SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[JulesMaximus]

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.

That is a completely ridiculous argument. A dog cannot give consent to marry so why you would even bring that up in comparison is beyond me.

Regarding your earlier statement, why would you assume that gay couples just want to extort benefits from the government? That isn't why I got married so why would you assume that is the reason why gay couples will marry?

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

They want the same rights. Your question makes no sense.

Do you get a pat on the back for being hetero? Yes? Well, then so should they. Equal.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Its not an inference. Its a fact. Heterosexual couples are far more important to society, which is why they have been granted marriage for 1000s of years.

you are looking for someone to answer a fallacious argument

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

The fallacious argument is that if X doesn't affect you directly you should shut your mouth.

 

[nehalem256]

They want the same rights. Your question makes no sense.

The problem is the argument was there were no rights/benefits to marriage and that therefore they must be wanting to get married for some other reason.

 

[OrByte]

The fallacious argument is that if X doesn't affect you directly you should shut your mouth.

how is that a fallacious argument? can you please explain what you mean?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

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.

I'm confused. I'm pretty sure you can still file individual tax returns if you want to? Is "married filing separately" different from single?

And what do you mean you couldn't be living together either? How does that affect tax status?

 

[blankslate]

The government confers benefits to married couples... homosexual married couples should be treated that same as heterosexual married couple in terms of those benefits imo.

 

[nehalem256]

That is a completely ridiculous argument. A dog cannot give consent to marry so why you would even bring that up in comparison is beyond me.

The ridiculous idea is that whether a dog consents to something or not is relevant.

Regarding your earlier statement, why would you assume that gay couples just want to extort benefits from the government? That isn't why I got married so why would you assume that is the reason why gay couples will marry?

Probably because SSM supporters put up the argument that marriage is just a contract to get benefits from the government?

Also, based on what you said about your wife and marriage: "Gay people should be able to get married because they want to" seems like a pretty shitty argument.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Its not an inference. Its a fact. Heterosexual couples are far more important to society, which is why they have been granted marriage for 1000s of years.


The fallacious argument is that if X doesn't affect you directly you should shut your mouth.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that raising children in a loving two parent household is important for the child/children but there is no reason it couldn't be a loving same sex couple raising the child and certainly there have been examples of this.

In fact, I'm sure I disagree with that.

 

[nehalem256]

how is that a fallacious argument? can you please explain what you mean?

(1) It works equally well for marrying a dog.

(2) That argument can be applied to pretty much anything.

For example:

(1) If you are white you have no reason to complain about blacks being slaves since it doesn't affect you

(2) If you are not on food stamps you have no reason to complain about food stamps being cut since it doesn't affect you

(3) If you aren't in the military you have no reason to complain about going to war since it doesn't affect you

 

[zsdersw]

Its not an inference. Its a fact. Heterosexual couples are far more important to society,

There is nothing factual about that.

The fallacious argument is that if X doesn't affect you directly you should shut your mouth.

You're just butthurt that SSM is popular and becoming more popular, so much so that it is inevitable and coming to every state near you in the not-too-distant future.. so get dressed.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that raising children in a loving two parent household is important for the child/children but there is no reason it couldn't be a loving same sex couple raising the child and certainly there have been examples of this.

In fact, I'm sure I disagree with that.

Marriage isn't just about raising kids. It is about ensuring that kids aren't born to single moms who have a 5x increase in poverty.

 

[nehalem256]

There is nothing factual about that.

Even you stated that heterosexual couples were more important to society. Given that you stated they provide a benefit to society that homosexual couples cannot.

I see no reason to argue with you about the use of "far more".

 

[justoh]

The people opposing same sex marriages are either trolling or christian, the latter in rational thinking limbo, the former engaged in trying to provoke the obvious and predictable pro gay marriage arguments we are finding here, and yet people are still here arguing against christians and feeding trolls... yay is about all you can say.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Blind post

I bet he's talking about marrying dogs again.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

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.

Laws from the federal government naturally deals with people's interaction with the federal government. The fed give out benefits based on the marriage label, so that's what the laws deal with. Whatever other effects of marriage are none of the government's concern. I don't see a problem with this.

And whatever the government does should be done equally. The government goes not (and should not) give a crap about whatever you think marriage means.

This is all the problem of having no difference between marriage in a legal sense vs a social/religious/traditional sense. You're arguing different things.

 

[OrByte]

(1) It works equally well for marrying a dog.

(2) That argument can be applied to pretty much anything.

For example:

(1) If you are white you have no reason to complain about blacks being slaves since it doesn't affect you

(2) If you are not on food stamps you have no reason to complain about food stamps being cut since it doesn't affect you

(3) If you aren't in the military you have no reason to complain about going to war since it doesn't affect you

the argument itself is not a strong argument. But I'm looking to see how the argument itself is fallacious.

maybe you can explain? what fallacy are you referring to exactly?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Probably because SSM supporters put up the argument that marriage is just a contract to get benefits from the government?

Also, based on what you said about your wife and marriage: "Gay people should be able to get married because they want to" seems like a pretty shitty argument.

You are generalizing. That is one point and I'm sure one they used to make the argument that the law is unconstitutional in order to get it overturned. You can't say that's the reason why same sex couples want to marry.

And if you're going to quote me at least put something in the quotes that I actually said. Not sure where you were going with that second statement... :whiste:

 

[dank69]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that raising children in a loving two parent household is important for the child/children but there is no reason it couldn't be a loving same sex couple raising the child and certainly there have been examples of this.

In fact, I'm sure I disagree with that.

Nehalem is a master of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He doesn't even believe that. He repeatedly states both that he believes "the only reason hetero marriage is granted by governments is because they are beneficial to society" as well as "government should not grant benefits to any marriage because they are not beneficial to society."

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Even you stated that heterosexual couples were more important to society. Given that you stated they provide a benefit to society that homosexual couples cannot.

I see no reason to argue with you about the use of "far more".

So now you want the government to start deciding who's more beneficial to society, and who's "expendable"?
I can see this going great places..

 

[nehalem256]

Laws from the federal government naturally deals with people's interaction with the federal government. The fed give out benefits based on the marriage label, so that's what the laws deal with. Whatever other effects of marriage are none of the government's concern. I don't see a problem with this.

And whatever the government does should be done equally. The government goes not (and should not) give a crap about whatever you think marriage means.

This is all the problem of having no difference between marriage in a legal sense vs a social/religious/traditional sense. You're arguing different things.

If marriage means nothing than the government giving benefits to couples there is no reason for marriage to exist in a legal sense.

You haven't made an argument for SSM. You have made an argument against SSM and OSM.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Marriage isn't just about raising kids. It is about ensuring that kids aren't born to single moms who have a 5x increase in poverty.

How is marriage doing that? As far as I know there is no law that only married people can have kids? Or that married people have to have kids?

 

[zsdersw]

Even you stated that heterosexual couples were more important to society. Given that you stated they provide a benefit to society that homosexual couples cannot.

I see no reason to argue with you about the use of "far more".

Of course you don't, because you'd neuter your own argument.

I've got some great lube you can use on your ass... should take away that butthurt feeling.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Blind post

I bet he's talking about marrying dogs again.

He is... and it is ridiculous but he's pushing it as though it has any bearing on this whatsoever. Which it doesn't of course.

Personally, I'd bet he has a bestiality fetish.

 

[OrByte]

If marriage means nothing than the government giving benefits to couples there is no reason for marriage to exist in a legal sense.

You haven't made an argument for SSM. You have made an argument against SSM and OSM.

I dont think you can recognize what an argument actually is.