Drawing a Line In the Sand

WTF??? Where did that come from? No, by definition they cannot. Your point?

 

You people can call the law whatever you like. It still defines the legal effects of marriage. It obligates the father to provide and care for the children his wife gives birth to.

 

Ok, then a gay couple cannot, as you have previously argued, simply hire a lawyer to give them powers of attorney and other such documents to duplicate the arrangements of marriage.

 

They don't do so great when it comes to US immigration either.

 

A couple who is not legally married can take title by 'Joint Tenancy' which conveys the right of survivor-ship. When one joint tenant dies the surviving joint tenant automatically receives title without probate costs and delays.

Joint Tenancy by ENTIRETIES just adds the caveat that one spouse cannot convey his/her share of the property without the other spouse's signature. This is available in only a few states.

Gay couples CAN take property as joint tenants and enjoy the right of survivor-ship.

Tenancy by entireties is currently NOT recognized by many US jurisdictions because it can be used to shield the property from the creditors of one spouse. However, if the debtor spouse dies, creditors may enforce liens against the entire property. It's a double-edged sword. There doesn't seem to be a significant advantage to taking property this way at all.

 

When and where was that? Why not quote that post to attach your comment to, so I would know what you are talking about?

Joint tennancy with additional contractual agreements could duplicate, essentially the same thing. Granting each other a lien would give similiar protection from one person selling without the consent of the other.

 

only if he's actually the father. if he's not, then he has no responsibility.

which is what makes your argument idiotic.

 

And what if the children is wife gives birth to are not actually his? Why the law assume the wife isn't going to screw around?

 

Communist.

 

Essentially 'irrelevant' dialogue. Move along, dixon.

No dixon... and THAT point is 'irrelevant' (for the most part) within this particular topic. If you can prove it IS completely relevant... I'd be interested to see the evidence. Come on... bring it.

What does your non-point, have to do with the abject-homophobia which is expressed within the OP?

 

Much of the institution of marriage is irrelevant in the case of homosexuals. Like trying to fit a squre peg in a round hole.

 

Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization allow gay couples to have children.

 

Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization would allow my dog and I to have children. Not sure what you think is so special about gays.

 

retarded argument. your dog can't consent. 2 adults can.

 

I dont need my dogs consent to procreate with a surrogate mother.

 

you need consent to marry. which is what the discussion is about. but you knew that

 

No, my post and the quoted post it was in response to, had nothing to do with marriage.

Besides, my brother and I can have chilodren through Adoption, surrogate mothers, and in vitro fertilization. Your focus upon my dogs inability to consent is nothing but your typical, laser beam like focus upon irrelevancy.

 

Homosexuals can procreate. Don't be so obtuse.

 

My dog and I can procreate using your standard.

 

Anyone can see that you INTEND to miss certain pertinent points.

 

your dog can't consent

 

And the offspring would probably be hideous.

 

My brother can?

 

He's a competent human being, isn't he?