Ted and Kid and Sarah...

[Hijinx]

Marriage is a contract including property rights, responsibilities, etc. The gummint absolutely should be involved. It, generally, says how old someone needs to be to enter into a contract and may address citizenship and blood relationship. I am ALL for the gummint prohibiting some marriages. No cousins, you must be at least 21 (in my view) and I'd be fine with blood and neurological tests as well as psychological evaluation before any breeding goes on.

I agree with it. Of course breeding is no problem to those who cannot breed except in picking a sperm donor unrelated to them.

 

[This_person]

And herein is my issue with what you said.
I submit that if someone says a person "can get married", there is an implied "to the person whom they choose" tacked onto the end of that.



If I can't marry whomever I like, then I am being discriminated against. Plain and simple.

Well, then, we are all getting discriminated against. Because, if you want to marry your sister, you may not. If you want to marry both a man and a woman, you may not. If you want to marry someone too young, you may not. So, we are ALL being discriminated against.

Or, standards were set, based on perceived gain to society, and people who met those standards were allowed to register their relationships with the government such that they could usually get a perk (some got a hit) on things like taxes.

We're either all being discriminated against, or none of us were. Because, I'm sure the Waltons would like to register Walmart as tax exempt, but they don't meet the standards, so they can't. They're not discriminated for that, it's just the way it is.

Personally, I would argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, and people should pair (or group) up however they see fit, and its nobody's business except their own (I should hope I don't have to specify that I'm referring to consenting adult human beings).

And while I'm arguing that, I'd also argue that I want a Jaguar F-Type, which would be just as fruitful.

Well, the F-Type is the same as getting the marriage to someone who doesn't fit the standard - just as silly to argue for. But, I would agree with you that the state should not be involved in marriages. Merlin, however, would not see anyone as married.

 

[This_person]

Marriage is a contract

I know your tongue was in your cheek for most of this, but I kept the part with which I agree. These contracts could be gotten by same sex, opposite sex, multiple-spouse, too-closely related, and all other types of relationships. It is not required for anyone, and I agree we could do away with marriage licenses completely.

 

[Toxick]

Well, then, we are all getting discriminated against. Because, if you want to marry your sister, you may not. If you want to marry both a man and a woman, you may not. If you want to marry someone too young, you may not. So, we are ALL being discriminated against..

I agree with every word in this paragraph.

Well, the F-Type is the same as getting the marriage to someone who doesn't fit the standard - just as silly to argue for. But, I would agree with you that the state should not be involved in marriages. Merlin, however, would not see anyone as married.

My reference to the Jag was more of a "Wish in one hand, #### in the other" comparison. Not really comparing it to marriage.

 

[This_person]

This fees are still going back to his companies

When HE golfs, what fees are there?

That fact that you are profiting from something prohibited is not determined by the amount of money you take in as determined by your overall wealth.

What is prohibited? Are you suggesting it is prohibited to stay at your own property when you are president? A lot of presidents will be in trouble if this is true.

He is also now advertising Trump Tower in NYC as the most secure building in the city due to the presence of SS which certainly appeals to some people so I doubt his business is hurting.

Link?

Hotels are rarely 100% booked except for conventions

Agreed. Are they 100% booked now?

 

[This_person]

I agree with every word in this paragraph.

What about the rest? Assuming we have to maintain marriage laws (again, I agree they can go away), how would you change them? Could you imagine if you want to allow adult siblings to "marry"?

My reference to the Jag was more of a "Wish in one hand, #### in the other" comparison. Not really comparing it to marriage.

I wasn't comparing to marriage, either. I was comparing to registering a relationship. "My name is Sally, and I want to marry Heather." "Want in one hand, #### in the other...."

I imagine a lot of people want to marry Jessica Alba. Is she discriminating against all those folks who want to, but she won't let them? Is the government discriminating against Walmart who wants to register their stores as tax exempt? I mean, just because they're NOT shouldn't matter, should it? They WANT to!! They need to change the definition of "not-for-profit" to include for-profit companies, or those companies are being discriminated against, right?

 

[PsyOps]

Well, then, we are all getting discriminated against. Because, if you want to marry your sister, you may not. If you want to marry both a man and a woman, you may not. If you want to marry someone too young, you may not. So, we are ALL being discriminated against.

Not me. I don't want to marry under an of those circumstances. You tempt me to ask about your lifestyle choices.

 

[CalvertNewb]

When HE golfs, what fees are there?
He doesn't golf alone. He golfs with other heads of state which if they are paying fees and excoecti a quid pro quo situation would fall under the Emoluments clause.


What is prohibited? Are you suggesting it is prohibited to stay at your own property when you are president? A lot of presidents will be in trouble if this is true.

No. That is not the issue. The issue is self dealing. And I think you know that.



Link?

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Realtors-Advertise-Secret-Service-as-Trump-Tower-Amenity-405155725.html

Agreed. Are they 100% booked now?

Unclear

 

[Toxick]

What about the rest? Assuming we have to maintain marriage laws (again, I agree they can go away), how would you change them? Could you imagine if you want to allow adult siblings to "marry"?

:shrug:

Not my business.

But to answer your question as to how would I change it? I'd do away with marriage as a civil institution altogether. Not the government's business. Certainly not the federal government. I'm not as hostile about state governments governing those kinds of things, but philosophically, I'm opposed to their nose being up in my business as well.

I wasn't comparing to marriage, either. I was comparing to registering a relationship. "My name is Sally, and I want to marry Heather." "Want in one hand, #### in the other...."

I often wonder if you read my posts in order to understand the ideas that I'm trying to convey, or if you're simply looking for clever ways to twist up what I said, in a way I didn't mean.

I imagine a lot of people want to marry Jessica Alba. Is she discriminating against all those folks who want to, but she won't let them?

Yup.

In fact, that's the very definition of the term "discriminating". I also am very discriminating in whom I date - much less marry. Jessica Alba, like myself, is an individual. Individuals most certainly have the right to be discriminating in whom they choose to associate.

Government should not, however, have the option to arbitrarily say: "A may do X - however, B may not."

Is the government discriminating against Walmart who wants to register their stores as tax exempt? I mean, just because they're NOT shouldn't matter, should it? They WANT to!! They need to change the definition of "not-for-profit" to include for-profit companies, or those companies are being discriminated against, right?

Apples, oranges. Absurd argument. Back in la-la-land.

 

[CalvertNewb]

I think our disagreement comes in the form of what "married" is. I do not see registering my relationship as being "married". Not all states have always required a license, as "common-law" was sufficient. Even today, not all states have the same requirements for a marriage license/certificate.

The reason I say they can get married is because they could. But, the person they chose to marry had to fit the requirements. The same is true today - if the person is too young for the given state, or too closely related, or already married to someone else, or you're trying to marry too many people at once, you can't do it. Is state X violating state Y people's rights, because they have different age requirements? Of course not.

"Marriage" had a definition, and still does. If the person you want to marry doesn't fit in the definition, you can't marry that person. Or, at least, you can't register that relationship with the government.

Do you not believe that some of our founding documents should be viewed as living documents? That evolve as society does.

Do you feel the same about the Loving decision which was based on skin color as opposed to genitalia?

 

[Gilligan]

Do you not believe that some of our founding documents should be viewed as living documents?

Gawd. If that were the case, we'd all be disarmed long ago.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Do you not believe that some of our founding documents should be viewed as living documents? That evolve as society does.

The constitution is, but only with the proper amendment process.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Well damn the resizing made that unreadable.



Dammit that was not supposed to be sideways, oh well turn your heads if you want to read it.

 

[PsyOps]

Do you not believe that some of our founding documents should be viewed as living documents? That evolve as society does.

I see this all the time - our founding documents are living documents. Why don't you tell us what you think that means?

 

[CalvertNewb]

I see this all the time - our founding documents are living documents. Why don't you tell us what you think that means?

That they change as things our fore fathers couldn't imagine would happen actually happen

It's not hard to imagine that 100's of years ago life was simpler in certain ways. Air travel and visas and borders of countries that could be crossed in hours that once took days or weeks. Modern weapons. Same sex marriage. Dozens of religions , cultures and beliefs mingling daily and trying to live harmoniously

 

[This_person]

Not me. I don't want to marry under an of those circumstances. You tempt me to ask about your lifestyle choices.

Toxick's point does not seem to be whether it is what you want, it's whether you can have it IF you want it. I'm using that as a guide. IF you want to marry three people (regardless of race, sex, or closeness-in-relation - we'll assume we can all agree that we keep children out and non-humans out), then you should be able to.

My contention is that you can, you just can't register that with the government as marriage. His contention seems to be that if you can't register it with the government, then it doesn't really exist.

 

[This_person]

:shrug:

Not my business.

It IS your business. If you think the law is your business at all, then the whole question around the law is your business.

But to answer your question as to how would I change it? I'd do away with marriage as a civil institution altogether. Not the government's business. Certainly not the federal government. I'm not as hostile about state governments governing those kinds of things, but philosophically, I'm opposed to their nose being up in my business as well.

You realize you can be married and not register it with the government, right? It is a choice to involve government, not a requirement.

Yup.

In fact, that's the very definition of the term "discriminating". I also am very discriminating in whom I date - much less marry. Jessica Alba, like myself, is an individual. Individuals most certainly have the right to be discriminating in whom they choose to associate.

Fair enough

Government should not, however, have the option to arbitrarily say: "A may do X - however, B may not."

They didn't. They said, "do what you want, but if you want the petty perks and disadvantages of registering your relationship, it must meet these qualities."

Apples, oranges. Absurd argument. Back in la-la-land.

It's not apples and oranges.

See, it's all registering, and fitting into the definition of registering. Walmart can't register as a non-profit and get the advantages involved, because that's not what it is. Same as a same-sex couple registering for opposite-sex marriage (or, what used to be known as just "marriage" for the last several thousand years). There were other categories which fit what Walmart is, and that is how they register. There were other categories for which same-sex couples fit, also, and they could register that way if they chose.

 

[This_person]

Do you not believe that some of our founding documents should be viewed as living documents? That evolve as society does.

It depends on what you mean. Yes, they are living documents in the sense that they are amendable to strike or add as the next generation sees fit. We've changed the constitution 27 times - sometimes to add, sometimes to subtract, sometimes just to make more clear, etc., etc. In that sense, they are living documents.

If you mean "living" as in "have it say whatever you think it means today", of course not. The intent of the law is clear. If you don't like the intent, then you change the document.

Do you feel the same about the Loving decision which was based on skin color as opposed to genitalia?

Of course not. THAT is clearly discriminatory.

 

[This_person]

That they change as things our fore fathers couldn't imagine would happen actually happen

It's not hard to imagine that 100's of years ago life was simpler in certain ways. Air travel and visas and borders of countries that could be crossed in hours that once took days or weeks. Modern weapons. Same sex marriage. Dozens of religions , cultures and beliefs mingling daily and trying to live harmoniously

I think they imagined things changing, which is why they were broad and (in certain ways) vague. Note that there is no prohibition against women or minorities voting in the Constitution - because that was up to the states. Then, when we decided the states couldn't handle making these decisions, we changed the document to prohibit states from prohibiting certain people to vote. In that way (the change process), the document lives.

 

[awpitt]

Just wanted to add. I am not, particularly enamored with Trump's personality, but his heart is in the right place. He is a patriot.

He is? Well, maybe when it suites him.

If he wasn't, why would have bothered to run for prez?

For the power. He needed to satisfy his ego.