". I try to avoid hold grudges so even if you refuse to admit your errors, I will still not hold it against your 'character'.

reply to post by Kali74


let's take this a step further and do away with the idea of a marriage anyway...why be penalized for not loving someone anymore...