Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't - cohabitation is legal in the United States.
exactly
so why should anyone, (not matter what type(s) of partener(s)) 'need' a licence, why do we even still have that archaic practice
if you got rid of the unfairness of a 'marriage benefit', then people would be FREE to do what they want...but instead, people seem to want the slavery of getting a benefit because the government grants you permisiion to say you are married
get rid of the government in marriages/civil unions, and get rid of the unfair practice of giving 'marriages' a financial benefit
so why should anyone, (not matter what type(s) of partener(s)) 'need' a licence, why do we even still have that archaic practice
if you got rid of the unfairness of a 'marriage benefit', then people would be FREE to do what they want...but instead, people seem to want the slavery of getting a benefit because the government grants you permisiion to say you are married
get rid of the government in marriages/civil unions, and get rid of the unfair practice of giving 'marriages' a financial benefit
it comes down to GREED
Nonsense.
It's not greed behind the automatic inheritance of a spouse's property - it's a recognition that the contract that is a marriage reflects a partnership, a joint endeavor in building a life and the things that go with it. It's not greed behind the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse - it's once again a recognition of the contract between two people and the powers bestowed upon them as a result. So instead of getting a marriage license for $110 (in Minnesota, where I live) my wife and I would have to consult an attorney and pay a fee far exceeding that in order to obtain these rights? And heaven forbid the attorney doesn't apply due diligence, because such contracts - unlike marriages - are often contested in courts, and successfully. Just ask gay couples who are basically forced to get them in those jurisdictions (ie, most the United States) where same-sex marriages are not available.
Again, greed?
You call it greed when a spouse receives the death benefits because the person she married was killed in service to ones country? Greed, you call it, the definition of joint property that exists in a marriage?
It's not greed......Don't want to get married? Fine, don't. But don't expect the right to be abolished because you don't like it.
nonsense.
I aint saying dont get married, I am not saying dont be with the one you love, what I am saying is the government should not be in the marriage/civil union business
its not a right, its a privilege....if it was a right, you would not be required to get a licence
as I have stated before, why do the married folks get over 1000 benefits, while the single (or shacking up) folks dont get those benefits
why should a married couple, get to pay as one entity, yet a couple that have been together for 20 years and not married has to pay as 2 signle people,,,,,are they not both couples.....
I aint saying dont get married, I am not saying dont be with the one you love, what I am saying is the government should not be in the marriage/civil union business
its not a right, its a privilege....if it was a right, you would not be required to get a licence
as I have stated before, why do the married folks get over 1000 benefits, while the single (or shacking up) folks dont get those benefits
why should a married couple, get to pay as one entity, yet a couple that have been together for 20 years and not married has to pay as 2 signle people,,,,,are they not both couples.....
see the point
single people get better benefits when they retire, which is why many elderly people actually get a divorce, so they can get more ss money and what not..
there's two sides to the coin..
you can't get government out of the marriage issue, because marriage is a legal contract.. what you propose sounds good.. but is illogical...
if it isn't a legal contract.. it's not a marriage..it in fact is just "shacking up"
so proposing that the government have nothing to do with marriage.. what do you suggest we do when two people split up? who gets what? what about the kids? the legal contract itself is the backbone of what a marriage is in our society..without it.. it's not a marriage
get rid of the government in marriages/civil unions, and get rid of the unfair practice of giving 'marriages' a financial benefit
it comes down to GREED
Ridiculous. I don't know any couples (gay or straight) who got married for the financial benefits. In fact, I don't think I've even ever heard of anyone getting married for the financial benefits.
There going to be divorces it not always going to be gay the English definition
GAY: Webster definition
Spoiler
happily excited :merry <in a gay mood> b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song> 2 a:bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b: brilliant in color 3: given to social pleasures; a
Let us legally worry about Child Support, Alimony & Pre- nuptial agreements.
This first time I typed this but plan
To use environmental friendly Lawn Paint and Paint a Big Rainbow Flag and have a back yard BBQ
on the day that we are no longer treated as second class citizens.
If you are flying from Charlotte you will see it that big.
I have the back yard to do it
Ridiculous. I don't know any couples (gay or straight) who got married for the financial benefits. In fact, I don't think I've even ever heard of anyone getting married for the financial benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.