California Overturns Gay Marriage

[senojekips]

I agree, but I would express the above in different words, but not as well as Seno.
:viking:

Welcome back Padre!

May I wish the Compliments of the season to you.

 

[Rob Henderson]

that last sentence doesn't bear going into. Was that a Feudian slip Rob?:-o

It's the strengthening of a connection that already exists.

You may be fighting Rob, I don't have to, all i have to do is to point out the facts. I really dunno how you have a one sided fight, it must be hilarious to watch.:wink: I think I can safely suggest that you find yourself to be "fighting" because you are trying to defend the indefensible. When you are arguing for what is "right", all you have to do is sit back and let it all go down. To argue without "faith" is to argue for no reason at all, I have great faith in my view, I presume you are talking of religious faith?
Being an Atheist, this is of no consequence to me, but if that's your "Bag" you go for it. You just won't win any points using it to support your argument with me.

It's not indefensible... And again, you're stating your own opinion. Just because you THINK it's right, doesn't mean it is... Just because the majority of people in a different county think it's right, doesn't mean it is. It's an opinion, Spike, and you cannot say that you're OPINION is right, because there are no facts in this debate. There is nothing, even in the law, that can call homosexuality WRONG. Not only religious faith, but faith in an idea... Just a thought, or a concept. Not a physical thing that you can see or touch. The idea of love for instance, do you believe in it?

Well, you may take away any one of those things, and it is still marriage,... EXCEPT "recognised by law" take that away, and you can say what you like, you can call it, friendship, love, passion amity, sexual relationship or whatever, but if it is not recognised in law, it is not marriage. It is not necessarily contractual, as we see in the case of "Common law marriage" which regardless of the fact that there is no physical contractual agreement (Marriage Certificate), yet it is still recognised in law as "marriage".

So you're completely disregarding the definition of marriage... How am I supposed to argue with that?

I beg to differ, there are plenty of cases where persons have married purely for the legality of it just as there are plenty of cases where they marry for sex, financial benefit, both Governmental and personal, in fact I'm sure i could say that plenty of persons get married even just to please their parents or a million other reasons. But primarily many people get married because they think that they must.

And I must beg to differ, again, this is where your lack of belief in the unprovable comes into crucial play. You will say that people mainly get married because they think they have to, but I'm telling you that that's not the case. The majority (since that seems to be your deciding factor in all things debatable) of people get married because of the reasons I listed before. NOT for the financial benefits, or to please their parents.

what you say here is possibly quite correct, but it has no part in this debate, as it has nothing to do with why homos should not get married. You are talking about emotion, and I don't know of any law framed on emotion.This is a "legal" issue, as homos want "legal" recognition.

Actually, it has quite a lot to do with this debate... The homosexuals don't want only legal recognition... That's the thing... They don't want marriage just because it's a tax write off, that's the point I'm trying to make. They don't care about the benefits of it, they just want the courts to see that they are a legitimate couple and therefore entitled to the same rights and privileges as a couple. Quite honestly, the only reason they're fighting for the "legal benefits" is because denying them any of the benefits would not be equal treatment...

I would have to see what benefits they are entitled to before i would even consider making a judgement on Civil Unions. mind you it would still be viewed with a very jaundiced eye, as I would first and foremost, see it as "The thin edge of the wedge"

Of course, because they don't deserve the same as other couples who abuse the same "benefits." [/sarcasm]

 

[Chukpike]

What do you think about a legal recognition as far as being recognized as next of kin? That is if one homosexual partner died, the other partner would be the first to be notified.
I guess for things like property and such, well, that's what a will is for.

Having just had to go through proving next of kin for my aunts estate I am familiar with the basics.

First, having a will is the best way to have your wishes followed. It will take precedence over the order of next of kin.

Not having a will gives the following order. Must be surviving individual/s.

Spouse. (Requires recognized marriage or Civil Union)
Children
Grandchildren

My Aunt's Case No Will.
No children or spouse.
Parents (deceased)
Brothers and sisters. (deceased)
Nieces and nephews.
To inherit with out a will my sisters and I had to prove.
Parents predeceased.
All her brothers and sisters predeceased.
Then list all nieces and nephews living when she died.
Give proof that other nieces and nephews predeceased her.

This is not complete list, but for purposes of this topic the spouse is first to inherit (with out a will) which requires proof of marriage or proof of Civil Union.

P.S. For Civil Unions to be valid the are registered with the state same as marriage. This explains to a certain degree why the government is involved. The courts want proof..

 

[Del Boy]

:smile:

Yes you are right, his last comments were hilarious!

At first I thought you were serious. LOL:lol:

Nice sense of humour there.

However the point I was making is that a couple of you have been huffing and puffing away big time at Rob for a long time without blowing his house down. Credit where credit is due, I say.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Thanks Del Boy. I appreciate that.