SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

When activities start being viewed as “rights”(in addition to viewing rights as things that are determined acceptable by the mob), it makes it very easy for the state to criminalize any activity it wants. [/quote]

Or tax it, lol.

If there was some brilliant political philosopher that came along tomorrow and came up with a method of choosing our representatives that was better than voting, would we suddenly lose a right or gain a new one? No, we would have the same rights we always had, just exercise them in a new way.

But as it is, there would be an uproar over the change, even if it was better, because people think voting is the right. So we would waste time and energy, when if we took the time to see things the way they are, we would just switch out voting for the new method. [/quote]

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal
[/quote]

Their rights are still equal(all rights are), but the government’s recognition(much like the government regarding x% of person a’s income as its property, while only considering y% of person b’s property as belonging to it) is not. Gay marriage is a state issue in this country(should be at least, barring an amendment to the Constitution, but I can see no way to argue against its legalization in each state if marriage is regarded as a government institution. Now, that doesn’t mean I see any way for the government to force anyone to perform gay marriage ceremonies or anything like that, but the marriages should definitely be recognized by the state.[/quote]

So Federal Government recognizes Straight Marriages and does not recognize Gay Marriage but they are equal ? That is like saying Blacks have always had the right to vote , it is just their vote did not count . You don’t think that it is absurd to try and get people to believe that shit ?

142

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So Federal Government recognizes Straight Marriages and does not recognize Gay Marriage but they are equal ? That is like saying Blacks have always had the right to vote , it is just their vote did not count . You don’t think that it is absurd to try and get people to believe that shit ?
[/quote]

Yes, their rights are equal. Blacks have always had equal rights. The government just doesn’t and didn’t recognize them as such. Everyone has the same and equal rights. I think it’s a waste of time to try to get people to believe that because almost nobody believes in rights for anyone else. You’re born with rights, you don’t get them from government. Government only takes them.

Take you, for instance. You want to be allowed to smoke marijuana(exercise your right to liberty), but don’t think a business owner and his employees should be allowed to come to a voluntary agreement on salary without the government intervening(doing away with both the owner’s property rights and the employee’s liberty).

143

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, their rights are equal. Blacks have always had equal rights. The government just doesn’t and didn’t recognize them as such. Everyone has the same and equal rights. I think it’s a waste of time to try to get people to believe that because almost nobody believes in rights for anyone else. You’re born with rights, you don’t get them from government. Government only takes them.

[/quote]

YOu are wasting your time. People don’t want to see the larger picture, all they care about is same sex couples being able to check “married” on a tax return.

The fact is proven over and over again, in this very thread.

This mentality, as shown here is why we have run away government that imposes upon us to live as we are told… Neither party is innocent in this regard.

144

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal
[/quote]

That isn’t want happened though.

Both of the gay members in my immediate family have children, born in marriages to the opposite sex. Those marriages were decades long…

So… Looks like the gay members of our society had the same options to partake in certain activities that everyone else did.

145

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal
[/quote]

That isn’t want happened though.

Both of the gay members in my immediate family have children, born in marriages to the opposite sex. Those marriages were decades long…

So… Looks like the gay members of our society had the same options to partake in certain activities that everyone else did. [/quote]

No, that’s not what happened. As far as I’m aware, gay people weren’t being punished for getting married in a way which wasn’t recognized by the government. However, gay people should be allowed to marry and enter a legal contract with whoever they want as long as that someone is able to consent.

146

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
all they care about is same sex couples being able to check “married” on a tax return.
[/quote]

Bingo , that is all that is important, that is a right , I am sorry Nic and Beans I think you guys are SO FULL OF SHIT :slight_smile: Peace :slight_smile:

147

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
all they care about is same sex couples being able to check “married” on a tax return.
[/quote]

Bingo , that is all that is important, that is a right , I am sorry Nic and Beans I think you guys are SO FULL OF SHIT :slight_smile: Peace :slight_smile:
[/quote]

No, it isn’t a right, but that doesn’t matter to you. Nor is it “all that is important”, but I wouldn’t expect you to take the time to think about consequences.

It is funny, Nic and I both approve of DOMA being over turned, we just have concerns for the arguments used to have it overturned, as they are dangerous. But somehow, someway, that makes us “full of shit”?

148

I’ll ask the question again, and everyone will ignore it again:

If two heterosexual men are to get married, would that now be recognized by the federal government?

149

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll ask the question again, and everyone will ignore it again:

If two heterosexual men are to get married, would that now be recognized by the federal government?[/quote]

What would be the point? You mean because you don’t have to have sex to be married? It is generally considered that people marry to have a life partner, whether they have sex or not. So I guess the answer is they could but why? For benefits, inheritance etc…? Seems like an odd question.

150

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll ask the question again, and everyone will ignore it again:

If two heterosexual men are to get married, would that now be recognized by the federal government?[/quote]

What would be the point? You mean because you don’t have to have sex to be married? It is generally considered that people marry to have a life partner, whether they have sex or not. So I guess the answer is they could but why? For benefits, inheritance etc…? Seems like an odd question.
[/quote]

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
So I guess the answer is they could[/quote]

Well then, if two heterosexuals of the same sex get married, and it will now be recognized by the federal government, the whole “gay rights” argument is sort of not really the true argument then, now is it?

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
What would be the point?[/quote]

You answer your own question later, but in the eyes of the government you don’t have to have a “point” in getting married. You are free to marry whenever you want after the age of 18, for whatever reason you want, and now, whomever you want.

That is the point, those are the rights that were violated. DOMA violated the rights of EVERYONE’S freedom, not just homosexuals. No one was free to choose who they wanted to marry, they had to choose someone from the opposite sex. Equal discrimination because everyone is either a man or a women (or in the process of becoming one or the other.)

So the point becomes making this about “gay rights” is quite literally inviting the government to start making choices based on sexual preference, which it doesn’t. Is that what people want? Having to tell the government who you prefer to have sex with?

Like I’ve said. I like the fact it is overturned. I’m weary of the reasoning people use/used to do so…

151

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll ask the question again, and everyone will ignore it again:

If two heterosexual men are to get married, would that now be recognized by the federal government?[/quote]

What would be the point? You mean because you don’t have to have sex to be married? It is generally considered that people marry to have a life partner, whether they have sex or not. So I guess the answer is they could but why? For benefits, inheritance etc…? Seems like an odd question.
[/quote]

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
So I guess the answer is they could[/quote]

Well then, if two heterosexuals of the same sex get married, and it will now be recognized by the federal government, the whole “gay rights” argument is sort of not really the true argument then, now is it?

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
What would be the point?[/quote]

You answer your own question later, but in the eyes of the government you don’t have to have a “point” in getting married. You are free to marry whenever you want after the age of 18, for whatever reason you want, and now, whomever you want.

That is the point, those are the rights that were violated. DOMA violated the rights of EVERYONE’S freedom, not just homosexuals. No one was free to choose who they wanted to marry, they had to choose someone from the opposite sex. Equal discrimination because everyone is either a man or a women (or in the process of becoming one or the other.)

So the point becomes making this about “gay rights” is quite literally inviting the government to start making choices based on sexual preference, which it doesn’t. Is that what people want? Having to tell the government who you prefer to have sex with?

Like I’ve said. I like the fact it is overturned. I’m weary of the reasoning people use/used to do so…[/quote]

But it is actually about the rights of same sex couples not some imagined scenario in which everyone is marrying their childhood buddy to get health benefits. You are making something up to point out an imagined incongruity. It is totally about repressing gays and nothing else.

152

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

But it is actually about the rights of same sex couples not some imagined scenario in which everyone is marrying their childhood buddy to get health benefits. [/quote]

I don’t disagree with this statement other than to say I use the example of two heterosexuals marrying to illustrate the point.

Same sex couples =/= gay couples IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT, and it never, ever ever ever should. The government doesn’t ask you your sexual preference when getting a marriage license. Do you want it to start to?

No, I’m point out how treating something like an “open and shut” case built on false assumptions of what is or isn’t a “right” invites more government into our lives. I’m pointing out how something as simple as freedom to choose whom you marry, has become an open door for government to be more and more involved in our day to day lives.

[quote] It is totally about repressing gays and nothing else.
[/quote]

If, and only if, heterosexuals would be barred from marrying people of the same sex would this be true.

It is about freedom of choice, which we are all entitled to. It has nothing to do with sexual preference as far as the government is concerned. I get that from a social perspective this ruling protects a freedom that is more often than not going to be exercised by homosexuals, but I am, and always have been speaking about this from a governmental perspective.

153

If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same

154

e·qual
/ˈēkwəl/
Adjective
Being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
Noun
A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.
Verb
Be the same as in number or amount.
Synonyms
adjective. even - level - like - same - similar - identical
noun. peer - match - compeer
verb. equalize - match

155

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]

Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?

156
157

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]

Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]

I would not say oppressed , but I would say unequal at least in RE: to tax code

158

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[/quote]

This bullshit is cute and all, but you haven’t even begun to address my point, let alone make one of your own.

159

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]

Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]

I would not say oppressed , but I would say unequal at least in RE: to tax code
[/quote]

And?

So should the government get out of the marriage facilitation racket all together or force people to get married?

160

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]

Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]

I would not say oppressed , but I would say unequal at least in RE: to tax code
[/quote]

we agree on that :slight_smile:
And?

So should the government get out of the marriage facilitation racket all together or force people to get married?[/quote]

we agree on that :slight_smile: