In Which Someone Complains About Thread Closure And People Discuss Marriage

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

cryptophreak

unbalanced
Jul 2, 2011
1,011
62
48
This is how I read mine:

9Z2GM.jpg


Don't feel bad, Firefly.
 

Hermskii

www.Hermskii.com
Apr 13, 2003
875
3
18
56
Houston
Hermskii.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by gopostal
I've had a number of emails and PM's from people not wanting to enter the debate but glad that it's occurring.

I don't mean to be an ass but, this is hard to believe.


I was totally enjoying this topic. I was also one of the ones who contacted Gopostal and let him know how much I appreciated him expressing his views here on this subject. I meant to jump in and give my opinion but he was saying what I wanted to say and owning everyone so much better than I could have. I decided to stay out of it...until now.

There is little balance on this forum when it comes to topics like this. The small gang of (I don't even know what to call them) that attack anything that relates to religion or conservative politics have resided here unchallenged for a long time I suspect. TWD pushed back and got shut down even though he could have done it in a better way. Gopostal made multiple awesome points and look the topic he focused on got shut down. I've found my entries removed and or modified on more than a couple of occasions. This has only happened here at BUF.

It saddens me to watch the ones that draw first blood and break rules doing so have their excuses for doing so protected, condoned and often celebrated while others who obey the rules and staff are sometimes silenced. The attacks on Mormons here are the worst I have ever seen. To say the most vile of things and then suddenly say it was all just in fun and get away with it is sick. Then, to shut down topics when someone who isn't attacking anyone is getting the upper hand while making their case is even worse.

There is nothing wrong with BUF that making people "post by the rules equally" can't fix. Ban them if they break the rules even if you have to ban 10 of your top contributors and even if you agree with them. Don't make it permanent. Ban them for a week. Increase the duration as needed but BE FAIR AT LEAST!
 
Last edited:

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
It saddens me to watch the ones that draw first blood and break rules doing so have their excuses for doing so protected, condoned and often celebrated while others who obey the rules and staff are sometimes silenced. The attacks on Mormons here are the worst I have ever seen. To say the most vile of things and then suddenly say it was all just in fun and get away with it is sick. Then, to shut down topics when someone who isn't attacking anyone is getting the upper hand while making their case is even worse.
hate to break it to you chief, but Gopostal never had the upper-hand; he was never owning anyone.

he thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because of his [totally respectable and legitimate] backwater religious beliefs.
he's wrong. you'd be wrong too if you'd try to join him.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Yes, why does the government even "recognize marriage"? That's a great question. The thread in question, though, was not a good one.
 

Vaskadar

It's time I look back from outer space
Feb 12, 2008
2,689
53
48
34
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Yes, why does the government even "recognize marriage"? That's a great question. The thread in question, though, was not a good one.

To make the people who are in the marriage adhere to the legal terms of the contract. That's what it boils down to, a lot of bureaucratic paperwork.

The churches can go do what they please privately, but excluding people from legal contracts provided by a secular government sounds silly to me.

For all I care, people can marry mannequins if it makes them happy.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
If people want to have a legally binding contract between them, attaching "marriage" to it is hardly a requirement beyond "convenience", and I don't see why that is a good reason for the government to have any say in the matter whatsoever.
 

cryptophreak

unbalanced
Jul 2, 2011
1,011
62
48
Well spoken, sir. I'll tell the government if I'm married and to whom, not the other way around. This should count equally as much as anything else:

4Oojt.png
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Well spoken, sir. I'll tell the government if I'm married and to whom, not the other way around. This should count equally as much as anything else:

4Oojt.png
Why does the government need to know if you're married or not?
 

cryptophreak

unbalanced
Jul 2, 2011
1,011
62
48
Why does the government need to know if you're married or not?

Taxes, division of property after death? These are the best reasons I've heard. Still not for me.

My statement was not about entering into a governmentally recognized union, but rather who holds the authority in declaring a marriage valid -- namely, the people getting married.
 

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
Yes, why does the government even "recognize marriage"? That's a great question. The thread in question, though, was not a good one.

Be cause of the numerous legal issues involved. Issues like, survivor benefits, child custody, legal and medical proxy, inheritance, taxes, etc...

Now, all these issue are set with one document. Otherwise a couple would need to spend days, if not weeks, consulting with expensive contract lawyers negotiating all these issues, and then they would still have to get outside organizations to recognize their numerous legal agreements on a case by case basis. It would be frick'n chaos.
 

Big-Al

amateur de bière
Jun 14, 2003
8,579
33
48
40
Under a black flag.
www.ttrgame.com
It's alive! IT'S ALIVE!

:)


from my own point of view... government is shit. marriage allows "foreigners" to stay in a country the government "protects"... /assholes.

But yeah... marriage. if you love someone governments shouldn't be spiting you up anyways.

Been with my lady friend for 4 years now... would be happy to mary her but as i'm not "Hungarian" I need to get a shit load of paperwork sorted out to say jack shit for me to do it. We're in no rush, but it'll happen.


PS: Fuck governments everywhere ;)

PPS: I love my Brigi :)
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Be cause of the numerous legal issues involved. Issues like, survivor benefits, child custody, legal and medical proxy, inheritance, taxes, etc...

Now, all these issue are set with one document. Otherwise a couple would need to spend days, if not weeks, consulting with expensive contract lawyers negotiating all these issues, and then they would still have to get outside organizations to recognize their numerous legal agreements on a case by case basis. It would be frick'n chaos.
You're saying that there is no other simple way to solve this problem than to have the government recognize marriage.

Because it makes no sense to be able to assign all those rights to your sister or your first cousin you are very close with or your daughter or your brother or your close friend that you have lived with for years because both of your spouses died and you have no interest in remarrying or any number of other legitimate scenarios that the current system is too broken to support right now.

I would also like to point out that none of the issues you mentioned are foregone conclusions with this "one document". Otherwise, we wouldn't have divorce lawyers.