We are close to pleading the same point.

Being recognized is different than being defined, however, and defining it as such is the contention here.

Although precedence is often used in interpretative decisions the precedence of restricting same sex can also be relied upon.

Contract can not be enforced when entered into by a juvenile. There's no reason for States to define the requirements of a personal relationship contract and certainly no reason to license such activity.

The Supreme Court has defined marriage as a basic right. Gays and their supporters are dedicated to winning that right. OTHERS want to deny it to them. Arguing about the government stopping issuing marriage licenses is an intellectual exercise for some and for others just a subterfuge to hide an anti gay bias. There are no major movement is this country to end the practice. I don’t see legislation to end marriage being proposed in state legislatures or initiative petitions circulating for repeal.

isadore;1030140 wrote:The Supreme Court has defined marriage as a basic right. Gays and their supporters are dedicated to winning that right. OTHERS want to deny it to them. Arguing about the government stopping issuing marriage licenses is an intellectual exercise for some and for others just a subterfuge to hide an anti gay bias. There are no major movement is this country to end the practice. I don’t see legislation to end marriage being proposed in state legislatures or initiative petitions circulating for repeal.

For those that deem it as a subterfuge to hide an anti gay bias I have no intention of trying to influence their misguided opinions. The generalization of such an opinion doesn't invite me to expand on my positions with respect to homosexuality. I'd be happy to do so if ever asked. Ithink you might be surprised based on the generalized implication you offered in a passive aggressive manner.

Because there are no major movements to end State sanctioned marriage doesn't necessarily diminish the point of there not being a need to require individuals to acquire a license to enter into a relationship contract with another adult. Ridding a licensing requirement is the easiest means of delivering equality to all people and it has common sense to it.

If two individuals want the benefits from a committed relationship, let them declare such desire in a simple document with a signature that they keep and secure just like all other contracts. Permission from the State in the form of a license is nothing more than government control/intervention along with small revenue generation. It simply should not be necessary and should be done away with.

Con_Alma;1030068 wrote:Not true. Marriage is not at all an extension of the right to freely contract with whom you choose . Isn't that the whole contention here?

My point is that we should have the right to contract with whomever we choose and there should be NO REQUIREMENT, or license to do so. Having stipulation surrounding that license and those stipulations varying by State is making the contract valid if the State sanctions it or permits it based on their terms. It's my opinion that the State should not be requirednor permitted to sanction the formalizations of such personal relationships. Clearly I am in the minority.










Also not true. I have never said the "government" shouldn't enforce such or "get out of" such contracts but rather the said State not be required to enter into such a contract.



Maybe some do indeed think this. I don't.

Marriage licenses have been used from their inception to determine what types of couple's marital promises should be enforced. For instance, a black girl "marries" a white guy in the eyes of the church but does not receive a marriage license from the state, they're not "married" in the eyes of the state and therefore aren't entitled to have their promises enforced. We discriminate all the time about who can enter into what types of contracts but it just so happens that there is little evidence supporting the notion that gays ought not to have their marital contracts enforced if other types of marital contracts are enforced.

Thus, if you're for eliminating marriage licenses altogether that is fine...but I'm certain that folks would still want courts to enforce their marital promises (which they could do just by citing the marriage contract as they used to do before marriage licenses). If you didn't think certain types of marital contracts should be enforced you'd have to come up with some other way if you don't want marriage licenses...i.e. a statute. The license is a way for the state to say what types of marital contracts it won't enforce.

In that sense, if you were to succeed in eliminating marriage licenses, would you be ok then with Courts treating a marital contract between two gay men like any other contract?

But then again, the reason we have marriage licenses is to codify what types of marital promises are against public policy and won't be enforced...i.e. marriages between minors and adults. Nobody thinks that those types of contracts should be enforced and I wonder what type of regulatory scheme you would use to prohibit those types of marriages if you were to succeed in eliminating marriage licenses.

If it is your position that the state should not enforce marital contracts at all well then there would be no need for divorce courts, alimony could not be enforced, the various other property rights associated with such voluntary unions would be void, etc.

BoatShoes;1030208 wrote:Marriage licenses have been used from their inception to determine what types of couple's marital promises should be enforced. For instance, a black girl "marries" a white guy in the eyes of the church but does not receive a marriage license from the state, they're not "married" in the eyes of the state and therefore aren't entitled to have their promises enforced. We discriminate all the time about who can enter into what types of contracts but it just so happens that there is little evidence supporting the notion that gays ought not to have their marital contracts enforced if other types of marital contracts are enforced. ...

That is a problem to me.

BoatShoes;1030208... wrote:The license is a way for the state to say what types of marital contracts it won't enforce.

They should enforce any contract entered into willfully.

BoatShoes;1030208... wrote:...In that sense, if you were to succeed in eliminating marriage licenses, would you be ok then with Courts treating a marital contract between two gay men like any other contract?...

Whether I'm O.K. with it or not shouldn't be the question but yes I would be O.K. with that because it's the right thing to do in my mind.

BoatShoes;1030208... wrote:...But then again, the reason we have marriage licenses is to codify what types of marital promises are against public policy and won't be enforced...i.e. marriages between minors and adults. [

A minor can't enter into a contract without the courts permission now. I don't have any issue with the system defining what rights a "marriage" entails unless of course the individuals intheir contract agree to other terms.

BoatShoes;1030208... wrote:...If it is your position that the state should not enforce marital contracts at all well then there would be no need for divorce courts, alimony could not be enforced, the various other property rights associated with such voluntary unions would be void, etc.

Why assume such a thing? A legal contract must be enforced.

Con_Alma;1030225 wrote:Why assume such a thing? A legal contract must be enforced.

So you think any contract that contains a valid offer, acceptance and consideration ought to be enforced correct?

What about a contract to take out life insurance on a stranger's life? What about a contract to hire someone to murder my ex? What about a conspiracy to rob a bank? What about a contract selling my daughter to become a person's slave?

If these agreements were breached and a plaintiff went into civil court seeking damages no Court is going to enforce their underlying promises despite their having met all the legal requirements for a valid contract.

Con_Alma;1030199 wrote:For those that deem it as a subterfuge to hide an anti gay bias I have no intention of trying to influence their misguided opinions. The generalization of such an opinion doesn't invite me to expand on my positions with respect to homosexuality. I'd be happy to do so if ever asked. Ithink you might be surprised based on the generalized implication you offered in a passive aggressive manner.

Because there are no major movements to end State sanctioned marriage doesn't necessarily diminish the point of there not being a need to require individuals to acquire a license to enter into a relationship contract with another adult. Ridding a licensing requirement is the easiest means of delivering equality to all people and it has common sense to it.

If two individuals want the benefits from a committed relationship, let them declare such desire in a simple document with a signature that they keep and secure just like all other contracts. Permission from the State in the form of a license is nothing more than government control/intervention along with small revenue generation. It simply should not be necessary and should be done away with.

While it is hard to judge intent, it is much easier to examine effect. The argument over whether marriage should be licensed by the state serves the purpose of derailing discussion about the denial of the basic right of marriage to gay couples. Supporters of the ending of marriage make statement like “It's laughable that you thingk (sic)gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct (sic)that people need permission to do it. If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.” A statement which of course can be used by the opponents of gay marriage as a justification for not extending the right to marriage. Of course the statement itself is refuted by the Supreme Court. But it does provide cover for the those wish to deny a portion of our citizenry of a basic right.

isadore;1030271 wrote:While it is hard to judge intent, it is much easier to examine effect. The argument over whether marriage should be licensed by the state serves the purpose of derailing discussion about the denial of the basic right of marriage to gay couples. Supporters of the ending of marriage make statement like “It's laughable that you thingk (sic)gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct (sic)that people need permission to do it. If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.” A statement which of course can be used by the opponents of gay marriage as a justification for not extending the right to marriage. Of course the statement itself is refuted by the Supreme Court. But it does provide cover for the those wish to deny a portion of our citizenry of a basic right.

false

BoatShoes;1030247 wrote:So you think any contract that contains a valid offer, acceptance and consideration ought to be enforced correct?

What about a contract to take out life insurance on a stranger's life? What about a contract to hire someone to murder my ex? What about a conspiracy to rob a bank? What about a contract selling my daughter to become a person's slave?

If these agreements were breached and a plaintiff went into civil court seeking damages no Court is going to enforce their underlying promises despite their having met all the legal requirements for a valid contract.

Those are obvious illegal contracts. You cannot enter into a contract for murder because it is an obvious wrong.

Two dudes wanting to marry each other doesn't satisfy that because the only people they bother are bigots. That's it.

I Wear Pants;1030440 wrote:Those are obvious illegal contracts. You cannot enter into a contract for murder because it is an obvious wrong.

Two dudes wanting to marry each other doesn't satisfy that because the only people they bother are bigots. That's it.

Who says murder is wrong?

dwccrew;1030416 wrote:false

no

BoatShoes;1030247 wrote:So you think any contract that contains a valid offer, acceptance and consideration ought to be enforced correct?...

WHat? I thought we were talking about marriage. Who said anything about "any contract"?

BoatShoes;1030247 wrote:...What about a contract to take out life insurance on a stranger's life? What about a contract to hire someone to murder my ex? What about a conspiracy to rob a bank? What about a contract selling my daughter to become a person's slave?...

That's great but they are not a contract to marry and that's the terms of what we are discussing.

isadore;1030271 wrote:While it is hard to judge intent, it is much easier to examine effect....

The effect of ridding the world of State sanctioned marriage is equality for all. That is the effect. If you would like to truly examine effect versus intent, do so.

while the intent maybe positive in fact the effect in the discussion over gay marriage is to supply a pie in the sky solution for some flakes and a cover for anti gay bigots.

DeyDurkie5;1027246 wrote:. Also, I'm not narrow minded enough to think I should, but that's your choice. if you get angry over one sentence then you should look at wat jesus taught you guys

No one is saying that you are required to live your life any certain way, so you saying you don't live your life by the Bible doesn't hurt my feelings at all. It is your choice. However, you saying that anyone that does is narrow minded is a retarded statement. You are the one being narrow minded for not considering all options.

DeyDurkie5;1027570 wrote:because in my eye it's not a valid argument because I think it's all bull****. So it sounds retarded as **** to me when someone says "oh look at this bible verse, it's right because it's in a book written years ago." That to me is just a cop out, similar to "well i believe in it because of my faith/or because the bible says so"

So your first comeback to anyone who talks about faith or the Bible is an insult? You know it shows a lack of intelligence when all you know how to do is insult people you don't agree with.

jmog;1031186 wrote:No one is saying that you are required to live your life any certain way, so you saying you don't live your life by the Bible doesn't hurt my feelings at all. It is your choice. However, you saying that anyone that does is narrow minded is a retarded statement. You are the one being narrow minded for not considering all options.

I have considered all options. I used to be religious. Then I thought about it, and realized it was all a crock of shit. Therefore, when people quote the bible as a fact, that just screams cop out to me. Just how I think, and it probably won't change. Enjoy the religious life though, hopefully you enter heaven and be with the man they call jebus. or god? buddha? allah? whichever one it is

jmog;1031190 wrote:So your first comeback to anyone who talks about faith or the Bible is an insult? You know it shows a lack of intelligence when all you know how to do is insult people you don't agree with.

No, I just think skyhook is a jackass. That's the reason I responded that way.

jmog;1031186 wrote:No one is saying that you are required to live your life any certain way, so you saying you don't live your life by the Bible doesn't hurt my feelings at all. It is your choice. However, you saying that anyone that does is narrow minded is a retarded statement. You are the one being narrow minded for not considering all options.

Because people of faith have no logical argument for their beliefs. It's a fraud and a cop out. Anyone who believes in religion should be laughed at and ridiculed because "Well you have to have faith" is a fraudulent statement. You've been hoodwinked your entire life, admit it.

DeyDurkie5;1031200 wrote:No, I just think skyhook is a jackass. That's the reason I responded that way.

Well responding in that way doesn't make you look like any less of a "jackass". You don't appear to be able to have an intelligent conversation about anything/anyone religious, you quickly resort to insults, also known as the ad hominem logical response.

jmog;1031213 wrote:Well responding in that way doesn't make you look like any less of a "jackass". You don't appear to be able to have an intelligent conversation about anything/anyone religious, you quickly resort to insults, also known as the ad hominem logical response.

What's intelligent about something that makes millions of dollars, has had confirmed rapage of young boys, no logical proof of it being real besides hearsay, and a bunch of people that kill over their respective "gods"?

Intelligence for you guys is quoting the bible to back up your claims. In my eye, you might as well quote voldemort or dumbledore to back up your claims. If I quoted the athiest bible, would you consider that a legit claim to facts? or would you laugh at it?

jmog;1031213 wrote:Well responding in that way doesn't make you look like any less of a "jackass". You don't appear to be able to have an intelligent conversation about anything/anyone religious, you quickly resort to insults, also known as the ad hominem logical response.

I've tried the logical arguments, the faith believers just spew more bullshit about how I don't understand, and the classic "Nothing you say to me will ever change my mind, why do you care what I believe?"

The only way to get rid of religion, is to completely outright attack it. Not violently, but outright ridicule anyway with a faith based religion. That's why I love Scientology, its a complete joke, and its a religion, just like Christianity and Islam. Scientology proves that people make shit up and others believe it without questioning anything. Attack religion, and win.

isadore;1031078 wrote:while the intent maybe positive...

I appreciate recognition of my intent being positive. I truly do.

isadore;1031078 wrote:...in fact the effect in the discussion over gay marriage is to supply a pie in the sky solution for some flakes...

1. I am not directly discussing gay marriage as much as marriage itself.
2. My proposed solution is far from Pie in the sky. In fact, I had hoped it was extremely simple.
3. The "flakes" you refer to, make me believe that you don't appreciate the substantive effect of equality coming out of no State sanctioned marriages.

isadore;1031078 wrote:...and a cover for anti gay bigots.

I think this is a mistake but doesn't "anti gay bigots" equate to those who are against gay bigots?

Anyhow, I am not against a gay person's action any more than I am a heterosexual person's action. I am equally opposed to those that force my hand with regards to personal requirements as they relate to intimate affairs and actions. I think you will find a very libertarian stance on most issues from me.

Wow... Over 120 post on Gay Discharges.......seems like a slimey subject.

Con_Alma;1031269 wrote:I appreciate recognition of my intent being positive. I truly do.



1. I am not directly discussing gay marriage as much as marriage itself.
2. My proposed solution is far from Pie in the sky. In fact, I had hoped it was extremely simple.
3. The "flakes" you refer to, make me believe that you don't appreciate the substantive effect of equality coming out of no State sanctioned marriages.



I think this is a mistake but doesn't "anti gay bigots" equate to those who are against gay bigots?

Anyhow, I am not against a gay person's action any more than I am a heterosexual person's action. I am equally opposed to those that force my hand with regards to personal requirements as they relate to intimate affairs and actions. I think you will find a very libertarian stance on most issues from me.

Again I am sure you have the best of intentions BUT this is aa thread about Gay rights.
Your argument has the effect of dismissing the importance of government sanctioned marriage for gays.
“If you want "complete human rights" fight to end State sanctioned marriage. Being forced to have State permission to marry is ridiculous. Gaining it doesn't mean you have acquired a human right. That's laughable. “
While the right to government sanctioned marriage may not be important to you, it is to large majority of gays and to their bigoted opponents. And repeating my self, a basic right according to the Supreme Court. Your dismissal diminishes them and their cause . You are arguing against their goal. You also provide cover for some of their opponents who endorse your statement as a way hinder them. They can argue that gays should give up their fight for marriage and just wait for the abolition of the institution.
Thank you with your suggestions on my use of the language. But there are so few pro-gay bigots out there.