Come watch crybabies cry about gay rights!

[dabadaba]

Agree, religion is a personal matter, but so are peoples relationships. Requiring people to seek permission to be married and then later to divorce (if that is an outcome) seems a little nannyish.

Why do you think Gay people need permission to marry, shouldn't they just declare it, put it in writing themselves and then be married if that is what they wish? Why do you think government should intervene in gay peoples lives?

25- 50% rate of fecal incontinence and anal leakage in gays according to studies How about the public swimming pools.

1. ↑ Miles A.J., Allen-Mersh T.G., Wastell C. "Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 86(3) (1993): 144-147.

 

[Rob Roy]

25- 50% rate of fecal incontinence and anal leakage in gays according to studies How about the public swimming pools.

1. ↑ Miles A.J., Allen-Mersh T.G., Wastell C. "Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 86(3) (1993): 144-147.

Private property solves that problem.

You should ask @Uncle Buck how he'd handle gerbil fur clogging pool filters.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Agree, religion is a personal matter, but so are peoples relationships. Requiring people to seek permission to be married and then later to divorce (if that is an outcome) seems a little nannyish.

Why do you think Gay people need permission to marry, shouldn't they just declare it, put it in writing themselves and then be married if that is what they wish? Why do you think government should intervene in gay peoples lives?

You believe anything the government does is "nannyish" because you fundamentally disagree with the institution itself (have you read Federalist 52 yet?)

What do you mean "just declare it"? It doesn't work that way, for homo or heterosexual couples. Why don't straight people "just declare it"? Well, that's the same reason gay people don't, because it wouldn't be a federally recognized institution, which is kind of the entire point of getting married

 

[dabadaba]

Private property solves that problem.

You should ask @Uncle Buck how he'd handle gerbil fur clogging pool filters.

It more the public pool concern but UB will probably weigh in as judging by his posts he seems to be the rollitup expert
not only on pedophilia but on gay bottom issues as well.

 

[Rob Roy]

You believe anything the government does is "nannyish" because you fundamentally disagree with the institution itself (have you read Federalist 52 yet?)

What do you mean "just declare it"? It doesn't work that way, for homo or heterosexual couples. Why don't straight people "just declare it"? Well, that's the same reason gay people don't, because it wouldn't be a federally recognized institution, which is kind of the entire point of getting married

No, the entire point of most marriages is it is a proclamation by people of some kind of a committed relationship.

You are correct though, I fundamentally oppose coercion, therefore I would oppose systemic coercion.

Yes, why DON'T straight people just declare it? Why doesn't anyone? Human relations should not require a "license" from a third party to be valid.

 

[Rob Roy]

It more the public pool concern but UB will probably weigh in as judging by his posts he seems to be the rollitup expert
not only on pedophilia but on gay bottom issues as well.

He's a expert on manners too.

 

[Padawanbater2]

No, the entire point of most marriages is it is a proclamation by people of some kind of a committed relationship.

You are correct though, I fundamentally oppose coercion, therefore I would oppose systemic coercion.

Yes, why DON'T straight people just declare it? Why doesn't anyone? Human relations should not require a "license" from a third party to be valid.

This is another example of you coming back from lala land and bringing some of the pixie dust with you..

Here in the real world things like spousal rights actually mean something, so if I were to just "declare" a marriage between me and someone else, it wouldn't mean anything because anyone can do that. So what would happen if "my wife" gets into a bad car accident and she can't respond or she's unconscious or something in the hospital, anyone could go to visit her and claim to be her "husband" and enter into her room to visit and murder her or rape her or do whatever they wanted with her lifeless, unresponsive body..

So in your world where you should just be able to declare it willy nilly like, what prevents things like that from taking place?

 

[Rob Roy]

This is another example of you coming back from lala land and bringing some of the pixie dust with you..

Here in the real world things like spousal rights actually mean something, so if I were to just "declare" a marriage between me and someone else, it wouldn't mean anything because anyone can do that. So what would happen if "my wife" gets into a bad car accident and she can't respond or she's unconscious or something in the hospital, anyone could go to visit her and claim to be her "husband" and enter into her room to visit and murder her or rape her or do whatever they wanted with her lifeless, unresponsive body..

So in your world where you should just be able to declare it willy nilly like, what prevents things like that from taking place?

If you were concerned about those things is there anything preventing you from putting together a mutually agreed to course of action in writing ?

 

[Padawanbater2]

If you were concerned about those things is there anything preventing you from putting together a mutually agreed to course of action in writing ?

What authority would something like that hold? How could that be verified either way? I have a piece of paper with "my wife's" signature on it agreeing to spousal rights, how would anyone know if said document was legitimate?

 

[Rob Roy]

What authority would something like that hold? How could that be verified either way? I have a piece of paper with "my wife's" signature on it agreeing to spousal rights, how would anyone know if said document was legitimate?

Define "legitimate". (I think you use the term erroneously)

If by legitimate you mean the involved parties agree to it, then why do you default to defining legitimate as being a government approved status, even IF the involved parties to the marriage don't agree to or want government involvement?

You say legitimate, but you really mean "approved" by government.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Define "legitimate". (I think you use the term erroneously)

If by legitimate you mean the involved parties agree to it, then why do you default to defining legitimate as being a government approved status, even IF the involved parties to the marriage don't agree to or want government involvement?

You say legitimate, but you really mean "approved" by government.

Legitimate by a third party, for example a doctor or medical professional who decides if you get to see your unconscious and unresponsive "wife" in her hospital room. How would someone at the hospital know, or be able to prove, you are who you say you are and your relationship is what you say it is without asking her? Since they can't ask her, what's preventing anyone from coming in and claiming the same thing you are?

 

[Rob Roy]

Legitimate by a third party, for example a doctor or medical professional who decides if you get to see your unconscious and unresponsive "wife" in her hospital room. How would someone at the hospital know, or be able to prove, you are who you say you are and your relationship is what you say it is without asking her? Since they can't ask her, what's preventing anyone from coming in and claiming the same thing you are?

So in order to establish a visitation policy that works government must be involved?

What if the parties to the marriage don't want to have government involved, are there no options to satisfy them? None, what so ever?


Also, you didn't bite on my legitimate definition of legitimate, spoil sport.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So in order to establish a visitation policy that works government must be involved?

What if the parties to the marriage don't want to have government involved, are there no options to satisfy them? None, what so ever?

Also, you didn't bite on my legitimate definition of legitimate, spoil sport.

Idk, that's what I'm asking you, can you come up with something that would work that doesn't involve the government? I'm all ears

There has to be some kind of legal, documented proof/evidence, all these issues stem from the lack of it, so how do you suggest you legitimize such a process without the government? Many men have thought long and hard over these issues and they've all seemingly reached the same conclusion. In order for something to be legally recognized, there has to be an institution that provides that, and without that, legitimate recognition doesn't exist. Use the driver's license as an example, I could just say I'm a driver now, I know how to drive, whatever, but without the legal recognition of it by way of affirmation of passing the driving test, how would anyone know whether I'm qualified to operate a motor vehicle or not?

 

[Red1966]

Customers will not take his road due to the inconvenience and danger. The business will either go bankrupt or changes will be made. That's just simple business management. As long as a choice exists, customers will use the one that benefits them the most for their level of needs.

Would you keep going into a store that had employees that pointed at you, harassed you, laughed at you and were rude and demeaning to you every single time you went there?

Why not, he keeps coming back here, he likes that.

 

[Red1966]

The "free market" doesn't always work to produce the best possible option. Without regulations, corporations that have enough money/power/influence skew the rules in their favor regardless of the consumer and, according to an earlier post by you, they're legally required to. So without a body of authority to enforce said regulations, what's stopping enormously profitable corporations from changing the rules in their favor, thereby effectively eliminating the free market?

It is that same "body of authority" that actually skews those regulations to favor those same corporations. Your "solution" is the problem.

 

[Red1966]

did we PM eachother just in the nick of time to be in cahoots with each other just to try to defeat your talking points?... c'mon Shelly..)

You idiots have actually aknowleged that you PM each other to do precisely that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It is that same "body of authority" that actually skews those regulations to favor those same corporations. Your "solution" is the problem.

Are you suggesting we eliminate all regulations?

 

[Red1966]

Are you suggesting we eliminate all regulations?

No

 

[Padawanbater2]

No

Could you explain what you believe "my solution" is?

 

[UncleBuck]

Agree, religion is a personal matter, but so are peoples relationships. Requiring people to seek permission to be married and then later to divorce (if that is an outcome) seems a little nannyish.

Why do you think Gay people need permission to marry, shouldn't they just declare it, put it in writing themselves and then be married if that is what they wish? Why do you think government should intervene in gay peoples lives?

i didn't need to ask permission, i simply filled out the paperwork. there was nothing they could do to stop it.