Author Topic: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts  (Read 5154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:34:10 PM »
Since the darksiders have destroyed traditional marriage and the gay Gestapo trying to use the issue to hurt Christians, we should replace the term marriage with life partner contracts.  In the eyes of the state I and gays are contracted.  Churches can make marriage a rite.  Businesses can support a celebration of their belief.  They can provide contract cakes when people are LPCeeded.  This will take the ammo from the agitators.  Life Partner is a everything neutral term and does not demean anyone who pledges fidelity to another.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2015, 11:37:03 PM »
maybe the state should just not be involved at all and stop discriminating against single people
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Tobias

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29139
  • hypoclique lieutenant
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 11:38:04 PM »
it's "Gaystapo" /crl

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 11:38:32 PM »
Yeah, marriage just isn't PC enough for the far right.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline 0.42

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7746
  • pasghetti
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2015, 12:12:59 AM »
all about that #darksider life

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2015, 12:35:07 AM »
oh man those meanies trying to have civil rights.  such attack on Christians, so war on.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2015, 07:31:20 AM »
all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?
:adios:

Offline 0.42

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7746
  • pasghetti
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2015, 11:57:27 AM »
all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?

it's pro-anything that sends faux-moralist conservatives into a frothing rage

Offline slobber

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12427
  • Gonna win 'em all!
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2015, 11:59:33 AM »

all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?

it's pro-anything that sends faux-moralist conservatives into a frothing rage
that is a great cause to get behind.


Gonna win 'em all!

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2015, 09:44:49 PM »
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed.  Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract.  Two people who hate each other can have a contract.  State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law.  My point is separate religion from the secular state.   Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married.  If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2015, 09:49:12 PM »
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed.  Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract.  Two people who hate each other can have a contract.  State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law.  My point is separate religion from the secular state.   Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married.  If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.
good god you're a sad little person
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2015, 09:59:00 PM »
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed.  Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract.  Two people who hate each other can have a contract.  State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law.  My point is separate religion from the secular state.   Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married.  If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.

what happens at home stays at home!!!!!
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2015, 01:04:26 PM »
I think the time has come for the government to step out of marriage altogether. Let the churches decide who can be "married" - but the government would only recognize "civil unions." This seems like the most acceptable compromise that respects freedom of religion while also respecting equality under the law.

Yes, this change would theoretically, and slightly, undermine the traditional purpose of marriage: Government incentivized marriage between men and women for the purpose of encouraging strong family units for the creation and raising of children. Some gays might adopt children - most won't. But moving away from this historical purpose of joining two people together under the law is really just a mosquito bite compared to what has really weakened marriage and the family unit. I'm referring, of course, to no-fault divorce. That genie is already out of the bottle.

On the whole, it is more important to allow gay couples the same benefits under the law - when it comes to taxes, probate, benefits, adoption, etc. The churches would keep the "marriage" ceremony.

The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.

But all this is hypothetical because the Supreme Court is in all liklihood going to totally eff this all up.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20950
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2015, 01:08:27 PM »
scotus? more like scrotus, right??  :ROFL:

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2015, 01:37:39 PM »


The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.

Why do you need to?

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2015, 01:41:47 PM »


The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.

Why do you need to?

Because reasons!

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2015, 01:52:55 PM »


The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.

Why do you need to?

Because reasons!

Ok - so that's the best answer? We should allow as many people as they want to enter into civil unions? If that's the best answer, what is the point of government incentivizing civil unions (with the benefits listed above, for example)?

Alito had an interesting line of questioning on this point yesterday, and the plaintiff's lawyer really had no answer as to how to differentiate.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/justice-alito-why-not-let-4-lawyers-marry-one-another

Quote
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
 

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
 

Alito: What would be the reason?
 

Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—
 

Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn't understand your answer.
 

Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –
 

Bonauto: No, no.
 

Alito: -- then you can come back to mine.
 

Bonauto: Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State –
 

Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
 

Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
 

Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?
 

Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2015, 01:56:09 PM »
Well if you're really worried about it just limit it to two people. It's what we do now. Geez.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2015, 01:59:30 PM »
Well if you're really worried about it just limit it to two people. It's what we do now. Geez.

"Well if you're really worried about gay marriage, just limit it to straight people. It's what we do now. Geez."

See? You're answer isn't an answer at all. I'm asking how you can depart from the historical definition of marriage, but still logically distinguish between allowing a civil union between any two consenting adults and any 4, or 6, or 8, etc.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2015, 02:01:32 PM »
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2015, 02:03:51 PM »
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.

Ok. I do care.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2015, 02:05:53 PM »

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2015, 02:07:46 PM »
The answer given was perfectly fine.

Furthermore its just a tactic by the conservatives to obscure the issue at hand, the denial of civil rights to many people in our country.  Its a pure red herring designed to expand the issue beyond the topic at hand.  Remedy the first issue before bringing in another.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Replace the term marriage with life partner contracts
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2015, 02:11:48 PM »
Alito sounds like an activist judge to me.