Listen to a Conservative Judge Brutally Destroy Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[brycejones]

fainting goats

Now you've gone to far....fuck it..ban marriage for everyone!

 

[nehalem256]

Nope. To get the same level of protection afforded by marriage, gays must go before government several times, and inevitably there are gaps for some couples and indeed, some for all couples.

How exactly does one have to go to the government several times?

You don't need the government to get a will. Or to appoint someone has your medical decision maker.

And as a bonus. If you stop wanting someone to be your medical decision maker it is certainly a lot less government involvement in your life than getting a divorce.

Two single persons generally cannot adopt the same child, for instance.

So change the law so that 2 single people can adopt together!

Why shouldn't 2 straight bros be able to adopt a kid together?

These multiple governmental transactions as well as disputes arising from the gaps make government bigger.

Because divorce isn't a massive marital dispute :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Well, the government does discriminate on many issues. That is one necessary function.

Second, we have a long history (humanity, that is), of accumulated experience that tells us that inbreeding is bad.

For several reasons. First, the obvious:

You can further look to population genetics and various animal models as to what happens when you start allowing back-crossing and genetic bottlenecks all over the place. But, you know...go ahead with your strawman if you must. It is in no way related to gay marriages, but it is fun to watch you guys continuously swing through that same Wiffle ball.

Now, speaking of the US and the rest of post-revolutionary Europe: the modern world, some time ago, grew a fond distaste for Monarchies...for rather acceptable reasons.

I hate to stretch on this, but I suspect that this plays into the historical distrust for such family dynamics.

How can that picture represent inbreeding when it's apparently seven creatures with no overlapping genera? Hell, I'd bet money that at least three of them are not even of terrestrial origin. The tallest creature's knees bend the wrong direction, and the shortest one doesn't even have knees.

 

[zinfamous]

We are talking about equal rights for sexual minorities.

How the fuck are they not related and of equal value?

I mean other than the fact that one makes you uncomfortable?

exactly.

so why are you bringing up straight ( I assume you mean straight-only) incestuous couplings?

the individuals in your scenario are heterosexuals. I don't classify heterosexuals as a sexual minority.

Do you?

 

[werepossum]

Now you've gone to far....fuck it..ban marriage for everyone!

Ah, come on. A fainting goat makes a great spouse. Well . . . okay, maybe not.

"Honey, I'm-"

"Eeeek!" Thump.

"Ah, hell."

 

[zinfamous]

Ah, come on. A fainting goat makes a great spouse. Well . . . okay, maybe not.

"Honey, I'm-"

"Eeeek!" Thump.

"Ah, hell."

"Welp, time to break out the ol' toothbrush!"

brzzzzzzz

 

[werepossum]

"Welp, time to break out the ol' toothbrush!"

brzzzzzzz

 

[sandorski]

I think it depends on how you define freedom *from* religion.

I think certain militant atheists object to all public displays of religious symbols: shopping mall, actual church/temple/mosque lawn, whatever. If they see it; it's assaulting them.

I think this is stupid, and I think such people are stupid. I don't see that as cramming anything down my throat.

Further, I think certain militant fundies confuse the line between public/private/government. They think prayer in a public school or the ten commandments in front of a court house is no different than a Christmas tree at a mall.

I think this is stupid, and I think such people are stupid. They are very clearly different situations.

I haven't heard of that. Public(Government) land, but not Churches/Mosques etc.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That's all well and good, but you're refuting a point that does not matter. Who cares what Japan and China do? This is America. If you can't come up with better rationale for legislation than "well, some Asian countries do it," then the legislation probably isn't worth it.

When I post actual facts in a reply to toaster boy it's for the other folks who might be reading and possibly be fooled by the shit he flings at the walls.

 

[Victorian Gray]

no, he's pulling a Texashiker: either only the people I want to marry can marry, or EVERYONE should marry WHATEVER the hell they want to marry!

sisters, brothers, multiple sisters and brothers, electric toothbrushes, fainting goats, whatever.

And TOASTERS TOASTERS TOASTERS!!!

 

[Vic]

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.

So you're saying that people should only be allowed to marry for love, and not for any of the legal protections it provides?
When isn't just avoiding estate taxes BTW.

 

[Vic]

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.

A will is not generally required when a couple is married, particularly in in community property states.
So essentially, you have (as usual) my argument completely wrong. And, once again as usual, because you're a deceitful little douchebag.

 

[sportage]

Thanks for this thread.
And no, it is not a re-post.
The other referenced thread is just a news brief summary.
This thread has actual link(s) to the actual court hearing word for word.
But I guess if one does not like what they are hearing from the justice, then calling this some re-post would be a lame attempt to silence the truth and logic argued by this justice posted here on the forums.

When the argument against SS marriage is clearly unfounded and illogical, it becomes obvious those opposed to SS marriage just default to becoming irritated and cranky when being left with no firm ground or logic to stand on.
Like telling your kid no, you can not have that candy bar.
What does the kid do? Pout.

You can not reason with the child. The child does not care about reason, they just want to pout.
Same theory with opposition to SS marriage.
No logic exists to support that opposition, so I'm taking my toys and going home.

 

[shira]

So you're saying that people should only be allowed to marry for love, and not for any of the legal protections it provides?
When isn't just avoiding estate taxes BTW.

No. He's saying that people should be allowed to marry solely to make babies, regardless of whether love exists. He doesn't even accept that marriage is justified if a couple already has babies or wants to adopt babies. And he doesn't even accept that marriage is justified if a couple needs to use fertility treatments to conceive. Marriage is solely for fvcking without birth control in order to make babies.

(But, strangely, he applies this rule solely to gay couples.)

 

[nehalem256]

exactly.

so why are you bringing up straight ( I assume you mean straight-only) incestuous couplings?

the individuals in your scenario are heterosexuals. I don't classify heterosexuals as a sexual minority.

Do you?

Where I come from incestuous couplings are a definite minority. Are they not where you are from? Because that would certainly explain a lot.