Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married

[ginjawarrior]

How so?

As usual ..sacrifice any liberty for safety and you get zero liberty.

yeah your still not explaining anything as to how your defintion-less idea would work

emotive "quotes" and false dichotomies doesnt get anyone anywhere

 

[deprave]

yeah your still not explaining anything as to how your defintion-less idea would work

emotive "quotes" and false dichotomies doesnt get anyone anywhere

I explained it, do you have some questions? its not complicated...

 

[ginjawarrior]

so instead of a standard definition that can be added to by prenuptial agreements if needed, you want people to have to lawyer up for every marriage? you dont think thats a bit of a waste?

who would uphold the "contactual agreements" as well?

I explained it, do you have some questions? its not complicated...

yeah i asked questions perhaps you were too busy going back and "editing" your posts to notice...

you know all this editing is considered rude at the least and borderline deceitful?

 

[deprave]

you know all this editing is considered rude at the least and borderline deceitful?

You know this is a forums and not a chatroom and we are allowed to edit our post within an hour to fix spelling and add things...its not meant to be responded to every 30 seconds with useless one sentence remarks. I ask that you give me 30 seconds to craft a response, I know you don't think much about your responses but i try to to put some effort into mine. At least 30 seconds..

 

[deprave]

yeah i asked questions perhaps you were too busy going back and "editing" your posts to notice...

you know all this editing is considered rude at the least and borderline deceitful?

my response to that if your waited 30 seconds was:

most people wouldn't "lawyer up" or need this crap..

Its the same thing except equal treatment for the sacrifice of government "help"

 

[ginjawarrior]

You know this is a forums and not a chatroom and we are allowed to edit our post within an hour to fix spelling and add things...its not meant to be responded to every 30 seconds with useless one sentence remarks. I ask that you give me 30 seconds to craft a response, I know you don't think much about your responses but i try to to put some effort into mine. At least 30 seconds..

A. no one is making you click that reply button
B.there is an advanced option for you to reveiw you post before clicking send
C. you make an edit withing 1 min it doesnt even show that you edited it
D. your making edits past 5 mins later "05-12-2012, 02:46 PM" "Last edited by deprave; 05-12-2012 at 02:51 PM. "
E. for all your "effort" put into you replies you still havent answered those questions

 

[ginjawarrior]

my response to that if your waited 30 seconds was:

most people wouldn't "lawyer up" or need this crap..

Its the same thing except equal treatment for the sacrifice of government "help"

without the contractual agreement then the marriage is meaningless no? nothing more than a fun day out with no need for divorce and no rights as next of kin...

 

[ginjawarrior]

your idea of marriage right?
[youtube]Slwpt4gtCNg[/youtube]

 

[deprave]

A. no one is making you click that reply button
B.there is an advanced option for you to reveiw you post before clicking send
C. you make an edit withing 1 min it doesnt even show that you edited it
D. your making edits past 5 mins later "05-12-2012, 02:46 PM" "Last edited by deprave; 05-12-2012 at 02:51 PM. "
E. for all your "effort" put into you replies you still havent answered those questions

stop trolling and being a dick nobody cares, the fact is you don't even want to have a constructive discussion, it annoys me that you reply within 5 minutes but you don't see me calling you "deceitful". Id rather use quick reply then preview my post.

What questions? your just trolling... every question I answered ... Your a fucking moron if you can't understand that no state sponsored marriage simply means no state sponsored marriage. I am not obligated to answer your questions and I am not on trial...Fuck off your a dick. Go watch the Royal Wedding with all the other statist cock sucking dicks you will be right at home.

 

[ginjawarrior]

stop trolling and being a dick nobody cares, the fact is you don't even want to have a constructive discussion, it annoys me that you reply within 5 minutes but you don't see me calling you "deceitful". Id rather use quick reply then preview my post.

What questions? your just trolling... every question I answered ... Your a fucking moron if you can't understand that no state sponsored marriage simply means no state sponsored marriage. I am not obligated to answer your questions and I am not on trial...Fuck off your a dick.

you put it up as an answer to the "problems" then expect people to question them. resorting to personal insults shows your argument is lacking somewhat

 

[deprave]

you put it up as an answer to the "problems" then expect people to question them. resorting to personal insults shows your argument is lacking somewhat

.....................So.............do you have a followup to any of my answers to your questions or a question actually then?

Sorry I really didn't think you were serious about these questions...It just kinda blows my mind sometimes that people think we actually need government..

so instead of a standard definition that can be added to by prenuptial agreements if needed, you want people to have to lawyer up for every marriage? you dont think thats a bit of a waste?
If they want to, No, If you think its a waste you wouldn't do it.

who would uphold the "contactual agreements" as well?
People

 

[MuyLocoNC]

who would uphold the "contactual agreements" as well?
People
[/B]

Did you just say "people" will uphold legal agreements? How the fuck would that work? Do you mean at gunpoint? If that's not what you mean then the government (courts, police) will have to be involved for enforcement of agreements. I'm pretty sure that's what he's looking for you to answer, and so far you've only said "people".

A marriage without the government involved IS meaningless, at least legally.

Not trying to bust your balls, but you're being extremely vague and he's right, you haven't really answered his question.

 

[deprave]

Did you just say "people" will uphold legal agreements? How the fuck would that work? Do you mean at gunpoint? If that's not what you mean then the government (courts, police) will have to be involved for enforcement of agreements. I'm pretty sure that's what he's looking for you to answer, and so far you've only said "people".

A marriage without the government involved IS meaningless, at least legally.

So who are the courts and police? They aren't people? Why would we not have courts and lawyers? You tell me how that would work, what do you think?

 

[deprave]

One such legal system without state involvement: restorative-justice

http://www.mettacenter.org/definitions/restorative-justice
Restorative justice is an anarchic (non-hierarchical) criminal justice system. The above link explains it. Crimes once “belonged” to the people and were not only enforced privately, but private fines and punishments were also levied. Then the King decided to get in on the action (particularly for the fines) and victims were marginalized. Restorative justice practices grew up in tandem with the modern victims’ rights movement. Restorative justice practices are expressed on a national level with truth and reconciliation movements, i.e., those in South Africa and Rwanda.

Back to the Topic...We don't need the state involved with marriage, this is why we have these issues.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I don't know if you can have it both ways. You want to take the government (courts and such) out of the initial process of marriage, but then you want them to enforce "perceived" or "implied" legal obligation. Sounds like the old west to me, I don't know.

 

[deprave]

It wasn't my suggestion to enforce perceived or implied legal obligation but I am just saying it could be done and it would be done if there was a desire for it. The reality is that the state is not needed for anything really, and in a way its not even a real tangible entity, its only what we make it. If nobody believed in it or followed/supported it then it would simply cease to exist and we would all go on our marry way living life almost exactly how it is lived now with I believe less problems (such as this).

 

[MuyLocoNC]

It wasn't my suggestion to enforce perceived or implied legal obligation but I am just saying it could be done and it would be done if there was a desire for it. The reality is that the state is not needed for anything really, and in a way its not even a real tangible entity, its only what we make it. If nobody believed in it or followed/supported it then it would simply cease to exist and we would all go on our marry way living life almost exactly how it is lived now with I believe less problems (such as this).

marry way - <rimshot> lol

I hear ya, I'm all in favor of less government intrusion. The state government should intrude as much as the citizens of that state want it to, but the Federal government has ballooned in the last ten years, almost doubling in cost, yet the population hasn't gone up by a fraction of that amount.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Deprave,

My point was everywhere there's state involved marriage. You're not going to change it. You know damn well you can't either. So if you are a libertarian, then the only right thing is to let gays marry too. Otherwise you're an asshole and bigot. Not trying to be mean, just telling the reality. It's not like a job role working at hooters where having ugly women or men won't bring customers. This is about two consenting adults who love eachother and are getting fucked by the government. The only people who should do the fucking is the couple. If you say no, to this, then you're a bigot, stupid or both.

 

[UncleBuck]

yeah i asked questions perhaps you were too busy going back and "editing" your posts to notice...

you know all this editing is considered rude at the least and borderline deceitful?

he edits until he's right.

he has to in order to compensate for his sub 70 IQ.

 

[mindphuk]

You could make contractual agreements for such things if you wanted to, no it would not be meaningless in the least bit, it would carry the same meaning except the state is not involved.

What about things that cannot be contracted for because it involves other parties such as hospital and jail visitation rights, immunity from testifying against a spouse in court, etc.? If a couple were to contract for everything that is currently granted by the state for just being married, it would be like 5,000 pages and probably cost more than anyone could reasonably afford. A better idea would be just to package all of those contracts as boilerplate and hand them out to couples that the state recognizes as committed enough that two families are joined. Oh, wait, that has already been done, it's called marriage.