SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[dawp]

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.

if I wanted to marry a set of identical twins/triplets, would that still be incest?

 

[Retro Rob]

"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.

I was talking about your emotional rant about "religiotards" and your new found "holier than thou" attitude since you got want you wanted. Absent from gay threads all this time, and now you feel the need to call people retarded because of the ruling? Not surprised.

Now, I have no problem with gay people at all, but they've really tricked people into thinking they're the innocent persecuted minority. Have we quickly forgotten all the bastard children gay men have with straight women because they were "closet" gays and instead of taking responsibility for their lies to their kids and former wives, they blame "us" for "forcing" them into hiding? We forced you to marry a woman, have kids, then leave them for your new found love?

I have a co-worker so mad at his daughter's ex-fiancé because he waited till the day of their wedding to tell her he was "gay", and to no surprise, she was heartbroken because he called the wedding off. He lied for 3 years to her.

Some time ago, I posted an article on here that showed some statistics, from the CDC IIRC, that 40% of new HIV cases are cause by gay men and their reckless and promiscuous lifestyle -- so before we all go falling over ourselves and praising gay marriage and calling more conservative people "religiotards", look at how you've done harm to you fellow man, and all the lies and hurt you've cause.

I didn't want to bring this up, but I refuse to be unfairly bashed (directly or indirectly) when your "kind" have done its share of harm and hurt to people.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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."

Of fucking course you can love animals but you cannot enter into contracts with them.

This is the entire point of legal recognition. If you want to marry your cat or your toaster or what the fuck ever it is you retards are going to come up with next then you're free to do so but unless the fucking thing can legally consent it's not going to be legally recognized.

Holy hell, sometimes people are looking for any excuse to condemn SSM and out goes every coherent thought and every ounce of logic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Now, I have no problem with gay people at all, but they've really tricked people into thinking they're the innocent persecuted minority. Have we quickly forgotten all the bastard children gay men have with straight women because they were "closet" gays and instead of taking responsibility for their lies to their kids and former wives, they blame "us" for "forcing" them into hiding? We forced you to marry a woman, have kids, then leave them for your new found love?

No one is innocent as a group.

Name one group in which every member is innocent in all aspects. Does this mean that no group can ever be persecuted? How about Christians in Iraq? Obviously they are not all innocent in all aspects so they shouldn't pretend to be an innocent persecuted minority.

I'd like to see your facts on how common this is before you mention it again, numbers or shut the fuck up.

You're also missing the point entirely with your gay AIDS rant. If anything marriage would LOWER promiscuity, don't you think?

Don't be daft, the only reason you dislike SSM is because you have a religion which you believe tells you to go around judging others and condemning them.

 

[soulcougher73]

I was talking about your emotional rant about "religiotards" and your new found "holier than thou" attitude since you got want you wanted. Absent from gay threads all this time, and now you feel the need to call people retarded because of the ruling? Not surprised.

Now, I have no problem with gay people at all, but they've really tricked people into thinking they're the innocent persecuted minority. Have we quickly forgotten all the bastard children gay men have with straight women because they were "closet" gays and instead of taking responsibility for their lies to their kids and former wives, they blame "us" for "forcing" them into hiding? We forced you to marry a woman, have kids, then leave them for your new found love?

I have a co-worker so mad at his daughter's ex-fiancé because he waited till the day of their wedding to tell her he was "gay", and to no surprise, she was heartbroken because he called the wedding off. He lied for 3 years to her.

Some time ago, I posted an article on here that showed some statistics, from the CDC IIRC, that 40% of new HIV cases are cause by gay men and their reckless and promiscuous lifestyle -- so before we all go falling over ourselves and praising gay marriage and calling more conservative people "religiotards", look at how you've done harm to you fellow man, and all the lies and hurt you've cause.

I didn't want to bring this up, but I refuse to be unfairly bashed (directly or indirectly) when your "kind" have done its share of harm and hurt to people.

Maybe if your "kind" hadnt been persecuting and discriminating against gays for centuries they wouldnt have to try and hide it? You caused it by being bigots.

"Live and let live" MF'er. Learn it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Maybe if your "kind" hadnt been persecuting and discriminating against gays for centuries they wouldnt have to try and hide it? You caused it by being bigots.

"Live and let live" MF'er. Learn it.

That rich, and I didn't expect you to stoop to this level of blame shifting.

So we're the blame for gays leaving women standing at the church, or for their bastard children, or their contribution to HIV cases -- we forced them to do that? Really?

John --

This isn't a gay AIDS rant, nor about Christian persecution, its about a group of people, or one person in this thread, who feels the need to castigate "religiotards". In fact, I never mentioned AIDS, but again, thanks for your daily contribution of lying, John... you never disappoint.

 

[soulcougher73]

That rich, and I didn't expect you to stoop to this level of blame shifting.

So we're the blame for gays leaving women standing at the church, or for their bastard children, or their contribution to HIV cases -- we forced them to do that? Really?

John --

This isn't a gay AIDS rant, nor about Christian persecution, its about a group of people, or one person in this thread, who feels the need to castigate "religiotards". In fact, I never mentioned AIDS, but again, thanks for your daily contribution of lying, John... you never disappoint.

Yeah you pretty much did force these things to happen because you couldnt live and let live. You had to force your fucked up moral beliefs you read in a book onto the world stage and discriminated, killed and persecuted gays for centuries all because your little book said its icky.

Try some role reversal and see how it would feel. If it wasnt for christanity gays would have been freely accepted members of society long ago as they should have been.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah you pretty much did force these things to happen because you couldnt live and let live. You had to force your fucked up moral beliefs you read in a book onto the world stage and discriminated, killed and persecuted gays for centuries all because your little book said its icky.

Try some role reversal and see how it would feel. If it wasnt for christanity gays would have been freely accepted members of society long ago as they should have been.

You sound really stupid. I can't make you (generic) propose to a woman, fake like you want to marry her, have sex with her, make kids, leave her husband less, your kids father-less -- why am I not paying child support if its my fault?

Why not send me the medical bills of those with HIV? Take us to court and see how far you get.

 

[soulcougher73]

You sound really stupid. I can't make you (generic) propose to a woman, fake like you want to marry her, have sex with her, make kids, leave her husband less, your kids father-less -- why am I not paying child support if its my fault?

Why not send me the medical bills of those with HIV? Take us to court and see how far you get.

Yeah..im the one who sounds stupid LOL

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah..im the one who sounds stupid LOL

Thanks for admitting that!

This is why we need to live and let live on both sides -- there is plenty dirt that can be dug up on both gays and "religiotards".

"First, remove the rafter from your own eye..."

 

[soulcougher73]

Thanks for admitting that!

This is why we need to live and let live on both sides -- there is plenty dirt that can be dug up on both gays and "religiotards".

"First, remove the rafter from your own eye..."

So how about you stop coming into any thread about SSM, not agreeing with it but at the same time saying you are ok with it. Pick a side for once.

Well unless you just like people to be discriminated against even though it doesnt affect you personally. And that is one shitty stance to have.

SSM doesnt affect me either as im hetro as can be and married. But i dont like to see other humans discrimated against. So i argue and fight for their rights to not be so.

 

[Retro Rob]

So how about you stop coming into any thread about SSM, not agreeing with it but at the same time saying you are ok with it. Pick a side for once.

I don't agree with it, but not to the point of trying to ban it. If it's allowed, then so be it. I won't fight against it. Big distinction.

Well unless you just like people to be discriminated against even though it doesnt affect you personally. And that is one shitty stance to have.

You say let gays marry if it "doesn't affect you peronally", so your stance can be equally as crappy in my eyes. So?

But that's not my stance at all...

SSM doesnt affect me either as im hetro as can be and married. But i dont like to see other humans discrimated against. So i argue and fight for their rights to not be so.

True, but I am not an advocate of gay marriage, so why would I fight for it? I personally think its wrong, period, so instead of betryaing my personal values, I don't fight for gays at all. At the same time, I am not fighting to stop it either -- I am deciding to let lawmakers and protesters do what they do without me participating.

 

[Bird222]

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.




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



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

And the benefits hinge upon reproduction.

You obviously haven't had a health class. Government doesn't need to encourage reproduction with legal marriage. Mother nature has got this well covered with this very pleasurable thing called sex. Whether marriage exists or not people are still going to make more people. You do know that sterile people get married right? I am so tired of people trying to use procreation as a reason for OSM. DAMN!

 

[soulcougher73]

True, but I am not an advocate of gay marriage, so why would I fight for it? I personally think its wrong, period, so instead of betryaing my personal values, I don't fight for gays at all. At the same time, I am not fighting to stop it either -- I am deciding to let lawmakers and protesters do what they do with me participating.

So you are a fence rider. But at least I know you are antigay now. I also find it icky only in the sense I'm hetro and to think of a guy in that way doesn't float my boat.

But I see the discrimination and with my live and let live mentality I can't just sit by and let it continue.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you are a fence rider. But at least I know you are antigay now. I also find it icky only in the sense I'm hetro and to think of a guy in that way doesn't float my boat.

But I see the discrimination and with my live and let live mentality I can't just sit by and let it continue.

Fence rider? Did I not say I think it's wrong? Just because I refuse to get into mudslinging protest, I'm a fence rider?

I don't mind giving my opinion, though, in places like this. If I'm anti-gay, then I may as well be anti-violence, anti-greed, anti-abuse since I have disagreement with those too.

 

[justoh]

It's not your opinion though. It's "god's"

 

[Atreus21]

Of fucking course you can love animals but you cannot enter into contracts with them.

This is the entire point of legal recognition. If you want to marry your cat or your toaster or what the fuck ever it is you retards are going to come up with next then you're free to do so but unless the fucking thing can legally consent it's not going to be legally recognized.

Holy hell, sometimes people are looking for any excuse to condemn SSM and out goes every coherent thought and every ounce of logic.

I'm not so much interested in condemning SSM as gleaning exactly what limits, if any, SSM proponents think should exist on marriage.

Like I said, we can kill them and eat them. But enter into a contract with them? That, dammit, is a step too far.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not so much interested in condemning SSM as gleaning exactly what limits, if any, SSM proponents think should exist on marriage.

Like I said, we can kill them and eat them. But enter into a contract with them? That, dammit, is a step too far.

First, a fundamental requirement of entering into a contract is understanding what a contract is and what your rights and obligations are under it. If you are aware of any animals that are capable of this, please let me know.

Entirely outside of the fundamental absurdity of what you're saying, you realize that the reason why we can kill and eat animals and the reason why we don't enter into contracts with them are highly related, right? Why do you think that might be?

 

[Atreus21]

First, a fundamental requirement of entering into a contract is understanding what a contract is and what your rights and obligations are under it. If you are aware of any animals that are capable of this, please let me know.

Don't be so interspecies-phobic.

Yes, consent to enter into a contract is paramount.

Consent to whether or not to be killied? Unimportant.

Bear in mind I'm doing this mostly as satire. If an interspecies marriage movement ever arises, I'd wager this is the approach they'd use.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't be so interspecies-phobic.

Yes, consent to enter into a contract is paramount.

Consent to whether or not to be killied? Unimportant.

Bear in mind I'm doing this mostly as satire. If an interspecies marriage movement ever arises, I'd wager this is the approach they'd use.

Which is of course why I mentioned that the reason why animals can't enter contracts and why we can kill them are actually closely related.

There are all sorts of strange things with how we treat animals. For example, having sex with an animal is considered a form of animal abuse, but killing animals and eating them is not. That's pretty hilariously inconsistent.

 

[surfsatwerk]

And I come back to this thread and people are still posting about marrying dogs.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't agree with it, but not to the point of trying to ban it. If it's allowed, then so be it. I won't fight against it. Big distinction.

You say let gays marry if it "doesn't affect you peronally", so your stance can be equally as crappy in my eyes. So?

But that's not my stance at all...


True, but I am not an advocate of gay marriage, so why would I fight for it? I personally think its wrong, period, so instead of betryaing my personal values, I don't fight for gays at all. At the same time, I am not fighting to stop it either -- I am deciding to let lawmakers and protesters do what they do without me participating.

Kudos. I can't speak for others, but I respect that. I've long said that about religion. I'm not religious but I have no issue with religion per se. People are welcome to whatever religious beliefs they want ... as long as they don't try to impose them on others. The same principle applies to homosexuality, other sexual behaviors (e.g., "kink"), race, abortion, entertainment, etc. People are free to like what they like and believe what they will, as long as they don't try to force or restrict others based on their beliefs.

I respect that Rob has his personal opinion on SSM but is not trying to control others.

 

[OrByte]

I'm not so much interested in condemning SSM as gleaning exactly what limits, if any, SSM proponents think should exist on marriage.

Like I said, we can kill them and eat them. But enter into a contract with them? That, dammit, is a step too far.

why do proponents of ssm have to establish "limits" in order to satisfy your "interest"?

isn't it enough for ssm proponents to want ssm without having to implement jurisdiction or
"limits" on marriage in its entirety?

We've never had to implement "limits" before right?

I'm heterosexual, and I find your slippery slope argument offensive.

 

[Atreus21]

why do proponents of ssm have to establish "limits" in order to satisfy your "interest".

Because if they don't, they might just as well be arguing to legalize polygamy or intra-family marriage. The arguments are interchangeable.

And if they do, then they're no less bigoted against polygamists than I am against SSM.

isn't it enough for ssm proponents to want ssm without having to implement jurisdiction or
"limits" on marriage in its entirety?

We've never had to implement "limits" before right?

I'm heterosexual, and I find your slippery slope argument offensive.

Marriage has always been an exclusive institution. Some relationships qualify and others don't.

It seems to me that the principal argument favoring gay marriage, as paraphrased by Justice Kennedy, has served to attack the very idea of exclusivity since it implies inequality. If this is so, then not only should every type of relationship qualify (under pain of being called bigoted), but the institution of marriage is rendered essentially meaningless.

Eskimo resolves this by conceding that all relationships save for interspecies relationships should qualify. I wonder if most democrats would support the idea of reaffirming polygamy and sibling marriage?

 

[nageov3t]

what's wrong with legalizing polygamy or, hell, marrying your toaster?

if all parties are capable of consent, knock yourselves out.