It’s bullshit. Your entire argument is bullshit. SCOTUS can and will reverse whatever the fuck it can. And if they can’t, then they allow legal maneuvering to gain their ultimate goals. More legal bullshit.
Okay. Follow with me, child: If marriage is a legally recognized contract, the government can not discriminate based on race or sex. Period. End of game.
You can call it bullshit all you want, but the only way to get legal marriage protections is to write and pass legislation doing so.
Assuming it’s as you said, neither was in the relationship to gain anything legally, then it had nothing to do with the relationship. In fact, it’s the opposite. The legal aspects affected the relationship, adversely.
If the only reason you get into a relationship is for legal protection, then I’d say you don’t know the other person well enough to be married.
to be fair, the english language doesn't really appear until just before the renaissance... at least not in a sense that most folks would understand it written or spoken.
"Look, we platonically love each other and have no romantic interest, but we're in uni and you just aged off your parents' insurance. If we marry, you can get on mine."
It's connected. A lot of trans people who won't be considered trans under new laws will instead be considered a same sex couple, which means their marriages would be at risk.
THANK YOU. I am AGAIN forced to state that I want my goddamn thread back. Platformer has obtained the dehumanizing new guidelines moderating what people can now say about trans people on Facebook and Instagram. Employees tell me these changes are likely to inspire more violence against LGBT people: Note the last paragraph in this image. Inside Meta’s dehumanizing new speech policies for trans people But wait! There's more! internal Meta docs revealing an array of sample posts that are now allowed under new hate speech rules. Examples include calling children "trannies," “Jews are flat out greedier than Christians," and “immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit” Leaked Doc: New Rules Allow Slurs on Facebook, Meta Platforms I'm sure "community notes" will be up to the challenge. Who told this bozo that Elon was a role model to be emulated?
... says the same person who swore up and down that SCOTUS would never reverse Roe v. Wade. Which state legislature would that be? The one that's currently trying to ban it?
It's amazing how many so-called "libertarians" are totally willing, if not downright eager, to see people trampled on six ways from Sunday as long as it's a state government doing the trampling. Was Loving v. Virginia wrong as well?
If this is suppposed to be an argument in favor of legal marriage, it fails. IMO, if I’m willing to pay for a complete stranger’s insurance, the insurance company should not have fuck all to say about it. So, it fails to convince me. Only serves to support my stance.
This is a huge reason why “the law” and “the government” should not be any where near a commitment between two people. If you “marry” for some other reason, then the legal term and the action between two people who commit to cohabitating for “romantic involvement” should have entirely different terms. When speaking of cohabitating for ‘romantic involvement” we have a term. And that term is ‘marriage’. When speaking of entering a mutually beneficial financial relationship then that term is partnership. If two people, regardless of sexual preference, decide to cohabitate for romantic involvement, the government should not be involved. Any partnership between two people who need a contract to ensure both sides are legally protected, is already based on mistrust and therefore have no business in a romantic relationship. The US already has laws protecting people from discrimination. People need to focus on ensuring those laws are followed rather than creating more for assholes to ignore.
I’ve never been considered a libertarian but we already have laws protecting people from discrimination. Those laws need to be referenced and enforced. How those effected, allowed assholes to create new laws essentially saying “except ‘these’ people, we can discriminate against them” is beyond me. Yes, I know the Republican Party has a better PR firm, but maybe .. I don’t know, hire even a bad one.
False, as already discussed. I have cohabitated for romantic involvement a handful of times. I have only married once. By your definition, I and probably most others are serial divorcees. Also as you've already been told, the legal protection is not merely from each other but from others, bestowing rights related to children, finances, inheritance, medical issues and various other things.
Call it whatever you want. But don’t be intentionally stupid. The ideas, the situations, to which I am defining are indeed, defining of those specific situations. The problem is that people insist on using specific terms intentionally to mislead others into agreeing . If one doesn’t possess the mental capacity to differentiate ideas on their own, their opinions should be given the same weight as their inability to think.
You can watch live, if you like, where the Montana Legislature is deciding whether or not trans people can take a piss. HB 121, a full adult bathroom ban in all publicly owned buildings. The link below goes to a live hearing on the bill (or recorded if you're reading this after the hearing ended). https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20250110/-1/51155 You can follow Erin Reed's coverage of it here: https://bsky.app/profile/erininthemorning.com/post/3lffhmfqcr22v
The hilarious part is that I bet Jenee thinks she's smarter than most people here. Like she's this brilliant psychological mind we can't keep up with. And like others have said, this isn't misogyny; she's just really stupid.