They can. Except there are hundreds of other things that come automatically with marriage, including some that can't be replicated any other way. And replicating them could cost thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Marriage is much cheaper and easier.
Right, so my choices are to either marry someone I don't want to marry, or to pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees if I want to receive the same benefits that married folk get for free?
In the immortal words of Jubal Early, "Does that seem right to you?"
No.
But marriage isn't free. It's more like a prison! :mrgreen:
I vote no. It's against the sanctuary and tradition of marriage (a sacred bond between man and woman).
I was having a debate with a Guy, and his stand was that "Only Gay Men should be allowed to Marry, as they were superior somehow" I countered with, any Male should then be allowed to marry also, so as to reap the benefits of marriage, just as he proposed that gay Men can do.Okay, you just lost me...
sanctuary of marriage in theory. don't include the 50% divorce rate
I have a 100% Divorce rate. :shock:sanctuary of marriage in theory. don't include the 50% divorce rate
Its against the sanctuary of marriage?:lol::lol::lol:
Sanctuary; Consecrated, Sacred.
Well, putting aside your hysterically funny malapropism, I think the sanctity argument is one of the most specious used by religious types to oppose SSM. If the principle of sanctity is so importnt to them, why aren't they campaigning against registry office weddings or barring anyone from marrying in a church who is not a regular attendee?I vote no. It's against the sanctuary and tradition of marriage (a sacred bond between man and woman). On this matter I don't think I can get any more conservative.
Well, putting aside your hysterically funny malapropism, I think the sanctity argument is one of the most specious used by religious types to oppose SSM. If the principle of sanctity is so importnt to them, why aren't they campaigning against registry office weddings or barring anyone from marrying in a church who is not a regular attendee?
Well, putting aside your hysterically funny malapropism
It was a commonly used word in my family when I was growing up, as grandma was the living incarnation of Mrs Malaprop. We also used to call her verbal slip-ups "grannyisms," but that wouldn't have made sense to anyone else here.lol. You used the word malapropism. I wish I'd thought to use the word malapropism. You're my hero.
It was a commonly used word in my family when I was growing up, as grandma was the living incarnation of Mrs Malaprop. We also used to call her verbal slip-ups "grannyisms," but that wouldn't have made sense to anyone else here.
Divorce is the most important part of Marriage, that needs to be reworked. And "Family courts", should be outlawed. ---they have their own Laws, that regular folks don't have to go by.Indeed.
.
They can. Except there are hundreds of other things that come automatically with marriage, including some that can't be replicated any other way. And replicating them could cost thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Marriage is much cheaper and easier.
So now two straight males could marry, and get all the tax benefits, right?
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?