SCOTUS struck down DOMA

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
It is about equality. I for one have no problem with polygamous marriages so long as they are entered into by consenting adults. I feel the same way about intrafamily marriages. (I assume you meant intra, not inter) It certainly seems like the state should be able to put some limits on incestual procreation considering that after a few generations you really do start to manifest problems, but outside of that who cares?

Correct, I meant intra.

That's not equality. That is absolute indiscriminateness, which is nonsense. Find me any social scientist who would argue with a straight face that there is no real difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and a marriage among 15 men.

The next time progressives accuse conservatives of wanting to turn the clock back to the 50's, I'll respond that at least with regard to marriage that progressives want to turn back the clock to the 19th century at latest.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
Correct, I meant intra.

That's not equality. That is absolute indiscriminateness, which is nonsense. Find me any social scientist who would argue with a straight face that there is no real difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and a marriage among 15 men.

The next time progressives accuse conservatives of wanting to turn the clock back to the 50's, I'll respond that at least with regard to marriage that progressives want to turn back the clock to the 19th century at latest.

No, that's the ability of consenting adults to enter into contracts in whatever way they might wish. There are some legitimate issues with rewriting some marriage laws to deal with polygamy, but the fundamental principle of allowing consenting adults to structure their intimate relationships in the manner of their choosing is the same for everyone.

You wish to continue to place arbitrary restrictions on others' intimate relationships. I don't. I don't care what century you think that comes from, it's the right thing to do.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
This is quite possibly the most stupid thread i have ever read on the internet and i've visited CARM.

Nehalem is clearly trolling like there is no tomorrow and everyone is arguing with him about him marrying his fucking toaster.

Just leave the poor twat alone, he's clearly insane.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
No, that's the ability of consenting adults to enter into contracts in whatever way they might wish. There are some legitimate issues with rewriting some marriage laws to deal with polygamy, but the fundamental principle of allowing consenting adults to structure their intimate relationships in the manner of their choosing is the same for everyone.

You wish to continue to place arbitrary restrictions on others' intimate relationships. I don't. I don't care what century you think that comes from, it's the right thing to do.

Well, you got me there. I suppose if one sees no societal harm from polygamy or siblings marrying each other, I have nothing left to argue.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Well, you got me there. I suppose if one sees no societal harm from polygamy or siblings marrying each other, I have nothing left to argue.

I do with incestous relationships (balance of power issue) but not with polygamy/polyandry.

For that there are legal issues that means we have to scrap all existing laws on the matter and make completely new ones that no one can figure out how to make.

Let's say a collective decides to intermarry selectively, no one marries more than two except for john and rebecca who marries everyone.

Now two members are getting a divorce and they have children, either john from one member of the community or from the entire community, what would happen? The only way to get around it is to legally discriminate and since that would be unconstitutional it is not possible.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Find me a source from 40+ years ago that said so.

The government would only be in the marriage business if it was a benefit to them. If there were no social and economic benefits to marriage the government would not use carrots to encourage marriage. This is pretty cut and dry.


Gay couples cannot produce children.

I clearly stated my term of produce as raising children, adopted or otherwise.

And if we were back in the times where 95+% of children were born to married couples how many children do you think there would be to adopt?

And if dogs could talk you could marry one, what is your point?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
And where in Kennedy's logic does any restriction exist based on the state's interest? People have argued repeatedly that gay marriage puts an undue burden on the state due to the inherent inability to procreate. But that's unimportant to gay marriage proponents.

The driving logic behind gay marriage, which Kennedy codified in his opinion, has been the perceived inequality, not that the state has as much to gain from gay marriage as it does from straight.

According to most gay marriage proponents I've spoken to, the complications and legal hurdles to be crossed to sanction gay marriage are as unimportant as those necessary to sanction interracial marriage. It's about rights, not practicality.

Therefore, if it's a question of equal rights, we have no more right to disallow polygamous and inter-family marriages than we do to disallow gay marriages.
That makes no sense. First, gays can procreate with the aid of surrogates and/or donors. Adoption - which becomes more practical with gay marriage by allowing the court to see two legally committed parents rather than one - is another avenue. Second, gays denied the right to marry do not magically become straight, nor is there any way for the state to turn them straight. And frankly, I find the notion that the state needs to benefit in order to allow something rather chilling.

I do with incestous relationships (balance of power issue) but not with polygamy/polyandry.

For that there are legal issues that means we have to scrap all existing laws on the matter and make completely new ones that no one can figure out how to make.

Let's say a collective decides to intermarry selectively, no one marries more than two except for john and rebecca who marries everyone.

Now two members are getting a divorce and they have children, either john from one member of the community or from the entire community, what would happen? The only way to get around it is to legally discriminate and since that would be unconstitutional it is not possible.
I have to agree with Eskimospy here. I suspect most families have sufficient genetic diversity that a single incestuous marriage probably presents no great genetic risk. In any case it's hardly a reason to use against gay marriage since not only is it a completely different form of change, gay siblings cannot reproduce without a third party's genetic material.

As far as polygamous marriages, the majority opinion does not prohibit discrimination in marriage. It merely means that government must show a compelling reason for the discrimination. You're certainly right though that polygamous marriage has a host of new legal complications unique to the struggle for marriage equality.

On a side note, there should be more people congratulating Slicksnake here. He just received a right that obviously means the world to him, a right that the vast majority of us have always taken for granted. Let's be honest - the right to marry is much more important to each of us than how much money government leaves us out of our check. That's kind of a big deal.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The government would only be in the marriage business if it was a benefit to them. If there were no social and economic benefits to marriage the government would not use carrots to encourage marriage. This is pretty cut and dry.

And the benefits hinge upon reproduction.

I clearly stated my term of produce as raising children, adopted or otherwise.

And I stand by my assertion that adoption and procreation are different

And if dogs could talk you could marry one, what is your point?

So you have no argument to the fact that the only reason gay people adopting is even an issue is because liberals previously destroyed the fabric of marriage. Gee sounds exactly like the people we should be listening to.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This DOMA ruling means nothing. It is still perfectly OK to tax people unequally based on what group they belong to. A lot of this marriage stuff is the fault of the Federal Government who gives some people less tax and other groups more tax. Is this not discrimination?
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
"The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples."
-http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/doma-decision-quotes-supreme-court-kennedy.html

It makes gays feel bad.

"must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot"
Of course when laws treat you unequal to everyone else, you are injured and may even "feel bad." That's why discrimination is bad? See below excerpt from Brown v. Board of Education.

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. (emphasis added)

No evidence that DOMA was passed because congress desired to harm a politically unpopular group.

Not so, according to the court opinion. Right below the paragraph I quoted in my post #370;

DOMA’s history of enactment and its own text demonstrate thatinterference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferredby the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more thanan incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG’s arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates New York’s objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire United States Code.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset ofstate-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimeswithin the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose offederal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basicpersonal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.

I get that you're against same-sex marriage no matter what, but incorrectly citing and selectively quoting won't help advancing your argument.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Are Gays also celebrating the reminder that DOMA was signed into law by their butt-buddy Bill Clinton who is oh-so openly supportive of gays?

:rolleyes: go figure
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
seek consoling.


tens of thousand's of years of human history has defined marriage as between man and woman. Even secular counties like Japan and China.

To call the 90%+ of people that don't have a problem with the opposite sex crazy is rich.

Your side created the division. Not the other side. The other side's definition of marriage like stated before has been sent for generation. You wanted it changed. Congrats you won. You however dragged the country through the mud to do it.

I have refrained from participating in this SSM debate up until my post here just because of the inevitable bigoted and hateful responses to my opinion like yours is.

First off, if I need to "seek consoling" that's what my partner of almost 25 years is there for. For the sake of argument though, let's assume you meant I should "seek COUNSELING."

What exactly do I need counseling for? And who would provide to me the services I need? Westboro Baptist Church? Wouldn't I burst into flames if I even stepped on their property for their brand of brainwashing, since their cult leader and hallowed ground there is supposedly so sacred and holy? Should I go to a shrink? The American Psychiatric Association no longer recognizes homosexuality as a psychological disorder they should be treating. Or should I say, mistreating, since all the worst horrors of psychiatry, like electroshock therapy, trepanation and castration have been routinely used to "cure" homosexuality. Of course, most of the patients eventually died in the process, but they sure were cured after they killed them!

So turning to counseling from the very groups who demonize gays because they are hateful bigots, like some churches and psychiatrists, is probably a bad idea and won't help me a whole lot. And what am I needing help for again? How about the social stigma and false stereotypes placed on gays from people just like yourself? It sure sounds like you need the counseling, not me. I'm fine with who I am. I am not fine with your bigoted false presumptions of who I am, and slapping me in the face with your holy writ and arbitrary laws because it. The law should not be used to arbitrarily discriminate against anyone solely based on your holy writ. PERIOD. If you can't see the folly of this legal position by just looking at the various Middle Eastern and African countries where they still legally burn witches and stone wives to death just to get a fast divorce, then I really can't help you further, and you need to move to another country who can.

Secondly, "tens of thousand's of years of human history has defined marriage as between man and woman" where the woman in question was considered the man's personal PROPERTY. The woman also had no right of inheritance as personal property, and when the man died, his property either went to his first son or an uncle. So are you implying marriage should once again be defined with women being your personal property, too? These marriage practices are still common in the Middle East and Africa, maybe you should move there?

Thirdly, "To call the 90%+ of people that don't have a problem with the opposite sex crazy is rich." I did not say that, you did. And I assure you your numbers are WAY off and don't even include the fact people are biologically bisexual (just like the primates) or they have had bisexual relationships or urges, and they simply hide it from their mates when they do. But this bisexual phobia points right back to the religious stigmas attached to sexuality again. Which is why most religious leaders, monks and nuns are not allowed to marry at all, and forced to abstain from sex entirely to try to remove all those dirty sexual urges a mate might create and interfere with religious bondage and servitude. You can only serve one master and stuff, remember that?

Fourthly, "Your side created the division. Not the other side." Nothing could be further from the truth, but to a bigoted blind hypocrite, anything that pops out of your mouth completely bypassing your brain must be the holy truth. MY SIDE never passed ANY laws prohibiting male and female marriages. But YOUR SIDE also passed other discriminatory marriage laws prohibiting mixed race marriages, remember those? When most of the original marriage license laws in states were passed, they also included prohibiting mixed races AND the fact marriage was to be between a man and a woman. And many of these original marriage license laws are hundreds of years old now.

Fifthly, "You wanted it changed." I NEVER personally advocated ANY political gay marriage agenda ANYWHERE. I also NEVER started a conversation about gay marriage to ANYONE who was STRAIGHT EVER. However, I DID have MANY straight people (and many of those were MARRIED), START A CONVERSATION ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE TO ME. Let that sink in to your troglodyte brain for a few seconds.

The STRAIGHT people started conversations about GAY MARRIAGE TO ME just because they knew I was GAY. And the ones who started the conversations about it, were also overwhelmingly in support of it, even if they didn't condone a gay lifestyle. Let that sink in to your troglodyte brain for a few more seconds.

Sixthly, "Congrats you won. You however dragged the country through the mud to do it." What did I win? So you are mad because a discriminatory marriage law based on religious intolerance was deemed to be discriminatory against people who don't believe in the same holy writ that you do? And how is political religious conservatives making same sex marriage a political lightning bolt just to get votes from hateful bigots like yourself somehow warped and twisted into the gays dragging the country through the mud? The gays NEVER asked to be vilified and crucified over same sex marriage just as a means to get political tyrants elected to office. But I guess you also missed the memo on that, just like all the rest of your stereotyped gay misconceptions.
 
Last edited:

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
I agree with you generally speaking, but your fear-mongering, anti-gay spygate conspiracy theory is just garbage, IMO.

This seems a more emotional response instead of a calm, rational one.

My "fear-mongering, anti-gay spygate conspiracy theory" sure wasn't considered garbage in Nazi Germany, now was it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1993-051-07%2C_Tafel_mit_KZ-Kennzeichen_%28Winkel%29_retouched.jpg

Which triangle best describes you I wonder?


"This seems a more emotional response instead of a calm, rational one."
And you honestly expected a purely rational response to a gay marriage issue from someone like me who might be emotionally affected by it? Did you marry just for money or love? Because if you married just for money or financial reasons, I now understand completely why you said this.
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
Congratulations on your new-found equality and your long-running relationship. May you have every happiness together under lawful sanction.

Thank you! :cool:

But my state of Texas is a hotbed of irrational religious hate, so I don't expect any marriage satisfaction from it any time in the near future.
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
And for the marriage mentally deranged out there, like nehalem256, I think the gays would be more likely to marry something with good suction, like a vacuum cleaner.

And this has to be the most awesome brush attachment of all time, real horse hair! Not that I ever actually USED one or anything... (hides vacuum cleaner)

And you could hook the hose up to the opposite end of it, so it could suck and blow!

89305.jpg
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Thank you! :cool:

But my state of Texas is a hotbed of irrational religious hate, so I don't expect any marriage satisfaction from it any time in the near future.
Worth a trip out of state though for something so important. Although sadly, that makes it difficult to plan a traditional wedding with friends and family. If you want such you can always go out for a legal quickie marriage, then have a religious or civil ceremony at home.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
if the republican party was smart. Which I have my doubts. they just drop the issue, blame the S.C. and move on. Try to get some of the gays on their side with some fiscal issues.

But I doubt they are that smart.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
This is quite possibly the most stupid thread i have ever read on the internet and i've visited CARM.

Nehalem is clearly trolling like there is no tomorrow and everyone is arguing with him about him marrying his fucking toaster.

Just leave the poor twat alone, he's clearly insane.



Then what does that say about this:

Sen. Rand Paul says that humans will marry nonhumans without DOMA:


http://now.msn.com/rand-paul-says-without-doma-humans-will-marry-nonhumans
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,885
30,688
136
It's simple religious marriage is separate from civil marriage. I am married and I don't have any problem with same sex marriage. 2 gay people getting married doesn't effect or "cheapen" my marriage. Also frankly I don't care if more than 2 people want to get married to each other as long as all of them are fully consenting adults. Incest rules would still apply. Again, my marriage wouldn't be cheapened.

In all of this remember that nehalem256 is the same retard that argued being raped is the same as getting punched in the face because consent isn't a big deal. Still waiting for him to report back after being raped in the ass if it is the same as being punched.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
You know, something amusing just occurred to me.

Up until now I've been unwilling to join in Nehalem's argument about bestiality, but I can't help but wonder: Can't you just see the slogans on the protest posters? "We can kill them. We can eat them. We just can't love them."
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
You know, something amusing just occurred to me.

Up until now I've been unwilling to join in Nehalem's argument about bestiality, but I can't help but wonder: Can't you just see the slogans on the protest posters? "We can kill them. We can eat them. We just can't love them."

sure, slogans like that will appear.


not that it makes the hillbillies any wittier than they ever are.

....those folks are just jelly that society frowns upon their incest.