Pages: 1 … 511 512 513 514 515 … 695

 

2016-06-13 20:34:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm looking at the bigger picture, not my own selfish interests.
Marriage has been so debased by heterosexuals that there is no harm homosexuals can cause at this point. We have a reality show here in the states whose premise is having people meet for the first time while standing at the altar. Another one is set up so the guy or girl dates 20 some odd people on tv in hopes of landing an engagement in the finale. If shit like that is legal, man, at least the gays and lesbians are genuine in their desire...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-06-13 20:45:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
I'm not concerned about the 'sanctity of marriage', its letting every fringe group have what they think they want, whatever the cost to the stability of society.

Historically muslims and other groups have had their marriages arranged and meet for the first time at the altar. Its been legal, and how would you legislate against it, for a while.
Fuck Israel
2016-06-13 22:55:45
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7031|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Human rights are an actual issue.
Slippery slope fallacy. If I had a penny for the amount of times people have brought up polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality when attacking lgbtq rights …
So 'human rights' apply to LGBT but not other groups.
How do you even arrive at that assertion? No matter how much religious extremists and social doomsayers clamor for it, it's not (and shouldn't be) a majority group's right to deny [equal] rights to a minority group. Giving gays the same rights as everyone else is not going to cancel out existing human rights, like the right heterosexuals have to participate in and debase the institution of marriage as much as they please.

Your "we've gone too far" wall is set so arbitrarily in place it makes my head spin.
2016-06-13 23:08:37
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7031|PNW

dilbs wrote:

Caving in to one special interest group means every other special interest group will want their special interest caved in to.
There's no end in sight for that.
Rectifying one legitimate civil rights issue means we'll have to rectify other legitimate civil rights issues? Oh my, what a waste of time that would be …
2016-06-13 23:24:30
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lol dilbs.

Letting gays being de facto partners are ok, but somehow marriage is a nuisance. k.
Why aren't they satisfied with being de factos? They get practically all the rights of a married couple.
nope.avi

Huge huge huge difference when it comes to division of property.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-13 23:48:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How do you even arrive at that assertion? No matter how much religious extremists and social doomsayers clamor for it, it's not (and shouldn't be) a majority group's right to deny [equal] rights to a minority group. Giving gays the same rights as everyone else is not going to cancel out existing human rights, like the right heterosexuals have to participate in and debase the institution of marriage as much as they please.
That's not what I said at all.

Why don't we just let everyone decide what kind of 'marriage' they want for themselves, whatever property rights they agree to put in a contract and give everyone a flat tax rate so no-one subsidises anyone elses domestic arrangements?

That would be 'fair' and not impinge on anyones 'rights', but no, everyone wants special treatment for themselves.
Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:15:17
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6940|Disaster Free Zone

uziq wrote:

people want marriage rights so they can enjoy the legal (and financial) benefits of that. it's a civil arrangement. i think there are very few places (i.e. states where religion and the government are basically the same thing) where 'marriage rights' tramples on explicitly religious grounds. i don't think gay people care all that much about what xyz christian church or islamic theologian says about them. they want to be able to settle and enjoy the life of an ordinary citizen. they're not taking up a crusade against church doctrine.

as to the rest, you sound unhinged.
Not agreeing with Dilbert, but in Australia marriage give you no extra legal or financial benefits that civil unions or defacto relationships already have, both of which are available to everyone. I do agree with one thing though, I wish people would stop talking about a non issue, just make it legal and move on with your fucking life.
2016-06-14 01:20:19
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

DrunkFace wrote:

uziq wrote:

people want marriage rights so they can enjoy the legal (and financial) benefits of that. it's a civil arrangement. i think there are very few places (i.e. states where religion and the government are basically the same thing) where 'marriage rights' tramples on explicitly religious grounds. i don't think gay people care all that much about what xyz christian church or islamic theologian says about them. they want to be able to settle and enjoy the life of an ordinary citizen. they're not taking up a crusade against church doctrine.

as to the rest, you sound unhinged.
Not agreeing with Dilbert, but in Australia marriage give you no extra legal or financial benefits that civil unions or defacto relationships already have, both of which are available to everyone. I do agree with one thing though, I wish people would stop talking about a non issue, just make it legal and move on with your fucking life.
yes there are a lot of differences legally, especially in division of assets post-breakup/divorce.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 01:26:42
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6940|Disaster Free Zone
No.

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/B … kdown.aspx

laws provide for de facto couples, when they separate, to obtain property settlements on the principles that apply under the Family Law Act 1975 to married couples.
2016-06-14 01:28:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
People are free to write themselves an agreement on assets.

There we go

What if I don't want to be covered by these laws?

It is possible for a couple to make it clear that they do not want the new laws to apply to their relationship. Couples can make an agreement about how they will distribute their property and maintain each other if their relationship was to break down. These are called binding financial agreements and can only be entered into after both parties have obtained independent legal advice.

Binding financial agreements can be made before entering into a relationship or during a relationship.

Written agreements binding courts that couples made about their property or spouse maintenance under State or Territory law before the commencement of the new laws continue to apply.
The only basic difference is whether their certificate says "Civil Union" or "Marriage", and the only basic difference between the two is one annoys various religions and the other does not.

So what are the LGBT crowd complaining about exactly?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-06-14 01:31:56)

Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:34:39
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

DrunkFace wrote:

No.

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/B … kdown.aspx

laws provide for de facto couples, when they separate, to obtain property settlements on the principles that apply under the Family Law Act 1975 to married couples.
That's only for family law division. There are still huge differences in equity.

There's also a higher burden of proof as compared to marriage which is taken at face value

http://www.bnlaw.com.au/page/Events__Pu … uss_about/

Requirements to seek a property settlement or spousal maintenance
For a de facto partner to seek an order for property settlement, the Court must be satisfied of at least one of the following:
the period of the de facto relationship was for at least two years; or
there is a child in the de facto relationship; or
the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory; or
that failure to make an order would result in serious injustice due to the significant contributions made by one party.
In comparison, for a married couple, it is enough merely to have been married to attract the jurisdiction of the Court for property and spousal maintenance.

edit: de facto relationships are governed by state's and territory and at a whim they can restrict the rights of gay couple. marriage on the other hand will be governed by cth. People will essentially have different rights when living in different parts of the country.

You can still get rekt when judge finds that you are not 'proven' to be in a de facto relationship like this couple has

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines … 6893110835

Judge Joe Harman has ruled a man and woman who had a child, bought a home together, and lived in it for 13 years were not in a de facto relationship and had had sex out of “need”, not love.

https://www.australianmarriageequality. … -marriage/

Last edited by Cybargs (2016-06-14 01:39:12)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 01:38:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
^ If you commit fraud then don't expect the courts to be nice

Civil union then, problem solved.
Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:46:46
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6940|Disaster Free Zone
Ms Benedict told the court they’d been sharing a bed and were in a marriage-like relationship, even though she had been claiming Centrelink benefits and filing her tax returns as a single parent.
You can't be in a relationship and be a single parent.

Also you need to 'register' your marriage or it means sweet fuck all as well.
2016-06-14 01:50:48
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

DrunkFace wrote:

Ms Benedict told the court they’d been sharing a bed and were in a marriage-like relationship, even though she had been claiming Centrelink benefits and filing her tax returns as a single parent.
You can't be in a relationship and be a single parent.

Also you need to 'register' your marriage or it means sweet fuck all as well.
the judge should have ruled it was de facto, and ordered repayment of money to centrelink instead of finding them not in a de facto geddit.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 01:54:25
uziq
Member
+497|3711
dilbert is like the LGBT version of those people who were fanatically convinced there would be an impending 'race war' and Armageddon scenario.

what were they called ... oh yeah, the Manson family.
2016-06-14 01:54:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
If there's any 'should have' then no doubt higher courts will sort it out.
Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:56:51
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there's any 'should have' then no doubt higher courts will sort it out.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

appeals are very very expensive.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 01:57:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

dilbert is like the LGBT version of those people who were fanatically convinced there would be an impending 'race war' and Armageddon scenario.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orland … an-n590446
Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:58:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there's any 'should have' then no doubt higher courts will sort it out.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

appeals are very very expensive.
OK, lets not worry about law and courts, lets solve everything by the 'should have' principle.
Fuck Israel
2016-06-14 01:59:50
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there's any 'should have' then no doubt higher courts will sort it out.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

appeals are very very expensive.
OK, lets not worry about law and courts, lets solve everything by the 'should have' principle.
yeh
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 02:04:53
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adop … _Australia

gay couples can't adopt kids in some state.

so much for marriage equality aye.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-06-14 02:10:06
uziq
Member
+497|3711

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

dilbert is like the LGBT version of those people who were fanatically convinced there would be an impending 'race war' and Armageddon scenario.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orland … an-n590446
yes, one mentally unstable bigot (who it turns out frequented the gay bar and used gay dating apps) is really going to occasion a social crisis and a conflict between the forces of light and dark.

you're becoming hysterical in old age.
2016-06-14 02:16:12
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6940|Disaster Free Zone

Cybargs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Ms Benedict told the court they’d been sharing a bed and were in a marriage-like relationship, even though she had been claiming Centrelink benefits and filing her tax returns as a single parent.
You can't be in a relationship and be a single parent.

Also you need to 'register' your marriage or it means sweet fuck all as well.
the judge should have ruled it was de facto, and ordered repayment of money to centrelink instead of finding them not in a de facto geddit.
Why should they? Cause it was convenient now to be in a relationship, while the previous 13 years she's claiming to be single?

failed to register Mr Peake’s name on her daughter’s birth certificate.
lived together with their daughter for convenience, in separate bedrooms.
the pair had not held themselves out to others as being a couple
I get your trying to use a case with people not in a defacto relationship as proof those that are don't get the same rights as married couples which is plainly not true.
2016-06-14 02:22:30
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6940|Disaster Free Zone

Cybargs wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia

gay couples can't adopt kids in some state.

so much for marriage equality aye.
Queensland, where you live decade and an hour in the past.
2016-06-14 07:03:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

yes, one mentally unstable bigot (who it turns out frequented the gay bar and used gay dating apps) is really going to occasion a social crisis and a conflict between the forces of light and dark.
Chances are he's handed Trump the election on a plate.
How is Kanye West going to deal with this shit?

you're becoming hysterical in old age.
Are you still going to your Thrash-Techno Raves?
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 511 512 513 514 515 … 695

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard