Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

everyone can see who is the liar here.

no state annuls a marriage for failure to consumate.

 

Not in so many words, but we'll get to that.

Ad hominem, which shows us a bit of something about your character, or the lack thereof.

Not so fast. Let's have a look at your actual claim:

Your wording implies that the law acts to annul those marriage against the will of the parties involved, not that it happens as a result of one or both parties seeking an annulment.

Clearly you wanted people to infer that the government doesn't allow platonic couples to remain married. Caught in that deception, you're now claiming you meant "grounds for dissolution". Which is another attempt to mislead, since a dissolution is just the legal term used in some states in place of divorce, and in others applying more specifically to the situation wherein a couple already has an agreement in place resolving division of property, allocation of debt, etc. and are merely seeking the court's approval of that agreement.

A far cry from "laws on the books that annul platonic marriages for a failure to consummate".

You aren't fooling anyone but yourself with this nonsense.

 

They might grant an annulment to a party seeking it if there was a reasonable expectation of sexual relations as part of the marriage contact that has gone unfulfilled.

But yeah, the state doesn't forcibly annul marriages between platonic couples who don't have the expectation of sexual relations; the terms of the marriage contract is up to the couple, not the state.

 

ok being able to get out of a marrage do to lack of sex or a desire to have kids seems ok to me but as your not reqiured to screw or have kids to marry why ban marrage between 2 peapole of the same gender over it?

 

??? No force against thecouple involved in my statement above.

 

No such implication whatsoever. YOU added it so you could make this silly claim of a lie. It is usually only against the wishes of one of the couple.

 

this has nothing to do with my post. you lied and got caught. no state annuls a marriage for a failure to consumate.

 

see above

interesting isn't it? I would rally to your support if you were being attacked for being gay.

But, I will not rally to your support to change laws to make provisions just because someone is gay. Nope, I will never support more govt intrusion. In fact, I want them to back away from all marriage. I also don't support "hate crimes" because that belittles other crimes. Tell a mother who lost her child to murder that it wasn't due to hate because the killer was the same race or not gay.

 

What about laws enacted to exclude just because some people are gay? That's the situation with Prop 8. While it affected all same-sex couples, it was adopted with gay people in mind, and as enacted served no purpose but to express disapproval of gay people and their relationships.

Then where are the threads advocating that without it being focused on preventing same-sex couples? To me, that reads very similar to Prop 8 - a claim of one purpose (smaller government) when the actual purpose is to express disapproval or punish same-sex couples.

Certainly you're entitled to that position; but the effect of it won't stop me from pointing out that it enshrines an inequality in the law since the government is involved in marriage and shows no signs of backing away from it. Your stand on principle amounts to a stand for inequality under the law. Equality under the law is an overarching principle that supersedes the alleged desire for smaller government as I see it. This is why we are at odds.

I'm inclined to agree - it's a bad solution to a worse problem.

 

Nonsense, California hadnt made marriage available to "all same-sex couples" and had instead only made marriage available to gays. It was an expression of disapproval of "gay marriage". Had California made marriage available to "all same-sex couples" the disapproval would have taken the form of disapproval of "all same sex couples" marrying.

 

not at all. My political roots go back to small town politics in the form of "town meeting". I firmly adhere to the words spoken by me dear departed granny......."mind your own business" and I keep true to that in my life both personal and professional. I hold others to that same standard and IMHO, the federal govt is too involved in many things which were never meant to be their concern.

I want equity for everyone with respect to how insurance policies are written.
I want fairness in Social Security where the individual can elect to do whatever they wish with the funds they gave as well as the employer funds. We all should be treated the same as single individuals.

I do not view fixing govt stupidity with more govt stupidity as the answer.

If the frikkin govt would back off and treat us all as individuals we could focus on real issues instead of allowing them to create issues in which they want us to focus, vs focusing on their pathetic fiduciary duties

 

nope. any same sex couple can marry. ones sexuality isn't even a consideration.

 

My brother and I are of the same sex and prohibited from marriage in California

 

you not prohibited because of your sex or orientation though well ok maybe because of your sex I’m not sure if prop 8 is dead yet or not

 

And you don't really care to marry him; neither do most siblings care to do what you suggest. Siblings are already related, as well.

 

Your close relationship with your brother is a separate issue that prevents you. It would be no different if you were attempting to marry your sister - the bar isn't just sex-based in your case, and you know that. This just serves to illustrate your dishonesty.

Choose someone who is: 1) not closely related to you, 2) who is competent to provide consent, 3) of an age to legally consent, 4) providing their uncoerced consent, 5) human, 6) not already in a legal marriage...

...did I forget anything? Fulfill those requirements and your problem goes away IF Prop 8 ultimately fails upon appeal. Pretending that not being able to marry your brother arises from a gender-based barrier in order to claim that marriage was only extended to gay couples is ridiculous.

The poster you responded to is wrong only in that some same-sex couples are still barred from marriage, but is correct in that being a same-sex couple won't be the source of that barrier in a post-Prop 8 world.

 

You've said nothing persuasive here, and I stand by my assessment.

 

Yeah, its not marriage for "all same-sex couplee" but instead marriage for those who happen to be gay.

 

im sick of that lie pick a new one if you would be so kind

 

For what reason(s) would and who would advocate for that, in a discussion which pertains to homosexuals legally marrying?

I mean, you and others could seriously advocate for marrying your mother, brother, father or sister... but I'm certain there legal hurdles there which have zero to do with 'homosexuality' per se.

Your argument here is both specious and largely irrelevant. It's clear that you do not 'accept' that; that is annoying and amusing at the same time.

And why would "gay" people NOT seriously advocate for legal marriage to those who best suit them?

 

or try something honest that would be a refreshing change

 

So homosexuals cannot pursue rights in the US because rights are being violated else where?

Makes perfect sense.

 

Correct point! It is almost humorous to see people present their specious and misguided arguments here.

 

Repetition. It's marriage for all people without regard to gender. That other things still act as a bar doesn't make it marriage just for gay people. Being gay isn't a requirement in fact or practice. I'm seriously not going to re-argue ground we've already covered just because you can't come up with anything new.

 

Two people of the same sex, in a sexual relationship, if you prefer. Just easier to say gay couple.