Foamy The Squirrel On Gay Marriage

Submitted by: 5cats 5 years ago in Funny

Doesn"t matter if you"re for it or against it, Foamy puts the issue to rest with blinding logic.
There are 23 comments:
Female 212
Thank you, Foamy. And Foamy creator.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]to do with any taxes[/quote]

Don`t care.

[quote]Pensions, for example. Inheritance if there isn`t a will.[/quote]

Those can be included.

[quote]but it conveys no legal rights at all with respect to any other person or any institution.[/quote]

Unless you make a statement in advance. So i.e. the hospital will know beforehand certain people are allowed to visit, whom under normal circumstances aren`t. Granted you may have to make those arrangements outside of the contract.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Yes, and what we mean to say is that people, as private citizens, should be able to render contracts without government pre-approval.[/quote]

Fine, as long as you don`t want those contracts to include any legal rights not strictly limited to the people signing the contract.

The obvious thing you`d be doing is removing marriage from anything to do with any taxes, but there would be many others. Pensions, for example. Inheritance if there isn`t a will. Etc.

A contract between two people may be legally binding between those two people, but it conveys no legal rights at all with respect to any other person or any institution.

Is that actually what you want?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]If marriage has *any* legal significance, the government *is* involved.[/quote]

Yes, and what we mean to say is that people, as private citizens, should be able to render contracts without government pre-approval.
0
Reply
Male 28
Closed minds come with open mouths.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
"DON`T DENY THE HOT LESBIANS NEXT DOOR! Where`s my binoculars now?" LOL

~Squrlz high-fives Foamy~
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The problem isnt gay marriage....its the fact that government is involved in marriage at ALL.[/quote]

If marriage has *any* legal significance, the government *is* involved.

I`d treat the three different things as different things:

1) Personal. Vows of commitment between the people. Call it a wedding, as that`s what `wedding` means. No legal significance - it`s personal, not political.

2) Legal. A legally binding contract detailing rights and responsibilities, just like any other contract. This is the bit that the government runs - it`s a government approval of the relationship. Call it a civil partnership, as it`s like a business partnership.

3) Religious. Religious approval of the relationship. No legal significance - it`s religious, not political. Solely in the hands of each religious governing body - they decide whether or not to approve on whatever grounds they think are relevant to their religion.
0
Reply
Female 2,415
I LOVE FOAMY THE SQUIRREL!!!! A very well put rant... take that uptight religious nuts!!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]There are legal reasons for the government being involved. Without a legal recognition of `married` then your wife would not be your next of kin to make medical decisions. Your spouse would not inherit your property.[/quote]

What I mean is it should be regulated like any other contract in American jurisdiction. The government should not be the sole distributor of "marriage licenses". So even as a "private contract" both parties would still have the same privilages as in system that handed out marriage licenses. Being a party to the contract grants you unrevocable rights to visit your spouse in the hospital and inheritances. On top of which, divinity forbid, if divorce is necessary it is still possible.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
I had a slightly NSFW warning origionally, but the description change is a good one.

I love the counting with one finger at a time, lolz!

I said here the government should be OUT of the marrige business, and over at another thread that ALL marriages should be government registered.

What I mean is: either allow ALL people to claim marrige rights EQUALLY or get out of the game entirely.
Just to be clear!
0
Reply
Male 37,888
@Cajun: I totally agree: the gov`t should not be in the marriage business, period. @viperjason too!

@ggolbez: not nearly, there`s many Faomy videos that don`t get posted here, even though they`re hysterically funneh!

Medicinal Mochachino
Can you not follow the trail of brain crumbs I am leaving for you?
0
Reply
Male 38,510

[quote]government should not be involved in marriage at all [/quote]
There are legal reasons for the government being involved. Without a legal recognition of `married` then your wife would not be your next of kin to make medical decisions. Your spouse would not inherit your property.

As it stands now, after 20 years together I cannot make his medical decisions in the event of coma. I don`t even have the right to visit him in the hospital. The "seperate but equal" Domestic Partnership in California gives me the right to claim his body, not visit him or make decisions. If he died the bank account goes to his sister who he hasn`t spoken to in 15 years.

None of that affects anyone but us, but for some reason, some tight-ass decided to make it their business to decide what type of relationship he and I have. We can`t decide that ourselves.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
dubtac: Then government should not be involved in marriage at all.
0
Reply
Male 29
The problem is that straight couples that aren`t married benefit the government by paying higher taxes as single individuals. This isn`t about straight or gay this is about money. The least amount of people getting married period the government makes more tax revenue period. This is all a power play in the gay community to get a tax break. In case no one has figured this out follow the money.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Getting married isn`t that important anyway.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
It`s like I am actually subscribed to his YouTube channel by visiting I-A-B!
0
Reply
Male 68
The problem isnt gay marriage....its the fact that government is involved in marriage at ALL.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Not even this squirrel gonna convince real hardliners.
0
Reply
Male 38,510

Really 5Cats? Logic? Yo can`t use Logic!
Not against bible thumpers. If that worked we wouldn`t be arguing about Evolution vs Creation in schools.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]LOL! Thanks 5cats! What got me rolloing is my fond memories of the two hpt young lesbians that moved into our previous neighborhood. We had a community pool, and they wore very skimpy bikinis![/quote]

How terrible! I know women in skimpy bikinis are enjoyed and accepted but knowing they loved each other changes everything. That really must have destroyed all the families and their values in the entire community...

(This was sarcasm)
0
Reply
Male 2,469
Has Melissa Etheridge seen this?
0
Reply
Male 3,364
LOL! Thanks 5cats! What got me rolloing is my fond memories of the two hpt young lesbians that moved into our previous neighborhood. We had a community pool, and they wore very skimpy bikinis!
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Link: Foamy The Squirrel On Gay Marriage [Rate Link] - Doesn`t matter if you`re for it or against it, Foamy puts the issue to rest with blinding logic.
0
Reply