nehalem256
Lifer
- Apr 13, 2012
- 15,669
- 8
- 0
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?
Tax benefits are not the only benefits that go along with it.
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.
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?
So what you are arguing is that some marriages should be given more benefits than others.
How are you not advocating for discrimination?
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.
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.
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?
No, we have only agreed that consent is required for marriage.
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.
The consent of a toaster consenting doesn't make sense. So we have not agreed that consent is required for object-sexual marriage.
You are advocating for discrimination against object sexuals.
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?
The consent of a toaster consenting doesn't make sense. So we have not agreed that consent is required for object-sexual marriage.
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?
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.
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:
The objects they have sex with cannot give consent, so they cannot get married.
They are not considered adults; adulthood is required to give independent consent.
Only based on your bigoted Sapien-Normative definition of marriage.
EDIT: And corporations are allowed to sign contracts and yet they are not people.
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.
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.