Trolling Ben

[DaShi]

So DD is against marriage in general. Not surprised,

[SlowwHand]

Wait until you've been married. You'll be against it, too.

[DaShi]

You're against marriage, Slowwhand?

[SlowwHand]

Just for me.

[FrostyBoy]

Marriage is not for everyone. The confusing thing is, we are all brought up to think that it is, on top of that, we're also taught to believe that it's HEALTHY and SUCCESSFUL. It's NOT, it's pure bull****.

**** the government, don't get married, live happily ever after.

[ricketyclik]

Personally I don't get why everyone is so hung up on marriage anyway. My wife and I have lived together for 16 years and have 3 kids, all without "tieing the knot".

I reckon making those promises just adds unnecessary pressure on an already difficult situation - ie, societally imposed monogamy.

[a.kitman]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Seems to me that the statement is all-inclusive. It doesn't say "except Blacks" or "except homosexuals", it says all people.

couldnt said it better myself

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Kids, severely mentally challenged/damaged, etc.

JM

Page three before we got to this; I guess that's progress.

Look: marriage isn't a benefit; marriage is a contract.

Kids can't enter into contracts.

The mentally incapacitated can't enter into contracts.

Dogs can't enter into contracts (you didn't go there, I know, but someone in this thread will eventually).

The salient fact about Loving v. Virginia is not that it was about a man and a woman; it was that the ruling affirmed that, when it comes to categories protected by an equal rights clause, the State can't dictate with whom you enter into a contract. The State can't force you to only sell your house to a Christian, because religion is a protected category. The state can't force you to marry only a person of your same race, because race is a protected category. Applying that logic, if gender is a protected category (as it is in many state constitutions), then the state can't compel you to enter into a contract only with members of the opposite sex.

(However, the State can limit the number of parties who enter into a contract without violating any equal protection clause, so it can still outlaw polygamy.)

Aren't you a science student or something? Aren't you guys supposed to be able to think logically? Is the logic here really that hard to grasp?

[FrostyBoy]

Personally I don't get why everyone is so hung up on marriage anyway. My wife and I have lived together for 16 years and have 3 kids, all without "tieing the knot".

I reckon making those promises just adds unnecessary pressure on an already difficult situation - ie, societally imposed monogamy.

You're cool

[DinoDoc]

Personally I don't get why everyone is so hung up on marriage anyway. My wife and I have lived together for 16 years and have 3 kids, all without "tieing the knot".

The fact your refer to her as a wife tells me you are a liar.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The fact your refer to her as a wife tells me you are a liar.

Well played, sir!

[ricketyclik]

The fact your refer to her as a wife tells me you are a liar.

I consider her my wife, in that we cohabit, have children and to some degree cooperate financially. Oh, and if I ever have sex with anyone else she'll have the children, the house and the finances.

We never entered into any form of contract - had a wedding.

[a.kitman]

The fact your refer to her as a wife tells me you are a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife

sementics aside, would you prefer he call her his girlfriend infront of there kids

[ricketyclik]

In Australia by common law she is my wife in any case. It's just that I never made any unrealistic promises, and nor did she.

[Asher]

The fact your refer to her as a wife tells me you are a liar.

Evidently you have never heard of the phrase "common-law wife".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage