SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[Atreus21]

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.

I sure hope it remains inconsistent.

 

[fskimospy]

I sure hope it remains inconsistent.

Well that's fine, but if you are considering the prohibition of entering a contract with an animal vs the ability to kill one an inconsistency that is a problem I hardly see how the situation I outlined is any less of one, yet my guess would be that you eat meat of some sort.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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.

*shakes head*

You have to be trolling but i'm going to give you one last chance to get this.

How, pray tell is anyone forbidding them to enter into a contract? The point is that they cannot legally consent which is REQUIRED to enter into a legal contract.

IF they actually HAD the capability to legally consent then we COULDN'T kill and eat them either.

Your question is incoherent and a red herring.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

Thanks.

However, some SSM proponents think its impossible for them to be bigoted. Well, Websters define it has "intolerantly being devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices".

Johnofsheffield, and I'm calling him out, has probably nothing but anti-religious bones in his body, and stubbornly and vehemently voices his hate and opposition at every corner.

Sure, bigotry is tied with prejudice, not exclusively. A totally rational person can be bigoted if he refuses to change his opinion about people. By defintion, anyone holding religion in constant contempt and derision is a pure, unadulterated, bigot.

 

[OrByte]

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.



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?

But proponents for ssm are not advocating for marriage equality for people that wish to marry animals or inanimate objects or multiple people.

that is the critical point...and neither should they have to.

If someone wishes for that type of marriage, let them take it to whatever court they need to in order to get that right/recognition...and go through the same proceedings that ssm proponents had to go through.

ssm advocates are only looking for ssm rights and recognition...to conflate ssm with any other type of possible marriage in existence is stupid and it is NOT a valid argument against ssm. Whenever I read this type of argument I cannot help but think that the people using this rationale are bigots pure and simple. It is irational thinking/reasoning.

edit: here I will make it simple

a valid hypothetical argument against ssm is that people that enter into ssm marriages end up exploding and killing everyone within a 15 mile radius. Therefore ssm should be illegal.

an invalid argument against ssm is when people say that ss partners shouldn't get married because that means my neighbor down the street may soon get the right to marry his 3 daughters.

do you see the difference?

There is no link between ssm and polygamy. There is no link between ssm and human-animal marriage. The rights to do any of the above are not linked...period.Therefore, why should ssm advocates have to answer such ridiculous questions in order to satisfy your "interest" in the matter? That is a logic trap designed to conflate ssm with something that is generally and almost universally viewed as distasteful and abhorrent (animal love or toaster love)

 

[xj0hnx]

I didnt. If I want to marry my toaster, and Bob wants to marry his toaster why shouldn't we as consenting adults be able to?

It is truly amazing how ridiculously obtuse you are. You can substitute "3 year old child" for toaster, and your "argument" doesn't change. The toaster, which is the other party in your marriage, is not a consenting adult, just like a 3 year old child, or a dog are not consenting adults.

 

[soulcougher73]

What is it about religious people that think the rule the US and get to make all the rules? Just because your beliefs say gays are icky doesnt mean you get to make law off of that. If gays bother you then dont be gay or dont hang out with them. Problem solved. But dont tell them what they can and cannot do based on some god they may/may not believe in.

Same as i would never tell religious people they cant practice whatever religion they want. You are free to be as delusioned as you want. I dont like religion, so im not religous. See how that works. I kept my beliefs to myself. I dont go around trying to tell people to not be religious and i would never try to force it via the laws of the land.

Their are lots of things i dont like but i would never tell other people they cannot do these things, UNLESS what they are doing is infringing on my rights or others rights.

It seems most christians forgot what principles this country was founded on.

 

[Atreus21]

Well that's fine, but if you are considering the prohibition of entering a contract with an animal vs the ability to kill one an inconsistency that is a problem I hardly see how the situation I outlined is any less of one, yet my guess would be that you eat meat of some sort.

Hale yes I eat meat. I just don't marry it.

...

I think I need sleep.

 

[nehalem256]

It is truly amazing how ridiculously obtuse you are. You can substitute "3 year old child" for toaster, and your "argument" doesn't change. The toaster, which is the other party in your marriage, is not a consenting adult, just like a 3 year old child, or a dog are not consenting adults.

You mean except for a 3 year old child being a person?

To make clear the difference consider the legal consequences of sticking your penis in a toaster vs. a 3 year old...

If you stick your dick in a toaster are you a rapist?

 

[nehalem256]

Same as i would never tell religious people they cant practice whatever religion they want. You are free to be as delusioned as you want. I dont like religion, so im not religous. See how that works. I kept my beliefs to myself. I dont go around trying to tell people to not be religious and i would never try to force it via the laws of the land.

You mean unless you are running a flowershop and don't want to service SS weddings. Then forcing your beliefs on others is a-okay.

 

[soulcougher73]

You mean unless you are running a flowershop and don't want to service SS weddings. Then forcing your beliefs on others is a-okay.

Correct because that is discrimination as the rest of us understand, which is illegal. This isn't rocket science numbnuts.

 

[nehalem256]

Correct because that is discrimination as the rest of us understand, which is illegal. This isn't rocket science numbnuts.

There are lots of forms of discrimination that are legal.

This is a form of discrimination that liberals made illegal to force their values on others.

This isn't rocket science

 

[brycejones]

You mean except for a 3 year old child being a person?

To make clear the difference consider the legal consequences of sticking your penis in a toaster vs. a 3 year old...

If you stick your dick in a toaster are you a rapist?

God you are retarded. You have managed to make incorruptible look like a genius. Please do us all a favor and have sex with your toaster while its turned on. Then give your car a blow job while it is running.

 

[nehalem256]

God you are retarded. You have managed to make incorruptible look like a genius. Please do us all a favor and have sex with your toaster while its turned on. Then give your car a blow job while it is running.

I am not the one who is confused why marrying a person without consent is different than marrying a toaster without consent.

Sorry if your liberal comrades are that dumb and needed to have the difference clearly spelled out for them.

 

[xj0hnx]

You mean except for a 3 year old child being a person?

To make clear the difference consider the legal consequences of sticking your penis in a toaster vs. a 3 year old...

If you stick your dick in a toaster are you a rapist?

You are officially the most stupid person on this forum, and that says a LOT.

It has nothing to do with sticking your dick in anything, it's about you not being able to comprehend what a consenting adult is, and that neither a 3 year old, or a toaster are.

 

[nehalem256]

You are officially the most stupid person on this forum, and that says a LOT.

It has nothing to do with sticking your dick in anything, it's about you not being able to comprehend what a consenting adult is, and that neither a 3 year old, or a toaster are.

Except "consenting adult hahaha" is not the standard set forth by the constitution in determining rights. It is no different than saying "man and a woman hahaha".

The state needs a compelling interest to take away your rights. there is a clear compelling interest with the 3 year old, but not with the toaster.

Because *gasp* toasters and 3 year olds are clearly different as outlined in the rape example.

 

[CrackRabbit]

You are officially the most stupid person on this forum, and that says a LOT.

It has nothing to do with sticking your dick in anything, it's about you not being able to comprehend what a consenting adult is, and that neither a 3 year old, or a toaster are.

Actually it has a lot to do with sticking is wang in a toaster, it's the only way he can claim he is getting some hot slot.

 

[frowertr]

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

I have no dog in this fight so I could care less either way. But I just wonder if we don't like a law and we can go get what we want by getting a judge (or judges) to change it, what is the point of laws in the first place?

 

[Retro Rob]

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

I have no dog in this fight so I could care less either way. But I just wonder if we don't like a law and we can go get what we want by getting a judge (or judges) to change it, what is the point of laws in the first place?

In before the "if the majority ruled, there would be no interracial marriage" fallacy.

Thunder stolen!

 

[lopri]

It's puzzling why every time an issue related to same-sex marriage is brought up it devolves into a discussion as to what marriage "is." This case isn't about whether same-sex couple should have the right to marry. This case about married couple who are gay. In other words, they are already married under valid State laws. Question raised was whether the Federal government can treat married couples under State laws differently depending on their sex/sexual orientation. (thus treating same State marriage licenses differently)

So whether same-sex couple should have the right to marry doesn't come into this debate, at least on its face, for these 12 States have already resolved the question in the affirmative. For those who scream "State's Rights" at every chance they get, this distinction should be even clearer.

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

I have no dog in this fight so I could care less either way. But I just wonder if we don't like a law and we can go get what we want by getting a judge (or judges) to change it, what is the point of laws in the first place?

That is a valid concern I share, with qualifications. The Kennedy's majority opinion is not just messy - its attitude borders on a decree of judicial supremacy.

 

[bradly1101]

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

That would leave other oppressive laws on the books like Jim Crow laws.

The city I grew up in didn't take a 'if you're black and don't live here, you can only pass through, not stop' law off the books until the '70's (Torrance, CA).

The Court prevents overreach that results in discrimination.

 

[Whiskey16]

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

You do not comprehend your own government, do you?

It may be just and fairly so, in a constitutional democracy, as the SCOTUS just reminded you folk.

A tyranny of the majority as per elected representation or plebiscite may not "easily" enact at will. A court may negate unconstitutional laws.

But I just wonder if we don't like a law and we can go get what we want by getting a judge (or judges) to change it, what is the point of laws in the first place?

Rather perversely, at more local levels in many regions of the USA, the tyranny of a majority can in fact attempt to pervert law via the election of campaigning judges and police officials. Historically and into some more recent events, this has helped retain legal corruption and prejudicial practices against denigrated groups in society.

Such populous corruption, far too long deterred the fair and legal practice of fundamental multiple scenarios of human rights as per your centuries old
constitution. Considering the rather despicable practices maintained well past an acceptable expiry date, it remains shocking that such a document and later amendments were passed. Says a lot about legislative confusion brought with warfare. Lucky. Yet in social and even legal practice shrugging off many of those ideals and legal rights, shamefully tardy.

Upon issues of civil rights, the USA continues to demonstrate its generally proven tardiness in morally catching up to the much of the rest of the more developed world who are often well ahead in the practice of human rights. It's a sad social status that it takes civil warfare, enforcement via executive powers, or courts to enact what other societies more readily implement through representative legislation. The general precedents are that the USA is detrimentally socially conservative, harming segments of its population, and this grossly retards the social maturity to adequately achieve civil rights already well practiced and accepted elsewhere.

 

[frowertr]

Yeah, judges can't be corrupted or bought...

 

[dawp]

it's more likely to happen with elected judges than appointed ones.

 

[soulcougher73]

What's the point of crafting and enacting laws by people we elect to office if they can simply be overturned by the courts?

I have no dog in this fight so I could care less either way. But I just wonder if we don't like a law and we can go get what we want by getting a judge (or judges) to change it, what is the point of laws in the first place?

Really? I weep for humanity.