Listen to a Conservative Judge Brutally Destroy Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[zinfamous]

I think you are confusing modern liberal marriage for traditional historical marriage.

I think you are confusing traditional historical marriage with nehalem's traditional toaster marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

So when a same sex couple live together for years and years, likely owning real estate and even businesses jointly, and one of them passes away unexpectedly... the desire of the surviving partner to conserve and protect those jointly held assets from third parties is just a "benefits grabbing circle jerk?"

So you are saying that marriage exists so that rich people can avoid paying estate taxes?

That is certainly an interesting argument from a liberal perspective.

 

[Anubis]

Why call a rose by a different name when it was originally a tool for the government in the first place? Marriage is not a religious born concept historically speaking.

its amazing how many people seem to have forgotten that

 

[MrPickins]

So you are saying that marriage exists so that rich people can avoid paying estate taxes?

That is certainly an interesting argument from a liberal perspective.

You're a special kind of stupid. :\

 

[nehalem256]

You're a special kind of stupid. :\

Its exactly what is arguing.

There is this thing called a Will that allows you to easily pass your possessions to anyone you want.

The only way his statement makes sense is if you need to protect your estate from someone that a will wont protect against. Ie the government. And that is only really an issue for the rich.

So essentially he is arguing that marriage exists as a tax shelter for rich people. Certainly an interesting thing to be supporting from a liberal perspective.

 

[Atreus21]

This ought to be a slam dunk for conservatives. We argue for smaller, less intrusive government; what government is bigger or more intrusive than a government with an arbitrary right of veto over one's choice of spouse? We argue on Affirmative Action that the government should not discriminate; banning gay marriage is discrimination.

Then why should marrying a sibling, or all of your siblings, be illegal?

 

[justoh]

Then why should marrying a sibling, or all of your siblings, be illegal?

It isn't?

 

[HumblePie]

I think you are confusing modern liberal marriage for traditional historical marriage.

I think you forgot how many different "religions" have been in the world historically speaking. Many of which are no longer practiced. That there have in the past been cultures without any form of religion in their lives. Most of the old religions were polytheistic and most didn't even have omnipotent beings as a figure in those religions. Guess what? in all those cultures, regardless of the prevaliing religions or those void of any religion, they still had the concept of marriage. It transcends most of human history because humans are really the only being on this planet that accumulates material "wealth" and then dies. But humans know they are going to die eventually and allow for their accumulated wealth to pass on to those they want it to go to hopefully.

What's funny is the root of the word marriage from latin contains monius which is state action. Matrimonious is basically latin for mother state action. Even that was only started to be used as the word to describe that contractual agreement by the 1300s although the concept by far predates the affectation ascribed during that time period.

 

[HumblePie]

Its exactly what is arguing.

There is this thing called a Will that allows you to easily pass your possessions to anyone you want.

The only way his statement makes sense is if you need to protect your estate from someone that a will wont protect against. Ie the government. And that is only really an issue for the rich.

So essentially he is arguing that marriage exists as a tax shelter for rich people. Certainly an interesting thing to be supporting from a liberal perspective.

No a marriage is a merging of family assets and allowing those assets to be passed into a will. It's a two parter.

 

[nehalem256]

I think you forgot how many different "religions" have been in the world historically speaking. Many of which are no longer practiced. That there have in the past been cultures without any form of religion in their lives. Most of the old religions were polytheistic and most didn't even have omnipotent beings as a figure in those religions. Guess what? in all those cultures, regardless of the prevaliing religions or those void of any religion, they still had the concept of marriage. It transcends most of human history because humans are really the only being on this planet that accumulates material "wealth" and then dies. But humans know they are going to die eventually and allow for their accumulated wealth to pass on to those they want it to go to hopefully.

What's funny is the root of the word marriage from latin contains monius which is state action. Matrimonious is basically latin for mother state action. Even that was only started to be used as the word to describe that contractual agreement by the 1300s although the concept by far predates the affectation ascribed during that time period.

I agree completely. Guess what they also shared in common? Lack of same-sex marriage.

Which kinda obliterates the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on Christian bigotry.

 

[nehalem256]

No a marriage is a merging of family assets and allowing those assets to be passed into a will. It's a two parter.

Well apparently the first part isn't an issue either:

So when a same sex couple live together for years and years, likely owning real estate and even businesses jointly, and one of them passes away unexpectedly... the desire of the surviving partner to conserve and protect those jointly held assets from third parties is just a "benefits grabbing circle jerk?"

Wow amazing people can own things together without being married!

 

[Atreus21]

It isn't?

As far as I know, marrying siblings is illegal.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Why not do it this way?

A person marry another person of the opposite gender.

A person gayry another person of the same gender.

Same civil benefits.

This is the best way.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why not do it this way?

A person marry another person of the opposite gender.

A person gayry another person of the same gender.

Same civil benefits.

This is the best way.

You never answered my question from the other thread. Can I get both married and gayried? If they're two separate things, I should be able to have one of each, right? If not, then they aren't really different things, you're just changing the name of one of them for no logical reason.

 

[nehalem256]

You never answered my question from the other thread. Can I get both married and gayried? If they're two separate things, I should be able to have one of each, right? If not, then they aren't really different things, you're just changing the name of one of them for no logical reason.

How does that make any sense?

There are many cases where you have the choice between 2 things, but cannot have both at the same time.

For example it is common for coupons to not be combinable with other different coupons.

 

[soundforbjt]

I agree completely. Guess what they also shared in common? Lack of same-sex marriage.

Which kinda obliterates the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on Christian bigotry.

But, they did have/recognized same-sex marriage.

 

[sandorski]

I strongly believe in the concept of separation of church and state, also the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause - which is wholly different than freedom *from* religion.

I like the idea of state-sponsored civil unions for those partnerships that don't fit within the criteria of a traditional marriage. These states should actually be working to create rights in such civil marriages equal to religious marriage. Then everyone would be happy except those with hidden agendas.

No, you can't have one without the other.

 

[nehalem256]

But, they did have/recognized same-sex marriage.

No they didnt.

Or are you going to bring up the Nero castrated a man that looked like his dead wife and married him against all law and custom argument?

 

[MrPickins]

Why not do it this way?

A person marry another person of the opposite gender.

A person gayry another person of the same gender.

Same civil benefits.

This is the best way.

What purpose would that serve?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What purpose would that serve?

It would double the number of drinking fountains. Oh, sorry, wrong separate but equal.

 

[justoh]

As far as I know, marrying siblings is illegal.

I dunno. Maybe not if you're being pedantic about it. Is it actually expressly forbidden or just not possible to get recognized/performed/licensed?

 

[Atreus21]

Not if you're being pedantic about it. Is it actually expressly forbidden or just not possible to get recognized/performed/licensed?

You draw a distinction between "expressly forbidden" and "impossible to be licensed", and I'm the one who gets called pedantic. That's great.

My question was directed to werepossum. I hope he answers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Or are you going to bring up the Nero castrated a man that looked like his dead wife and married him against all law and custom argument?

OMG, some Amazon queen did that to you.

 

[justoh]

You draw a distinction between "expressly forbidden" and "impossible to be licensed", and I'm the one who gets called pedantic. That's great.

My question was directed to werepossum. I hope he answers.

Sorry, no, I thought it was clear that it was me who was being pedantic. Apologies for the confusion. So it's not illegal then?

 

[Atreus21]

Sorry, no, I thought it was clear that it was me who was being pedantic. Sorry for the confusion. So it's not illegal then?

Again, as far as I know it's illegal. Impossible. Not allowed.