So is gay marriage a settled issue now?

Nov 2005
7,270
1,897
California
#12
Actually you should study up on that.
The changes you point to are meaningless...
Except to sheeple who think they mean something.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama/articles/2018-01-24/alabama-lawmakers-could-abolish-marriage-licenses
This comment in your article best sums it up...
Albritton argued the proposal is "not a lot of change."
"You are using a very similar form. You are recording it the same way and establishing the marriage in the same way. The only thing you are doing is having the state stop coming in and saying — 'You can get married and you can't' — being the gate keeper," Albritton said.​

It's window dressing which ignores the reality of the situation...

Oklahoma bill abolishes state marriage licenses
An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week rewrites the state’s marriage-licensing process, and asks clergy and notaries to sign off on new marriage papers.

The change is intended to get judges and clerks out of most or all of the marriage process.
This just changes who can sign for officiating.
Quite frankly, it just mimics what other states already do. The headline is b.s.


Abolish The Marriage License
Ooooh. An article from 2009.
Since we're nine years later already, when should I be worried it will come to pass?


Furthermore there is no ramification for abolishing permission from the state to marry.
As I said earlier, then you are opening the door to allowing polygamy, incest marriage, pedophilia marriage, ...
How do you not understand that?


There is no law requiring people to be married to live together and have a relationship of their choosing, therefore there should be no reason they can not register themselves as married with the state as opposed to begging the state for a permission slip. Its a very big difference with the same result. No more Kim Davis denial crap, no more on religious grounds crap. None of that happens. A couple goes to the state, says were married, and thats the end of it. As opposed to, excuse me my lord, with permission of thy lordship, may we be married in a manner of our choosing if it pleases thy lords and nobles. Then they get a piece of paper, that they had to pay for, that specifies (in many cases, depending on the state) where in the state you can be married, and a time table that the piece of paper is good for. Its barbaric, its wrong and I could care less what reason someone came up with it for. Although I am pretty sure it was so local courthouses could impose another fee on the citizens.
Here's another question for you...
Today. If a man and a woman want to get married without the state, what are the consequences?
Truthful answer: NOTHING.

You're whining about "permission" when truthfully it was never needed.
 
Nov 2012
5,603
3,325
Kekistan
#13
The changes you point to are meaningless...
Except to sheeple who think they mean something.

This comment in your article best sums it up...
Albritton argued the proposal is "not a lot of change."
"You are using a very similar form. You are recording it the same way and establishing the marriage in the same way. The only thing you are doing is having the state stop coming in and saying — 'You can get married and you can't' — being the gate keeper," Albritton said.​
Yes, it takes Kim Davis out of the picture
It's window dressing which ignores the reality of the situation...
If its just window dressing then why are you so worried about it?
An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week rewrites the state’s marriage-licensing process, and asks clergy and notaries to sign off on new marriage papers.
The change is intended to get judges and clerks out of most or all of the marriage process.
This just changes who can sign for officiating.
Quite frankly, it just mimics what other states already do. The headline is b.s.
It removes the requirement of a permission from the State, its not BS.

Ooooh. An article from 2009.
Since we're nine years later already, when should I be worried it will come to pass?
Why should you worry about it at all? Yet, here you are.


As I said earlier, then you are opening the door to allowing polygamy, incest marriage, pedophilia marriage, ...
How do you not understand that?
I guess you missed the part about registering the marriage with the state, as opposed to asking permission from the state. Its a big difference you have failed to grasp. Furthermore pedophilia would not involve consenting adults, although some states do allow ephebophilia in regards to marriage which was common at one time in world history.

Here's another question for you...
Today. If a man and a woman want to get married without the state, what are the consequences?
Truthful answer: NOTHING.
Have you ever read a tax return? Have you ever understood survivor and property rights?
You're whining about "permission" when truthfully it was never needed.
If that was the case then why are you defending the idea of getting permission from the state in the form of a paper that you have to pay the state for when you beg them permission to get it?
 
Sep 2018
5,666
946
cleveland ohio
#14
I am opposed to that as well because again it takes the choice away from consenting adults. Maybe people want a relationship without the state just deciding that some arbitary date of cohabitation is now marriage. Maybe the "couple" were not romantically involved, maybe they just shared a mailing address. Now all of a sudden, thanks to the state, you have a person with a potential property claim on property that really they should have no claim to unless stated in a will.
the state must play a role, i dont want these perv relgious whackos marying 12 year olds.. you cant convince me society does not have the power or the authirty to protect kids.. it why i embrace the big welfare state lots of people are in no position to take care ofthemselves kids disabled old the poor the government should protect them often from themselves or their parents or pedophiles with money, if you had your way people would be selling their kids to child molestors like they do in those muslsim countries i would site the paradox of freedom
Karl R. Popper > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”


― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
 
Sep 2018
5,666
946
cleveland ohio
#15
LMAO, maybe it does but you figure Islam doesnt?

Also, what you call oppression may be consensual behavior. Is BDSM now abuse if all parties involved agree?
i despise islam with a violent passion i hate islam its the one thng that makes me right wing i have to aviod liberals i am a rabid secularist i am not find of any relgion, well maybe asatru but not seriosly any time i get around regressive liberal types apologizing for islmo fascism i strat to froth at the mouth i was a big fan of chistopher hitchesns rip
Karl R. Popper > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”


― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
 
Sep 2018
5,666
946
cleveland ohio
#16
LMAO, maybe it does but you figure Islam doesnt?

Also, what you call oppression may be consensual behavior. Is BDSM now abuse if all parties involved agree?
in some ways i favor restricts on violent porn i think it is unhealthy and contributes to the decline of our culture like ancient rome got decadent, i would not ban all porn but any porn that fantasizes about rape or torture? i dont think it should be legal, to me that is obscene and toxic to society
 
Nov 2005
7,270
1,897
California
#17
Yes, it takes Kim Davis out of the picture
Your claimed rationale for this legislation is changing...
And an easier way would be to replace Kim Davis. Problem solved!

If its just window dressing then why are you so worried about it?
I've already answered this.
If you guys truly did remove government from marriage, you would remove over 1,000 rights and privileges that married couples have come to rely upon.

As for what is actually happening, I'm not worried.
I'll just tell you guys straight up that I think it's stupid.

It removes the requirement of a permission from the State, its not BS.
Actually, NO. It does not.
It just changes who can officiate the license. It just changes who signs the marriage license and ensures that the legal requirements are met.
You get a marriage license. You still have to pay the state for that marriage license.


Why should you worry about it at all? Yet, here you are.
ROFLMAO!
Who said I was worried about the article?
I already told you that there is no serious effort to get the government out of the marriage business. That is what would cause problems.

What you have shown does not worry me.


I guess you missed the part about registering the marriage with the state, as opposed to asking permission from the state. Its a big difference you have failed to grasp. Furthermore pedophilia would not involve consenting adults, although some states do allow ephebophilia in regards to marriage which was common at one time in world history.
If the state can tell you "NO", then you are still asking permission from the state.
If the state canNOT tell you "no", then you are finally and truly not "asking permission from the state". But at that stage, anybody can marry who they want including their sister, somebody underage, etc, etc.


foundit66 said:
Here's another question for you...
Today. If a man and a woman want to get married without the state, what are the consequences?
Truthful answer: NOTHING.
Have you ever read a tax return? Have you ever understood survivor and property rights?
First off, HALLELUJAH.
You do have at least some comprehension of what damage you would cause if you removed government from marriage.

Secondly, I'm talking about are there any punishments from the government to the person.


If that was the case then why are you defending the idea of getting permission from the state in the form of a paper that you have to pay the state for when you beg them permission to get it?
Again, I already answered this.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
5,603
3,325
Kekistan
#18
Your claimed rationale for this legislation is changing...
And an easier way would be to replace Kim Davis. Problem solved!


I've already answered this.
If you guys truly did remove government from marriage, you would remove over 1,000 rights and privileges that married couples have come to rely upon.

As for what is actually happening, I'm not worried.
I'll just tell you guys straight up that I think it's stupid.


Actually, NO. It does not.
It just changes who can officiate the license. It just changes who signs the marriage license and ensures that the legal requirements are met.
You get a marriage license. You still have to pay the state for that marriage license.



ROFLMAO!
Who said I was worried about the article?
I already told you that there is no serious effort to get the government out of the marriage business. That is what would cause problems.

What you have shown does not worry me.



If the state can tell you "NO", then you are still asking permission from the state.
If the state canNOT tell you "no", then you are finally and truly not "asking permission from the state". But at that stage, anybody can marry who they want including their sister, somebody underage, etc, etc.




First off, HALLELUJAH.
You do have at least some comprehension of what damage you would cause if you removed government from marriage.

Secondly, I'm talking about are there any punishments from the government to the person.



Again, I already answered this.
A Kim Davis can not just be replaced. That is not how it works in regards to elected officials. They are elected, not hired.

You keep stammering about removing government from marriage. Again, you fail to grasp what I am saying. I am saying that no one should have to ask the government for permission to marry. It should be that consenting adults tell the state they are married. Its a big difference which scares the hell out of you for some reason.

The government should not be able to decide people are married through common law marriage without the consent of the parties involved, nor should people who want to be married in a legal contractual manner, which is what a legal marriage is. It is a contract involving property, but the point is, people wanting to get married should not have to ask the state for permission. They should be able to have whatever ceremony the want, then when they feel like it inform the state they are married. Its that simple.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2013
31,089
18,647
Beware of watermelons
#19
I am opposed to that as well because again it takes the choice away from consenting adults. Maybe people want a relationship without the state just deciding that some arbitary date of cohabitation is now marriage. Maybe the "couple" were not romantically involved, maybe they just shared a mailing address. Now all of a sudden, thanks to the state, you have a person with a potential property claim on property that really they should have no claim to unless stated in a will.

Hell yeah, i moved all over the nation w/ one of my friends for like 4 years. Now i have to pay him alimony?

Screw all that noise
 
Likes: guy39

Similar Discussions