Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[DriXnaK]

But ignore EON/Drix because he both sucks **** and is a dumb ass. Besides I'm sure he has OCD.

Oerdin, you truly are one of the dumbest people I have seen online. Seriously, this is grade school level right here. There's just no intelligence in that insult. Are you going to call me a "stupid head" next? Perhaps some other very clever and witty insult you probably took hours thinking up? The fact is Oerdin that you are genetically inferior, a worthless ape-like subhuman that should be culled from the population.

As far as religion goes, why is it that Christianity is attacked so much, along with Judaism, but then Islam gets coddled? If there is a single religion on this planet that deserves to be smite from the face of the Earth along with all its followers, it's Islam.

[MikeH]

I was giving a to "Governments should be the final word on marriages"

[MikeH]

As for more civil discussion/argument/debate, I get the impression--maybe I'm mistaken, but it's a strong impression--that for the most part the people on the "no religion" side aren't actually interested in understanding our beliefs, why we believe them, or even whether they're true or false

Well by definition if we're athiests we think they are false. I am guilty of trying to invent motivations for believers, but only because I can't see any rational reason why anyone would in this day and age. It does my head in, I really can't understand it in any way. *shrug*

[Elok]

Maybe I latched onto the second like a "leech" because you decided in an offensive manner to bring my name into a discussion I wasn't even taking part of. You started it...

Offensive manner? I mentioned you as the lone dissenter (AFAIK) to a previous discussion highly similar to the current one. The only part of that post that might be construed as offensive is my "eh." Which was meant as the equivalent of a shrug.

With the exception of taxes, the rights you mention can already be attained through other methods as Rah mentions.

Yes, but it's generally more of a bother that way.

I would say it's none of a relgions concern either. It's a personal concern between consenting adults.

And their government?

And an even larger number of people cohabit and even have kids, and have traditional families without getting a religions seal of appoval, so what's your point?

That the state, or anybody else, "keeping the records," as I believe you put it, is kind of pointless.

You are the one that started it in this thread by bringing me into a discussion I wasn't even a part of... talk about being a colossal dick!
You reap what you sow.

Yes, I mentioned your name when it was relevant to the discussion. Oh, what an ******* thing to do.

(remaining hissy-fit snipped; irrational, irrelevant)

[rah]

And there are also platonic marriages. But those are the exception, not the rule.

More than you think considering aging in america.

Now there's a hurdle. Perhaps a restriction on the tax part limiting it to people living in the same house or apartment, ie people who are in some way supporting one another in day-to-day life?

Implementing the break for married couples took time and some consensus. I wouldn't mind the definition changed but I doubt there are enough politicians with balls these day to stand up for something that might alienate a large part of their voter base

Good to know. It'd be nice if you didn't have to write a will, just designate "spousal privilege" on some form somewhere and have it slide to that person. Why you'd want that without the other stuff, I don't know, but you might as well give the option.

Now you're just quibbling. It's a legal document. There's really no difference in saying my wife inherits everything and spousal privilege. Or having a marriage certificate vs having a will. One document or the other.

I assume you mean "avoided by the people in the relationship themselves."

I'm just saying marriage isn't really NEEDED legally. The other methods I mentioned would cover most things.

[Elok]

Well by definition if we're athiests we think they are false. I am guilty of trying to invent motivations for believers, but only because I can't see any rational reason why anyone would in this day and age. It does my head in, I really can't understand it in any way. *shrug*

Well, suppose I said "atheists just refuse to acknowledge God because they like the idea of being able to lie and be bad without consequences," or something similar. Don't you think that maybe that would piss you off, having somebody who doesn't even know you make a huge generalization about your beliefs and in the process belittle you?

[MikeH]

If they were genuinely suggesting that only belief in God can give you personal morality or that only God could punish you, or cause there to be consequences from, lying or 'being bad' I'd probably laugh at them.

[Elok]

More than you think considering aging in america.

Yes, but it's generally understood that the relationship is sexual or romantic in nature. I don't think many people characterize their husbands/wives as "friends."

Implementing the break for married couples took time and some consensus. I wouldn't mind the definition changed but I doubt there are enough politicians with balls these day to stand up for something that might alienate a large part of their voter base

True enough. The political viability of this solution is basically nil at present. But I can dream.

Now you're just quibbling. It's a legal document. There's really no difference in saying my wife inherits everything and spousal privilege. Or having a marriage certificate vs having a will. One document or the other.

I suppose you're right; at my age, I've never written a will. It was just my understanding that they're a real pain in the ass to write and deal with. But that's colored by the hassle my wife's SIL went through as executor of the estate after the wife's sister died back in '07. The will wasn't perfectly clear about some point and the courts got involved, repeatedly.

I'm just saying marriage isn't really NEEDED legally. The other methods I mentioned would cover most things.

Legally speaking, no argument here.

[Ming]

Offensive manner? I mentioned you as the lone dissenter (AFAIK) to a previous discussion highly similar to the current one. The only part of that post that might be construed as offensive is my "eh." Which was meant as the equivalent of a shrug.

Revisionist at best... You brought me into the discussion with your post... and it wasn't a positive no matter how you want to shrug it off.

Yes, but it's generally more of a bother that way.

Gee... getting married or getting a "right of attorney"... more of a bother?

And their government?

It's not theirs either... but if there are going to be legal elements, somebody has to keep track of it, and since the government is the one on the legal side of it....

That the state, or anybody else, "keeping the records," as I believe you put it, is kind of pointless.

For those that don't want to get the legal benefits, that's their decision and frankly, if they don't want them, there is no need to keep records of those relationships. But for those that do want the legal benefits, the records need to be kept.

Yes, I mentioned your name when it was relevant to the discussion. Oh, what an ******* thing to do.

Well... that don't be surprised if somebody you mention in a "look down your nose" manner who hadn't even posted in the thread decides to enter the thread and voice their opinion.

[Elok]

Revisionist at best... You brought me into the discussion with your post... and it wasn't a positive no matter how you want to shrug it off.

Please explain how "I suggested something like this before, IIRC only Ming really disagreed, his position was [accurate synopsis of your position]" is demeaning to you.

Gee... getting married or getting a "right of attorney"... more of a bother?

Yes, getting right of attorney is (in terms of legal process) more of a bother. You can safely get married without knowing much about law or consulting a lawyer.

It's not theirs either... but if there are going to be legal elements, somebody has to keep track of it, and since the government is the one on the legal side of it...
For those that don't want to get the legal benefits, that's their decision and frankly, if they don't want them, there is no need to keep records of those relationships. But for those that do want the legal benefits, the records need to be kept.

Yes, the state should keep records of legal privileges it affords its citizens. But what matters from the government's perspective is not "Tom and Sarah love each other and have decided to spend their lives together in wedded bliss," it's "Tom and Sarah can file taxes jointly." My wedding ceremony in a church, and my brother's J.P. wedding in a courthouse, are both irrelevant from a legal perspective. Or should be. And by the by, my other brother's situation (he never got married, but is considered married by the state of Colorado because they've been together X years) is some BS.

Well... that don't be surprised if somebody you mention in a "look down your nose" manner who hadn't even posted in the thread decides to enter the thread and voice their opinion.

Again: snuh?

[Elok]

If they were genuinely suggesting that only belief in God can give you personal morality or that only God could punish you, or cause there to be consequences from, lying or 'being bad' I'd probably laugh at them.

You don't find the presumption at all insulting?

[MikeH]

It would be if I gave it any credence but I can't really be insulted by something I consider to be ludicrous.

[Elok]

It's not the plausibility (or lack thereof) that makes it insulting or not insulting from my POV, it's the casual denigration of my character or intellect.

[MikeH]

What does it matter what some gobby morons on the internet think about your character or intellect though?

[Ming]

Please explain how "I suggested something like this before, IIRC only Ming really disagreed, his position was [accurate synopsis of your position]" is demeaning to you.

Accurate... true enough... but your tone was the issue. You can claim how innocent it was now... but that wasn't how it came across.

Yes, getting right of attorney is (in terms of legal process) more of a bother. You can safely get married without knowing much about law or consulting a lawyer.

Gee... a phone call and some paper work vs GETTING MARRIED... I wonder which requires more effort...

Yes, the state should keep records of legal privileges it affords its citizens. But what matters from the government's perspective is not "Tom and Sarah love each other and have decided to spend their lives together in wedded bliss," it's "Tom and Sarah can file taxes jointly." My wedding ceremony in a church, and my brother's J.P. wedding in a courthouse, are both irrelevant from a legal perspective.

They are relevant in the terms that both consistiute a marriage and provides the legal rights given to married couples.
Couples that don't want to get those legal rights don't need to get married if they don't want to.

And by the by, my other brother's situation (he never got married, but is considered married by the state of Colorado because they've been together X years) is some BS.

BS to you... not to others. Maybe he should have checked out the laws if he didn't want to be considered married from a legal perspective. And who thinks it's BS, just you, or is your brother complaining about it...