Jump to content

Gay NFL player to come out within the next few months ...


Numbers

Recommended Posts

You don't need a ceremony to get married. All you do is get a license from the government and sign a legal document.

 

If two h-moes can make a trust or a corporation together, why can't they get this legal document?  

 

​Makes no sense.  People intertwined the ceremonial concept with law.  Once married people started getting their own rights, it was essentially discriminatory to everyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
If two h-moes can make a trust or a corporation together, why can't they get this legal document?  
 
​Makes no sense.  People intertwined the ceremonial concept with law.  Once married people started getting their own rights, it was essentially discriminatory to everyone else.  

You make no sense. You just said previously that the government should have no involvement in people's relationships, now you say you want them to be involved in relationships between same gender persons.

There is no discrimination involved. The government simply has an interest in sanctioning certain relationships and setting up an institution to stabilize relationships between people of opposite genders because 1) those are the only couplings capable of procreating, an 2) to protect the right of a child to be raised by their mother and father.

It's good public policy. Other than that, there isn't any reason for the government to be involved. They aren't involved legally in other relationships, such as friendships. Go down to city hall and try to demand that the goverent give some sort of special status to your friendship with your best buddy- that they officially recognize your friendship legally because your friendship is somehow vital to the success of society. Hey would laugh at you because they have no reason to care about your friendship with some person. Just like they have no reason to care about some romantic relationship between two dudes or two chicks.

I think many gay people just don't want to accept the fact that he government has no reason to care about their love life, just like the government doesn't care about who you or I are friends with. Thats their own issue though, low self-esteem or need to feel important or whatever it may be. Not all of them though- because I have gay friends who think the idea of same gender marriage is stupid and makes no sense, an can see the obvious distinction between male-female relationships and same gender ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make no sense. You just said previously that the government should have no involvement in people's relationships, now you say you want them to be involved in relationships between same gender persons.

There is no discrimination involved. The government simply has an interest in sanctioning certain relationships and setting up an institution to stabilize relationships between people of opposite genders because 1) those are the only couplings capable of procreating, an 2) to protect the right of a child to be raised by their mother and father.
 

 

I don't want the government involved in people's relationships, true.   But this is about $$$.  Married people get benefits that are exempt from other people.  Marriage & legal rights are for some reason intertwined.  Therefore the government is involved in people's relationships.  It's also not fair that others don't get those same rights unless they are "married".  

 

I'm saying separate the two concepts:  marriage & a legal partner.  Any two people should be able to get legally bound.  Marriage is an old tradition that for some reason gets special laws.  Marriage shouldn't give you special rights.  My example about corporations was that two dudes (anyone really) can form a corporation and get the rights assigned to that entity.  It's not fair that not everyone can't get "married".  Total discrimination.  Any two consenting adults should be able to become legally bound and get all the rights and privileges of that legal document.

 

PS we don't need any more people procreating, there are enough people on the planet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't want the government involved in people's relationships, true.   But this is about $$$.  Married people get benefits that are exempt from other people.  Marriage & legal rights are for some reason intertwined.  Therefore the government is involved in people's relationships.  It's also not fair that others don't get those same rights unless they are "married".  
 
I'm saying separate the two concepts:  marriage & a legal partner.  Any two people should be able to get legally bound.  Marriage is an old tradition that for some reason gets special laws.  Marriage shouldn't give you special rights.  My example about corporations was that two dudes (anyone really) can form a corporation and get the rights assigned to that entity.  It's not fair that not everyone can't get "married".  Total discrimination.  Any two consenting adults should be able to become legally bound and get all the rights and privileges of that legal document.
 
PS we don't need any more people procreating, there are enough people on the planet.  

Any two consenting adults? What if they're brother and sister? And why limit it to two people?

And actually, everyone CAN get married. Some people choose not to because its not appealing to them for whatever reason.

And as for people procreating, they're going to do that anyway. Marriage simply provides some stability and structure and protects the children. Plus, I think there are too few people on the planet :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any two consenting adults? What if they're brother and sister? And why limit it to two people?

And actually, everyone CAN get married. Some people choose not to because its not appealing to them for whatever reason.

And as for people procreating, they're going to do that anyway. Marriage simply provides some stability and structure and protects the children. Plus, I think there are too few people on the planet :)

 

Sure, brother and sister is fine.  They don't have to bone or anything, but if they want to share insurance benefits, gift/estate planning benefits, tax benefits, sure, two people can get legally bound.  

 

Why limit it to two people?  Because of industry.  Actuaries would kill themselves.  Plus there are already other currently existing legal two-person entities (QTIPs, bypass trusts, spousal IRAs) that are hella beneficial to only "married" people.  That's not fair.  Why can't any one person set up spousal IRAs for any person they chose?

 

If you think there are two few people on the planet, you are a dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think there are too many people on the planet? Why?

I may agree that there are too many dumb people on the planet. But in terms of total population, it's very thin overall.

Interesting that you find discrimination is ok if it is justified by what is best for industry or actuaries or whatever you were rambling on about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think there are too many people on the planet? Why?

I may agree that there are too many dumb people on the planet. But in terms of total population, it's very thin overall.

 

Finite resources.  Exponential people growth.  It's easier to stop shitting out kids than it is to create more drinkable water, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Finite resources.  Exponential people growth.  It's easier to stop shitting out kids than it is to create more drinkable water, for example.


The planet can support probably ten times the number of people that currently populate it. Don't worry about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planet can support probably ten times the number of people that currently populate it. Don't worry about it.

 

Why can't I disagree or worry about it?



And why do you have a problem with brothers and sisters boning? Are you incestophibic or something? Bigot! ;)

 

I don't have a problem with them boning.  I said they don't have to bone.  They can if they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about father and daughter?

 

Are they both 18 and of sound mind and body?

 

Again, they don't have to fuck, they should be given the right to share benefits.  If the daughter has a badass job and the dad has cancer and is unemployed, why shouldn't they be able to be the designated partner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh..you must keep marriage between man and woman to protect our society..in 20 years from now when robots are active people will want to marry them..

American people do not need to be banging robots! :boese035:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of marriage is to have a union in which both genders are represented. A "marriage" in which one entire gender is excluded is only half a "marriage." Its not complete. And one of the members is unnecessary and redundant.

Advocates of same gender marriages should change their symbol from a rainbow to a rainbow that is missing half of its colors. It would be more appropriate.

Where robots fit in...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of marriage is to have a union in which both genders are represented. A "marriage" in which one entire gender is excluded is only half a "marriage." Its not complete. And one of the members is unnecessary and redundant.

Advocates of same gender marriages should change their symbol from a rainbow to a rainbow that is missing half of its colors. It would be more appropriate.

Where robots fit in...

somebody's in love!

robot-girl-1920x1440.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh... A sexless marriage? That can't be healthy!

Are you just trying to be ridiculous?

 

It's a legal agreement.  You can bone whoever you want.  You don't have to bone the person you're married to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Kerry Rhodes could be a candidate. There was a thread on a Browns board on why their team hasn't signed Rhodes,and one of the members posted a number of pics of Rhodes and some other guy that really looked like they were more than just pals. The other guy posted the vacation photos of the two after they had a falling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...