I have said that for years, the state has no business

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #307,110 by boxley 4/10/09 9:49:32 AM Reply	I have said that for years, the state has no business licensing religious ceremonies especially since the state's interest in inheritance identification is rendered moot by dna testing
Post #307,115 by drook 4/10/09 10:45:27 AM Reply	Is it? I keep seeing this statistic tossed around that 10% of us don't really have the father we think we do. I think that's one of those numbers that started as speculation and everyone picked up on it as fact, but I know it's got to be true sometimes. So let's say someone dies without a will, and with enough of an estate that people are willing to fight over it. If someone was raised as a son, the deceased is listed as the father on the birth certificate, no one ever challenged paternity until the probate fight ... what does the law say? -- Drew
Post #307,116 by boxley 4/10/09 10:50:14 AM Reply	Current law is the name on the birth certificate is the father, people have been using dna testing and suing over not paying child support on kids that are not theirs. Courts have consistently ruled against them

Mark Morford on the gay heathen hordes freaking out the - (Ashton) - (52) - April 10, 2009, 04:40:48 AM EDT

Wow...not too reactionary... - (beepster) - (2) - April 10, 2009, 08:21:21 AM EDT

well look at the bright side :-) - (boxley) - (1) - April 10, 2009, 08:45:45 AM EDT

:-) -NT - (beepster) - April 10, 2009, 10:07:07 AM EDT

Interesting point there - (drook) - (34) - April 10, 2009, 09:46:26 AM EDT

I have said that for years, the state has no business - (boxley) - (2) - April 10, 2009, 09:49:32 AM EDT

Is it? - (drook) - (1) - April 10, 2009, 10:45:27 AM EDT

Current law is the name on the birth certificate - (boxley) - April 10, 2009, 10:50:14 AM EDT

Re: Interesting point there - (jay) - (20) - April 10, 2009, 12:01:58 PM EDT

Words count - (drook) - (18) - April 10, 2009, 03:28:30 PM EDT

bing bing bing! - (beepster) - (8) - April 10, 2009, 04:26:55 PM EDT

I view it differently. - (Another Scott) - (7) - April 10, 2009, 07:13:23 PM EDT

You missed the implication of what I said - (drook) - (5) - April 10, 2009, 07:48:24 PM EDT

But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 10, 2009, 09:00:25 PM EDT

Good idea, but DOA - (drook) - April 10, 2009, 09:17:55 PM EDT

marriage is a religious term not a legal term - (boxley) - (2) - April 12, 2009, 10:57:53 AM EDT

So they were covered on each other's insurance? - (drook) - (1) - April 12, 2009, 11:51:48 AM EDT

actually neither had insurance :-) - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 12:13:40 PM EDT

nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 10:51:16 AM EDT

I don't think it would really work - (jay) - (8) - April 11, 2009, 12:47:49 PM EDT

People are lazy, I'm counting on that - (drook) - (7) - April 11, 2009, 06:52:43 PM EDT

There would be - (jay) - (6) - April 11, 2009, 11:32:44 PM EDT

I'm not trying to change the language people use - (drook) - (5) - April 12, 2009, 11:48:53 AM EDT

can we use a fade away shot - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 12:15:10 PM EDT

Which isn't enough - (jay) - (3) - April 12, 2009, 02:47:42 PM EDT

in the real world the fundie gets fired - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 03:14:26 PM EDT

actually a real world example link - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 03:22:44 PM EDT

What? - (beepster) - April 12, 2009, 03:39:28 PM EDT

bassackwards - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 10:48:13 AM EDT

Interesting discussion. - (static) - (9) - April 11, 2009, 01:27:01 AM EDT

I think that where you stand depends on where you sit. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 11, 2009, 09:12:03 AM EDT

Yep, I've 'committed marriage' upon 3 sets, so far -- - (Ashton) - April 11, 2009, 07:57:14 PM EDT

I had another thought. - (static) - April 12, 2009, 04:12:16 AM EDT

thanks for proving my point - (boxley) - (1) - April 12, 2009, 11:04:12 AM EDT

My point, too. - (static) - April 12, 2009, 07:56:27 PM EDT

Marriage probably predates religion - (jay) - (3) - April 11, 2009, 01:01:55 PM EDT

I seriously doubt . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - April 11, 2009, 02:06:48 PM EDT

Unanswerable question - (jay) - (1) - April 11, 2009, 11:36:55 PM EDT

Ummm . . . paper thin? - (Andrew Grygus) - April 12, 2009, 03:40:17 AM EDT

So this thread became about who gets to define language... - (CRConrad) - (13) - Sept. 30, 2010, 07:37:52 AM EDT

1. doesnt matter, - (boxley) - (1) - Sept. 30, 2010, 07:42:29 AM EDT

You're missing the point by a mile, as usual. - (CRConrad) - Oct. 1, 2010, 05:45:17 AM EDT

Define "married" - (drook) - (4) - Sept. 30, 2010, 10:02:54 AM EDT

Married=Living in a civil union(religious blessing optional) - (CRConrad) - (3) - Oct. 1, 2010, 06:10:50 AM EDT

Dammit, you're making a good point - (drook) - Oct. 1, 2010, 09:20:19 AM EDT

Well said. Here's an interesting summary. - (Another Scott) - Oct. 13, 2010, 01:33:24 PM EDT

Stuart Chase ceased revolving-in-grave upon this utterance - (Ashton) - Oct. 13, 2010, 07:41:02 PM EDT

Each religion can define it for themselves - (mhuber) - (5) - Oct. 1, 2010, 01:55:57 PM EDT

Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"... - (CRConrad) - (4) - Oct. 2, 2010, 07:14:39 PM EDT

FWIW, this Xian agrees with me - (drook) - (3) - Oct. 13, 2010, 11:31:02 AM EDT

I'm dealing with this right now - (crazy) - (2) - Oct. 13, 2010, 02:02:46 PM EDT

I can picture the joke now - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 13, 2010, 02:44:56 PM EDT

It writes itself. - (crazy) - Oct. 14, 2010, 11:16:19 AM EDT

Ever since then, I can easily spot a sociopathic liar.
70 ms