The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4249 Apr 3, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>...I said that gov't should not be involved in marriage at all...
I agree with that.(I stopped reading most of your posts so I may be taking this out of context). I was surprised that idea didn't find more favour in the USA. Marriage should be a matter of conscience and all laws should be written as if everyone was 'single'.'Spouses' shouldn't be mentioned in law.
Thinking

UK

#4250 Apr 3, 2013
What about inheritance?
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with that.(I stopped reading most of your posts so I may be taking this out of context). I was surprised that idea didn't find more favour in the USA. Marriage should be a matter of conscience and all laws should be written as if everyone was 'single'.'Spouses' shouldn't be mentioned in law.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4251 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
What about inheritance?
<quoted text>
Single people pass-on inheritances. What is wanted is easy, affordable, convenient wills. Lots of people fail to make wills before it's too late. One simply states who one considers to be one's next-of-kin and what is to pass to whom.

Laws have to apply to single people anyway. Why bring marriage into it?

And it would save a fortune. I worked in the civil service. Tax and benefits are written for single people, then ALL the legislation has to be re-written for married couples and that can more than double the amount of regulations to administer. Doing away with the legal concept of marriage would save a fortune.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4252 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
What about inheritance?
<quoted text>
I was so disappointed when Amused (of all contributors) couldn't agree with me...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Thinking

UK

#4253 Apr 3, 2013
So what?

Doing away with housing, educating and feeding the poorest 10% would also save a fortune.

I don't advocate that, either.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Doing away with the legal concept of marriage would save a fortune.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4254 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
So what?
Doing away with housing, educating and feeding the poorest 10% would also save a fortune.
I don't advocate that, either.
<quoted text>
sorry this seems a non-sequitur?

I am not suggesting doing away with marriage. I said not retaining it as a legal concept.

People often get confused about 'marriage' and 'legal marriage'. For instance, some think sex outside of marriage to be wrong, but sometimes someone decides their marriage is over before the legality of it is finalised. It may never be finalised and they may die 'legally married' to one person while 'socially married' to another.

Legal marriage and social marriage are two different things anyway. One might be married to one's life partner, or one might have a life-partner but be legally married to someone else. The legal concept is simply an expensive and unnecessary complication and it leads to confusion and misunderstandings as well as avoidable expense.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4255 Apr 3, 2013
The point is that one should have a reason for marriage to be a legal concept. Why is it necessary or helpful?
Thinking

UK

#4256 Apr 3, 2013
I'm sure marriage law could be much streamlined, and many more civil servants could be dispensed with as a result.

But I still think you need to look at inheritance as not everyone makes wills.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>sorry this seems a non-sequitur?
I am not suggesting doing away with marriage. I said not retaining it as a legal concept.
People often get confused about 'marriage' and 'legal marriage'. For instance, some think sex outside of marriage to be wrong, but sometimes someone decides their marriage is over before the legality of it is finalised. It may never be finalised and they may die 'legally married' to one person while 'socially married' to another.
Legal marriage and social marriage are two different things anyway. One might be married to one's life partner, or one might have a life-partner but be legally married to someone else. The legal concept is simply an expensive and unnecessary complication and it leads to confusion and misunderstandings as well as avoidable expense.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4257 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I'm sure marriage law could be much streamlined, and many more civil servants could be dispensed with as a result.
But I still think you need to look at inheritance as not everyone makes wills.
<quoted text>
You can't see that I already have? May we take this to an appropriate thread please?..
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

I already wrote that the problem of people not making wills needs to be solved anyway and that single people can inherit and pass-on property and possessions. One doesn't need a 'legal marriage' or any sort of marriage to inherit or pass-it-on.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4258 Apr 3, 2013
The place to start is to state why marriage is helpful as a legal concept. Inheritance is not a reason as everyone agrees that wills are not always made when they should be. Solve that problem (which is simple and cheap to do) and you remove that reason for the concept of marriage.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4259 Apr 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You can't see that I already have? May we take this to an appropriate thread please?..
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
I already wrote that the problem of people not making wills needs to be solved anyway and that single people can inherit and pass-on property and possessions. One doesn't need a 'legal marriage' or any sort of marriage to inherit or pass-it-on.
Oops! Wrong link....
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
And I've got to go out!
I'll try and catch-up with any replies anon. Thanks.
Thinking

UK

#4260 Apr 3, 2013
I think you're wrong, marriage does need legal underpinnings.
I'll leave it there.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You can't see that I already have? May we take this to an appropriate thread please?..
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
I already wrote that the problem of people not making wills needs to be solved anyway and that single people can inherit and pass-on property and possessions. One doesn't need a 'legal marriage' or any sort of marriage to inherit or pass-it-on.
Lincoln

United States

#4261 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think you're wrong,

marriage does need legal underpinnings.

I'll leave it there.
<quoted text>
Agree !
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4262 Apr 3, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think you're wrong, marriage does need legal underpinnings.
I'll leave it there.
<quoted text>
Okay T, thanks for the replies.
I would just point-out that that's what PM Cameron thinks he's doing. If you ask me, he's done more to undermine the concept of marriage than "underpin" it.
JMHO

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4263 Apr 3, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Good catch. I did not even notice that idiots comment. Someone should make a law against people like that...
There already are laws against sexually abusing children.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4264 Apr 3, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion by its own admission is bigotted. Ans you have no proof of god.
Yet here you are, calling other people bigots and moving the goalposts when every single one of your arguments has been defeated.
What are you going to say next I wonder?
"Does what anyone says have any meaning?" I bet its something equality foolish and philosophical, because you hate confronting facts that disprove your ridiculous and baseless beliefs.
Go on pretending that there are no atheists who find gay marriage repulsive. You make stupid claims every time you post.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4265 Apr 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The vast majority of homosexual pedophilia crimes are priests and preachers. But the vast majority of child rape, sexual slavery, and molestation are straight people. I mean the vast majority, and it's been that way for pretty much all recorded history.
Most child abductions are perpetrated by family members, most often by their natural parents. The number one preventable death of children is ignored medical treatment, because the parents just wanted to pray for them instead.
Yeah, gay people are the least of a child's threat.
You lie. Even though there have been priests/preachers who have committed sex crimes against children they do not make up the majority much less the "vast majority" of perpetrators.

NAMBLA members are the only group who want sex with underage children to be made legal, the only ones publicly vocal about it. They are gay.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4266 Apr 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
... The number one preventable death of children is ignored medical treatment, because the parents just wanted to pray for them instead.
Yeah, gay people are the least of a child's threat.
Liar.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#4267 Apr 3, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>True.. but why is it like that? Why do we need special "rights" or "permissions" from the government to allow us to give inheritances/share health care benefits/ parental status/ or "tax breaks" (ie. get your own money back)to loved ones/friends/family/strangers?
If it were up to me? I'd agree with you.

In fact, I'd strip out ALL laws relating to marriage, especially the tax ones, but also ALL inheritance laws.

The only ones I'd keep, were the ones governing the welfare and safety of children. But I'd limit the tax credits to just two kids-- beyond two? There'd be escalating tax penalties-- the world is full as it is, why subsidize more?
Lil Ticked wrote:
Even with out being involved in a relationship with someone I should be able to purchase a product for the (HealthInsurance) even if they are a complete stranger let alon of the same sex..
I agree fully. But that's never going to happen, is it?

We must work with what we have-- and currently?

What we have is extremely bigoted in certain ways.

This inequality must be adjusted for-- and since the country is full of bigots? We must enact anti-bigot laws.

Exactly like we had to, back in the 60's to protect the minorities, and prior to that, to protect women's rights.(and prior to that? to protect children's rights...)

Bigotry WILL happen, unless there are LAWS preventing it.

Alas. I blame religion for the continued bigotry-- you can make a very strong and logical case in support of that claim, too.
Lil Ticked wrote:
I personally think that for their to be "Marriage equality" that they should get rid of marriage altogether.. But if this is the route that you want to take then I say throw in polygamy/polyandry into the mix as well... I mean consenting adults are consenting adults.. right?
I agree--but that'll never happen in our lifetimes.

But we >>can<< take steps to address the current bigotry-- and make laws preventing it in actuality.

Since we cannot eliminate it in spirit (religion).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#4268 Apr 3, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I have already said before. Everyone is a bigot. Anyone who says otherwise is not only a bigot but a liar as well.
Perhaps.

However, the chief difference between one sort and another?

Is what they actually... >>do<< with their "bigotry".

I detest certain types of people, for example.

But I consciously take steps within myself, to try to overcome my natural desire to beat the living crap outta them-- and simply try to ignore them instead.

My actions may not be perfect, but they are 100% superior to those folk who >>actively<< try to enact LAW that feeds into their bigotry.

I would never push for a law preventing a particular religion, for example, even though I consider religion to be mostly evil.

On the other had? There are any number of religions bigots who DO try to pass laws that directly infringe on me!

So the bottom line is-- what do people DO with their biases?

I actively try to limit mine. Can you say the same?(I have no idea either way-- I don't know you that well, but based on other conversations, I'd guess you try to limit yours, too)

The religious types do NOT take such pains-- in fact, just the opposite-- they deliberately feed their own bigotry, by trying to get laws protecting it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min replaytime 94,214
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 11 hr Eagle 12 - 139
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism Mon Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20
The atheists trick May 8 Eagle 12 - 3
News The Anti-Christian Movement May 7 blacklagoon 3 25
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) May 5 Eagle 12 - 5,971