SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[MiniDoom]

I'm happy for today's ruling however I wish I could witness the same level of activism on facebook and anywhere else in regards to 100% of america's right to privacy being trampled by the nsa.

 

[dank69]

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

Yes, SCOTUS was rendering a decision on a social case, not a legal case.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

Dogs can't consent, which is needed for a contract. Marriage is a contract. It is an invalid argument. Come on man.. you aren't even TRYING!

 

[shadow9d9]

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.



IF marriage is just a contract to get benefits.

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

Actually, it happened all the time. That was one of the benefits of marriage way back. There was no proof that a child was someone else's, so it stayed within the family.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

Why would the reasons be any different?

You seem to be under the assumption that heterosexual couples only get married because they love each other and that same sex couples only get married because of government handouts.

 

[zinfamous]

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

and you use japan and China as your argument?

How about we talk about the US? I know, deflect deflect.

You could always examine the funding and anti-same sex marriage crowds, and where these people come from, but that would kill your argument.

trolls hate it when they are wrong...

 

[nehalem256]

Dogs can't consent, which is needed for a contract. Marriage is a contract. It is an invalid argument. Come on man.. you aren't even TRYING!

16 year olds cannot consent to contracts either. But in some states they can get married with the consent of their guardian. Obviously the guardian(owner) of the dogs consents.

Don't worry no one will be marrying your dog without consent.

Also, marriage is not just a contract.

 

[Oldgamer]

I'm happy for today's ruling however I wish I could witness the same level of activism on facebook and anywhere else in regards to 100% of america's right to privacy being trampled by the nsa.

Oh on that, I completely agree with you

 

[zinfamous]

I'm happy for today's ruling however I wish I could witness the same level of activism on facebook and anywhere else in regards to 100% of america's right to privacy being trampled by the nsa.

well, that would be a bit silly considering Facebook users willingly and wantonly giving up much of their privacy every time they log in.

 

[shadow9d9]

DOMA was a Democratic Bill.

Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996.

So, no it wasn't.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

It is also the purpose of marriage. Which is why it is funny when people complain about marriage discriminating.

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.

Sounds to me like one branch understands what marriage is and one doesn't.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

DOMA was a Democratic Bill.

Sponsor Rep. Bob Barr [R-GA7]

117 cosponsors (103R, 13D, 1D)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280

... WAT?

 

[zinfamous]

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.

50 definitions?

really?

 

[dank69]

Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996.

So, no it wasn't.

Sponsor Rep. Bob Barr [R-GA7]

117 cosponsors (103R, 13D, 1D)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280

... WAT?

50 definitions?

really?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35189356&postcount=140

 

[zinfamous]

Sponsor Rep. Bob Barr [R-GA7]

117 cosponsors (103R, 13D, 1D)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280

... WAT?

oh you forget--Clinton signed it, therefore Democratic!

 

[shadow9d9]

16 year olds cannot consent to contracts either. But in some states they can get married with the consent of their guardian. Obviously the guardian(owner) of the dogs consents.

Don't worry no one will be marrying your dog without consent.

Also, marriage is not just a contract.

Actually, yes, marriage in the context we are speaking in, is about contracts. Humans on the cusp of being able to legally consent, in special cases, can still consent... and this is compared to dogs which at no point will ever be able to legally consent? Again, you are not even TRYING!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

oh you forget--Clinton signed it, therefore Democratic!

Yea, because it's not like it wasn't veto proof : p

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, yes, marriage in the context we are speaking in, is about contracts. Humans on the cusp of being able to legally consent, in special cases, can still consent... and this is compared to dogs which at no point will ever be able to legally consent? Again, you are not even TRYING!

No they cannot legally consent. Which is why the consent of their guardian is needed.

And I am still waiting for you to explain how allowing people to marry their dog would affect you...

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, yes, marriage in the context we are speaking in, is about contracts. Humans on the cusp of being able to legally consent, in special cases, can still consent... and this is compared to dogs which at no point will ever be able to legally consent? Again, you are not even TRYING!

And that consent from the minor is still required. Nehalem previously admitted that consent was not only required but a good thing. Because he suffers from some mental illness however he's gone back to square one for arguing this.

He won't ever stop, he will just keep babbling the same incoherent crap no matter how many times he is embarrassed. Speaking of dogs, what's strange is that they are trainable. Nehalem apparently is not.

 

[nehalem256]

Yea, because it's not like it wasn't veto proof : p

Republicans had a veto proof majority?

 

[Absolution75]

16 year olds cannot consent to contracts either. But in some states they can get married with the consent of their guardian. Obviously the guardian(owner) of the dogs consents.

Don't worry no one will be marrying your dog without consent.

Also, marriage is not just a contract.

The 16 year old would still need to consent to the marriage - their parents can't just marry them off because they want to.

 

[nehalem256]

And that consent from the minor is still required. Nehalem previously admitted that consent was not only required but a good thing. Because he suffers from some mental illness however he's gone back to square one for arguing this.

Actually I said it is not required for marriage.

But it is a good thing for society to require it for humans entering into a marriage

 

[GoPackGo]

Since the decision on Prop 8 still basically leaves it up to the states, do you think any state will try to ban gay marriage all things considered?

 

[nageov3t]

Sponsor Rep. Bob Barr [R-GA7]

117 cosponsors (103R, 13D, 1D)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280

... WAT?

it was bipartisan, although many people who voted in favor of it, including Bill Clinton himself, said in more recent years that they regret it.

 

[nehalem256]

The 16 year old would still need to consent to the marriage - their parents can't just marry them off because they want to.

What is your point? Legal consent is what is required for a contract. 16 year olds cannot legally consent.

You cannot do a lot of things to 16 year olds that you are allowed to do to animals.