Upload
Login or register

sylvan

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:9/28/2011
Last Login:9/21/2016
Stats
Comment Thumbs: 152 total,  170 ,  18
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 78 Comments: FJ Cultist → Level 79 Comments: FJ Cultist
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:44
FJ Points:132

latest user's comments

#217 - So are you suggesting that the supreme court should've made it…  [+] (2 replies) 12/11/2015 on A solid 5/7 +1
User avatar
#219 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Surely not comparable to integrating schools, is it? Once again, it's a document; the only thing changing is the job that handles it.

It follows separation, anyway.
#221 - sylvan (12/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't commenting about the comparative difficulty of integrating schools v. redistributing the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I was asking a clarifying questions about how you suggest the government should do so.
#208 - Yes, that would be harder than making marriage all-inclusive. …  [+] (4 replies) 12/11/2015 on A solid 5/7 0
User avatar
#210 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Schools I understand, it would be much harder to try and build a completely equal system of staff and buildings to support it. All they would have to do is restructure the concept of a marriage certificate and related jobs; it's a document, not a building.
#217 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
So are you suggesting that the supreme court should've made it so that the government stopped giving marriage certificates entirely and switched to a new form of state-sanctified union that was available for marriages of any sexuality?

Btw, computer is shitting the bed so might not respond
User avatar
#219 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Surely not comparable to integrating schools, is it? Once again, it's a document; the only thing changing is the job that handles it.

It follows separation, anyway.
#221 - sylvan (12/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't commenting about the comparative difficulty of integrating schools v. redistributing the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I was asking a clarifying questions about how you suggest the government should do so.
#202 - Alright. Yeah, it was understandable that there was outrage fr…  [+] (6 replies) 12/11/2015 on A solid 5/7 +1
User avatar
#204 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
And it was just too hard for them to institute a new system where marriage certificates are still valid for their purposes, but a new certificate could be acquired by any two people seeking to have a relationship, regardless of religious affiliation?

Instead of alienating a good portion of the country, I mean. Even legally, marriage still has religious connotations; it'd be much more constitutional to sift it out than to force it to be all-inclusive.
#208 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
Yes, that would be harder than making marriage all-inclusive.

It may have offended a large portion of the country, but within a generation or two it will die down and gay marriage will become commonplace, just like how racially all-inclusive schools are accepted throughout the nation
User avatar
#210 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Schools I understand, it would be much harder to try and build a completely equal system of staff and buildings to support it. All they would have to do is restructure the concept of a marriage certificate and related jobs; it's a document, not a building.
#217 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
So are you suggesting that the supreme court should've made it so that the government stopped giving marriage certificates entirely and switched to a new form of state-sanctified union that was available for marriages of any sexuality?

Btw, computer is shitting the bed so might not respond
User avatar
#219 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Surely not comparable to integrating schools, is it? Once again, it's a document; the only thing changing is the job that handles it.

It follows separation, anyway.
#221 - sylvan (12/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't commenting about the comparative difficulty of integrating schools v. redistributing the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I was asking a clarifying questions about how you suggest the government should do so.
#193 - By "anyone" do you mean the people who spoke out aga…  [+] (8 replies) 12/11/2015 on A solid 5/7 +1
User avatar
#195 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
s No, I meant the people who supported it wholehearted. /s
#202 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
Alright. Yeah, it was understandable that there was outrage from the people who saw it as mocking the religious background of marriage, but unfortunately for them marriage had become something much larger than just that. It was a state sanctified bond where the government granted extra rights to the people who held it.

I think part of the reason that the government legalized gay marriage instead of granting equal rights to civil unions is because if they were to do that then it would basically be requiring homosexuals and heterosexuals to have separate but equal titles, and the concept of "separate but equal" has already been ruled to be unconstitutional.
User avatar
#204 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
And it was just too hard for them to institute a new system where marriage certificates are still valid for their purposes, but a new certificate could be acquired by any two people seeking to have a relationship, regardless of religious affiliation?

Instead of alienating a good portion of the country, I mean. Even legally, marriage still has religious connotations; it'd be much more constitutional to sift it out than to force it to be all-inclusive.
#208 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
Yes, that would be harder than making marriage all-inclusive.

It may have offended a large portion of the country, but within a generation or two it will die down and gay marriage will become commonplace, just like how racially all-inclusive schools are accepted throughout the nation
User avatar
#210 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Schools I understand, it would be much harder to try and build a completely equal system of staff and buildings to support it. All they would have to do is restructure the concept of a marriage certificate and related jobs; it's a document, not a building.
#217 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
So are you suggesting that the supreme court should've made it so that the government stopped giving marriage certificates entirely and switched to a new form of state-sanctified union that was available for marriages of any sexuality?

Btw, computer is shitting the bed so might not respond
User avatar
#219 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Surely not comparable to integrating schools, is it? Once again, it's a document; the only thing changing is the job that handles it.

It follows separation, anyway.
#221 - sylvan (12/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't commenting about the comparative difficulty of integrating schools v. redistributing the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I was asking a clarifying questions about how you suggest the government should do so.
#186 - It wasn't about religious ceremony. You don't need a ceremony …  [+] (10 replies) 12/11/2015 on A solid 5/7 +17
User avatar
#192 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
But the primary reason anyone spoke out against it was because it was an opposing culture adopting the ceremony and ignoring the cultural importance of it. It's almost mocking.

If what you say is true, then the government legalized it for no other reason than to look progressive.
#193 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
By "anyone" do you mean the people who spoke out against the people who wanted to legalize gay marriage?
User avatar
#195 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
s No, I meant the people who supported it wholehearted. /s
#202 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
Alright. Yeah, it was understandable that there was outrage from the people who saw it as mocking the religious background of marriage, but unfortunately for them marriage had become something much larger than just that. It was a state sanctified bond where the government granted extra rights to the people who held it.

I think part of the reason that the government legalized gay marriage instead of granting equal rights to civil unions is because if they were to do that then it would basically be requiring homosexuals and heterosexuals to have separate but equal titles, and the concept of "separate but equal" has already been ruled to be unconstitutional.
User avatar
#204 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
And it was just too hard for them to institute a new system where marriage certificates are still valid for their purposes, but a new certificate could be acquired by any two people seeking to have a relationship, regardless of religious affiliation?

Instead of alienating a good portion of the country, I mean. Even legally, marriage still has religious connotations; it'd be much more constitutional to sift it out than to force it to be all-inclusive.
#208 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
Yes, that would be harder than making marriage all-inclusive.

It may have offended a large portion of the country, but within a generation or two it will die down and gay marriage will become commonplace, just like how racially all-inclusive schools are accepted throughout the nation
User avatar
#210 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Schools I understand, it would be much harder to try and build a completely equal system of staff and buildings to support it. All they would have to do is restructure the concept of a marriage certificate and related jobs; it's a document, not a building.
#217 - sylvan (12/11/2015) [-]
So are you suggesting that the supreme court should've made it so that the government stopped giving marriage certificates entirely and switched to a new form of state-sanctified union that was available for marriages of any sexuality?

Btw, computer is shitting the bed so might not respond
User avatar
#219 - wrpen (12/11/2015) [-]
Surely not comparable to integrating schools, is it? Once again, it's a document; the only thing changing is the job that handles it.

It follows separation, anyway.
#221 - sylvan (12/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't commenting about the comparative difficulty of integrating schools v. redistributing the legal benefits of a marriage certificate, I was asking a clarifying questions about how you suggest the government should do so.
#120 - In criminal court, unless you live in an area with a specific …  [+] (1 reply) 03/05/2014 on I Can Deal 0
User avatar
#129 - dagreatmax (03/05/2014) [-]
How does a person decide what the other person owes them? Can you give me a link to that info? I would find it myself if I knew what to look for on google.
#119 - Maybe in civil court, but this case would be taken to criminal…  [+] (1 reply) 03/05/2014 on I Can Deal 0
#147 - gerfox (03/05/2014) [-]
Well that sucks
[ 44 Total ]