Gay Marriage is BAD for Gays
Hello November 19, 2017, 08:26:41 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gay Marriage is BAD for Gays  (Read 1166 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« on: May 09, 2017, 09:24:55 am »

Intentions drive gay people to demand equality ie gay marriage. Intention leads to greater harm than good when in ignorance. The heart is never in the right place in ignorance.

When Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act claiming marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court defined it as a union between a man, a woman, and the government in Van Koten vs Van Koten.

That means it's a THREE party union. Common Law Marriage as opposed to a legal marriage, already existed and defined marriage as a union between two people and their God under Religious Freedom, and gays were already getting married under this system.

A Legal Marriage is not a Common Law Marriage. A legal marriage makes the government like "god," giving the government the ability to determine who gets the money, the kids, and the estate in a divorce, when you could have just had a contract without them.

Many think this is a social justice issue, but it all comes down to private contracts that would make the government obsolete on this. This whole charade is a money-making business leaching on the ignorant for the legal industry.

You can't force society to accept you, and why would you want to? You can only be professional. You can't empty the Pacific Ocean with a paper cup.

You need a license to marry, and license means to beg for permission. You need a license to hunt, fish, drive, practice law or medicine, and marry, among other things. You cannot be license to rape murder or steal.

That's precisely why you never NEEDED a license to marry, because you were never raping murdering or stealing. The word apply means to beg for permission, why would you beg for permission to do something you already had the lawful right to do?

You're systematically popularizing the idea that trading your rights for mere privileges is superior because you think you're emptying the Pacific Ocean with a paper cup and going to force society to accept you.

This is something I will NEVER accept and for non-religious reasons. It's pathetic that you guys can be so stupid and not think too deep it's an embarrassment.
Logged
6x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2017, 09:31:37 am »

Sorry, I know that was too DEEP for most of you ignorant LIBTARDS to actually understand - CONCEPTS of legal philosophy and logic. Just give me more of what I love - oh me poor persecuted self!!! I'm a victim and how dare you!?!
Logged
6x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2017, 09:51:09 am »

Civil marriage has always been a 3 party contract.    Religious marriage has even more parties because you have god, the church and the people. 

You could make the case that marriage is bad for everyone, but to say it's bad for gays isn't true as we would lose out on over 1,400 rights/privileges granted by the various levels of government in the US.   

Common Law Marriages are treated like civil marriages in several states.   You'll still have to go through the divorce court system.   Several states have "palimony" for simply shacking up. 

In the UK, civil partnerships were business contracts that had to use the costly divorce court system.   It was only "somewhat equal" to marriage in the rights/privileges it grants
Logged
1x Thumb Down 1x Thumb Up



(Hidden)

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2017, 09:59:29 am »

I AM saying that LEGAL marriage is bad for everyone. People don't understand the difference between legal and lawful in regard to many things. This is all getting us deeper into the Matrix of the government, which literally has no lawful authority over marriage, period. Regardless if some think it has more than the two parties or the community involved. All it takes is two people and their God and neither the community nor the government has any say whatsoever. It is a covenant, like the covenant between David and Jonathan in the Bible. There literally is no authority who can determine their right to make such a covenant besides themselves, and that's the point behind a Common Law Marriage. And regardless of whether or not you think other parties might be involved, the point is that CONTRACTS between the two people OUTRULE ANY government or community say so. If I make a private contract with you, the government and the community have no say in it.
Logged
4x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2017, 10:08:53 am »

Say we agree to get married under Common Law, and we both sign with our blood and agree to certain things. It's in blood. It's still a  contract. The government deliberates ONLY on CONTRACT law, the UCC. So regardless, if you get the government involved, the agreement will still be upheld. You NEVER needed them unless you are incompetent.
Logged
3x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2017, 10:17:32 am »

Many of the rights/privileges granted under marriage can only be granted by the state, not a contract between 2 parties; such as the "marital confidentiality" clause in most states and federal government.

The UK has that also, but only for marriage.  Not even civil partnership had it because it's a marriage only right. 
Logged
1x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2017, 10:35:22 am »

Many of the rights/privileges granted under marriage can only be granted by the state, not a contract between 2 parties; such as the "marital confidentiality" clause in most states and federal government.

The UK has that also, but only for marriage.  Not even civil partnership had it because it's a marriage only right. 

You are not aware/not grasping the severity of the situation I am speaking about. I am not speaking of PRIVILEGES granted by the government. I am speaking about RIGHTS you already have as a birthright. The government cannot give you a license to rape murder or steal, because that would be UNLAWFUL. They can therefore deem something legal, but ONLY if it is already lawful. They can ONLY give you a license to do things that are ALREADY LAWFUL to do (NOT RAPE MURDER OR STEALING). When you apply for a LICENSE, you have to APPLY, and the LEGAL definition of APPLY means to BEG FOR PERMISSION. Why would you BEG FOR PERMISSION to do something you already LAWFULLY have the right to do? This is a whole study between what is Legal VS Lawful.

The point is that you are begging for permission to do something harmless ie get married that you can already do just to make a point when in reality it is devastating to the freedom and the future of the human race and places you on your knees (not in a good way). It's ridiculous that anyone with wisdom and common sense would do such a thing, but our world is plagued by ignorance, so it is no surprise. I know this goes against everything we all have grown up to fight for, but we were deceived. The lawyers have devised word trickery to make us submit to their delusion of liberty instead of freedom.
Logged
3x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2017, 10:54:08 am »

Outside of religion, you can argue that "laws" are societal constructs.

Anarchists/communists doing a lot of the rioting the last few months say that nothing can be owned.   Therefore they are not doing anything wrong with their riots.   Oddly, their possessions are sacrosanct.

Depending on where you are in the world and/or your religion, there may or may not be any such thing as "marital rape". 

Muslims don't think rape is wrong, if the women is deemed a whore; ie not covering her head.
Logged
1x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2017, 12:50:41 pm »

That has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Logged
3x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2017, 08:40:51 pm »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?
Logged
1x Thumb Down



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2017, 06:25:27 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.
Logged
3x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2017, 06:31:35 am »

You can thumbs down me all you want, but without words to state why I'm wrong, it means NOTHING. It just means your feelings are in disarray. Good luck to you in the real world.
Logged
2x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2017, 06:36:06 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right---and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.
Logged
3x Thumb Up 1x Thumb Down



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2017, 06:42:48 am »

lmao wow... you've really reached a new low. And that's impressive, honestly.

How much more bullshit will you make up in order to justify your own self-loathing?
Logged
3x Thumb Up 1x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2017, 06:51:25 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right---and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.


What you are IGNORING is the basic concepts. You are basically promoting the idea that we should be placed on a plantation of slavery where we have to beg for permission instead of acting out our free will and promoting our human rights. It's pathetic. You never needed any of that socialist security to begin with. The only reason you THINK you would have to go through hell is because you have no understanding of individual rights and instead think on the level of group rights and group think, hive mind, borg, and sheepfulness. You have no idea how the Constitution works and instead discard it in the trash when it comes to individual rights. I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO WHAT IS ALREADY LAWFUL TO DO. Period. You want to promote the idea that we all need to get on our knees and beg for permission for a LICENSE to marry. It's sickening how far off you guys are. You want us all to get on our knees and beg for permission because you don't understand what legal words ACTUALLY mean. Get an education and quit trying to make the free people follow your fascist cake baking crap and lead us into slavery where we literally have to beg for permission for our birthright freedoms.
Logged
3x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2017, 07:10:10 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right---and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.


What you are IGNORING is the basic concepts. You are basically promoting the idea that we should be placed on a plantation of slavery where we have to beg for permission instead of acting out our free will and promoting our human rights. It's pathetic. You never needed any of that socialist security to begin with. The only reason you THINK you would have to go through hell is because you have no understanding of individual rights and instead think on the level of group rights and group think, hive mind, borg, and sheepfulness. You have no idea how the Constitution works and instead discard it in the trash when it comes to individual rights. I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO WHAT IS ALREADY LAWFUL TO DO. Period. You want to promote the idea that we all need to get on our knees and beg for permission for a LICENSE to marry. It's sickening how far off you guys are. You want us all to get on our knees and beg for permission because you don't understand what legal words ACTUALLY mean. Get an education and quit trying to make the free people follow your fascist cake baking crap and lead us into slavery where we literally have to beg for permission for our birthright freedoms.

Um... Crazy?
Logged
2x Thumb Up



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2017, 07:33:41 am »

Duh... Yea. Quit trying to turn freedom into slavery, by asking for permission to do things that you already have the lawful right to do by using the easy way out because it sounds legally easier and you just don't understand words or definitions or how to open a dictionary. You are destroying our freedoms, and ending our nation. I will not put up with people like you putting our freedoms and our birthright on the line and ending our Constitution because you "just don't get it."
Logged
2x Thumb Down



(Hidden)

« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2017, 07:34:44 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

Actually, if you research it, marriage was a state thing before a religious thing.  


While you can do legal documents that give another person SOME legal aspects over your life, like in marriage, you still do not get any of the right granted solely by the stats such as Marital Confidentiality.

Also, you need several documents for the various aspects, OR you only need the marriage certificate.
Logged



(Hidden)

« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2017, 07:36:20 am »

In Australia - A standard contract between two people, will never replace or can be seen as a marriage contract and no standard contract can ever give benefits as a marriage contract could, even with tons of legal advice, money and loop-holing. Some aspects can be delivered e.g POAs or a Will etc.

In fact, in Australia it is actually a law that all celebrants must state that, as part of a legal obligation, that "marriage is between a man and a woman", as part of any wedding ceremony. This was brought in in 2004 as some states were contemplating going rogue and were going for the legalising of gay marriage & our prime minister at the time was opposed.

Some people have been known to add to their vows that they do not agree etc - most people/guests just see it as a legal thing and do not assume the couple agrees
 
Logged
1x Thumb Up



All the world is waiting for you and the power you possess
(Hidden)

« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2017, 07:44:59 am »

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?


Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

Actually, if you research it, marriage was a state thing before a religious thing.  


While you can do legal documents that give another person SOME legal aspects over your life, like in marriage, you still do not get any of the right granted solely by the stats such as Marital Confidentiality.

Also, you need several documents for the various aspects, OR you only need the marriage certificate.


This statement is false. There are legal documents that give you ALL the legal aspects over your life if you so desire. You can actually create any legal document imaginable, it's called a contract. Some are public and some are private.
Logged
1x Thumb Down



Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
New York Gay Marriage: State Assembly Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill Gay News leatherbear 1 1084 Last post June 16, 2011, 05:42:08 pm
by MrMazda
The effect of gay marriage on marriage itself Gay News nordicblue 17 4562 Last post December 03, 2014, 07:10:30 pm
by nordicblue
Funny Q & A about gays Jokes & Funny Stuff cflorinc 0 344 Last post May 16, 2015, 01:36:16 am
by cflorinc
Is hip-hop for gays? Movies, TV and Music revenger 8 1706 Last post August 18, 2015, 07:46:56 pm
by XFER
Are asian gays attractive to caucasian gays? Chit Chat martin526 2 623 Last post November 11, 2015, 08:56:18 am
by lineb