• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCOTUS struck down DOMA

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
 
WackyDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that why same-sex marriage isn't legal in say Japan or China? 😕
 
nehalem256 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
JulesMaximus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
So what is your issue with SSM?
Click to expand...
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.

soulcougher73 said:
Does it somehow affect you?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
nehalem256 said:
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?:colbert:

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.
Click to expand...
no one supports marrying a dog

thankfully the ssm issue has nothing to do with that.

are you dizzy from your spinning?
 
nehalem256 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
Wow, and you have the audacity to try using the word "strawman" against someone else's argument? Truly a lol moment.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a strawman argument, it was reductio ad absurdum.

EDIT: Wait, maybe it was a strawman... You are right, my bad...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top