Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Wolfblade

Marriage Equality

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/with-mobile-app-hrc-to-t...

Lots of people use Facebook, Twitter, etc. Something seemingly little and trivial like this can have an extremely significant impact just for how much it spreads the word around and gets people talking.

If you don't understand how the upcoming supreme court decisions are kindof a big deal, then please just move along, or read up on it for yourself. Comments of the "can't win, don't try" variety will be deleted and you'll probably be blocked.
Viewed: 450 times
Added: 5 years, 3 months ago
 
Zaos
5 years, 3 months ago
I really want to hear what the supreme court has to say on the matter, but I'm already happy that my state of Minnesota has legalized this whole affair already. (hell one of my friends is getting married in August I believe now that he can)
TheDukeInFluff
5 years, 3 months ago
My social media avatar was exactly this since it emerged in March. Twitter/facebook/G+ all "equaliduked"! ^^
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 3 months ago
I've put the logo over my twitter avatar; noticed others doing it a while back but I didn't really give a shit. Might as well though, it's an easy and small gesture and I don't have the energy to do anything else. With the way things are trending in the world in comparison to the past, I'm confident that marriage equality will eventually be realised.
YamatoIouko
5 years, 3 months ago
Honestly, I'm just surprised to see you put something like this up.  I kind of thought you'd be burned out on stuff like this.
Razrien
5 years, 3 months ago
Gay folks can already get married in more and more states.  States do as they will with or without federal intervention.
This is basically just a big fight for the definition of a word and money.
If the fed 'recognizes' gay murrage, then gay couples will get all that lovley insurance and other financial benefits that go with it, and states will be forced to comply.
...which they won't.
Some states are simply too 'red' and full of old people to get something like this to work 100%.

Should be fun to watch though.

ZephonTsol
5 years, 3 months ago
I'm not certain that putting a logo over anything attributed to me or anyone I know who is gay/lesbian would actually enforce or influence this decision. It's nice to think that, but the end result is that they may decide upon marriage equality without ever even knowing this particular part of the campaign existed.

I'm not trying to be negative, I really want the right to marry who I please as much as you or anyone else.

But raising awareness itself only goes so far. In the end, the Supreme Court will decide on their choices and their decisions, irregardless of the American public's stance.

They have to. That's their job...supposedly.

And honestly, I think they will support the rights of gays to marriage. As Christian as some of the judges can be, the whole point of being a citizen of this country is that you are free to do as you please so long as you don't impede or impinge on someone elses rights. And marrying gays may make some straight people feel all icky inside, but a feeling isn't law.

Anyhow, I'm of the opinion to sit back and watch and hope because I honestly think that's all we really CAN do. Not fatalistic, just...too tempered by reality to be over-pushy about it.
foxboyprower
5 years, 3 months ago
How long should we keep our picture like this?
Jaxen
5 years, 3 months ago
Responding to some specific people, as well as making general commentary here...

The Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act has nothing to do with forcing states to comply with anything. It is a matter of recognizing marriages on the federal level. For instance, 40oz and I can't file our federal taxes jointly, despite the fact that we can file our Vermont state taxes jointly. This has nothing to do with the fact that South Carolinian gay couples can't file taxes jointly in any respect.

The Prop 8 case can go several ways. It could affect California only and repeal Prop 8 and reinstate marriage equality, it could affect all states who currently have a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexuals in order to permit those states the possibility of having marriage equality someday, or it could affect all states across the country and say "you all have to recognize all legal partnerships". I think the most likely would be as limited of an effect as the court could possibly dole out, in which case, they're still not forcing all states to comply with anything. I highly doubt the SCOTUS would reach that far with the Prop 8 decision.

And as for the financial security? Oh fuck yes does that matter. 40oz and I want to buy a house. An extra $1k on our federal refund would have been really fucking nice, and if we'd been a straight couple, we would have gotten it. However, because of DOMA, we are that much further away from a down payment on a house, simply because his gender and my gender happen to match. And that's just one example; I generally go to it because it's relatable (nearly everyone pays taxes) and it is a cut-and-dried example of plain-faced discrimination.

And anyone who thinks this is just about "the definition of a word" probably doesn't have much invested in this whole debacle. We are actively being treated as lesser people. That's happening. Right now. Gay people < straight people, on the law books. We can redefine the nomenclature all we want; I don't give a shit. I just want to have the same rights and recognition as everyone else.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
The real thing that always pisses me off is this. LEGALLY speaking, there is no such thing as a marriage. A marriage is done in church, and <1st amendment I need say no more>. It is a legal union between two parties. From that point of view, under the law, there is no legitimate grounds to prevent legal union.

For that matter, arguably the entire DOMA is unabashedly unconstitutional in this way.
Erkhyan
5 years, 3 months ago
I would argue that you’ve got it backwards. Marriage is and has always been an administrative matter. Religion would have never gotten involved, if it wasn’t for all the people who can’t approach a major life decision without seeking divine approval/blessing.
Jimmy
5 years, 3 months ago
I believe you have it backwards.  Marriage has always been a religious thing for thousands of years.  Government gets involved to "legalize" it.  The whole supreme court cases are for legal approval.  If people did not want approval to make their major life decision then there wouldn't be a need for the supreme court to be involved.

I know there is a lot more involved but when money is involved, people will do anything to get it.  Greed is a powerful tool.
Erkhyan
5 years, 3 months ago
Really? Marriage was always about founding a family, making sure property remains in the family, and making sure children are born into a clearly defined family. It has been the case with every marriage, everywhere, in every period. The only approval that mattered was always that of the relevant authority, the one that’s in charge of the laws. Yeah, I’ll admit, in the last two millennia, religion has tried its best to be that authority, but guess what? Unless you live in a theocracy, it is not the case anymore. In most parts of the world, the state dictates the laws, not religion, so marriage belongs to the state. What belongs to religion is the decision whether to bless the marriage or not (see: divorced Catholics being able to remarry despite their church’s refusal to bless said remarriage).

Oh, and you keep mentioning money. It’s always the tax breaks, right? Inheritance rights, decision-taking rights (i.e. healthcare and child custody), even immigration rights (http://www.domaproject.org/our-project) don’t matter at all, it’s all about money?

So yeah, I’m greedy. I want my other half to be recognized as my closest next of kin in all legal matters. Keep your tax breaks and just give me THAT, it’ll be more than enough for me.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
The reason that St. Valentine is celebrated is because he was willing to perform marriages during a time when the practice had been banned by... I believe it was the roman government.. at the time.

See, the Catholics were becoming an annoyance kind of the way that the puritans were kicked out of England and sent to a penal colony for challenging the government with their religious views and general meddling. The religious view was that sexual contact or reproduction out of marriage was a sin and was prohibited in the Christian communities. Outlaw marriage, get rid of the Christians, you see. No marriage, no babies, no more indoctrinated Christians.

Marriage is all about the church. It's just on the state as to rather or not they recognize it. And by that philosophy, if marriage is legal, if you can find a church who will join two persons in holy union, then the state has no right to go sticking their hands down people's pants. If it is legal for any couple to get married, it has to be legal for all couples to be married..
Erkhyan
5 years, 3 months ago
So, Valentine got in trouble because he tried to wrestle marriage from the law, exactly the way you want current religions to do. He tried to substitute some religious ceremony for the legal contract that was marriage at the time. And, by your own words, the Puritans got in trouble for allowing their religious views to meddle with legal matters, the same way the major churches want to.

I’m asking you to consider one thing: marriage exists in all cultures. One thing that differs in all cultures is the religion (or absence of religion) involved in it, and the importance of said involvement. One thing that does NOT differ is the administrative aspects of marriage and its significance under the law. I’d rather believe that the one thing that is common everywhere is the real meaning of marriage, and not the add-on that varies with geography and personal beliefs.

Again, religions are free to call whatever blessing ceremony they created as they wish. What they do NOT get to do is dictate that only they own the name of that union they’ve been asked (or not) to bless. Marriage is marriage. If a church won’t bless or recognize a fully legal marriage, it his within its rights to do so (because the government has no right to force them to), but what is NOT within its rights is to force the couple, or the government, to submit to their view and call it something else than a marriage. Non-ingerence goes both ways, after all: for example, the government cannot force the Roman Catholic Church to recognize remarriages… but on the other side, the RCC cannot force the government not to recognize them.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
You know, I honestly think we are attacking the subject from  completely different directions, and as I am not entirely sure either of us are making our point of view clear, I am going to drop this conversation before someone drags Godwin's law into it.

Thank's for the conversation though.
indorri
5 years, 3 months ago
a) The legend is that he performed weddings for soldiers, who were forbidden by military law to wed. He was martyred for attempting to convert the emperor, though there are other legends.

b) The Puritans weren't kicked out of England, they left. They did experience persecution, in being denied civil office for belonging to the wrong sect, but the English government didn't actually interfere in their particular running of the church (the opposite, actually: the Puritans, and Calvinist/Zwingli Reformers in general, wished to install their own religious government and outlaw activities they saw as morally degenerate. Like dancing.)
Niji
5 years, 3 months ago
I don't know, I still think marriage should be abolished entirely(or couples should no longer be allowed to divorce under any circumstances). Less privacy more freedom imo
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
Abolishing the institution of marriage has problems. Banning divorce would see spousal murder rates climb through the roof.

The easiest thing would be to arrange a planned period of union, which may be re-upped at the end.

Problem is situations like those between my Stepfather and Mother, where in my Mother had a stable job and good health when they met, and now, 10 years later, having not been allowed to work, not been allowed to go to a doctor, not even allowed to have her own bank account, her health is destroyed, she has no job to fall back on, and no money to try to provide for her self till she can make living arrangements.. I.E. stuck. I say this to punctuate that our system is not perfect, but trying to modify significantly how it works could prove significantly dangerous to the victims of abusers.

I apologize for detailing my personal problems, but it was the most readily available example..
Jaxen
5 years, 3 months ago
I think saying spousal murder would increase is a little crazy, to be quite honest.

Bigamy, though? Ohhhh yeah.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
Justice in cases of domestic violence is a joke. Right now the only escape available to a person in an abusive relationship is divorce. You actually force people in an abusive relationship to live together, either the abuser will eventually beat the victim to death, or else the victim will end up shooting their abuser or killing them in their sleep.

Banning divorce is right on up there with banning abortion in the realm of terrible ideas.

I work in a hotel. I once had a guy come in and demand the room number of his wife who was taking refuge from the ignorant sob in one of our rooms. I called the room and asked if she wanted him to have her room number, and, sobbing, she begged me not to give it to him. When I refused to give the man the room number, the mother fucker pulled a gun on me....So I gave him a key to an empty room and by the time he got back the police were waiting for him and tased him into a smoking heap.

Human beings are garbage.
Niji
5 years, 3 months ago
seems like you are missing the 3rd option of both parties fix the abusive problem and resolve the issues tho. But again would prever marriage to not be allowed at all, that would solve all these major problems.
Wolfblade
5 years, 3 months ago
Most people in abusive relationships are there because they have convinced themselves that there is a fix to the abusive problem. "Oh, no, he's a good man, really, he only hits me when he's drunk, and we're working on that, we really are."

If someone's abusing you, you don't stick around. There's no "fix" for that. A one-time anomaly may happen, but if there's abuse, and it is not an absolute solid "never again," then telling the abused that they can "fix" it if they just stick it out is pretty damn horrible. XD
Jaxen
5 years, 3 months ago
I think the idea that authorities would force a woman (or man) to live with their abuser simply because they're married is completely absurd. Aside from fringe loonies who get booted out of office (Todd Akin, anyone?) lawmakers in this day and age would not enact legislation that barbaric by a long shot.
Wolfblade
5 years, 3 months ago
I think he was saying that 'banning divorce' is a ridiculous notion. In such a hypothetical, people in abusive relationships WOULD be extremely more pressured to stay together regardless of the abuse. If you can't divorce someone once wed, then even if you left them, you'd never be able to be with someone else in that capacity. Anyone wanting marriage and a permanent relationship would see you as off the menu. Your choices would be either return to the abusive marriage, or forever be alone or in impermanent relationships barred from progressing to anything permanent (not to mention to inevitable extreme social mistreatment that would undoubtedly befall people in an extra-marital relationship in such circumstances).

So, yeah, IF the hypothetical circumstance of "banned divorce" were real, then yeah, it would effectively force people to stay despite abuse. Hence why he was declaring it a ridiculous notion.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TRAPPED IN A SHITTY, LEGALLY BINDING RELATIONSHIP EQUALLY!

In all honesty though, it isn't a matter of "can the cause be won", but "when will it be won". The fact is most of the people who are most violently apposed to marriage equality are dieing en mass. In about 15 years the attitude towards LBG and even TG has changed by an order of magnitude. Eventually it will reach a point where being "anti-equality" will be a politically damaging viewpoint.
Jimmy
5 years, 3 months ago
The easiest solution is to remove the financial loophole for all people.  No more single person tax penalty.  The whole idea is to make people equal, is it not?

Legalizing domestic unions is probably the best thing to happen.  It will keep those who bounce from one relationship to another from whine to everyone how miserable they are. Ok, so we will still have the whining...

To me the bottom line is this:  Marriage is religious thing, not a state run program.  It should be a civil union.  Remove the word marriage and you keep the extreme right quiet. Marriage stays in the church and the state issues a civil union license. The whole idea is to make individuals equal, not give more rights to one group and not the other.  

Erkhyan
5 years, 3 months ago
See my reply to Echo for the whole religious/administrative thing. Insisting that we rename the thing and leave the word “marriage” to religion would be the equivalent of a homeowner giving up his home to a guest who was invited once too many and who now insists that the homeowner get a copy of the house instead.
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
I may have elaborated a little bit...
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
This seems like an odd approach to having your cake and eating it too...

Marriage is not, and has never really been, a religious thing.  If it were a religious thing, then how come all religions can get married, including to members of other religions?  If it were a religious thing, then why can atheists get married?  Those things wouldn't happen if religions had claim to marriage.

A marriage is, and always has been, a public declaration of togetherness.  In the distant past this was done for very different reasons, such as the marriage of two countries (By means of their monarchs), or the marriage of two families, etc.., but even today it is still just a declaration of togetherness.  The whole reason religion has so many fingers in the pie comes from the fact that their holy books all seem to have rules and regulations about who they are allowed to associate themselves with, and certainly who they are allowed to publicly declare a union with.

Religion aside though, a marriage has considerable legal consequences.  Regardless of what religion, church, or denomination you get married through, even if you just go to the courthouse to get married, it is all filled out on the same certificate, and it all goes to be filed with the government.  Because a lot of things tend to change when you go from being single to being in a committed  relationship (even before marriage).  Your resources are allocated very differently, you spend your time in different ways, you have a better balance of monetary income and outcome, you are even privy to very different information.

Once you have been married, that is to say, once you have publicly announced that your relationship will be continuing indefinitely, then the government can take a lot of these changes into account.  They can tax you in a manner that is more appropriate for couples, provide you benefits that are more appropriate for couples, allow things like medical decisions to be shared between you, remove some of the privacy barriers that are needed to insulate single persons, etc...

I'd need to look up the exact number of laws, rights, and policies, just on the federal level, that apply exclusively to married couples, but I do know that it was a good way into the triple digits.  It was certainly high enough, that the idea of suddenly "removing" marriage as a legal device becomes totally unrealistic.  Like it or not, it is a very needed and very useful legal descriptor.

As for simply changing the name to "Civil union" and separating the religious and legal sides... Well, I don't think the religious have nearly so much control over marriage as you think.  If we split the religious and legal sides, then you have the churches, that can still perform a flashy ceremony, and then you have the government, which still does everything else past that, including the actual "Marriage", which is filed via state government.  The government is still the one that is approving it, filing it, giving you rights and benefits for it, policing it, and even deciding when and on what terms it ends.  The religious are basically just flashy and expensive front ends for your local courthouse.

So bottom line... marriage is barely a religious institution in the first place, and if all the churches in the world suddenly decided to stop marrying people, then marriage would carry on just fine.  We wouldn't even flinch, since all they do is fill out and sign a certificate for you to take to the courthouse.  Seeing as they are such a small and superfluous part of this very important and highly integrated dynamic of society and our legal system, I vote that the religious be given a "Religious Union", and the rest of us can carry on with "Marriage".
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Also, I know I've already gone on a bit of a rant, but one last thing I wanted to point out here:
" Jimmy wrote:
The whole idea is to make individuals equal, not give more rights to one group and not the other.

This is very true... save for the fact we stopped talking about individuals.  The whole reason Marriage is treated differently by the legal system is because they aren't discussing an individual anymore, but rather a couple.  The "special rights" that are given out for married couples, and to parents for that matter, are specifically given because they are no longer individuals.  Through either marriage or parenthood, their sphere of influence covers more than just themselves, and so they are given new rights, and responsibilities, to reflect that change.

I don't think that it is unfair to single persons that married persons are treated differently.
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Just one last thing... I swear!
" Jimmy wrote:
Remove the word marriage and you keep the extreme right quiet.
I don't make a habit of yielding on important subjects simply because it means that my opponent will put up less of a fight.

The people who want to exclude and belittle others, for the crime of simply being different, are wrong and deplorable, and I don't want to offer credence of any kind.  I want it to be terribly uncomfortable for them as they watch their bigoted ideals crash down around them.  I want them to cringe every time they hear the words "Gay Marriage".  They are wrong, and they need to be shown the full brunt of how wrong they are.  I don't want them to think for a second that they will be able to survive this by simply being stubborn.
Wolfblade
5 years, 3 months ago
I love the fuck out of this comment.

People who are Wrong need to know they are wrong in no uncertain terms.

How else will they ever have even a chance to stop being wrong?
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
I saw that icon and I totally thought I had replied to myself in my sleep. XD

But yes... If not as a service to them, correcting their error and showing them why it was an error in the first place, then at least as a service to all the others who suffer when bigotry is allowed to exist.  This isn't just some high school debate, in a closed room with no consequences.  This is the real world, and these decisions have very real effects.  There is no room to shuffle our feet or pull punches when we are pursuing these very essential human rights and legal equalities.  Every blow should be decisive.
Wolfblade
5 years, 3 months ago
If you don't mind, I might use this entire paragraph in the future. It excellently sums up why I argue with stupid bullshit almost every time I'm arguing with stupid bullshit. <3
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Please, help yourself.  It would be something of an honor.
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Can win; Will try.

I've got a wedding I'd like to plan! >:V
bencoon
5 years, 3 months ago
Pah. Marriage. Feh. You know who likes marriage? People who want to be married! *scoff* *etc*

Besides, anybody who thinks it isn't inevitable is fooling themselves. Even if the supreme court rules against it (and I doubt they will) it'll happen sooner or later, anyways. Boggles my mind that anybody is fighting so hard against it.
VoodooKitty
5 years, 3 months ago
And now I have married with children's theme song stuck in my head...
Wolfblade
5 years, 3 months ago
"Eventually" as a Given is still less preferable than the possibly attainable "Now."

Any civil rights movement in American History has shown that once there's a fight about it, the outcome is inevitable. But it's still worth fighting to the fullest to make it happen sooner rather than later.
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
So. Lets take the movie 'The Purge' for example. If someone fights for that... Then does that mean...

Oh no...
AlyssaKamber
5 years, 3 months ago
Removing the word "marriage" won't quiet the right. They won't stop arguing. If you give an inch, they'll take a mile and then argue for another inch.

We have the complaint that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages? No, as far as I can see, they won't - separation of church and state should cut that off. This is not about forcing any church to go against its principles; churches should be allowed to refuse to perform same-gender marriages if they see fit.

We have the complaint that this is a slippery slope; this will open the door for someone to marry their horse, or marry a ten-year-old kid, or marry their daughter, or marry twenty women, or... and *gasp* the churches will HAVE to perform these horrors! (See above - no, they won't) People suggesting this slippery slope: What part of "between two consenting adults, though regardless of gender" don't you get? Oh, that's right, you KNOW we're not pushing for that. You know there's no slippery slope. But it's a great tactic for frightening the gullible into voting hard against this. The people who think that the secular world is gassing up the steamrollers to drive right over their churches.

I don't have a smartphone, or I'd do this. We CAN win this fight.
indorri
5 years, 3 months ago
Those who say marriage is primarily religious institution: It's not. At the very least, it coexisted in legal systems: ancient Babylon had laws on marriage, ancient Rome had laws on marriage, all civilizations have somehow codified marriage into their systems, and not all of them describing it in terms of religion. From what I've read, in fact, very few do: that the few religions that do happen to now be dominant is an accident of history, not a generalization of it.

Incidentally, a good chunk of the early church fathers saw marriage as a worldly fetter, and advocated celibacy as a higher moral.
AlyssaKamber
5 years, 3 months ago
Yes. But oh, no, "marriage" has always been a religious thing, they say. (I'm even Christian myself and I acknowledge that that's not correct!)

My big problem, as noted, is the scare tactic used to try to convince people to vote against this. They not only insist that it's always been a Christian tradition - and hope the voters just believe them instead of fact-checking for themselves - but, further, they suggest that this will bring the moral collapse of the nation. Gays getting married! They'll forever destroy the meaning of marriage, so, uh... heterosexual marriages will lose their meaning...or something... And what about when a guy wants to marry his son, or his pet dog, or his computer, or his car, huh? Huh!? It'll all be okay, and the churches will be forced to do it and approve it! (Sure they will) And what about partner benefits, like being able to visit your dying spouse in the hospital?

...uhhh... uhm.... HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!!

It really is painful to hear the arguments. They argue that a gay man has the same right that a straight man has - to marry any woman - so being able to marry a man is "special rights"? No. No. Any consenting adult should have the right to marry any other consenting adult. That's the way to put this. There's no "special" rights being requested. This is absolutely not about GAY rights. This is about HUMAN rights.
jeffpossible
5 years, 3 months ago
Marriage was around long before there was that "Adam and Eve, not Steve" bullshit. Ugh, that annoying saying. Anyway, it'd be great to see my state (Texas) be able to marry two cowboys or cowgirls. Believe me, there is NOTHING to be in the closet about down here ;D
Shokuji
5 years, 3 months ago
New icon for marriage equality! =3

Let me know if anyone wants one. ^^
Shokuji
5 years, 3 months ago
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Thank you for this! ^^
Shokuji
5 years, 3 months ago
You're welcome. =3
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
Ugh... Ok... Whatever...

I'm uninterested. Leave me out. Two guys or girls wanna be stuck together? Sure! Why not? Go for it!

Make some gay babies, heh...

You know... Since gays are born gay, then that means its genetics...?
If that's the case then they will make gay babies because two gays can TOTALLY make babies! :)

(Tis a joke... Move along... Nothing to see here...)
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
Anyone ever heard of objectomsexual (or however it's spelled)???

They should be allowed to get married too!!! I heard of a guy who loved his cars that much. On Taboo!!!!(TV show)
Shokuji
5 years, 3 months ago
If the inanimate object can sign the marriage forums, maybe. But I think at least being alive is required to get married to something, unless we're going to allow people to marry dead people. o_o;
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
I think you are looking for the words "Cognitive Consent"
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Not that it necessarily needs addressed, as I believe (or at least hope) this comment was made in jest.  However, it is very easy to address, simply by the fact that a marriage is meant to be between consenting parties.  Objects can't consciously consent, so they could never enter into a union of marriage.

Also, for the reasons I've listed above, Marriage has legal significance because of the way living in groups changes people's lifestyles.  I'm fairly sure that a union with an object doesn't provide the same or even similar social, financial, or structural changes for the involved parties.

So yes... to take a joke post far too seriously, the answer is NO due to the number of absurdities involved in claiming that the marriage of an unthinking, unfeeling, non-consenting, non-citizen, who does not affect your life in hardly any of the ways in which a coupling of two thinking, consenting adults does.  The proposition is invalid, and does not warrant any added rights or responsibilities.  Even if it did, only one of the two involved parties would be able to exercise either of them, and so the marriage would only be binding to the human counterpart.

Cheers~
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
Ok. Alright then. No objectomsexuals then.... Homosexuals yes, though. Got it.
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Pretty much ^^
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
What if its a girl and a robot? Heh...

(Assuming the robot has enough A.I. To either have or mimic emotions.)
Krechevskoy
5 years, 3 months ago
Thats a whole can of worms I'm not even going to get into.... Not now anyway...
PandaStorm
5 years, 3 months ago
" Krechevskoy wrote:
.... Not now anyway...


Whenever you're ready. ^^
TheDukeInFluff
5 years, 3 months ago
And we have JUST achieved equality!
DOMA and Prop 8 are dead and got smacked with great justice!
(Well if you count out Justice Scalia who, as always, is a giant douche of idiocy.)

Let's rejoice and all get married in California now! :3
GabrielB538
5 years, 3 months ago
I know, that everyone have the "true love" in the heart. And, I don't know why the hell the church want to have the authority, if the church authority was on the medieval age. Now yes, the thing about the government that want to restrict the gay marriage, isn't understandable, if you see it from a watching point. In my case, "I can't get married because i'm gay", what the fuck is this?!, I can get married to whoever I want, and no one, can't stop it. And why? Because it's my right get a marriage without care the person, sexuality or circumstance.
Now, isn't human, restrict the same-sex marriage "because the tradition is a man and a woman marriage". Dude, There's millions of people who don't want a traditional marriage, and I know how it feel, that someone takes away else do you really want. And it's hard, because sadly, I had to live it. My boyfriend wanted to take me to the next step, but we can't because in our state, it's "forbidden" the same-sex marriage. So fuck DOMA and Prop 8 and everyone can have the relationship, with whoever they want.
Now, there's a thing, and if there's no real love between the couple, how you can hope the perfect marriage exists, how you can hope the blue prince really exists, how you can hope that the marriages are "forever". And that's because the divorces exists, and that's because the fightings happens, that's because the revenge exists
Because some men, aren't happy with a woman, or in vice versa. And why? Because the "Law and Justice" restricts the love. I'm sorry about the homophobic government. They doesn't know nothing, about having a relation with who really loves you.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.