GOP mute on Supreme Court cases regarding DOMA

[zsdersw]

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.

Corporations are comprised of people who consent to things and enter agreements. Toasters are not people who can consent or agree to anything.

 

[nehalem256]

Corporations are comprised of people who consent to things and enter agreements. Toasters are not people who can consent or agree to anything.

Corporations have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

Toasters have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

 

[zsdersw]

Corporations have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

Toasters have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

Corporations are owned by people, not one person.

A toaster is not owned by more than one person at a time.

 

[werepossum]

Corporations have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

Toasters have owners who can consent to things and enter agreements.

Not really the same thing. I can enter into an agreement on behalf of my company which is then binding on my company. I can enter into an agreement on behalf of my toaster which is then binding on my toaster. A corporation is a legal entity and as such has rights and responsibilities, which in many ways makes it analogous to a person; a toaster is not a legal entity and as such has neither rights nor responsibilities.

Neither corporations nor toasters have any bearing on gay marriage. If we allow gay marriage, one will still not be able to marry a corporation because although a corporation is a legal entity in many ways analogous to a person, with consequently some rights and responsibilities which are also analogous to a person, a corporation is NOT a person. And of course, a toaster is simply a toaster; even a toaster with an artificial intelligence will not be considered for possible marriage rights any time soon - although that might make a good science fiction short story.

 

[nehalem256]

Not really the same thing. I can enter into an agreement on behalf of my company which is then binding on my company. I can enter into an agreement on behalf of my toaster which is then binding on my toaster. A corporation is a legal entity and as such has rights and responsibilities, which in many ways makes it analogous to a person; a toaster is not a legal entity and as such has neither rights nor responsibilities.

Neither corporations nor toasters have any bearing on gay marriage. If we allow gay marriage, one will still not be able to marry a corporation because although a corporation is a legal entity in many ways analogous to a person, with consequently some rights and responsibilities which are also analogous to a person, a corporation is NOT a person. And of course, a toaster is simply a toaster; even a toaster with an artificial intelligence will not be considered for possible marriage rights any time soon - although that might make a good science fiction short story.

If we change the definition of marriage through the legislative process then there would be no reason to allow people to marry toasters.

If we the courts declare that marriage is a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation than we would have to allow people to marry objects as Object Sexuality is a sexual orientation.

 

[nehalem256]

Corporations are owned by people, not one person.

A toaster is not owned by more than one person at a time.

Corporations can be owned by one person.

A toaster can be owned by multiple people.

 

[zsdersw]

Corporations can be owned by one person.

No it cannot. That is a sole proprietorship.

A toaster can be owned by multiple people.

False.

 

[zsdersw]

I applaud your idiocy on this issue, nehalem. It has made my day.

 

[nehalem256]

No it cannot. That is a sole proprietorship.

You can setup a corporation with a single shareholder owning 100% of the stock.

 

[zsdersw]

If we change the definition of marriage through the legislative process then there would be no reason to allow people to marry toasters.

If we the courts declare that marriage is a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation than we would have to allow people to marry objects as Object Sexuality is a sexual orientation.

Gay marriage is happening through the legislative process in more states than it is via judicial decision.

As the ill-conceived aversion to gay marriage continues its inexorable fade into obscurity, this legislative-instead-of-judicial trend will continue.

 

[soulcougher73]

If we change the definition of marriage through the legislative process then there would be no reason to allow people to marry toasters.

If we the courts declare that marriage is a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation than we would have to allow people to marry objects as Object Sexuality is a sexual orientation.

Why do you keep overlooking the "It takes 2 consenting human adults" part?

The key words in the above are 2, consenting, human and adults.

An ojbect is not a human. It cannot give consent to anything. Thus is cannot marry anything.

Do you enjoy looking like a retard all the time, or are you actually to stupid to realize you are a retard?

 

[werepossum]

If we change the definition of marriage through the legislative process then there would be no reason to allow people to marry toasters.

If we the courts declare that marriage is a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation than we would have to allow people to marry objects as Object Sexuality is a sexual orientation.

Instead of redefining marriage as a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, how about redefining marriage as a right between two and only two competent and consenting adults? Or in other words, establishing that when a consenting adult wishes to enter into legal matrimony with another consenting adult, Big Government does not have a veto as long as neither is currently in matrimony with another.

I have to admit that as concerns go, I rank people marrying toasters somewhere below armed Mexican garden slugs. Somewhere FARRR below armed Mexican garden slugs. People marrying ducks, now . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8
"Gonna goose that goose, gonna quack that swan,
Gonna rubber my ducky all night long.
Gonna whack that mallard 'til its feathers plume,
Gonna Huey Louey Dewey all over the room."

 

[Fern]

Instead of redefining marriage as a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, how about redefining marriage as a right between two and only two competent and consenting adults? Or in other words, establishing that when a consenting adult wishes to enter into legal matrimony with another consenting adult, Big Government does not have a veto as long as neither is currently in matrimony with another.
-snip-

Incest.

Super wealthy people could marry one of their adult kids to completely bypass the gift tax (and therefore the estate tax). Or transfer rights to pension benefits or SS benefits etc.

As far as taxes, then that kid could marry one his adult siblings and do the same thing. Rinse and repeat.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you keep overlooking the "It takes 2 consenting human adults" part?

The key words in the above are 2, consenting, human and adults.

An ojbect is not a human. It cannot give consent to anything. Thus is cannot marry anything.

Do you enjoy looking like a retard all the time, or are you actually to stupid to realize you are a retard?

Because "It takes 2 consenting human adults" is your bigoted sapien-normative definition of marriage.

You are acting as if your definition of marriage is some kind of self-evident truth. Oddly, the vast majority of human history would disagree with you on that.

 

[nehalem256]

Instead of redefining marriage as a right that cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, how about redefining marriage as a right between two and only two competent and consenting adults? Or in other words, establishing that when a consenting adult wishes to enter into legal matrimony with another consenting adult, Big Government does not have a veto as long as neither is currently in matrimony with another.

Excellent. We are making progress.

It appears you are not agreeing with me that:

(1) Same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage.

(2) There is no fundamental right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

As such it is not necessary for me to show a compelling reason for why people should not be allowed to marry a person of the same sex. It is on those who wish to redefine marriage to show why it should be redefined.

 

[werepossum]

Incest.

Super wealthy people could marry one of their adult kids to completely bypass the gift tax (and therefore the estate tax). Or transfer rights to pension benefits or SS benefits etc.

As far as taxes, then that kid could marry one his adult siblings and do the same thing. Rinse and repeat.

Fern

Good point. Being an only child I have no strong feelings pro or con on incest, but it does need to be considered.

Excellent. We are making progress.

It appears you are not agreeing with me that:

(1) Same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage.

(2) There is no fundamental right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

As such it is not necessary for me to show a compelling reason for why people should not be allowed to marry a person of the same sex. It is on those who wish to redefine marriage to show why it should be redefined.

I do believe that same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage. I also believe that two consenting adults have a fundamental, G-d given right to marry regardless of their respective sexes or sexual orientations, absent any other reasonable constraints such as consanguinity or existing marriages. I just don't see how one can extrapolate that to marrying a toaster. But if you can produce a toaster capable of competent, informed consent, I'll certainly consider it as I have no inherent man-toaster biases. (Personally I'm not putting my pecker into anything that can burn bread, but each to his own.) But note that marriage is inherently a right between two people; no matter how badly I want to marry the delectable if incredibly shallow Hallie Berry, I cannot unless she also consents. That's another change we in Western civilization long ago made to marriage - that it requires the consent of the two participants rather than of only one participant, or of their respective families. Change is not necessarily bad.

Whatever societal changes will be wreaked by gay marriage are largely if not totally already here in our open acceptance of gay people as, well, people. If there are negative consequences, I suggest we're already suffering them. Likewise, if there are positive consequences, I suggest we're already enjoying most of them. Now we're preventing some of the positive changes by artificially preventing gay people from making the same, relatively secure legally protected pair bonds enjoyed by straight people. That makes absolutely no sense. We're permitting gay people (along with straight people) to do the things that weaken society - having/raising children out of pair bonds & divorce come to mind - whilst prohibiting gay people from doing something that strengthens society. How stupid are we? How can we as a society rightly deplore illegitimate births and children raised in single-parent households (the greatest single determinant of being raised in poverty and for which the correction eliminates gaps in incarceration and poverty between blacks and whites) while simultaneously denying some people the right to marry? It's as if we freed the slaves and then denied them the right to do useful work. Come to think of it, we tried that too . . . It's freakin' irrational. We're punishing gay people, but we're also inadvertently punishing ourselves in passing up an easy way to strengthen our society without removing anyone's rights. Seldom is an issue so one-sided.

EDIT: I should add that I think it's absolutely unnecessary to provide a compelling reason to end discrimination and government's power over the individual. I think the opposite - that one should continually demand compelling reasons to maintain discrimination and government's power over the individual wherever it exists. The moral individual liberty we have, and the less power government has over our lives, the better off we all are. Especially, if government is to treat one person differently from the next under the law, it should have to show compelling reasons for this empowerment. "Because it's always been that way" is not sufficient. "Because it offends me" is not sufficient. And Because it offends G-d" isn't even worth considering. G-d's a big boy; He can take care of Himself/Herself/Itself. Respect the man who seeks to know G-d's will; fear the man who says he knows it.

 

[zsdersw]

Also... TTWWHADI* or any similar sentiment is, all things being equal, not a sufficient reason to avoid changing things.

* That's The Way We Have Always Done It

We didn't, as a species, start wearing clothing until we did. We never had automobiles until we did. We were never able to fly until we could. We lived under intolerable English rule until we didn't. We were never able to go to the Moon until we could.

These and a million other examples are things that would never have happened if we stuck to the "That's The Way We Have Always Done It" philosophy.

 

[zsdersw]

You can setup a corporation with a single shareholder owning 100% of the stock.

That would be as pointless and stupid as entering a Prius into a drag race against a Ferrari 458.

 

[werepossum]

Also... TTWWHADI* or any similar sentiment is, all things being equal, not a sufficient reason to avoid changing things.

* That's The Way We Have Always Done It

We didn't, as a species, start wearing clothing until we did. We never had automobiles until we did. We were never able to fly until we could. We lived under intolerable English rule until we didn't. We were never able to go to the Moon until we could.

These and a million other examples are things that would never have happened if we stuck to the "That's The Way We Have Always Done It" philosophy.

Exactly. Tradition and practice are reasons to not change lightly, but not reasons to not change, period. Even G-d (or at least, our perception and worship of G-d) changes over time, so it should be no surprise that no human institution is perfect or the best possible solution for all time periods. Often, the best possible fit for one time period becomes oppression in another.

Without change there is only stagnation.