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

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Kali74

 

Actually the Federal Government never had any business creating a contract between itself and legal consenting adults.

It should have left this up to the states. There's no need for it be validated at the "federal level", since marriage is not dictated in the Constitution as a Federal thing, it needed to be deal with by only the states.

SInce they decided to create an entire legal system surrounding a religious practice, they should create an equal system for same sex couples or those who do not wish to marry under the banner of religion.

'Giving people the right to do what they already have the right to do, only gives others an excuse to legislate those rights away'.

~Tenth

I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree with the part about being left up to the States.

Fact is "marriage" is a religious ceremony/ union and always has been. The State has no business being involved in marriage at all. It is between people and the Church. That's it.

I have always said the only thing that makes Gay Marriage an issue is the fact that "married" couples get tax breaks and benefits that "single" people are not entitled to. If you are "married" and you are Gay, in the eyes of the State/ Federal Government/ and the Law- you are technically "single".

If we were to eliminate these benefits that "married" people receive, you would eliminate this whole debate overnight.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
you are not Libertarians...you are something else....

Sounds pretty ignorant and totalitarian to me.

'You cannot claim my philosophy! '
Yeah right, I can claim anything I want.

So much for being pro-freedom yet you flip out when it's asserted you were supporting tyranny subtly and without consciously recognizing it for what it is?

Parties are for followers. If someone really believed in Liberty they would be party to no organization because that would limit their options. Freedom is about leading yourself, not seeking to be led.

I am absolutely certain your ideologies are not consistent with protecting rights/liberty.

What's next suing people for "stealing your precious ideological label"? Give me a break....

Originally posted by MrWendal

If we were to eliminate these benefits that "married" people receive, you would eliminate this whole debate overnight.

Exactly it's a form of preferential treatment.

Good post thanks for chiming in.

Hopefully one day soon we can eradicate this debate by abolishing the fallacious "licensing" practice.

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

reply to post by Annee


Spin and bull crap.
The role of care taking does dont make one weak and vulnerable.
I pose the question again should churches be mandated to perform all marriages regardless of sex or can their beliefs keep them from performing gay marriage.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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?

What? Are you trying to be stupid now?

I support a Federal Contract "Marriage License" for all that want it (apparently I have to state 2 or more now).

It should be the same for everyone.

I am not an Anarchist. There are over 300 million people in America. Legal protection is vital - - especially for the vulnerable.

Who is vulnerable besides Caretakers and Children? Elderly - Invalid - etc. In a non-child LGBT Marriage - - - the contract will protect the spouse.

I don't care whether you agree or not.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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.

I am not judging your character. But you do act like you have an axe to grind. That usually comes from somewhere.

It is your choice not to have a marriage license.

You are not going to take my choice away.

And I will keep fighting for ALL to have that choice.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

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

reply to post by Annee

 

Spin and bull crap.
The role of care taking does dont make one weak and vulnerable.
I pose the question again should churches be mandated to perform all marriages regardless of sex or can their beliefs keep them from performing gay marriage.

Do you always resort to that line - - - when someone posts something you don't like?

I answered your question on churches. Not my problem you can't comprehend it.

Oh, this old "Chestnut"...

After seven pages of intelligent arguing.

We are no further along.

I do not care who anybody loves.

If you do, that's your issue.

Also, I agree with the anti-license folks.

I find it ironic you have to pay to get married.

After 25 years....You would have to pay me to do it again.

reply to post by Annee


Yes i like that line very much.
For the sake of my education and comprehension level could you answer with a yes or a no? Do you support any mandate now or in the future that forces churches to marry gays?

Originally posted by tamusan
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.

No - not to me anyway. I like your posts. They are simple and logical. (my kind of post )

Also - - I agree with your full post. I've lived many years - - and try to keep a realistic view of the world without cynicism. Anyone can blame.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Really?...you have no idea to whom you speak...small timer....mediocre participant.

I will say what I believe. I am a card carrying member...are you?...prob not so stfu...candy boy...er...candy girl...

You have no idea what freedom is...you think you do but it prob comes from some stupid game or online sight.

I can say...without a doubt...what Libertarianism is...I bet you think it is some catch all for not approving the staus quo...it is not. We are not anarchists...we have a plan...apparently you do not....

In fact...most of you losers are actually more in line with the "Green" party....they have a lot of Constitutional beliefs....you have this idea that the Libertarians have no structure...we do...we do not openly accept the dregs and the losers that are looking for justification for being losers....we don't. We believe people are supposed to be responsible for their actions...if you want a free ticket...better go see the democrats....we are not going to support you when the # hits the fan....if you think that is what we are about...you are super sadly mistaken....

So people need a card to believe in something?
I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about.

90% of your speech is veiled insults and trash talking. So the Libertarian party is what a wrestling arena like the WWE? Doubtful.

I know exactly who you are, you are a human being. Your false/fictional status in the social structure grants you no special privileges in the realm of ideas and knowledge.

'Libertarian' is Latin.
It means "Proponent or Advocate of Freedom".

You have no legitimate right to deny that from anyone. In fact, the very act of you throwing a tantrum and attempting to push others away from libertarianism out of spite reveals that your leanings are closer to anti-liberty.

You can change that however. You can repent and rescind your misled angry comments.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Yes i like that line very much.

For the sake of my education and comprehension level could you answer with a yes or a no? Do you support any mandate now or in the future that forces churches to marry gays?

NO

reply to post by Annee


Ahhh!
Common ground that is great.
Freedom to choose is a great thing and should be available to all but as the other poster said while we ponder these things we are being sized up for extinction regardless how we get off.

Originally posted by whyamIhere

After 25 years....You would have to pay me to do it again.

LOL

I'm coming up on 24. But - I would do it again. The 2nd one - - not the 1st one

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Ahhh!
Common ground that is great.
Freedom to choose is a great thing and should be available to all but as the other poster said while we ponder these things we are being sized up for extinction regardless how we get off.

For me - - its too important to too many people Today - Right Now - - to think about where it might be going in the future.

Those who want Marriage Equality deserve to have it - - as it stands Today. Not to have it taken away from them.

Originally posted by jimmyfromreality
reply to post by Kali74

 

WTF,,,,,,,,,,

another bleeding heart tree hugging baby killing liberal nazi chimes in with not much to say,,,,,,,

Character assassination, ad hominem.

Address the subject and it's related components, ignore the characters of persons participating in the debate.

Sure, no one's perfect, we all trip up here and there. But at least make a basic attempt to conduct the discussion in a productive manner. Insults win no debates, I am afraid. Sure we all wish they could, but sadly they cannot.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Ahhh!
Common ground that is great.
Freedom to choose is a great thing and should be available to all but as the other poster said while we ponder these things we are being sized up for extinction regardless how we get off.

For me - - its too important to too many people Today - Right Now - - to think about where it might be going in the future.

Those who want Marriage Equality deserve to have it - - as it stands Today. Not to have it taken away from them.

Yes but at what cost?
www.lifesitenews.com... o-perform-same-sex-marriages
It would be wiser to admit that the government recoginizing marriage in the first place was wrong and unfair and any further laws supporting marriage would only add fuel to the fire one way or another.
Let's support a system that supports unions regardless of gender or race.
Instead of trying to find equality in a system that was created out of hatred. Two wrongs don't make a right it only distracts from the solution.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Ahhh!
Common ground that is great.
Freedom to choose is a great thing and should be available to all but as the other poster said while we ponder these things we are being sized up for extinction regardless how we get off.

For me - - its too important to too many people Today - Right Now - - to think about where it might be going in the future.

Those who want Marriage Equality deserve to have it - - as it stands Today. Not to have it taken away from them.

License = "Privilege granted or denied by state, which without permission would be illegal"
Human Rights = " inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled"

Eliminating licenses doesn't take anything away aside of unfair privileges that the state denies to those who do not have the license.

By allowing each human being to chart their own course in life without government suppression, it is the only route to real social equality and equal protection under the law.

I honestly am inclined to believe your argument stems entirely from misunderstandings of legal terminology combined with emotional volatility and founded upon a hard-line statist ideology.

Please just look up the word "License" in the legal dictionary and let me know how I am reading the definitions wrong.