Civil Unions Debate - Jacksonville, FL

equalityboy81 wrote:

<quoted text>
Haven't seen you in a while. I never forget your ludicrous ranting.

I have crushed your pathetic whimpering that goes-for-argument enough times; you should not forget!

just saying wrote:

<quoted text>
Give them the same rights you had one minute after the preacher said i now pronounce you... and I am sure you will hear less out of them....

If that were true why aren't they simply fighting to modify the civil laws? That could get done in a year or two without a care on anyone's part. No protests, no newspapers, no publicity. Easy. So why aren't they going that route and be done with it?

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
If that were true why aren't they simply fighting to modify the civil laws? That could get done in a year or two without a care on anyone's part. No protests, no newspapers, no publicity. Easy. So why aren't they going that route and be done with it?

Because civil law is not equal to marriage licenses
Federally speaking or state to state. If a c.u. held the same legal weight across the bord federally and state, I would agree. But it doesnt.

just saying wrote:

<quoted text>
Because civil law is not equal to marriage licenses
Federally speaking or state to state. If a c.u. held the same legal weight across the bord federally and state, I would agree. But it doesnt.

Marriage is different state to state. Age differences, blood tests, waiting time, etc. That's why Vegas does such a big business in quick marriages. Divorce laws vary as well from state to state. Partnership agreements in business are recognized across all states.

In what way, legally would a partnership agreement not be able to be made equivalent to a marriage certificate? Hospital visitations, death benefits, tax laws, etc all can be addressed very easily.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is different state to state. Age differences, blood tests, waiting time, etc. That's why Vegas does such a big business in quick marriages. Divorce laws vary as well from state to state. Partnership agreements in business are recognized across all states.
In what way, legally would a partnership agreement not be able to be made equivalent to a marriage certificate? Hospital visitations, death benefits, tax laws, etc all can be addressed very easily.

True but one thing is equal, if you marry in Califonia, Maine will honor your marriage, Alaska will honor your marriage, Florida will honor your marriage.... If you get a C.U. in ANY state, another state does not have to honor it.

I didnt say all states had same marriage laws, but they do recongnize all marraiges...

You say made equivalent....
Yes, maybe if a ssc went to a lawyer spent the money to get a will, poa, and other legal documents they could come closer to marriage rites. Even then there have been many cases where despite the legal papers on the books, the hospitals, state.. ignores them. Sure they can be taken to court to be enforced... at the ssc expense.
But the question is why should they have to go through the time and expense of this. Why should a couple have more rights the moment the preacher says I now pronounce you, than the ssc who have been together 4 years. Does that make sense to you......

Two people go on a business trip. One married one week, one in a long term ss relationship. Neither has as will . The plain crashes all die. The wife of the newly married man is covered, the partner is not.... where is the equity there,

Why do gay couple have to jump through these hoops? This is not EQUALITY.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

Why do gay couple have to jump through these hoops? This is not EQUALITY.

Will lezzbo **marriages** be equal like Negrro gangstaz, narco.Mex gunfighters and Muzzi-Wog JiHadists?

Is that the sniggering mud-hut equality you offer, compared to straight, white, western, Christian dominance?

just saying wrote:

<quoted text>
True but one thing is equal, if you marry in Califonia, Maine will honor your marriage, Alaska will honor your marriage, Florida will honor your marriage.... If you get a C.U. in ANY state, another state does not have to honor it.
I didnt say all states had same marriage laws, but they do recongnize all marraiges...
You say made equivalent....
Yes, maybe if a ssc went to a lawyer spent the money to get a will, poa, and other legal documents they could come closer to marriage rites. Even then there have been many cases where despite the legal papers on the books, the hospitals, state.. ignores them. Sure they can be taken to court to be enforced... at the ssc expense.
But the question is why should they have to go through the time and expense of this. Why should a couple have more rights the moment the preacher says I now pronounce you, than the ssc who have been together 4 years. Does that make sense to you......
Two people go on a business trip. One married one week, one in a long term ss relationship. Neither has as will . The plain crashes all die. The wife of the newly married man is covered, the partner is not.... where is the equity there,

Historically, states have at times not recognized a marriage that was conducted in another state if it was in violation of that state's laws. Eventually those laws changed but it was done state by state. Today, one can get married in another country and that marriage isn't recognized in the US so it is and always will be an issue.

You bring up two people... but why is it two people? If a marriage is simply between people who love each other, why not three, four or more? Under Islam and Mormanism a man can have mulitple wives so why is it ok for two men to marry, but not three men? Or one man and six women? And why just people? We've all seen shows of people who give their fortune to their pets. Why not let a person marry their pet so that the pet receives all the rights that a spouse gets?

Give me the logic of why it is wrong that marriage is just between a man and a woman, and between a man and two women, but ok when it is between two men.

Who created these options???

Why does the government need to even be involved in marriages.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Historically, states have at times not recognized a marriage that was conducted in another state if it was in violation of that state's laws. Eventually those laws changed but it was done state by state. Today, one can get married in another country and that marriage isn't recognized in the US so it is and always will be an issue.
You bring up two people... but why is it two people? If a marriage is simply between people who love each other, why not three, four or more? Under Islam and Mormanism a man can have mulitple wives so why is it ok for two men to marry, but not three men? Or one man and six women? And why just people? We've all seen shows of people who give their fortune to their pets. Why not let a person marry their pet so that the pet receives all the rights that a spouse gets?
Give me the logic of why it is wrong that marriage is just between a man and a woman, and between a man and two women, but ok when it is between two men.

You madam are an uniformed twit. There is not one factual item in your entire post.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>You madam are an uniformed twit. There is not one factual item in your entire post.

Po' po' SJ! You mean you have no rational response to straight-forward factual statements. You **wanna wanna wanna** and don't understand reasoned value. FLB gave you a good spanking (hehehe), and your drooling emotionalism really has got out-of-control.

I mean ... do you really believe that just because you **want** something you gain any rights?

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>You madam are an uniformed twit. There is not one factual item in your entire post.

I could not help noticing that you did not repudiate her logic. Twit.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Historically, states have at times not recognized a marriage that was conducted in another state if it was in violation of that state's laws. Eventually those laws changed but it was done state by state. Today, one can get married in another country and that marriage isn't recognized in the US so it is and always will be an issue.
You bring up two people... but why is it two people? If a marriage is simply between people who love each other, why not three, four or more? Under Islam and Mormanism a man can have mulitple wives so why is it ok for two men to marry, but not three men? Or one man and six women? And why just people? We've all seen shows of people who give their fortune to their pets. Why not let a person marry their pet so that the pet receives all the rights that a spouse gets?
Give me the logic of why it is wrong that marriage is just between a man and a woman, and between a man and two women, but ok when it is between two men.

Your one of those....
Afa multiple wives... I personlally have no issue with it.... I also dont know why a man would want more than one woman hounding him... but hey...

As far as animals... Why does your ilk keep going there?... When your dog can give written consent we will discuss your question....

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Historically, states have at times not recognized a marriage that was conducted in another state if it was in violation of that state's laws. Eventually those laws changed but it was done state by state. Today, one can get married in another country and that marriage isn't recognized in the US so it is and always will be an issue.
You bring up two people... but why is it two people? If a marriage is simply between people who love each other, why not three, four or more? Under Islam and Mormanism a man can have mulitple wives so why is it ok for two men to marry, but not three men? Or one man and six women? And why just people? We've all seen shows of people who give their fortune to their pets. Why not let a person marry their pet so that the pet receives all the rights that a spouse gets?
Give me the logic of why it is wrong that marriage is just between a man and a woman, and between a man and two women, but ok when it is between two men.

You can marry a man/woman, an opposite sexed partner in ANY country or STATE on planet earth and it IS RECOGNIZED by this country in EVERY STATE PROVINCE AND MUNICIPALITY. Twit.

...(crickets)...You idiots can argue worth a lick..LOL!

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>You madam are an uniformed twit. There is not one factual item in your entire post.

I keep forgetting that history isn't a strong subject for many people. At one point, if a white married a non-white, the marriage was not recognized in many states. Age was also a point of difference between states. Back in the late 50's, a famous rock star, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. In addition to damaging his career, his marriage wasn't legal in every state. In 1851 Brigham Young publicly acknowledged his polygamous marriage and many US citizens had multiply spouses in the Utah territory, and in fact moved there because it was ok.

That should be enough but if I missed something, point out the specific thing that I said that is not factual and I'll provide you with the information.

just saying wrote:

<quoted text>
Your one of those....
Afa multiple wives... I personlally have no issue with it.... I also dont know why a man would want more than one woman hounding him... but hey...
As far as animals... Why does your ilk keep going there?... When your dog can give written consent we will discuss your question....

So we disagree, that's fine. I'm still waiting for someone to actually give me a logical, not emotional (oh, two people in love should be able to get married) reasoning as to why marriage should extend beyond a man and a woman and why, with changes in the laws, a civil union isn't acceptable.

The reason for bringing up the idea of a lady and her cat is simply that when marriage moves beyond a man and a women, what logic do you use to draw the line? If two men are ok why not three men and four women? Why not a person and an animal? Why not a person and a car? A person can certainly love an animal and the animal can certainly love the person, so what's the difference between two men loving each other in marriage and two beings (one human, one dog) loving each other in marriage? And if it's ok for two women to get married, why is it wrong for two 15 year olds? Why is it wrong to create a standard in situation A (two men) but it's ok in situation B (a 50 year old and a 12 year old) or situation C (a woman and her cat)?

So, explain where you draw the line and what reasoning you use to justify that line.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
So we disagree, that's fine. I'm still waiting for someone to actually give me a logical, not emotional (oh, two people in love should be able to get married) reasoning as to why marriage should extend beyond a man and a woman and why, with changes in the laws, a civil union isn't acceptable.
The reason for bringing up the idea of a lady and her cat is simply that when marriage moves beyond a man and a women, what logic do you use to draw the line? If two men are ok why not three men and four women? Why not a person and an animal? Why not a person and a car? A person can certainly love an animal and the animal can certainly love the person, so what's the difference between two men loving each other in marriage and two beings (one human, one dog) loving each other in marriage? And if it's ok for two women to get married, why is it wrong for two 15 year olds? Why is it wrong to create a standard in situation A (two men) but it's ok in situation B (a 50 year old and a 12 year old) or situation C (a woman and her cat)?
So, explain where you draw the line and what reasoning you use to justify that line.

Ok..
Reason for marriage vs civil union, no emotion, is they do not offer same protection. A civil union does not offer federal advantages that a marriage has. A civil union does not offer the same protection state to state. So a civil union is not equal to marriage... So why should two U.S. citizens be given less legal standing, than two others just because they are of the same sex.

Under the full faith and credit clause in constitution, states must recognize the marriages of other states, but civil services do not fall under this. You mention about IF civil unions were acceptable w changes in the law... Do you realize how many changes there would have to be.... To make it equal to marriage, each and every state would have to agree on all aspects. This is not even mentioning getting the federal government on the same page.... As oppose to seeing the word "marriage" as what it ultimately is ... legality.
So change one law... or hundreds... please.

Now as for the rest of your argument...
Animals can not grant written consent...
50-12 yo... The youngest age of consent for sex is 16 (quite a few states).... All 50 states have age of marriage consent of 18 or over (19 in NE. 21 in Miss.) Several states will lower IF parental approval is granted... even then not below 16.... you have no fear re 50-12.

Two 15... again age of consent....

You are not the first to have this chicken little fear... but there are already safeties in place. Remember people like you had fits when women started to work... or kids started to listen to rock and roll..(many preachers claimed it would be the ruination of society)... It didnt prove true then, and giving all U.S. citizens equal protection.. wont ruin us now

As James Madison put it in Federalist Paper 51:“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority can be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

This is why VOTERS do not decie the rights of others.

FLBeaver wrote:

So, explain where you draw the line and what reasoning you use to justify that line.

Easy: consent.

Children and animals cannot consent nor be a party to a legal contract like marriage. Adult men and women can both consent and sign legal contracts, but we restrict people of the same sex from signing one particular one. Why?