SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[JulesMaximus]

I'm happy with this decision. I can see no reason whatsoever why gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

I did not support Prop 8 and I voted no on it as did my wife. Considering it barely passed I'm very pleased to see it struck down. I suspect that any further attempts to pass a law like this would fail today.

 

[nehalem256]

Still waiting for the list of benefits i can extort. Apparently im doing my marriage wrong.

If there are no benefits to marriage why do same-sex couples want it so much?

But here you are:

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

 

[nehalem256]

They wish to enforce their moral code derived from their religion onto everyone regardless of the "separation of church and state" clause. That clause it seems only applies to the church when the state is messing with them.

Is that why same-sex marriage isn't legal in say Japan or China?

 

[JulesMaximus]

If there are no benefits to marriage why do same-sex couples want it so much?

But here you are:

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

My wife wanted it. Quite honestly, from a tax perspective anyway, it would be more beneficial if we were not married (of course we couldn't be living together either).

I'm fine with being married and have been married to the same woman for almost 22 years. This ruling doesn't affect me or my marriage in the least.

 

[soulcougher73]

Is that why same-sex marriage isn't legal in say Japan or China?

So you are wanting us to stay on the same level as those countries and not progress and lead by example?

 

[nehalem256]

So you are wanting us to stay on the same level as those countries and not progress and lead by example?

I am saying that opposition to SSM being based on religion is a tired lie.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm fine with being married and have been married to the same woman for almost 22 years. This ruling doesn't affect me or my marriage in the least.

When has any opponent of SSM ever made that claim?

By your logic every white abolitionist was in the wrong since owning black people as slaves did not affect them in the

 

[soulcougher73]

When has any opponent of SSM ever made that claim?

By your logic every white abolitionist was in the wrong since owning black people as slaves did not affect them in the

So what is your issue with SSM? Does it somehow affect you?

 

[nehalem256]

So what is your issue with SSM?

The issue is that I believe marriage to be more than a contract to extort benefits from the government.

Opposing SSM is a natural consequence of that.

Does it somehow affect you?

The same logic would apply to every white abolitionist. Were they in the wrong?

EDIT: And the same "Does it somehow affect you" logic applies equally well to marrying a dog. Somehow I don't think you would support people marrying dogs.

 

[OrByte]

I am saying that opposition to SSM being based on religion is a tired lie.

and by saying that you would be wrong.

 

[nageov3t]

I wonder how much of this thread will be devoted towards responding to a troll.

 

[OrByte]

The issue is that I believe marriage to be more than a contract to extort benefits from the government.

Opposing SSM is a natural consequence of that.



The same logic would apply to every white abolitionist. Were they in the wrong?

EDIT: And the same "Does it somehow affect you" logic applies equally well to marrying a dog. Somehow I don't think you would support people marrying dogs.

no one supports marrying a dog

thankfully the ssm issue has nothing to do with that.

are you dizzy from your spinning?

 

[zsdersw]

The issue is that I believe marriage to be more than a contract to extort benefits from the government.

Opposing SSM is a natural consequence of that.

Opposition to SSM is a minority view and becoming a smaller minority as the years go by.

Too bad, so sad, you lost. Get over it.

 

[nehalem256]

no one supports marrying a dog

Why not? If someone wants to marry a dog how does it affect you?

 

[OrByte]

Why not? If someone wants to marry a dog how does it affect you?

wrong questions...

edit: red herring fallacy

 

[shadow9d9]

Tell that to the Washington Florist being sued by the state AG...

When did I ever say it was about changing my marriage? That is a liberal created strawman.

It is about perverting marriage to be nothing more than a contract to extort benefits from the government. The existence of such an idea being an obvious absurdity.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. If you can't serve all people because of your beliefs, you shouldn't choose that field. That has nothing to do with legalization of anything or marriage at all.

 

[shadow9d9]

If there are no benefits to marriage why do same-sex couples want it so much?

But here you are:

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

The idea of being treated equally.

 

[shadow9d9]

Why not? If someone wants to marry a dog how does it affect you?

2 consenting adults vs one member that couldn't consent... brilliant!

 

[nehalem256]

The idea of being treated equally.

And how is that different than wanting the benefits?

Unless by "treated equally" you mean they want a pat on the back for being gay.

 

[nehalem256]

2 consenting adults vs one member that couldn't consent... brilliant!

That isn't an answer to how you are affected

 

[OrByte]

That isn't an answer to how you are affected

you are looking for someone to answer a fallacious argument

your argument is broken...in a very fallacious way

 

[BlueWolf47]

I think everyone knew this was coming. Doma discriminated against one group of people inferring that heterosexual couples are superior to sam-sex couples. Im sure there will soon be a challenge to states that give special benefits to only heterosexual couples.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why not? If someone wants to marry a dog how does it affect you?

Wow, and you have the audacity to try using the word "strawman" against someone else's argument? Truly a lol moment.

 

[dank69]

Wow, and you have the audacity to try using the word "strawman" against someone else's argument? Truly a lol moment.

That wasn't a strawman argument, it was reductio ad absurdum.

EDIT: Wait, maybe it was a strawman... You are right, my bad...

 

[shadow9d9]

That isn't an answer to how you are affected

I'm not. You still need consent for a contract.