@AVG
Run through the various provisions for the states covering people who die intestate
You can do the same when there is a will too.
Leave out all the ones which give it automatic.
Who tops the list with or without a will through probate every time?
How far down the list after spouse offspring parents siblings cousing aunts uncles nieces nephews .........for possible contested ownership does the state get a look in?
Even at the point that the state gets a look in they can only claim to act as custodian of the wealth as anyone with a legitimate claim to the estate can step up at any time.
Though of course for this subjecrt the only issue which matters is who comes top on all the lists.

@haplo
Your documentation has been pitiful, just about every claim you have made has been thoroughly trashed, when you are at that stage it is a joke that you can even think of refering to your contributions as
facts.
Unless of course you mean your "facts" have taken such a battering they really are laid out.... cold:rotfl2:
Your latest attempt...they can do lots of different paperwork but hey marriage needs paperwork too, really shines brightly like the back of the bus policy.
And then as a bonus you go and trash your own arguement by saying if they didn't have to do all the different paperwork they would have to get the married paperwork....which is what they are asking for.
Haplo you are making a better case for the gays to be allowed marriage than they are making themselves:yeah:

What exactly is the harm in letting gays get married, and to who is that harm done?

I'm not seeing where there is any meaningful harm, and if there is no harm, why restrict anyone's rights?

Razark, the more important angle is what reason is there for it to not be allowed.
All the reasons so far given have not held water very well, so it appears the only "reason" remaining is "some people don't like it".
When it comes to a matter of equality before the law then "some people don't like it" is no good as an arguement.

So people hate "queers" being married.


Why?

Cuz god says so? Prove it, with facts?

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6...akthecycle.jpg


Oh well, not the first time I get chastized or banned for such pics.:haha::har:

Are you looking to be? :hmmm:

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...

I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)

But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?

I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity.

I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.

I believe in Jesus, but I do not subscribe to any "group"

Jesus would be disgusted by the intolerance displayed by modern Christians, and treat alot of them like he treated the merchants in the temple.

The prevelent feeling in America, is that Jesus hates gays, when it is a proven fact he preferred the company of sinners. (paradox eh?, do they sin or not?)
(OTOH)
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.

Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore

Whether you are or not or who in particular that you're aiming at is immaterial. It's going to be taken that way by anyone who doesn't share your disdain. Mocking and insults are poison to the exchange of ideas.

CaptainHaplo pretty much lays it out in the preceding pages. I've already got the forum nanny's on my ass for objecting to being called a bigot so I think i'll pass.

Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.

"Get in trouble"? Who has "gotten in trouble" for posting anything within the forum rules? Examples, please.

In your very first post in this thread you said
Did you "get in trouble" for that? Did you get anything more than disagreement? Can you cite examples of how that works? You've accused several people of attacking you directly, including me. Can you give an example of a direct attack? I agree that calling everyone who is against same-sex marriage a "bigot" is painting with a very broad brush, but it strikes me as more an opinion than an attack, pretty much the same as calling everyone who supports it "anti-religious".

I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.

You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.

I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.

The Management

:haha:

Any christian that knows their text wouldn't have much of a problem with his comment, "christians" might though.

Can anyone top that for a display of false victim mentality?
It really is a doozy of magnificent proportions.

That is my understanding also....and having just checked the moderators section I can also confirm there is no reference to this thread to be found there.