patrick.net

Nomograph,

Apparently you didn't hear about the "interracial" couple from Louisiana who was denied a marriage license? Apparently you did not hear about the pregnant woman in England who was not only denied a marriage license but is having her baby taken away from her because she cannot learn as well as a "normal" person (she was deemed by the state too stupid to know what marriage is and also too stupid to raise a child, she can't even give the child to the father because they aren't married according to the gubmint).

On another subject, If you think marriage itself is tyranny, chances are you are a tyrant/or had a relationship with one. Good luck and be good!

life is like a box of chocolates....

2ndClassCitizen says

Apparently you didn’t hear about the “interracial” couple from Louisiana who was denied a marriage license?

Actually, they weren't denied a marriage license - they were turned away from a particular JoP because he didn't believe in interracial marriage. They quickly found someone else to marry them, but complained about the JoP which made the national news. He was fired, from what I understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html

This story is sad, indeed. Wish we had more facts. But it's in another country, so I'm not sure why you think it's pertinent to your argument.

Marriage is something that is contractual and is regulated by law. The people voted it as such - and in every recent election we've had measures attempting to open the definition of marriage but the people vote it out.

If you don't like marriage - and the tax advantages, social advantages, etc, don't get married. BTW, Nomo didn't say that he thought marriage was tyranny - you're projecting.

elliemae says

2ndClassCitizen says

Apparently you didn’t hear about the “interracial” couple from Louisiana who was denied a marriage license?

Actually, they weren’t denied a marriage license - they were turned away from a particular JoP because he didn’t believe in interracial marriage. They quickly found someone else to marry them, but complained about the JoP which made the national news. He was fired, from what I understand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html
This story is sad, indeed. Wish we had more facts. But it’s in another country, so I’m not sure why you think it’s pertinent to your argument.
Marriage is something that is contractual and is regulated by law. The people voted it as such - and in every recent election we’ve had measures attempting to open the definition of marriage but the people vote it out.
If you don’t like marriage - and the tax advantages, social advantages, etc, don’t get married. BTW, Nomo didn’t say that he thought marriage was tyranny - you’re projecting.

Nomo said, "If you define a marriage license as “tyranny”, you have it pretty damn good."

Whose projecting? Nomo? Me thinks yes. And you madam are making false accusations. Just so we get things straight. I know it gives you pleasure to do so, so by all means have your fun. It is a free country for now. But never the less you are making false accusations.

BTW I think marriage is great. But the state has no right to say who can/can't marry or what the benefits and responsibilities of such an arrangement means. That needs to be between the two people.

Ellie said: "Marriage is something that is contractual and is regulated by law. The people voted it as such..."

Exactly Ellie and that needs to change. Let's change the law. The state should not give any benefits to those who are married, OR not married. There should be no advantages to either status. There should be no disadvantages either. Make it a level playing field and get government out of the way.

Ellie said: "But it’s in another country, so I’m not sure why you think it’s pertinent to your argument."

So what happens in other countries is not pertinent here? What? Is that not a rather narrow world view? Surely you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course what happens in other parts of the world is pertinent to the argument that state control of marriage (and just about everything for that matter) has gone too far in this part of the world and elsewhere.

I know trashing my posts is one of your pet projects but please lets be reasonable.
State control of marriage is just another example of Government Gone Wild.

You don't have to agree but please if you are going to present a counter argument at least talk about how great it is to have government control over marriage and what benefits there could be to such an arrangement. Then we might even be able to have an intelligent discussion.

I'd be willing to concede there are some benefits, but the benefits of state interference in marriage pale in comparison to the costs.

2ndClassCitizen says

Ellie said: “Marriage is something that is contractual and is regulated by law. The people voted it as such…”
Exactly Ellie and that needs to change. Let’s change the law. The state should not give any benefits to those who are married, OR not married. There should be no advantages to either status. There should be no disadvantages either. Make it a level playing field and get government out of the way.
Ellie said: “But it’s in another country, so I’m not sure why you think it’s pertinent to your argument.”
So what happens in other countries is not pertinent here? What? Is that not a rather narrow world view? Surely you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course what happens in other parts of the world is pertinent to the argument that state control of marriage (and just about everything for that matter) has gone too far in this part of the world and elsewhere.
I know trashing my posts is one of your pet projects but please lets be reasonable.
State control of marriage is just another example of Government Gone Wild.
You don’t have to agree but please if you are going to present a counter argument at least talk about how great it is to have government control over marriage and what benefits there could be to such an arrangement. Then we might even be able to have an intelligent discussion.
I’d be willing to concede there are some benefits, but the benefits of state interference in marriage pale in comparison to the costs.

More youthful statements, we should reward married couples with larger tax cuts because we want to promote family values. African Americans were strippped of their families in the early stages of enslavement and yet to recover, and in current times the entertainment industry has a grip on the minds of our youth that somehow has eroded their moral values. The erosion of family values is at the root of all criminal and moral issues that we face today....less taxes encourages matrimony.

Would you want a bitch or a hoe living in your sons household?

Peace GOD

well said clarence. it sure is nice to have your wisdom. where were you before yesterday? Shaloam

if you are referring to what I think you are...I believe this question is universally asked in English-speaking Lodges which require some kind of catechistical work before advancing to the next degree. The answer is “In my heart.”

2ndClassCitizen says

I know trashing my posts is one of your pet projects but please lets be reasonable.

Don't flatter yourself. I don't trash your posts - I respond. I've noticed that when people disagree with your point of view, you take it personally. Please note that I respond to many posts, and you're not special.

2ndClassCitizen says

You don’t have to agree but please if you are going to present a counter argument at least talk about how great it is to have government control over marriage and what benefits there could be to such an arrangement. Then we might even be able to have an intelligent discussion.

An intelligent discussion would involve people who discuss their points of view without being told what it is. I'm fully able to formulate my own thoughts and, while I appreciate your attempt to mold my opinions, I respectfully assert that I will continue to think for myself.

2ndClassCitizen says

Of course what happens in other parts of the world is pertinent to the argument that state control of marriage (and just about everything for that matter) has gone too far in this part of the world and elsewhere.

The Campaign for Liberty's mission statement is "Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."

The Campaign for Liberty is an American thing. So - no, I don't believe that discussing what occurs in other parts of the world is pertinent to your argument - although I'm usually unsure as to what your argument is. You're all over the place.

The concept of Marriage is a legal distinction. If two people want to move in together, they can - without anyone telling them that they aren't able to do so. They are able to declare their love for each other in committment ceremonies if they wish. However, if they wish to be "married" in order to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by law, such as becoming the legal next-of-kin for decision-making, tax breaks, insurance opportunities, etc, they have to follow the laws of the state in which they reside.