sorry man, trollface 1.0 is so outdated i had to reverse image search that shit to remember what it was.
sorry man, trollface 1.0 is so outdated i had to reverse image search that shit to remember what it was.
Do they ask if it's a dude and if you're boning?Originally Posted by JAM
1000+ federal legal interests hinge on marital status. The plaintiff in the DOMA case owes $300+k more in estate taxes because the feds don't recognize her marriage.
You can frame it that way as many times as you like, JAM. Saying something is the definition doesn't change that it causes the law to apply differently to different groups. 50 years ago the 'definition' of marriage was marriage within ones own race in some states.
To those on the against side of things, I'm curious as to why you give a shit. How would gays marrying affect you? It's been legal here for a few years now and I can happily report that exactly zero has changed for breeder such as myself as a result. Nor has it cost me anything.
So, why do you care?
Although someone's (I think Rover) suggestion a few pages back was quite sensible: Make all marriages civil unions in the eyes of the state and leave the definition of "marriage" to whichever body conducts the ceremony. From my standpoint, I see no disadvantage to being married in the eyes of the Catholic Church and merged in the eyes of the state.
This is the traditional libertarian answer I've heard to solve gay marriage and I too am fine with it. But if you thought letting gays marry in the eyes of the state was hard to get the religious to swallow, crying about how that gay marriage would somehow indirectly damage theirs, imagine trying to sell people on "Now nobody gets to be state married because gays want it."
I care about the process. I legitimately believe the State has an interest in approving marriages from sociological reasons to economic ones. I believe it can restrict marriages, as long as it does so fairly. I think that if the courts are involved in the process of legitimizing homosexual marriage then the only fair outcome that can happen is marriage without restriction.
There is no legal reason that siblings should not marry. However, their are societal reasons. If the court strikes down bans on gay marriage based on 14th amendment protections, why wouldn't those same arguments work in favor of a group of 50 people who want to get married?
It's truly just semantics, but this should be palatable to the most religious if presented correctly. Holy matrimony is bestowed God, not the state. Contracts come from the state.
So you're making the slippery slope argument?
We're going on three years here and Stax hasn't married his cat or his Honda. (And as odious as it is for me to trot this out), waves of incestuous or bestial unions have yet to break out throughout Europe.
And why should you or anyone else care whether 50 people want to get married? I don't understand why the state has a compelling interest at all with respect to any number of consenting adults deciding to form partnerships. It should get out of the marriage business altogether. The last thing I need is the state telling me what is and isn't morally acceptable. They can barely keep their shit together on important stuff as it is.
Don't reduce my argument to the absurd. I'm not arguing that bestiality and whatever sexual attraction to inanimate objects is called are going to become rampant. I'm arguing the very real possibility that close family relations and large groups of people would marry. Either in order to game the system or just because. It's a fundamental shift in thousands of years of society. Maybe you're cool with the idea of your daughter "marrying" a group of 8 guys and 2 women. I don't know. I'm not comfortable with that society.
There are societal reasons. Part of the function of government is ensuring society continues. And not morally acceptable. Legally acceptable. Societally acceptable.
What is your opinion on separate sex bathrooms? Morally speaking.
Sometimes laws have nothing to do with morals and instead exist for society.
Well then we disagree. I believe government exists for one purpose, and one purpose only -- to protect its citizens from harm, both foreign and domestically. To provide people with a sense of security. Not to decide what type of society or cultures evolve from that secure environment. As long as people are safe, they should be free to do what they choose.
My opinion is that the decision to have separate or unisex bathrooms should lie exclusively with the owner of the establishment. There are plenty of clubs here in Boston that have unisex bathrooms, and they work just fine.
so the govt is just a gun? what makes one different from another, if all they do is protect? theres no reason to state any founding principle of a nation, even.
And to enforce contracts, which I suppose is included in the last part.
So I just read the last couple pages. Far too much to quote since I'm on my phone, but Rover your argument is very shallow. Just like green card marriages, these groups that would be gaming the system can be checked out and stopped. Will you get everyone? No. The police don't catch every crime either so it is what it is some people just get away with stuff. Additionally maybe you add something to divorce proceedings. That will go both ways in stopping "groups" from abusing system as well as straight couples that already invalidate the "definition of marriage".
this may have been said before so forgive me if it has but the gay community (IMO) just want the same benefits and rights as straight people. Just give them that acknowledge those facts and don't fuck them over on legalitys when it comes to taxes and death etc. don't call it "marriage" if it bothers you call it garriage or something.
can i just point out how awesome we are as a country considering we devote such resources time nad interest into the well being of a tremdous minority?
Meh. It goes both ways. You can say a ton of people/portion of the country are fighting for the issue as well as against it. You can say well the gays should just drop it and you can say the opposite. It would also be the same case back in the 40-60's when "minorities" were actual minorities.
lol theyre still gross minorities, homie.
White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 78.1% Black persons, percent, 2011 (a)
13.1% 1.2% 5.0% 0.2% 2.3% 16.7% 63.4%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...han-i-thought/
Oh look, Scalia was a aggressive blowhard, and wrong, about something else.
Your mom is an aggressive blowhard. If you know what I mean.
Wow, I actually agree with Glenn Beck.
Gay marriage is now legal in Colorado as of today.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote