User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 94

  1. #41
    Senior Member Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    13-year-olds used to be able to marry. Has their mental maturity/development rate changed in the last 100 years?

    And okay, setting that aside, if 5 women, 3 men and I all are in love with each other, shouldn't we be able to have a group marriage?
    We're not asking for the definition of marriage to be changed into a union of 8 people, just 2 people of any gender / identity that wish to reap the benefits that the government confers upon those who currently are able to enter such a union.
    "Can you set me free from this dark inner world? Save me now, last beats in the soul.."

    Fonewearl and proud of it!

    I (85%) - N (80%) - F (35%) - P (90%)
    O: 94% C: 18% E: 21% A: 94% N: 38%
    9w1 (SP, SX, SO)
    (9, 5, 4)
    RCUAI (Primary Calm)

  2. #42
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Should which state have picked which other person? What are talking about here?.
    I'm talking about President Bush, if he should have been rejected from precidency at a 90% popularity if the state believed he wasn't the right president.






    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Why is that funny? The United States is a republic, not a pure democracy. We have a constitution in place to constrain all branches of government and the voting public from taking too much power.
    True, but under a libertarian government, which you favor close to anarchy, its the masses that rule.

  3. #43
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    I saw your post:

    and didn't understand what it had to do with my post, to which you were replying. Let me try to rephrase again what I meant. The voters should have seen some procedural surprise like this coming and changed the procedure itself to avoid it ever coming, if that's what they wanted. They're in a funny situation now, but they could have done something about it before the case came up.
    Can they change the procedure? I believe its written deep into law. Either way they are going to vote again on it once the ballets come out in a few years.

  4. #44
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    We're not asking for the definition of marriage to be changed into a union of 8 people, just 2 people of any gender / identity that wish to reap the benefits that the government confers upon those who currently are able to enter such a union.
    You should just ask for civil unions to be equal in rights to marriages. Any civil right granted by marriage to be granted to civil unions. I don't see why the definition of marriage has to be changed, just because you want other people to accept you.



  5. #45
    Senior Member Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Perhaps we should bring up
    "I don't even see how it's related to the issue at hand"

    human cognative development is seperate than human rights.
    Well, I wouldn't say that. But some rights do depend on your mental capability. Children are not mentally capable of entering into a fully functional relationship (alright, neither are a lot of adults, but my point stands), so they should not have the right to get married.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Again I agree, now, I was asking what % what qualities is fair and should be consistant, within your interpretation.
    Fairness doesn't depend on popularity. It is worked out through logic.

  7. #47
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I'm talking about President Bush, if he should have been rejected from precidency at a 90% popularity if the state believed he wasn't the right president.

    I am saying that people are wrong all the time. 90% thought he was great when the country was preparing to invade Afghanistan. That doesn't mean he was good.


    True, but under a libertarian government, which you favor close to anarchy, its the masses that rule.
    Wait, what? How does that work?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #48
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    You should just ask for civil unions to be equal in rights to marriages. Any civil right granted by marriage to be granted to civil unions. I don't see why the definition of marriage has to be changed, just because you want other people to accept you.

    I say get rid of government marriage entirely. Make the paperwork a civil union contract, and then let people get their "marriage" from whichever minister or priest or shaman they like, gay or straight.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #49
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    My point is that marriage has never just been about being in love. There have always been restrictions on it. Currently, all states have age requirements, and I believe all don't allow blood relatives to marry (not sure about Mississippi. ) Having a requirement that one person be male and one be female doesn't seem like an unreasonable restriction to me.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  10. #50
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    My point is that marriage has never just been about being in love. There have always been restrictions on it. Currently, all states have age requirements, and I believe all don't allow blood relatives to marry (not sure about Mississippi. ) Having a requirement that one person be male and one be female doesn't seem like an unreasonable restriction to me.

    First cousins are banned in most states. I think second cousins are legal everywhere.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. India Supreme Court reopens case on decriminalising gay sex
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2016, 10:15 AM
  2. Iowa supreme court upholds woman's firing for being too attractive.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12-24-2012, 05:24 PM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Two Countries Overturn Gay Military Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 09:51 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO