Marriage, intolerance and acceptability

[joko104]

Fine, other than tossing a quarter, what metrics do the courts use to decide who gets custody in a divorce?

By statutory family law. I would think everyone knew this.

 

[Matt Foley]

It certainly has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

It has everything to do with "morals, religions, beliefs."

By statutory family law. I would think everyone knew this.

And what is statutory family law based on?

 

[katiegrrl0]

It has everything to do with "morals, religions, beliefs."



And what is statutory family law based on?

A divorce has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The court doesn't give a **** about your religious beliefs. If you have to diddle around with a church as well this is your problem but it has nothing to do with the contract by which your church was granted permission to marry you.

 

[joko104]

It has everything to do with "morals, religions, beliefs."



And what is statutory family law based on?

State legislatures. Do you have any idea about even the basics of anything you post?

Generally, divisions of property and potential alimony is based upon specific percentages in state law depending upon length of marriage, applicability of community property statutes, any pre-marriage agreements, what was brought into the marriage by each, sources of income and equitable division of the estate.

Custody for young children upon the standard of what is in the best interests of the child. Older children may be allowed a strong voice in the decision. Religion is prohibited from consideration and generally if there is a dispute over religious matters the court will usually require a non-religious alternative. For example if one parent wants a religious education and the other does not, the court will typically required public school.

Not to be insulting, but how old are you?

 

[Matt Foley]

State legislatures.

And what do state legislatures base their decisions on?

A divorce has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The court doesn't give a **** about your religious beliefs. If you have to diddle around with a church as well this is your problem but it has nothing to do with the contract by which your church was granted permission to marry you.

It all leads back to something, it sure isn't the great turtle climbing out of the ocean with the Earth on it's back.

lol, you guys just refuse to admit it.

 

[joko104]

And what do state legislatures base their decisions on?






It all leads back to something, it sure isn't the great turtle climbing out of the ocean with the Earth on it's back.

lol, you guys just refuse to admit it.

A person who admits to knowing nothing about how courts work and nothing about how laws are created has nothing to brag about or much to offer to the conversation.

Again, how old are you? Some reason you are only capable of asking questions and incapable of answering any? You may not even understand the basics of courts and government, but you do know how old you are.

 

[katiegrrl0]

A person who admits to knowing nothing about how courts work and nothing about how laws are created has nothing to brag about or much to offer to the conversation.

Again, how old are you? Some reason you are only capable of asking questions and incapable of answering any? You may not even understand the basics of courts and government, but you do know how old you are.

You can only hope he knows his age. Anyhow i am done responding to the pointless comments he makes. You may have better control than I. hehehehehe

 

[Matt Foley]

Ugh, let's kickstart this, it could go on forever.

The Roman and Greek Questions Index

The Roman and Greek Questions: The Roman Questions: 20-29.

Roman and Greek questions by Plutarch

Why why why why?

29. Why do they not allow the bride to cross the threshold of her home herself, but those who are escorting her lift her over?


Is it because they carried off by force also the first Roman brides and bore them in in this manner, and the women did not enter of their own accord?

Or do they wish it to appear that it is under constraint and not of their own desire that they enter a dwelling where they are about to lose their virginity?

Or is it a token that the woman may not go forth of her own accord and abandon her home if she be not constrained, just as it was under constraint that she entered it? So likewise among us in Boeotia they burn the axle of the bridal carriage before the door, signifying that the bride must remain, since her means of departure has been destroyed.

Plutarch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plutarch, born AD 46

Obviously marriage is a pre-Christian tradition, in addition to western sub-customs that have existed for well over 2,000 years.

So you want to change a currently existing tradition against the vast majority of people who don't want it changed. You can create a new tradition, but instead are trying to stick your foot into the door and spit on everyone else.

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Communists trying to make Mayday a national holiday during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

This read on Plutarch's "WHY WHY WHY's" is a totally awesome read.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Ugh, let's kickstart this, it could go on forever.

The Roman and Greek Questions Index

The Roman and Greek Questions: The Roman Questions: 20-29.

Roman and Greek questions by Plutarch

Why why why why?

Plutarch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plutarch, born AD 46

Obviously marriage is a pre-Christian tradition, in addition to western sub-customs that have existed for well over 2,000 years.

So you want to change a currently existing tradition against the vast majority of people who don't want it changed. You can create a new tradition, but instead are trying to stick your foot into the door and spit on everyone else.

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Communists trying to make Mayday a national holiday during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

This read on Plutarch's "WHY WHY WHY's" is a totally awesome read.

Ah yes. There it is.

Quietly equating Gay marriage and gay marriage activists with communists.

There is no greater debate tactic *sigh

 

[katiegrrl0]

Ugh, let's kickstart this, it could go on forever.

The Roman and Greek Questions Index

The Roman and Greek Questions: The Roman Questions: 20-29.

Roman and Greek questions by Plutarch

Why why why why?

Plutarch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plutarch, born AD 46

Obviously marriage is a pre-Christian tradition, in addition to western sub-customs that have existed for well over 2,000 years.

So you want to change a currently existing tradition against the vast majority of people who don't want it changed. You can create a new tradition, but instead are trying to stick your foot into the door and spit on everyone else.

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Communists trying to make Mayday a national holiday during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

This read on Plutarch's "WHY WHY WHY's" is a totally awesome read.

The bold: Since you suggested it I will put it on my things to read after I straighten my sock drawer and the 100's of unread books I have here.

 

[Matt Foley]

Ah yes. There it is.

Quietly equating Gay marriage and gay marriage activists with communists.

There is no greater debate tactic *sigh

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Americans trying to make the 4th of July a Soviet holiday inside the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

How does that work.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Americans trying to make the 4th of July a Soviet holiday inside the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

It doesn't make it so, because you want it to be.

Marriage is not an American tradition.

And let's not forget that marriage once facilitated the exchange of property.

From Father to Husband.

Do you still support such a notion? It is after all.... wait for it... wait for it... traditional.

 

[Matt Foley]

It doesn't make it so, because you want it to be.

Marriage is not an American tradition.

And let's not forget that marriage once facilitated the exchange of property.

From Father to Husband.

Do you still support such a notion? It is after all.... wait for it... wait for it... traditional.

That's right, traditional marriage is between + and - is universal, traditions change, and there's not a chance in hell you're changing it.

Hey I got an idea, why don't you create a new tradition inside your own little sub-culture enclaves instead of forcing everyone else to change theirs. Maybe it will catch on elsewhere too. Eh eh eh? Pretty radical idea if you ask me.

 

[Jetboogieman]

That's right, traditional marriage is between + and - is universal, traditions change, and there's not a chance in hell you're changing it.

Hey I got an idea, why don't you create a new tradition inside your own little sub-culture enclaves instead of forcing everyone else to change theirs. Maybe it will catch on elsewhere too. Eh eh eh? Pretty radical idea if you ask me.

Nothing.

And I mean nothing is being forced on you.

And this isn't a sub culture enclave, polls show the attitude in America is changing, the tipping point is here and the majority of Americans are beggining to support Gay marriage if they don't already.

Nothing is being forced on you and the times are a changing.

If you want to be on the wrong side of history...

Be. My. ****ing. Guest.

 

[roguenuke]

Apples oranges

Because you're the one using the argument this time?

 

[roguenuke]

Obviously they haven't "get'ten over it." Even after decades (several generations) of media and public school propaganda the majority are still against homosexual marriage, and there is still white flight.

Well, since the majority now accept interracial marriage and have no issue with it, whether religion based, racist, or something else, particularly compared to the numbers from the time when interracial marriages were illegal anywhere in the US, then I'd say most have "gotten over it".

Keep up. We are talking about two separate things here.

And actually the majority of this country doesn't care either way but polls of people show that if the only choice is for or against, the majority will go with "for".

No history shows that the majority always gets its way.

No it doesn't. The majority of the country was against interracial marriage being legalized in the US when the Loving v VA ruling was made by the SCOTUS. It wasn't until almost the '80s that this changed. The last laws to go away on interracial marriage in the US were taken off the books in 2002. So no, the majority doesn't "always get it way". Which is a good thing. That is one very important purpose of the Bill of Rights and its Amendments, to ensure the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of minorities.

 

[roguenuke]

So that's all marriage is to you, a legal contract. Wow how interesting.


Dearly Signatories, we are gathered here today in the presence of these witnesses, to join ___________ and ___________ and ___________ and ___________ and _____________ and ___________ in a legal contract, which is commended to be lawful; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but legally......

That is all legal marriage is, a legal contract.

 

[roguenuke]

No, you both claim marriage is just a legal contract between two or more parties, I said you don't need a contract to f*ck.

What part of "legal marriage" is a legal contract do you not get? No one has said all marriages or that marriage to them is just a legal contract. They have said that the legal contract of marriage is just a legal contract. There is no legal requirement to love the person or have any specific kind of emotional relationship with the person you enter into a legal marriage with.

 

[roguenuke]

Either your state's legislature will make it "another kind" of contract or the courts will naturally make it "another kind" of contract. It's inevitable.

Likely it will be the courts having the final say across the country (it could be the legislature though) and they very likely will just allow same sex couples access to the marriage contract we already have.

 

[roguenuke]

Ugh, let's kickstart this, it could go on forever.

The Roman and Greek Questions Index

The Roman and Greek Questions: The Roman Questions: 20-29.

Roman and Greek questions by Plutarch

Why why why why?

Plutarch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plutarch, born AD 46

Obviously marriage is a pre-Christian tradition, in addition to western sub-customs that have existed for well over 2,000 years.

So you want to change a currently existing tradition against the vast majority of people who don't want it changed. You can create a new tradition, but instead are trying to stick your foot into the door and spit on everyone else.

Your attempt to manipulate and change an old tradition is equivalent of Communists trying to make Mayday a national holiday during the height of the Cold War. Good luck.

This read on Plutarch's "WHY WHY WHY's" is a totally awesome read.

Marriage has been about a contract making two people family much longer than it has ever involved love. The vast majority of marriages before the 19th Century were arranged marriages. Love was considered a stupid reason to get married. Traditionally, parents decided the best spouse for their child. Maybe you wish to go back to that "tradition?

Not sure what the hell the "carrying across the threshold" thing has to do with anything at all we are discussing here. It is a tradition, but it isn't required by law. My husband didn't carry me across the threshold.

 

[Matt Foley]

Marriage has been about a contract making two people family much longer than it has ever involved love. The vast majority of marriages before the 19th Century were arranged marriages. Love was considered a stupid reason to get married. Traditionally, parents decided the best spouse for their child. Maybe you wish to go back to that "tradition?

Not sure what the hell the "carrying across the threshold" thing has to do with anything at all we are discussing here. It is a tradition, but it isn't required by law. My husband didn't carry me across the threshold.

What part of "legal marriage" is a legal contract do you not get? No one has said all marriages or that marriage to them is just a legal contract. They have said that the legal contract of marriage is just a legal contract. There is no legal requirement to love the person or have any specific kind of emotional relationship with the person you enter into a legal marriage with.

So that's all marriage is then, it's a f*ck-contract.

That is all legal marriage is, a legal contract.

Let's change the name from marriage to f*ck-contract.

 

[Matt Foley]

Nothing.

And I mean nothing is being forced on you.

And this isn't a sub culture enclave, polls show the attitude in America is changing, the tipping point is here and the majority of Americans are beggining to support Gay marriage if they don't already.

Nothing is being forced on you and the times are a changing.

If you want to be on the wrong side of history...

Be. My. ****ing. Guest.

My impression of snotty liberals

Oh people just don't understand that in traditional Mayan culture the Gods sacrificed their blood to create the Earth and the Mayan are just sacrificing to refresh the Earth. It's all very cute.

What a bunch of evil bigots in wife beaters!

 

[Matt Foley]

And actually the majority of this country doesn't care either way but polls of people show that if the only choice is for or against, the majority will go with "for".

Well they don't count for what is important; we don't need you.

 

[Jetboogieman]

My impression of snotty liberals

Oh people just don't understand that in traditional Mayan culture the Gods sacrificed their blood to create the Earth and the Mayan are just sacrificing to refresh the Earth. It's all very cute.

What a bunch of evil bigots in wife beaters!

Is that all you got?

I mean really is that the best you can come up with?

 

[Matt Foley]

Is that all you got?

I mean really is that the best you can come up with?

I can't figure who I hate more. Ronulans or radical leftists. Help me chose.