By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - USA's most predominate Roman Catholic State just passed Marriage Equality (Same Sex Marriage)

Tagged games:

Zappykins on 02 May 2013
sc94597 said:
 

Interesting. What does the fifth amendment have to do with this? Also, it wouldn't be a change of those laws, it would be a total repealment of them. No government in marriage unless there is an enforcement of a contract between two individuals. To think that there are 15,000 Federal laws on something as personal as marriage is sickening to me, especially since the Federal government should be restricted to interstatual law and not have any involvement with the individual lives of particular persons unless it involves an interstatual or international situation. 

The 5th amendment refers to Spousal Privilege - which is only open to federally recognized married couples.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege 

Ah, I would assume you are a die hard libertarian? Don't worry too much about it, not all laws are bad.  But it covers things like immigration, hospital visitation (where you spouse can visit you - even if your family hates them), inheritance and things like that.

Like I said, I doubt most of those will effect you -  unless you fall in love with someone born in another country and want them to stay with you. 

 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Around the Network
Zappykins on 02 May 2013
scat398 said:
As much as I have no problem with two men or women marrying and living their lives I can't help but be concerned about "equality". We should not be working towards this goal of stripping away our gender. Man and Woman are uniquely different and play an important role in marriage. In a gay marriage, man or woman, they likelihood of both unique qualities being present lessens for example who will be the nurturer? who will be the dominant figure? Marriage was invented as a relationship between a man and a woman and specifically through religious organizations. It is without question one of the single most important inventions man has created and to simply change it's definition without any thought of the impending consequences is very troubling for our society.

Those are the exact same arguments used against allowing women to work, vote, own property (and not be beaten because they were property), end of slavery, etc.  Society is already changed, a long, long time ago.

Also, marriage started in the state as was adopted by the Churches, not the other way around.

In modern society I'm comfortable with everyone having equal rights, because I think the brain the most important part, and most everybody has one.  Traditional 50's rolls get mixed all the time.  I would rather see more strong married couples, than a bunch of unhappy divorced ones.

Interesting Fact - about same sex parents:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
killerzX on 02 May 2013
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

Actually, that is exactly what it is - removing the gender barrier that prevents some couples from enjoying full civil rights that come from marriage because of their gender.   A Church in Rhode Island marries a couple - before, only man/woman couples would have civil rights, now gender discrimination has been removed.

 

no its not marriage equality, its just opening up state recognized marriage to one more group. there are still many groups and types of marriage still excluded.

by no definition, can this be considered marriage "equality".



aikohualda on 02 May 2013
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
Lafiel said:
In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex mariages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.

Only because government was involved in marriage. If there is no state to enforce such policies then there would be total liberty in this area. 

if the government won't be involved do you think church would let gay people get married???????????????????????????????????????????????

no

There are plenty of churches that marry gay people in the states where it's legal. Furthermore, if government makes it legal instead of liberalizing marriage the same problem still exists. Government can't force these churches to marry gay people, or at least not in the United States ( a secular federation) can it. Finally, a church is not required to get married. 

goverment cant force the churches..... but they can implement a law. not all people get married in the churches BTW..... yes a church is not required to get married.... the government does it too... so if the government would not be involve what would happen? people are now only gonna get married by the churches... and that would also trample LAWS....

tax law, property law, health law, insurance law, etc etc..........

so yes the government needs to be involve...

@Bolded There is such a thing as an individual contract. 

@Italicized DING DING DING! That's the reason why government is involved in marriage in the first place. We have a winner. Although I wouldn't call this a good thing, government controlling your marriage liberties just so they can steal more easily from you lol. 

DING DING DING

guess what.... married people have lower tax,... so gay government are stealing more money on gay people because they recognize them as single......

so who is the bigger loser here??????????????? the gay people...... and you say that government should not be involve in the decision of marriage???????????? sure! lets have the church decide... and most of the time they will say no...... it is the church that should stay away from the politics not the other way around



 

Zappykins on 02 May 2013
killerzX said:
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

Actually, that is exactly what it is - removing the gender barrier that prevents some couples from enjoying full civil rights that come from marriage because of their gender.   A Church in Rhode Island marries a couple - before, only man/woman couples would have civil rights, now gender discrimination has been removed.

 

no its not marriage equality, its just opening up state recognized marriage to one more group. there are still many groups and types of marriage still excluded.

by no definition, can this be considered marriage "equality".

So what kind of two people consenting adult marriages are you missing out of?



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Around the Network
killerzX on 02 May 2013
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

Actually, that is exactly what it is - removing the gender barrier that prevents some couples from enjoying full civil rights that come from marriage because of their gender.   A Church in Rhode Island marries a couple - before, only man/woman couples would have civil rights, now gender discrimination has been removed.

 

no its not marriage equality, its just opening up state recognized marriage to one more group. there are still many groups and types of marriage still excluded.

by no definition, can this be considered marriage "equality".

So what kind of two people consenting adult marriages are you missing out of?

 

im not. but many people are still missing out on other forms of marriage that they wish to partake in.

expanding the states definition of marriage to one more group, does not mean marriage "equality". its still excludes so many other definitions.

rhode island didnt pass "marriage equality", they passed homosexual couples marriage.



Zkuq on 03 May 2013
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
Zappykins said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

Actually, that is exactly what it is - removing the gender barrier that prevents some couples from enjoying full civil rights that come from marriage because of their gender.   A Church in Rhode Island marries a couple - before, only man/woman couples would have civil rights, now gender discrimination has been removed.

 

no its not marriage equality, its just opening up state recognized marriage to one more group. there are still many groups and types of marriage still excluded.

by no definition, can this be considered marriage "equality".

So what kind of two people consenting adult marriages are you missing out of?

 

At the very least there's polyamory and probably lots of other stuff, too. Some might even argue that (adult) siblings should be able to marry, which I assume they are not in the US.



joesampson on 03 May 2013
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
Lafiel said:
In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex mariages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.

Only because government was involved in marriage. If there is no state to enforce such policies then there would be total liberty in this area. 

if the government won't be involved do you think church would let gay people get married???????????????????????????????????????????????

no

There are plenty of churches that marry gay people in the states where it's legal. Furthermore, if government makes it legal instead of liberalizing marriage the same problem still exists. Government can't force these churches to marry gay people, or at least not in the United States ( a secular federation) can it. Finally, a church is not required to get married. 

goverment cant force the churches..... but they can implement a law. not all people get married in the churches BTW..... yes a church is not required to get married.... the government does it too... so if the government would not be involve what would happen? people are now only gonna get married by the churches... and that would also trample LAWS....

tax law, property law, health law, insurance law, etc etc..........

so yes the government needs to be involve...

@Bolded There is such a thing as an individual contract. 

@Italicized DING DING DING! That's the reason why government is involved in marriage in the first place. We have a winner. Although I wouldn't call this a good thing, government controlling your marriage liberties just so they can steal more easily from you lol. 

DING DING DING

guess what.... married people have lower tax,... so gay government are stealing more money on gay people because they recognize them as single......

so who is the bigger loser here??????????????? the gay people...... and you say that government should not be involve in the decision of marriage???????????? sure! lets have the church decide... and most of the time they will say no...... it is the church that should stay away from the politics not the other way around

Some simple comments for you to take note of:

1. The Marriage Penalty - married people do not necessarily have a lower effective tax rate. Google it for more information. 

2. I don't think you quite understand the idea of no government involvement in marriage. This idea means marriage ceases to be a government institution that provides these legal and tax benefits. Marriage simply becomes a social union. No church would have any jurisdiction over marriage. 



Cobretti2 on 03 May 2013

In Australia gay couples already have full civil rights, they can have a union. Here they are pushing for the term "marriage" now.

Also in Australia the marriage act is a federal level thing, I cannot believe in the USA this is a state thing.



 

 

aikohualda on 03 May 2013
joesampson said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
aikohualda said:
sc94597 said:
Lafiel said:
In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex mariages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.

Only because government was involved in marriage. If there is no state to enforce such policies then there would be total liberty in this area. 

if the government won't be involved do you think church would let gay people get married???????????????????????????????????????????????

no

There are plenty of churches that marry gay people in the states where it's legal. Furthermore, if government makes it legal instead of liberalizing marriage the same problem still exists. Government can't force these churches to marry gay people, or at least not in the United States ( a secular federation) can it. Finally, a church is not required to get married. 

goverment cant force the churches..... but they can implement a law. not all people get married in the churches BTW..... yes a church is not required to get married.... the government does it too... so if the government would not be involve what would happen? people are now only gonna get married by the churches... and that would also trample LAWS....

tax law, property law, health law, insurance law, etc etc..........

so yes the government needs to be involve...

@Bolded There is such a thing as an individual contract. 

@Italicized DING DING DING! That's the reason why government is involved in marriage in the first place. We have a winner. Although I wouldn't call this a good thing, government controlling your marriage liberties just so they can steal more easily from you lol. 

DING DING DING

guess what.... married people have lower tax,... so gay government are stealing more money on gay people because they recognize them as single......

so who is the bigger loser here??????????????? the gay people...... and you say that government should not be involve in the decision of marriage???????????? sure! lets have the church decide... and most of the time they will say no...... it is the church that should stay away from the politics not the other way around

Some simple comments for you to take note of:

1. The Marriage Penalty - married people do not necessarily have a lower effective tax rate. Google it for more information. 

2. I don't think you quite understand the idea of no government involvement in marriage. This idea means marriage ceases to be a government institution that provides these legal and tax benefits. Marriage simply becomes a social union. No church would have any jurisdiction over marriage. 

sure...

married couple also gets some relief on both federal and Social Security taxes, thanks to the slightly lower tax rates associated with joint filing. They pay out a combined 29% of their salaries, compared with the 35% the single person pays.

"The Republicans have mostly eliminated the marriage penalty, and a higher-earning spouse can effectively shield his or her income from higher taxes," says Chris Edwards, tax policy director at the Cato Institute.

 

oops

 

i dont think you understand the idea of no government involvement in marriage... being a social union... which will be implemented by uhmmm no one????? who would manage it then????? not church, not government.... so by uhmmmmm who???????? private sectors? under what jurisdiction?????? public sectors???? oh wait who handles public sectors?