Marriage should have no legal significance.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Marriage exists for the protection of children, wives, and property? Where the hell was that ever chiseled in granite or written in the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution? That may be your opinion, but it's not the opinion of the American Energy Party (AEP).
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
You strike me as the sort of person who can't be reasoned with.bobevenson wrote:Marriage exists for the protection of children, wives, and property? Where the hell was that ever chiseled in granite or written in the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution? That may be your opinion, but it's not the opinion of the American Energy Party (AEP).
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
You strike me as the kind of person who can't answer a question or support his own argument.
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment.bobevenson wrote:You strike me as the kind of person who can't answer a question or support his own argument.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Well, I'm glad I've finally found somebody around this joint who agrees with me!Harbal wrote:Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment.bobevenson wrote:You strike me as the kind of person who can't answer a question or support his own argument.
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Since I was aware of the kind of person I am before you were, I think it is you who are agreeing with me.bobevenson wrote: Well, I'm glad I've finally found somebody around this joint who agrees with me!
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
No, I'm sorry, I made a statement, and you said, "Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment." I believe that indicates you are agreeing with me.Harbal wrote:Since I was aware of the kind of person I am before you were, I think it is you who are agreeing with me.bobevenson wrote: Well, I'm glad I've finally found somebody around this joint who agrees with me!
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
OK. I'll let you have it.bobevenson wrote: No, I'm sorry, I made a statement, and you said, "Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment." I believe that indicates you are agreeing with me.
-
Obvious Leo
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
A wise strategic move and the only known method of getting him to shut his gob.Harbal wrote:OK. I'll let you have it.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision (barely a majority and representing the wide disagreement on the issue among Americans) declaring homosexual marriage valid in all 50 states, only amplifies the AEP position that the term "marriage" has no place in government legislation. Marriage licenses and mandatory blood tests should be immediately abolished as serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Given that most people believe being married to more than one person at a time is a bad idea....I think you're mistaken.bobevenson wrote:The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision (barely a majority and representing the wide disagreement on the issue among Americans) declaring homosexual marriage valid in all 50 states, only amplifies the AEP position that the term "marriage" has no place in government legislation. Marriage licenses and mandatory blood tests should be immediately abolished as serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
It doesn't matter what most people think. Do you want your life run by what most people think?Melchior wrote:Given that most people believe being married to more than one person at a time is a bad idea....I think you're mistaken.bobevenson wrote:The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision (barely a majority and representing the wide disagreement on the issue among Americans) declaring homosexual marriage valid in all 50 states, only amplifies the AEP position that the term "marriage" has no place in government legislation. Marriage licenses and mandatory blood tests should be immediately abolished as serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
The blood tests screen for STD's and serve a useful function. To my knowledge they don't bar marriage, but only recommend treatment for the disease. So the blood test serves a medical purpose.bobevenson wrote: Marriage licenses and mandatory blood tests should be immediately abolished as serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
The government does not demand blood tests for people shacking up or having casual sex, so the entire policy is fraudulent.thedoc wrote:The blood tests screen for STD's and serve a useful function. To my knowledge they don't bar marriage, but only recommend treatment for the disease. So the blood test serves a medical purpose.bobevenson wrote: Marriage licenses and mandatory blood tests should be immediately abolished as serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Marriage should have no legal significance.
Common law should have no legal significance, not marriage. Common law forces one into a marriage-alike, though the people involved have purposefully decided against marriage.