SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[nehalem256]

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:

On why you got married:

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).

So as I said: "Gay people should be able to get married because they want to get married"... sounds like a pretty shitty argument.

 

[zsdersw]

Here's nehalem:

Exhibit A for "butthurt".

 

[shadow9d9]

On why you got married:


So as I said: "Gay people should be able to get married because they want to get married"... sounds like a pretty shitty argument.

Actually, it sounds pretty logical to me. If heteros can, then gays should be able to also.

 

[nehalem256]

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?

Traditionally and factually having bastard children was a big no no.

The same people who have no issue with bastard children are the ones pushing SSM. In short they don't believe in marriage.

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."

IF marriage is just a contract to get benefits.

As I view marriage as more than that there is no contradiction.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

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.

Say what? Government does require the legal marriage label to know who to give the benefits to. It's a convenient, traditional way to threat two people as a single entity for legal purposes, and as a special union with certain benefits (power of attorney etc).

Does this have to be called marriage? No. But it's just much easier to stick with that.

In a legal sense marriage only exists for the purpose of government and official benefits/privileges. Whatever you think of marriage means nothing for the government's legal definition.

 

[piasabird]

Sriking down DOMA is just going to create more problems. So much tax code depends on what marriage means and now we have 50 definitions or more of what marriage means. Now the tax codes will be all messed up. I think all tax code that depends on a marital status should be done away with. One tax for all.

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, it sounds pretty logical to me. If heteros can, then gays should be able to also.

If people can marry another people, then people should be able to marry dogs.

Come on now. The argument is complete shit.

Because someone wants to do something is not an argument that they should be able to.

 

[OrByte]

Actually, it sounds pretty logical to me. If heteros can, then gays should be able to also.

you are correct.

However, Nehalem is using yet ANOTHER fallacy (strawman) to characterize what it is that homosexual couples really want

they don't want to marry because they WANT to

they want their marriage recognized by the federal (and state) the same way hetero couples marriages are recognized.


Nehalem with yet ANOTHER fallacious argument. Did you go to school?

 

[halik]

I think polygamy will be next. No rational reason to oppose it anymore, just like there wasn't a rational reason to oppose SSM.

This.

 

[OrByte]

Because someone wants to do something is not an argument that they should be able to.

you have mischaracterized the argument...you have constructed ANOTHER fallacy

how many is that in just this one thread alone?

 

[Brainonska511]

Sriking down DOMA is just going to create more problems. So much tax code depends on what marriage means and now we have 50 definitions or more of what marriage means. Now the tax codes will be all messed up. I think all tax code that depends on a marital status should be done away with. One tax for all.

How will the tax code be messed up? If you're legally married now, all marriage provisions apply to you. If you're not legally married, those provisions do not apply to you.

Please point to where there are 50 different definitions of marriage to 'screw up the tax code'.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Traditionally and factually having bastard children was a big no no.

But not legally so how would this ruling change that?

The same people who have no issue with bastard children are the ones pushing SSM. In short they don't believe in marriage.

I "believe" in marriage as a legal definition that is incredibly useful, convenient and offers protection for a couple (inheritance, power of attorney, etc). It has nothing to do with bastard children.

So if not government benefits; what is your definition of marriage? What does it mean? What do you believe in?

 

[nehalem256]

you are correct.

However, Nehalem is using yet ANOTHER fallacy (strawman) to characterize what it is that homosexual couples really want

they don't want to marry because they WANT to

they want their marriage recognized by the federal (and state) the same way hetero couples marriages are recognized.


Nehalem with yet ANOTHER fallacious argument. Did you go to school?

That is a statement of what they want. Not a reason why they want it.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[JulesMaximus]

On why you got married:


So as I said: "Gay people should be able to get married because they want to get married"... sounds like a pretty shitty argument.

You said, "if there are no benefits to marriage, then why do same sex couples want it so much."

I never said what you quoted. I said that I got married because my wife wanted to. I was oversimplifying it of course... I married her because I love her and I wanted to give her what she wanted. That is why I got married.

The point I am laboring to make here is that I didn't get married because of government handouts and I don't see any reason to think that that is the reason why same sex couples want to marry either.

 

[dank69]

How will the tax code be messed up? If you're legally married now, all marriage provisions apply to you. If you're not legally married, those provisions do not apply to you.

Please point to where there are 50 different definitions of marriage to 'screw up the tax code'.

Don't bother with piasabird, he's just a kid with a bat, a ball and a football helmet.

 

[nehalem256]

But not legally so how would this ruling change that?

I "believe" in marriage as a legal definition that is incredibly useful, convenient and offers protection for a couple (inheritance, power of attorney, etc). It has nothing to do with bastard children.

Because it is impossible to enforce legally. As I said marriage is not just a legal contract. It has both legal and social components.

And why should your spouse be able to inherit you possessions tax free? Perhaps so your children don't starve.

 

[nehalem256]

You said, "if there are no benefits to marriage, then why do same sex couples want it so much."

I never said what you quoted. I said that I got married because my wife wanted to. I was oversimplifying it of course... I married her because I love her and I wanted to give her what she wanted. That is why I got married.

The "" quotes was changing what you said and applying it to gay couples. And showing what a shit argument for SSM it is.

The point I am laboring to make here is that I didn't get married because of government handouts and I don't see any reason to think that that is the reason why same sex couples want to marry either.

You appear to be confusing why an individual couple might specifically choose to get married. And why gay people in general want to get married.

 

[dank69]

Because it is impossible to enforce legally. As I said marriage is not just a legal contract. It has both legal and social components.

And why should your spouse be able to inherit you possessions tax free? Perhaps so your children don't starve.

Not in the eyes of the government.

 

[nehalem256]

Not in the eyes of the government.

Actually yes in the eyes of the government, which is why DOMA was passed.

 

[Corporate Thug]

nehalem256's head is about to explode: SCOTUS will be hearing In re Marriage of Dogs case next term.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually yes in the eyes of the government, which is why DOMA was passed.

DOMA was passed because a bunch of uptight Christians don't like gay people, and don't want them married.

 

[piasabird]

So now there are 50 definitions of marriage for the federal government to keep track of that are constantly changing. This will make things interesting. The solution should be to do away with all tax code that is based on a marital status. All that tax code is also discriminatory.

It seems to me that discrimination is the purpose of the Federal and State Tax Codes.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Actually yes in the eyes of the government, which is why DOMA was passed.

Yes, but another part of the government, the Judiciary, said it was illegal for Congress to pass it. See, that's how separation of powers works. When one branch fucks up, the other has to step in keep it in check.

 

[OrByte]

That is a statement of what they want. Not a reason why they want it.

Do you understand the difference?

around and around you go!!

spin it dude..you are fun to watch!

 

[piasabird]

DOMA was a Democratic Bill.