SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[nehalem256]

right, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I will see your "appeal to tradition" and raise you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem which seems to be the primary "argument" for SSM.

 

[shadow9d9]

I will see your "appeal to tradition" and raise you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem which seems to be the primary "argument" for SSM.

Wanting equality is an ad hominem? AHAHAHAHA!

 

[shadow9d9]

Awesome! Next stop human-animal marriages

No consent involved. Keep repeating this retardation and we will keep educating you.

 

[shadow9d9]

You don't know when I was born, secondly, if time of birth had that much to do with it, every single white person born somewhere around 1940 would be racists.

Once science finds out how to detect a gay gene (if there is undoubtedly one) before a child is born, we'll see how many of "your kind" are ok with gays.

You're a complete moron and hateful idiot, and this shows how you keep looking for reasons to be bigoted against people who don't agree with you.

Oh, and if you've been sleeping, race is still a problem in America, and so are so many kinds of prejudices. Your utopia will probably NEVER exist.

Get dressed.

Haha. The bigot calling other people bigots for disliking other bigots!

I wouldn't mind if my son was gay at all. Why would I care? Seriously, could you tell me what I could possibly care about? Any speculation on your part would be appreciated!

And yes, your kind is against every progress... because your magic man story gives you great justification to hate people and want to oppress them.

 

[Retro Rob]

Haha. The bigot calling other people bigots for disliking other bigots!

I wouldn't mind if my son was gay at all. Why would I care? Seriously, could you tell me what I could possibly care about? Any speculation on your part would be appreciated!

And yes, your kind is against every progress... because your magic man story gives you great justification to hate people and want to oppress them.

Explain how "my kind" discriminates when I don't interfere with gay/interracial marriage? How is that "my kind"?

Trying to save face? Or are you saying that every religious person is a bigot? Got any proof of that?

You know, racist whites used "your kind" to castigate blacks. You one of "them"?

 

[nehalem256]

Wanting equality is an ad hominem? AHAHAHAHA!

Below is an example of one of the many ad hominems.

Your kind said the same crap about interracial marriage. You are a fossil, just like them.

Also, wanting something isn't an argument for why you should have it.

 

[soulcougher73]

Awesome! Next stop human-animal marriages

Not this shit again

 

[werepossum]

I was so happy about this ruling I was literally in tears, I still can't get over it. Is 25 years together a good enough reason to get married for all the hateful bigots out there like the Westboro Baptists? Is raising a STRAIGHT daughter a good enough reason to get married? Is being able to visit your partner in the hospital a good enough reason to get married?

All the same sex marriage stereotypes promoted by the straight conservative political religitards who don't know me or my partner are their closeted gay fantasy bullshit, not mine. And the worst offenders by far are the conservative political hacks who caused this marriage divide in the first place just for a few more votes from the crazy fundies who are so psychotic they hear voices in their head and talk to God.

SSM has been publicly vilified and crucified mostly by slimy conservative politicians with no morals or respect for the constitution who were just trying to sell their political and religious poison to aging voters from the stone age for a few more bigoted and hateful votes. And to think that even presidents and governors have used this tactic to divide and conquer and win elections is horrendously evil by every imaginable definition. There is nothing good, religious or holy about their intentions. They want to legalize and bring back hatred and division just like any good tyrants throughout history have done before.

My fears with SSM are that once you get the ring, the secret political enemies then knows who you are, and what you stand for. And with the recent revelations about covert and illegal spying ON EVERYONE, I would say anyone in a SSM should have plenty of good reasons to be concerned about being targeted, too. Remember that the same tyrants who passed these hateful discriminatory defense of marriage laws also have unlimited and constitutionally illegal access to ALL your personal information whenever they chose, for whatever the political reason.

So while this SCOTUS decision feels to me like a little bit of karma payback at last, the same tyrants who prostituted themselves for your hateful votes are still in power with a gun pointed at our SSM heads. The war they started for bigoted votes against the gays and SSM is far from over.

Congratulations on your new-found equality and your long-running relationship. May you have every happiness together under lawful sanction.

Sigh... I said your KIND, not you personally. Your kind were the kind that were against interracial marriage.. you were just born a little later... People born a little later than you will be fine with gay marriage and stick to hating and fearing muslims and will look for something else new to fear and hate.

Can't be "his kind" if it doesn't apply to him.

This wasnt directed at me but i can answer. Just because something is done a certain way for a long time does not mean we cannot progress to the next logical step and evolve as humans. Hell if we just stuck to everything we ever knew we still be living in caves. As you can see by the world around you progress happens all the time. Nothing stays the same forever.

Amen. A respect for tradition is a good thing. Becoming hidebound by tradition is a bad thing, for there is no growth without change.

One may have wonderful memories of that lime green leisure suit with the picnic table sized lapels while understanding that while it may have gotten you laid in the 60s, it's no longer appropriate and it was always tacky.

 

[nehalem256]

Not this shit again

Just because something is done a certain way for a long time does not mean we cannot progress to the next logical step and evolve as humans.

You know if you want your arguments to be taken seriously you should probably stop referring to them as shit.

 

[sourceninja]

Below is an example of one of the many ad hominems.



Also, wanting something isn't an argument for why you should have it.

And unless the government can show actual harm there is no counter argument and therefore wanting something is enough.

The basis of our government is that we have the right to do anything and the government can only restrict those rights for good reason. On top of that we have a constitution that protects us from our government in regards to their ability to restrict rights.

From the founding of the united states you have had the right to gay marriage. It took a act of government to take that right away from you. They are not fighting for the right to marry. They are fighting to stop the active force of government to take away their right to marry.

Laws can not give rights.

 

[soulcougher73]

You know if you want your arguments to be taken seriously you should probably stop referring to them as shit.

You know if you want your aregument to be taken seriously you should probably learn the term "consenting adults". Adults implies humans in this case, not animals. Just so you know and dont try to say 'adult animals'. So ill just save you face now by pointing that out for you.

You really are the dumbest poster ive ever run into on this forum and there are lots.

 

[Atreus21]

I'd argue three tracks. First, that there is no established body of law governing plural marriages. Second, that plural marriages have a history of coercion of minors. Third, that dissolution of plural marriages offers unique problems in custody that would make Hell the lives of children so afflicted. None of these apply to gay marriage unless we artificially create a division.

Of course, I could just as easily argue the opposite. Case law will create the required legal precedent as it is needed. Cults already practice plural marriages in legalized form, via divorce and continued cohabitation, without the protections that would be afforded under legal plural marriage. Children are already affected by plural cohabitation, without the protections of established law or the security of a formalized, recognized marriage.

As I said, I really have no strong feelings either way. I could make the same argument about gay marriage personally - I have no family or really close friends who are gay - but with gay marriage I can recognize at a glance that the only distinctions from hetero marriage (from government's standpoint) are those we choose to create or those which exist only because they exist. Once one learns to look at questions with a view toward maximizing personal liberty - not why should we legalize this, but why should we not allow it - the question becomes self-evident. Thus I recognize a ban on gay marriage as an arbitrary discrimination that serves no real purpose. This makes such a ban a serious infringement of personal liberty for no good purpose and we should all fight that whether or not we are personally affected. The same arguments MAY be made for plural marriage, the situation is just not as immediately self-evident to me.

By the way, I agree that the majority opinion makes it difficult to place any bounds on marriage. I think this is a good thing. Government should always be in the position of having to come up with an extraordinarily good reason to disallow personal liberty.

So marriage essentially becomes meaningless, because to make it exclusive to any degree is an infringement on personal liberty. In other words, the very idea of marriage insofar as it is granted to specific types of relationships, is an affront to personal liberty. And thus anyone who defends any limits on marriage (or indeed any definition of marriage) is bigoted and anti-liberty.

I cannot agree with that.

 

[nehalem256]

You know if you want your aregument to be taken seriously you should probably learn the term "consenting adults". Adults implies humans in this case, not animals. Just so you know and dont try to say 'adult animals'. So ill just save you face now by pointing that out for you.

I know exactly what the term "consenting adults" means. And at no point when marrying a dog would a child or adult be forced to marry without consent.

You are simply throwing a fit because every argument in favor of SSM works equally well for human-dog marriage.

I can see why you don't like that being pointed out to you.

Saying marriage is between 2 consenting adults is not an argument. It is a statement of definition.

 

[nehalem256]

So marriage essentially becomes meaningless, because to make it exclusive to any degree is an infringement on personal liberty. In other words, the very idea of marriage insofar as it is granted to specific types of relationships, is an affront to personal liberty.

I cannot agree with that.

Actually this is 100% true. The very purpose of marriage is to discriminate between relationships.

And as previously outlined by werepossum the government needs a compelling reason to discriminate. Which means it needs a compelling reason to allow a group to marry.

Society has for 1000s of years found a compelling reason to grant marriage to opposite-sex couples; namely controlling pro-creation(see baker v. nelson). Unfortunately for same-sex couples "because we want to" does not really constitute a compelling reason.

 

[sourceninja]

Actually this is 100% true. The very purpose of marriage is to discriminate between relationships.

And as previously outlined by werepossum the government needs a compelling reason to discriminate. Which means it needs a compelling reason to allow a group to marry.

Society has for 1000s of years found a compelling reason to grant marriage to opposite-sex couples; namely controlling pro-creation(see baker v. nelson). Unfortunately for same-sex couples "because we want to" does not really constitute a compelling reason.

Again, the USS government can not grant you the right to marry. They can only take away your right to marry.

So they need a compelling reason to not allow a group to marry rather than a reason to allow them. The government can not give you rights.

 

[Atreus21]

Again, the USS government can not grant you the right to marry. They can only take away your right to marry.

So they need a compelling reason to not allow a group to marry rather than a reason to allow them. The government can not give you rights.

...then how were gays never married before if they always had the right to marry?

 

[HumblePie]

All I have to say is that it is about damn time.

 

[dawp]

You know if you want your aregument to be taken seriously you should probably learn the term "consenting adults". Adults implies humans in this case, not animals. Just so you know and dont try to say 'adult animals'. So ill just save you face now by pointing that out for you.

You really are the dumbest poster ive ever run into on this forum and there are lots.

he isn't dumb, he's just a troll. I doubt he actually believes anything he post. he post shit just to get a reaction and he knows it wont stand up to a valid argument.

 

[xj0hnx]

I know exactly what the term "consenting adults" means. And at no point when marrying a dog would a child or adult be forced to marry without consent.

You are simply throwing a fit because every argument in favor of SSM works equally well for human-dog marriage.

I can see why you don't like that being pointed out to you.

Saying marriage is between 2 consenting adults is not an argument. It is a statement of definition.

No it doesn't moron because a DOG can not consent to be married by you. You are either the most stupid, or obtuse human on Earth.

 

[fskimospy]

he isn't dumb, he's just a troll. I doubt he actually believes anything he post. he post shit just to get a reaction and he knows it wont stand up to a valid argument.

Doesn't effective trolling usually involve spending less time/effort on the argument than other people?

 

[soulcougher73]

I know exactly what the term "consenting adults" means. And at no point when marrying a dog would a child or adult be forced to marry without consent.

You are simply throwing a fit because every argument in favor of SSM works equally well for human-dog marriage.

I can see why you don't like that being pointed out to you.

Saying marriage is between 2 consenting adults is not an argument. It is a statement of definition.

As i said. You dont know what "consenting adults" means. Their are these things called plurals. When their is an "s" on the end of the word 'adult' it means it takes two (at the very least). So a normal person concludes that it takes 2 adults to consent. Of which a dog..or toaster because i know youll go there..do not count. Thus they are moot arguements. Meaning you can drop the lame arguement.

You are free to fake marry your dog or toaster or even both. But legally they have no feet to stand on.

 

[sourceninja]

...then how were gays never married before if they always had the right to marry?

Social Pressure and laws taking away their rights to be publicly gay. Many of these laws were enforced because of cultural or religious pressures. In fact gay marriage has existed as long as marriage. From wikipedia.

"Same-sex marital practices and rituals were recognized in Mesopotamia.[72] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[73][74] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[75][76]"

and

"The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride." (although romans did not give rights to same sex marriage as they did opposite sex marriage.)

The point is you have the right to do anything humanly within your power. Governments do not grant rights, they take rights away. Sometimes this is done to protect our young, sometimes this is done to make society work (losing your right to kill other humans). The point being that the government must be held accountable for the rights it takes from us. They should do everything in our power to leave us with as many rights as they can without bringing down society.

A good test for determining if a right should be taken away is if it harms other people and stops them from executing their rights. Allowing gays to marry does not constitute a physical danger for people nor does it impose on their rights to do whatever they want. With this in mind there is no reasonable logic behind removal of these rights.

The US government is designed to protect our rights more so than any government before it. I'm glad to see congress has decided to protect the rights of states to decide who can get married and do the right thing, respecting the decisions of those states.

 

[nehalem256]

Again, the USS government can not grant you the right to marry. They can only take away your right to marry.

BS. If the government does not pass a law creating government marriages how can you get a government marriage?

So they need a compelling reason to not allow a group to marry rather than a reason to allow them. The government can not give you rights.

Just like they need a compelling reason to tell me why I cant marry a cow. Given that consent is not required for doing even more extreme things to the cow like say slaughtering and eating it that seems like a pretty flimsy basis for compelling reason.

No it doesn't moron because a DOG can not consent to be married by you. You are either the most stupid, or obtuse human on Earth.

And what is the COMPELLING REASON for requiring the consent of a dog?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nothing in Kennedy's opinion mentioned a protected class.

Nothing in the opinion mentioned the capitol of Spain, either, but it's still a fact that it's Madrid. Got any more desperate irrelevancies? Please do keep up your tasty, tasty lamentations and fallacies. They get better with age, I swear. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

"The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride." (although romans did not give rights to same sex marriage as they did opposite sex marriage.)

In 67, Nero ordered a young freedman, Sporus, to be castrated and then married him.[64][65][66][67] According to Dion Cassius, Sporus bore an uncanny resemblance to Sabina, and Nero even called him by his dead wife’s name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

That is part of your argument for historical Same-sex marriage?

Also note there is no mention of Pythagroas in the article on Nero.

A good test for determining if a right should be taken away is if it harms other people and stops them from executing their rights. Allowing gays to marry does not constitute a physical danger for people nor does it impose on their rights to do whatever they want. With this in mind there is no reasonable logic behind removal of these rights.

Sounds like human-dog marriage passes your test...