Not according to polygamists and what other government contract can't I enter into with my sister?
Not according to polygamists and what other government contract can't I enter into with my sister?
I do, I also have one in England and Croatia, and with my brother we are renovating another in Tuscany:2wave:I thought it was you who had a house in Wales?..
Speaking of "anal",
nah, but you could not afford me, sorry:2wave:Are you unpimpable?
31 ststes have voted on the issue and 31 states said no, most by huge majorities...........This country is not for gay marriage and I don't believe it ever will be...............
a minority is Blacks, gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference.......You can't stop being black....you can stop being gay...........
At the time fully 70% of the populace nationwide wanted to keep those laws on the books. Ill link the gallup poll later.
Two consenting adults that fall within accepted parameters of relationship by blood or marriage-- said parameters varying by state-- and who are both legal permanent residents of the United States, who are not currently married to other people regardless of the consent of all parties involved. Some States have residency requirements for one or both of the spouses-to-be. Some States have age requirements other than "adult," ranging if I recall correctly from 12 (with parental permission) to 19.
So no, just because someone is heterosexual does not mean that they can just marry whomever they wish. There are numerous legal requirements that must be met aside from the intended spouses being of the opposite sex, and if marriage is a human right than any couple-- not just homosexual couples-- that do not meet each and every one of those specific legal requirements that vary by State is being denied their right to marriage.
Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal privileges offered by the State for qualifying participants.
However, since it takes the form of contract, and the individual has the right to contract, it becomes more than privilege granted by the State.
I don't think the major issue here is whether they can get married or not (Marriage was in fact a construct of the State waaay back in the day anyways), it's really that they want the benefits offered to those who do get married. So why don't we just require civil unions and marriages to receive the same benefits from insurance and businesses and call it a day.
The concern there would be that it is akin to "separate but equal" policies, which were actually separate but unequal. I am really not sure why some people think the word marriage is degraded by homosexuals using it. I mean, people who marry for lust or money use it so what's the difference if another person you consider sinful uses it? Does that make your own marriage meaningless, or are marriages actually defined as separate contracts, not as an overall institution?
This is really a world wide thing, NOT just our nation.
In truth, we may have more rights for the homosexual than must, if not all...
Not that we are the most advanced nation....we are not...I think...
OMFG. Now, you have 100% voting for a position. There was another candidate who got some votes as well.
Person A:49
Person B: 45
Person C: 6Total 100
half of total 50
Wining candidate 49<50
Did not get the majority of the votes, but got the plurality.
Comprende? Holy ****, I didn't think this should be so tough. Humans have a large degree of intellect; it's time for you to employ it.
There may be 10 000 apples on a tree you are under, but you can take into account only those apples that are in your pocket. The rest are out of your reach, they are not yours.
If those 6% of the total of your state, town, street did not bother with the issue you can't count them. They chose not to bother with your vote. And thus yours are only the remaining 94% of the total -- those who did take part in your voting. These 94% of the total are your 100% when you are talking of the voting.
Maybe it is difficult for a future PhD to grasp, but children usually learn %% at the age of 9. Feel free to ask questions.
Which dictionary? Link?
49 is a percentage ... the whole is 100. The whole is all votes cast - you cannot have less than 100% when considering all votes cast. 49 surpasses 45, and is a plurality; 49 does not pass half of all votes cast, and thus is not a majority.
It was also eliminated, without a simple majority vote to do so.
No it doesn't. Gays or singles can get all the same contractual benefits of a marriage: hospital visitation, inheritance, guardianship, etc through any lawyer. The difference is that the government streamlines the process for hetero couples. Seperately the gov't LEGISLATES other benefits such as tax breaks. But this is no more dicrimination against gays than it is agains single. Just like medicare discriminates based on age. Certain types of discrimination are both rational and constitutional.Banning same sex marriage infringes upon the right of contract by the individual.
In the case of a plurality winning candidate, the majority of the voters voted for someone else. The plurality wins the day. The majority is SOL.
And did the majority object?
Slavery was accepted when ...
Yes, the whole is 100%. The whole of what? The whole of those who voted! And only 94% of the total of the number of voters in the town, state, department, street, etc. took part in a vote. Out of these 94% OF THE TOTAL 49% voted for blue, 45% voted for green. But you can count ONLY THOSE WHO DID VOTE. And so your 94% from the total number becomes your 100% of voters, the rest were NOT voters.
As far as stop being gay, that would only be true if they were bisexual to begin with. Personally I could not choose to be aroused by another male. If you feel you can sexually choose men or women, then you are bisexual.
Actually I don't think anybody is prohibited from marrying in general, except those incompetent to consent to contracts in general.
What I really can't figure out is why you assume having these parameters is reasonable. Heterosexual couples simply have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't mean some of those restrictions aren't also arbitrary and unfair.
So why don't we just require civil unions and marriages to receive the same benefits from insurance and businesses and call it a day.
jackalope, I gave you a definition of "plurality" and a definition of "majority" taken from online free dictionary, show me the difference, please.
If you listen all your life to gobbledy-gook your politicians spin around the meaning of the words of your language, it's your problem, but don't expect everyone to follow your suit.
Please, show me the difference in definitions of these two words.
Since the contract specifies behaviors of the State, the State is a signatory to that contract and thus has the same right not to contract with couples whose marriages it disapproves of.
There may be 10 000 apples on a tree you are under, but you can take into account only those apples that are in your pocket. The rest are out of your reach, they are not yours.
If those 6% of the total of your state, town, street did not bother with the issue you can't count them. They chose not to bother with your vote. And thus yours are only the remaining 94% of the total -- those who did take part in your voting. These 94% of the total are your 100% when you are talking of the voting.
Maybe it is difficult for a future PhD to grasp, but children usually learn %% at the age of 9. Feel free to ask questions.
There may be 10 000 apples on a tree you are under, but you can take into account only those apples that are in your pocket. The rest are out of your reach, they are not yours.
If those 6% of the total of your state, town, street did not bother with the issue you can't count them. They chose not to bother with your vote. And thus yours are only the remaining 94% of the total -- those who did take part in your voting. These 94% of the total are your 100% when you are talking of the voting.
Maybe it is difficult for a future PhD to grasp, but children usually learn %% at the age of 9. Feel free to ask questions.
Murder contract, prostitution contract, drug contract, etc.
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?