- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How does "interpretations to(of?) facts are just wrong interpretations" NOT mean that?
I read it as you saying that all interpretations of facts are wrong.
I looked at what you said and it seemed to mean X, so I replied to that. I was not attempting to (or do not recall attempting to) force it into a half-joking philosophy I posted earlier.because you took what i said and tried to make it about the philosophy you stated later, im not talking philosophy
its easy
what im saying there is FACT, and you understand the fact or you dont, if you interpret the fact in a way that is not fact then they are just wrong interpretations
example
1+ 1 = 2
this is fact in general numbers
but if interpret this to mean 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water, i could then interpret 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong. Because if a put one drop of water on a table and then another drop of water on top of it, more than likely it will combine and ill still have one drop of water.
But i wouldn't be right, i would have just interpreted the fact wrong and applied incorrectly.
I looked at what you said and it seemed to mean X, so I replied to that. I was not attempting to (or do not recall attempting to) force it into a half-joking philosophy I posted earlier.
I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void.
Everyone who is married would legally be single - instantly.
People can still marry all they want - but the government would not recognize any of them.
Would you do the same for other family relationships as well? Basically completely destroy any family relationships leaving the government to gain pretty much any and all property that the people hold when they fail to write a will? There are plenty more things that eliminating marriage in this country would do than just make everyone legally single. Marriage has existed for thousands of years as a contract of kinship (mainly). Not recognizing marriage does absolutely nothing positive for this country.
This is nothing to do with other family relationships. I simply suggested to ban the government recognition of marriages.
Why would it change anything for a happy family? All marital vows could still be honored by those that want to. It is just that the government would not recognize people as married. The law has - imo - no business in people's love lives/relationships.
This is nothing to do with other family relationships. I simply suggested to ban the government recognition of marriages.
Why would it change anything for a happy family? All marital vows could still be honored by those that want to. It is just that the government would not recognize people as married.
The law has - imo - no business in people's love lives/relationships.
So, all states have what are called "assumed parentage laws" meaning that the spouse in a legel marriage is automatically the legal parent of a child born in that marriage. Father's would not have to adopt their own children?
While in the military I did multiple tours overseas. Because I was married my wife received command sponsorship meaning that she was given long term entrance to the new country (due to Status of Forces Agreements) and transportation and additional housing was available. Do we tell out military service members "Screw you" you don't have wives and husbands anymore?
While in those foreign countries do we tell those spouses, "Sorry no medical treatment for you a military facilities - you have no relationship that is recognized." Oh and that applies to the military members children, well unless the military member has spent thousands of dollars to adopt his own kids.
No more tax free transfer of property to a spouse - spouses won't exist.
Absent a will, no inheritance for you. Property used to go (absent a will goes to the nearest next of kin) Spouse, Parent, Sibling, Aunt/Uncle, Niece/Nephew. With no spouse (absent a will) no automatic inheritance.
************************
I'm in my mid-50's and funny thing is I never heard "get the government out of marriage" until the gheys started getting it.
>>>>
I said the government would not recognize marriages...it does not mean people could not legally designate someone (anyone...a lover, friend, brother, daughter...anyone) as a partner for benefit purposes.
But no one would be legally bound to another through matrimony.
I said the government would not recognize marriages...it does not mean people could not legally designate someone (anyone...a lover, friend, brother, daughter...anyone) as a partner for benefit purposes.
Marriage tax loopholes/benefits would end. Though they could be replaced with 'designated partner'. Again, anyone you choose.
And no one would be legally bound to another through matrimony.
You realize that being able to designate anyone off the street with no legal entanglements between then to receive all the current benefits of marriage makes no sense right?
My wife and I have been married for 27 years and she followed me around the globe putting her career on hold when we moved overseas. The idea that her ability to inherit my half of our joint property and assets tax free is not considered a "loophole" is kind of telling.
>>>>
I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void.
Everyone who is married would legally be single - instantly.
People can still marry all they want - but the government would not recognize any of them.
so instead of granting equal rights and protecting rights you would choose to further violate peoples rights.
LOL no thanks
1.)How exactly is having the government no longer involved in marriage violating people's rights?
2.)P.S. I am quite sure I am going to regret asking that.
3.)People can still get married.
4.)And there would be no legal obstacle for gay marriage.
5.)And every gay marriage would have exactly the same legality as a 'straight' marriage.
1.) easy you said"I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void."
so the hell with their LEGAL contracts they have, lets just void them and have government no longer protect thier rights and thier contracts.
yes that would factually be violating their rights.
2.) never regret learning reality
3.) who protects their marriage contract?
4.) not sure how this helps your plan to violate rights
5.) what legality you want to remove government
1.)Oh Jeez...null and void ONLY as far as the government is concerned.
2.)That does not mean people cannot get married...
3.)it just means marriage no longer has any meaning to the government.
4.) Everyone would be legally single.
5.)People are still free to get married and make any contractual arrangements they want within that marriage.
6.)You would be able to designate another person (any person) of your choice as your partner for matters of government, military, insurance, next-of-kin...etcetera.
7.) But you would not have to marry them, just designate them.
8.) And you could undesignate them any time you wish...like designating a beneficiary in a will or for life insurance.
9.)So, I will ask again, EXACTLY which Constitutional right is being violated by this?
1.)which takes away their contract and no longer has the government protecting them which would violate their rights since theres no legal reason to do so.
what would be your valid legal reason to stop protecting these peoples legals documents?
2.) good thing I didnt claim that
3.) and again who protects their marriage contract and all the rights and privileges that come with it?
4.) so again you would ignore their legal contract. Please see #1
5.) see #3
6.) again how would these contracts be protected? who would do this?
7.) contracts besides marriage already exist. What ones do you plan to make equal to marriage, how and who protects it?
8.) see #7
9.) answered muiltiple times now see#1 bold it and hilight it next time wont change the fact it was answered.
why do peoples rights not matter to you? what possible justification do you have to violate peoples rights and void their legal contracts?
thats what i thought, facts win againYou did not answer the question.
Which specific right that is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights would be violated.
Here is the Constitution:
U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Now please tell me EXACTLY which right would be violated/denied under my plan?
And who would protect these contracts? The same people that protect any personal contracts between two or more people...civil court.
You make a contract, set the terms and sign it. If one or both parties violate the contract, take them to civil court.
You typed:thats what i thought, facts win again
YOUR posts are the only one not answering questions lol
let us know when you are ready to answer and let us know when you can support your strawman.
already answered you, you have no right to violate their legal contract, ZERO, NONE. If you disagree simply tell us why you can.
Until you can do his you have nothing.
can I say you will is void just cause i dont like it? why not? LMAO
cause it violated their rights you have no legality to discriminate against them based on your feelings
your posts can keep dodging this fact but nobody honest and educated will buy it.
again if you disagree simply teach me a lesson. Prove my statements wrong. Simply point out why you have the right to void their legal contracts and violate their rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?