I highly encourage all those who support DOMA and are opposed to gay marriage to read this.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not an Athiest
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
My mistake. I was confused by the way you seemed to be inferring that God can be tricked by humans.
Like I said, as far as I know, gays have always been able to marry in America. I don’t know of any laws that have ever said, “A person can’t say he is married,” or anything like that.[/quote]
If you mean marry with none of the benefits or be recognized by the Gov . I guess they can pretend to marry and no one will imprison them
[/quote]
If they’re worried about being married for religious purposes(you said this judgment provided gays with religious freedom), then state recognition of marriage wouldn’t matter. A person isn’t necessarily “pretending” to be married just because the government doesn’t recognize his or her marriage. The government benefits of marriage should not exist for anyone.[/quote]
It is not even necessary to be recognized but there are cases where people have lost custody of their children not even for marriage but for being gay
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I highly encourage all those who support DOMA and are opposed to gay marriage to read this.
You already know what I’m gonna say to that. Don’t ya? Because I’m your favorite bigoted, intolerant, anachronistic, antique, ignorant, ultra right wing, fundamentalist religious extremist nut case. Whose kind should really die off and the sooner the better.
What it is Sparky? Always great to see ya buddy. Don’t you dare come over to this side of the state again without given me a holler ya hear me? my screen name @ gmail dot com.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not an Athiest
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
My mistake. I was confused by the way you seemed to be inferring that God can be tricked by humans.
Like I said, as far as I know, gays have always been able to marry in America. I don’t know of any laws that have ever said, “A person can’t say he is married,” or anything like that.[/quote]
If you mean marry with none of the benefits or be recognized by the Gov . I guess they can pretend to marry and no one will imprison them
[/quote]
If they’re worried about being married for religious purposes(you said this judgment provided gays with religious freedom), then state recognition of marriage wouldn’t matter. A person isn’t necessarily “pretending” to be married just because the government doesn’t recognize his or her marriage. The government benefits of marriage should not exist for anyone.[/quote]
In a sense I agree about your premise that there should be no “benefits” recognized by the government as far as marriage goes, but it DOES make sense…a couple raising kids is economically more feasible than people knocking up and leaving, creates a more stable environment for their kids to get a good head-start, and have a greater opportunity to be a boon to society as a whole. If giving people a little more incentive to stick together helps society as a whole advance, maybe that’s a good thing.
What do you think?[/quote]
It’s not the government’s job to keep people together. Reduced taxes for everyone would be great, however.
I’d say it could also be argued that people with no business getting married will get married for the tax benefits, have children, decide the tax benefits aren’t as great as they thought, then divorce and leave their children with an even less stable environment.
I wonder if there are any statistics regarding divorce rates prior to and after federal marriage benefits?[/quote]
Good point.
I’ll at least partially concede in that, we have a LOT of very junior Marines getting married, and arguably the majority of those marriages would never have happened if not for BAS and BAH once you get married. Despite being married in the military myself, I’ve gotta say that as time goes on, I’m starting to think we’d be better off if everyone in the military got higher pay, and you didn’t get an extra penny for housing and stuff for being married.
It is true, the more we allow and ask for the government to meddle in private affairs, the more they tend to get out of control.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Marriage was reserved for one man and one woman for life in this country for a reason. Once that is no longer the case there is literally no logical reason to restrict almost anything. [/quote]
Yes, those states that have had gay marriage legal have seen nothing but animal fucking every since!
You don’t have to restrict what isn’t a problem, but we can keep talking about how everyone’s gonna bang a goat now. Ironically the states where gay marriage is banned have a MUCH higher chance of animal fucking and other redneck hillbilly dumbass shit than any of the places where it’s currently legal.
But let’s not let any of that get in the way of the religious crazies constant here comes the animal banging argument :)[/quote]
It’s a portend, there are lots of people who do lots of illegal or otherwise socially questionable shit (sexual or not) that they would like to see legalized and/or socially accepted. If it were socially acceptable, there wouldn’t be a cat alive in my neighborhood. The only reason I don’t kill my neighbors cats on (or off) my property en masse is because of it’s questionable legal status but, more importantly, I’d earn the ire of my neighbors.
It’s also a completely rational portend. What’s worse, is if you start discussing pushing the marriage boundaries further in rational (religiously respectful and reciprocal) ways, you get arguments from homosexuals and gay marriage supporters that are identical to the irrational arguments leveled by ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’ 2-3 decades ago. If you start talking like you think Utah should respect the Mormon practice of polygamy provided the age of consent is preserved (or at least not fire people for being consentually respectful polygamists), you get (I’ve gotten) nothing but moral revulsion and bureaucratic handwringing from more “socially liberal progressives”.
And, yeah, if you’ve got a state or organization-wide problem of deviant sexual behavior, it makes sense to question (or at least not incentivize) any sexual behavior not strictly related to reproduction. Or if your standards of behavior are to be the highest and, without reproach, the most devout, you’re probably going to question any sexual behavior. Sheesh, if being addicted to caffeine, cigarettes, or alcohol is a sin why couldn’t or wouldn’t many sexual behaviors be?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[/quote]
Since when do marriage licenses require you to list your sexuality on them?
I think the defense that Gay marriage has always been legal is so off base it could only be categorized as a lie
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[/quote]
Legal marriage is a positive right. Meaning it forces an alteration of behavior on others. Not allowing a legal marriage is actually the logical equivalent of the government not forcing beliefs on anyone.
Not bestowing a privilege on someone is not the logical equivalent of preventing voluntary action. Not legalizing marriages leaves open the ability of every individual to perform all voluntary actions they wish. However, creating a legalized privileged status removes the ability for voluntary actions and requires action even if involuntary from others.
Yes, doublethink. When a government regulated privileged status for benefits of one person over others is a method of making people “free-er”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the defense that Gay marriage has always been legal is so off base it could only be categorized as a lie [/quote]
lol, wat?
Again, where on my license application did I have to specify my sexuality?
Where do I have to check a box that I love my wife on my tax return?
Are their laws about how often, if at all I have to sleep with my wife in order to file married?
You can pretend the truth isn’t the truth all you want, but it doesn’t make it so.
The issue is same sex marriage. Sexual preference has ZERO to do with it, outside of the fact that homosexuals, just like anyone else, can enter into that particular government contract with a consenting adult of the same sex.
Because of this ruling a wealthy mentor can now wed his apprentice that is 40 years his younger, and avoid taxation on significant transfers of wealth and ownership of assets.
No love, no sex, sexuality is meaningless.
Before this ruling, the mentor had to do this with a women is all.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[/quote]
Legal marriage is a positive right. Meaning it forces an alteration of behavior on others. Not allowing a legal marriage is actually the logical equivalent of the government not forcing beliefs on anyone.
Not bestowing a privilege on someone is not the logical equivalent of preventing voluntary action. Not legalizing marriages leaves open the ability of every individual to perform all voluntary actions they wish. However, creating a legalized privileged status removes the ability for voluntary actions and requires action even if involuntary from others.
Yes, doublethink. When a government regulated privileged status for benefits of one person over others is a method of making people “free-er”.[/quote]
I don’t strongly disagree with you. But I think your point is really to do away with marriage as a system of mandatory property rights and duties altogether and not force anybody to recognize anybody else’s “legal marriage” at all if the goal is to make people “freer.” But if marriage is going to be legally recognized at all, my point still stands. Why is it fair to let Harry and Sally impose their will on others, but preclude Jim and John from doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the defense that Gay marriage has always been legal is so off base it could only be categorized as a lie [/quote]
lol, wat?
Again, where on my license application did I have to specify my sexuality?
Where do I have to check a box that I love my wife on my tax return?
Are their laws about how often, if at all I have to sleep with my wife in order to file married?
You can pretend the truth isn’t the truth all you want, but it doesn’t make it so.
The issue is same sex marriage. Sexual preference has ZERO to do with it, outside of the fact that homosexuals, just like anyone else, can enter into that particular government contract with a consenting adult of the same sex.
[/quote]
So nyou are telling never has a gay lost custody or been penalized for being gay ?
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It also would make marriage legal to animals and inanimate objects…this should be fun watching these cases.[/quote]
On that note:
[/quote]
I was using that as a rather extreme example to make a point…but you REALLY don’t think that an Incestuial or Polyagamist group is not going to use this ruling to make a run at legitimacy?
Really?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[/quote]
Heh, you’re considerate enough to leave the question of rights out of the argument but, politely offer me only ‘icky feelings’ as justification for Harry and Sally’s position? Why are Jim and John’s motivation to marry not mentioned but Harry and Sally’s strictly delineated as a religious bias and ‘icky feelings’? Am I to assume that their marriage is purely virtuous or somehow valued more than Harry and Sally’s religion or ‘icky feelings’?
I could go into the details of your small and contrived scenarios and why your stereotyping of Harry and Sally is no more appropriate than the supposed stereotyping of Jim and John by Harry and Sally, but to cut to the chase, the only people that are going to benefit from this type of marriage are those affiliated with or dependent upon the federal government. DOMA prevented a tax break from being exercised by a woman on a $2M estate while the poorer individuals will fall into higher brackets filing jointly as states allow it. I don’t, by any means, intend to portray myself as an advocate of ‘gay rights’. Quite the opposite, because I’m not falling all over myself to ignore any fundamental truths about homosexuals and gay marriage, I can understand that gay marriage might not be a good idea for a lot of reasons.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So nyou are telling never has a gay lost custody or been penalized for being gay ?
[/quote]
No… That isn’t even remotely close to what I said.
You quoted what I said, so I know you know what it reads.
Neither of those things have anything to do with the requirements pre or post DOMA to get married.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
but you REALLY don’t think that an Incestuial [/quote]
I would think that this would be a hard sell, as people against it would have medical evidence of FUBAR offspring to back them up. However, two brothers getting married would have a much harder time being shot down by that defense.
This will happen for sure. I just don’t see logically, how you could deny 3 or more people to enter into the custody/protection contract, if you are going to allow any paring of 2. As long as all parties involved are consenting, reasonable adults.
I don’t see how the government has any right to stop polygamy in the first place, for the same reason I like that DOMA was shot down. It isn’t government’s place to tell you how to live your life to that degree. And DOMA is a perfect example of why the founders didn’t create a democracy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Legal marriage is a positive right. Meaning it forces an alteration of behavior on others.[/quote]
How so?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not allowing a legal marriage is actually the logical equivalent of the government not forcing beliefs on anyone.
Not bestowing a privilege on someone is not the logical equivalent of preventing voluntary action. Not legalizing marriages leaves open the ability of every individual to perform all voluntary actions they wish. However, creating a legalized privileged status removes the ability for voluntary actions and requires action even if involuntary from others.
Yes, doublethink. When a government regulated privileged status for benefits of one person over others is a method of making people “free-er”.[/quote]
No matter how this issue gets flipped, smacked, turned around, or whatever else to present it from another angle, it’s discrimination. Period.
You can’t have the government giving said rights and privileges to one set of people, while actively and purposefully denying those very same rights to others. And if you support legal decisions based on religious beliefs, then you support a theocracy.
So, do you support discrimination? Do you fancy theocracy?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
but you REALLY don’t think that an Incestuial [/quote]
I would think that this would be a hard sell, as people against it would have medical evidence of FUBAR offspring to back them up. However, two brothers getting married would have a much harder time being shot down by that defense.
This will happen for sure. I just don’t see logically, how you could deny 3 or more people to enter into the custody/protection contract, if you are going to allow any paring of 2. As long as all parties involved are consenting, reasonable adults.
I don’t see how the government has any right to stop polygamy in the first place, for the same reason I like that DOMA was shot down. It isn’t government’s place to tell you how to live your life to that degree. And DOMA is a perfect example of why the founders didn’t create a democracy.
[/quote]
One thing the government will need to do is limit benefits to a polygamist relationship. For example Spousal Social Security Benefits. They would have to write into law that only one spousal benefit will be paid.