GOP mute on Supreme Court cases regarding DOMA

[nehalem256]

Tax benefits are not the only benefits that go along with it.

So what you are arguing is that some marriages should be given more benefits than others.

How are you not advocating for discrimination?

 

[soulcougher73]

You are wrong there are numerous people who want to marry objects.

There is even a sexual orientation to describe these people; object sexuals.

Just because you have adopted a bigoted sapien-normative view on marriage does not mean you can deny these people their rights.

Yes we can deny them rights. The poor toaster has no consent to be married to some dumbass.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes we can deny them rights. The poor toaster has no consent to be married to some dumbass.

Good. So now we have agreed that it is constitutional to deny rights to marriage based on sexual orientation.

 

[soulcougher73]

Interesting so now wanting government recognition of marriage is not about wanting the benefits that go along with it.

So why do gay people want government recognized marriage?

I starting to have a really hard time coming to grips with how retarded you actually are.

In no way, what he said and what you said, go together.

 

[soulcougher73]

So what you are arguing is that some marriages should be given more benefits than others.

How are you not advocating for discrimination?

No we are arguing they should have the same benefits. See my post above about you being a retard.

You are advocating for discrimination. For fucks sake pick a side of the fence already. Or maybe you are gay and like fence posts up your ass? Maybe that is why you want object marriages?

 

[SMOGZINN]

You are wrong there are numerous people who want to marry objects.

There is even a sexual orientation to describe these people; object sexuals.

Just because you have adopted a bigoted sapien-normative view on marriage does not mean you can deny these people their rights.

Good. So now we have agreed that it is constitutional to deny rights to marriage based on sexual orientation.

No, we have only agreed that consent is required for marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

No, we have only agreed that consent is required for marriage.

Of course, but that completely dismantles his ridiculous toaster crap.. so he's going to ignore it.

 

[Retro Rob]

That may be true for you. But im not a selfish person. I care what other people want just as much as i care about what i want.

My bad, I wasn't saying you are selfish.. I was speaking generally about the overall mentality of people.

When it comes to what people want, I am somewhat in agreement with you. However, some people may wantto overdrink, wantto abuse drugs, want to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, want to sleep with umpteenth amount of people.

Sure, while these are largely personal choices that only affect those doing them (also while not violating the rights of others), I say that to say that wants are largely self-centered. Just because someone disagrees with a proposed "law" or amendment, doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to violate your rights. He may see a bit down the road and notices some unseen harm.

I can see why some feel the same way about religion. Granted, I think some want it gone period, but others have legitimate complaints, like how some are stealing from people in the form of tithes, selling fear that if you don't turn to God, you'll burn in Hell, or by using political means to pass laws that are only in the interests of those proposing them.

 

[nehalem256]

No we are arguing they should have the same benefits. See my post above about you being a retard.

You are advocating for discrimination.

You are advocating for discrimination against object sexuals.

For fucks sake pick a side of the fence already. Or maybe you are gay and like fence posts up your ass? Maybe that is why you want object marriages?

So by your advocacy for same-sex marriage would it be fair to assume you want to take a big black cock up your ass? Maybe that is why you want same-sex marriage?

 

[nehalem256]

No, we have only agreed that consent is required for marriage.

The consent of a toaster consenting doesn't make sense. So we have not agreed that consent is required for object-sexual marriage.

 

[soulcougher73]

My bad, I wasn't saying you are selfish.. I was speaking generally about the overall mentality of people.

When it comes to what people want, I am somewhat in agreement with you. However, some people may wantto overdrink, wantto abuse drugs, want to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, want to sleep with umpteenth amount of people.

Sure, while these are largely personal choices that only affect those doing them (also while not violating the rights of others), I say that to say that wants are largely self-centered. Just because someone disagrees with a proposed "law" or amendment, doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to violate your rights. He may see a bit down the road and notices some unseen harm.

That is how i look at it. If someone elses personal choices dont physically affect your life by denying you a freedom then it should be allowed. SSM would not prevent hetro couples from getting married or affect them in anyway other then mentally if they dont agree with it based on the same religious freedoms we are allow them to have.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The consent of a toaster consenting doesn't make sense. So we have not agreed that consent is required for object-sexual marriage.

You keep constructing strawmen, I'll keep ignoring them.

 

[soulcougher73]

You are advocating for discrimination against object sexuals.

When you can grasp the term "consent", get back to us.

So by your advocacy for same-sex marriage would it be fair to assume you want to take a big black cock up your ass? Maybe that is why you want same-sex marriage?

It would be fair to assume that if you wish. I dont personally want a big black cock up my ass, but if i did i would like to have the same legal representation to marry my big black cocked lover if i so wished.

 

[soulcougher73]

The consent of a toaster consenting doesn't make sense. So we have not agreed that consent is required for object-sexual marriage.

I know you are retarded but ill knock down this wall for you.

I would be ok with allowing you to marry a toaster. I dont know what youd expect out of it other than to have a ring on your finger and tell people you married a toaster. I suppose you could even waste money when it finally stops toasting and bury it and have a big funeral with all your friends and other appliances you hold so dear.

So now that that is taken care of can we return to our regular scheduled broadcast of SSM?

 

[zsdersw]

The power and effect of all government and law in this country is derived from the consent of the governed. Since toasters and other inanimate objects and non-humans cannot give their consent, the law does not apply to them.

 

[soulcougher73]

The power and effect of all government and law in this country is derived from the consent of the governed. Since toasters and other inanimate objects and non-humans cannot give their consent, the law does not apply to them.

Just had to go and ruin all his fun didnt you?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Just had to go and ruin all his fun didnt you?

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with shear experience.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is how i look at it. If someone elses personal choices dont physically affect your life by denying you a freedom then it should be allowed. SSM would not prevent hetro couples from getting married or affect them in anyway other then mentally if they dont agree with it based on the same religious freedoms we are allow them to have.

I don't think you're understanding me. The affect that SSM may or may not have on society is debatable. I don't know, or will pretend to know.

Sure, what someone else does may not personally affect you, but what other potential harms are there? Well for starters, for over drinkers, whose to say it wont get uncontrollable to where they get behind the wheel (which is often the case) and kill someone? Or if he wont drink his family out of a house or home? It happends. Or the risk promiscuity may run with the spread of disease and motherless/fatherless children, unwanted children?

I'm just saying, I personally think (again, maybe I'm wrong) people are ready to run on this and not take a serious look way down the road. I can also argue that government, not seeing/ caring about the long term ramifications, let religion get too intermingled with them. And now look... People are ticked off because these views are putting limits on almost everything people want (and need at times) to do, and now it's run its course. They're even considering here in Michigan, passing a law that bans abortion in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!

Both liberal and conservative ideologies are horribly flawed.

 

[nehalem256]

The power and effect of all government and law in this country is derived from the consent of the governed. Since toasters and other inanimate objects and non-humans cannot give their consent, the law does not apply to them.

(1) Object sexuals are people and have the same rights as people of any other sexual orientation.

(2) As was previously established 12 year olds cannot give their consent. Does that mean the law does not apply to them? :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

(1) Object sexuals are people and have the same rights as people of any other sexual orientation.

The objects they have sex with cannot give consent, so they cannot get married.

(2) As was previously established 12 year olds cannot give their consent. Does that mean the law does not apply to them? :hmm:

They are not considered adults; adulthood is required to give independent consent.

We've been over all of this before, yet you still repeat the same bullshit arguments and make the same stupid statements. Why are you acting this retarded? I don't really care, I enjoy making you look like a dumbass... I just ask out of curiosity.

 

[nehalem256]

The objects they have sex with cannot give consent, so they cannot get married.

Only based on your bigoted Sapien-Normative definition of marriage.

EDIT: And corporations are allowed to sign contracts and yet they are not people.

They are not considered adults; adulthood is required to give independent consent.

Then based on your own logic "the law does not apply to them"

 

[zsdersw]

Only based on your bigoted Sapien-Normative definition of marriage.

Then change the consent requirement in the constitution and law.

EDIT: And corporations are allowed to sign contracts and yet they are not people.

Corporations are comprised of people.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't think you're understanding me. The affect that SSM may or may not have on society is debatable. I don't know, or will pretend to know.

Sure, what someone else does may not personally affect you, but what other potential harms are there? Well for starters, for over drinkers, whose to say it wont get uncontrollable to where they get behind the wheel (which is often the case) and kill someone? Or if he wont drink his family out of a house or home? It happends. Or the risk promiscuity may run with the spread of disease and motherless/fatherless children, unwanted children?

I'm just saying, I personally think (again, maybe I'm wrong) people are ready to run on this and not take a serious look way down the road. I can also argue that government, not seeing/ caring about the long term ramifications, let religion get too intermingled with them. And now look... People are ticked off because these views are putting limits on almost everything people want (and need at times) to do, and now it's run its course. They're even considering here in Michigan, passing a law that bans abortion in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!

Both liberal and conservative ideologies are horribly flawed.

Ok i see where you are coming from. But i cannot think of one single problem SSM would cause society. I mean the couples are together already why would allowing them to be married in the eyes of the law change anything?

But i agree with your other points. Drinking can cause actual problems for example. I just dont agree on SSM how that could cause any kind of problem other than you (not you, you in generic) just dont like it

 

[soulcougher73]

Only based on your bigoted Sapien-Normative definition of marriage.

EDIT: And corporations are allowed to sign contracts and yet they are not people.



Then based on your own logic "the law does not apply to them"

They are in the eyes of the law. Citizens United ring a bell?

I dont agre with it one but, but it is a current fact.

 

[nehalem256]

They are in the eyes of the law. Citizens United ring a bell?

I dont agre with it one but, but it is a current fact.

Ah, so then you would agree that it should be legal to marry a corporation.

So simply incorporate the toaster and then you can marry it.

Problem solved.