TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[MrPickins]

You're grasping at straws here...

"each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them."

So creating a legal obligation from a man to dog would fulfill it.

"And note even if you exclude the dog; a man and the government are still 2 parties"

You appear to have ignored this.

Also note that non-human entities sign contracts all the time. Ever hear of a corporation? In which the owner(or their designated agent) enters into a contract. If an entity that doesn't even have corporeal form can fulfill legal obligations how much easier for a dog?

Marriage involves reciprocal legal obligations. Can an inanimate object reciprocate a legal obligation? Can an animal?

Also, the government is not a participant in the marriage contract, more like an impartial third party. I ignored the point because it was not relevant.

Going by the fact that below you move the bar to "showing the great benefit of human-animal marriage" it would appear that answering with a question caused you to drop that line of reasoning...

Haven't dropped it; still want an answer (which you have twice avoided providing). What justification do you have to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, a right to which heterosexuals have enjoyment?

which is sensible. because as I pointed out if your standard for disallowing a marriage is "It doesn't cause harm to other people" then there is no more reason to disallow human-animal marriage than SSM.



Again. Where is the great benefit in allowing same-sex marriage to society? Note that society has got along just fine for 2000 years without it.

I've attended or participated in several "civil ceremonies" and have seen the joy of two people making a commitment to each other, regardless of gender. Allowing millions of Americans the ability to not only do this, but for their unions be recognized, can only spread happiness. That is the root of the American Dream right? The pursuit of happiness? (Again I am compelled to ask: how would allowing gays to marry diminish your personal happiness?)

I've also seen the harm done to my friends whose commitment to each other is not legally recognized. From simple things like higher income taxes due to the inability to file jointly, to huge things like the inability to visit one's partner in the emergency room because the rule is "family only". Why would you not lessen the hardship of millions of Americans?

I don't know why your mindset is as it is, but it's obvious you don't know (edit: or care) a thing about the people you discuss.

 

[nehalem256]

It makes people happy.

And that argument applies equally to human-dog marriage

You failed to answer the question: why do you get to say whether people can do whatever the want in the privacy of their own home? If two men or two women want to marry, LET THEM. Why the hell is this country so backwards?

Are you for the sodomy laws in Texas? Hint: they pre-date same sex couples.

I am not deciding what 2 people can do in their home. Marriage is about society recognizing people's relationships. If you DEMAND society recognize your relationships it is not a private matter.

As for sodomy laws let people do what they want in the privacy of their homes. I dont care. Marriage is however not a private matter.

 

[nehalem256]

You're grasping at straws here...

Marriage involves reciprocal legal obligations. Can an inanimate object reciprocate a legal obligation? Can an animal?

Nope. Only your bigoted definition of marriage requires that.

Also, the government is not a participant in the marriage contract, more like an impartial third party. I ignored the point because it was not relevant.

Hahahaha. It very much is a participant. In fact there is recent Supreme Court case of a woman complaining that the government failed to give her the same rights as straight couples.

Haven't dropped it; still want an answer (which you have twice avoided providing). What justification do you have to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, a right to which heterosexuals have enjoyment?

I've attended or participated in several "civil ceremonies" and have seen the joy of two people making a commitment to each other, regardless of gender. Allowing millions of Americans the ability to not only do this, but for their unions be recognized, can only spread happiness. That is the root of the American Dream right? The pursuit of happiness? (Again I am compelled to ask: how would allowing gays to marry diminish your personal happiness?)

I've attended or participated in several "civil ceremonies" and have seen the joy of a person and a dog making a commitment to each other, regardless of species. Allowing thousands of Americans the ability to not only do this, but for their unions be recognized, can only spread happiness. That is the root of the American Dream right? The pursuit of happiness? (Again I am compelled to ask: how would allowing dog lovers to marry diminish your personal happiness?)

With very few substitutions what you said applies equally to human-dog marriages...

I've also seen the harm done to my friends whose commitment to each other is not legally recognized. From simple things like higher income taxes due to the inability to file jointly, to huge things like the inability to visit one's partner in the emergency room because the rule is "family only". Why would you not lessen the hardship of millions of Americans?

I don't know why your mindset is as it is, but it's obvious you don't know (edit: or care) a thing about the people you discuss.

So again how does SSM benefit society? That was the question. Not what "swag" do gay couples want.

Also, what part of what you said would not apply to human-dog marriages. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same lower taxes. Why should a man be able to have his dog-wife visit him in the ER? Why do you not want to lessen the hardship of millions of americans?

 

[MrPickins]

You refuse to answer a single question, so I'm done with you.

Have fun with your hyperbole and slippery slopes. :thumbsdown:

 

[RampantAndroid]

And that argument applies equally to human-dog marriage



I am not deciding what 2 people can do in their home. Marriage is about society recognizing people's relationships. If you DEMAND society recognize your relationships it is not a private matter.

As for sodomy laws let people do what they want in the privacy of their homes. I dont care. Marriage is however not a private matter.

Except this thread IS NOT about it being recognized. It's about a judge saying the two CANNOT be home together past 9. If you support that, then you ARE saying what people can do in their own fucking home.

As for man - dog, it is not the same, unless you've seen a dog that can consent to a relationship and is sentient. You have no god damned idea what that dog wants. A dog is a living thing that cannot talk, cannot say a damned thing. Two women or two men saying "I love you, let's get married" is ABSOLUTELY about consent. More than that, it's about judges NOT being allowed to separate two women (or two men) simply because they're in a relationship with kids around. It's about the tax benefits given to heterosexual couples that are denied to SSDPs and such.

Stop trying to misdirect. Go live your life however you want to, and let people live their lives how they want to within reason.

And for the record: I'm NOT gay, I find the idea of being with another man truly disgusting, and frankly have historically been against gay marriage. I just finally came to the realization that I'm a full on libertarian; I want people to leave me do my things (shoot guns at the range or in the woods, maybe smoke weed...legal in my state now, drive whatever car I want and so on. It's only fair to say the same to other people: don't take my guns, let me have my fun with them since my "fun" isn't shooting other people...and you can have your fun with your relationship. This is absolutely about maturity, and you ass backwards republicans need to get this idea that YOU can decide who other people can have relationships out of your fucking heads.

 

[zsdersw]

Nope. Only your bigoted definition of marriage requires that.

Then propose making changes that eliminate that requirement. Once again, you're just doing what everyone knows you're doing: talking out of your ass (seems to be the only orifice from which words come out of you).

 

[nehalem256]

Except this thread IS NOT about it being recognized. It's about a judge saying the two CANNOT be home together past 9. If you support that, then you ARE saying what people can do in their own fucking home.

The thread is about whether someone should be held to an obligation in a contract.

As for man - dog, it is not the same, unless you've seen a dog that can consent to a relationship and is sentient. You have no god damned idea what that dog wants. A dog is a living thing that cannot talk, cannot say a damned thing. Two women or two men saying "I love you, let's get married" is ABSOLUTELY about consent. More than that, it's about judges NOT being allowed to separate two women (or two men) simply because they're in a relationship with kids around. It's about the tax benefits given to heterosexual couples that are denied to SSDPs and such.

(1) Except in Canada

(2) Its ironic that liberals are saying that dogs can't get married because they can't sign contracts when they apparently, based on this case, think Lesbians can't sign contracts (at least ones that have are upheld in court) either

Stop trying to misdirect. Go live your life however you want to, and let people live their lives how they want to within reason.

And for the record: I'm NOT gay, I find the idea of being with another man truly disgusting, and frankly have historically been against gay marriage. I just finally came to the realization that I'm a full on libertarian; I want people to leave me do my things (shoot guns at the range or in the woods, maybe smoke weed...legal in my state now, drive whatever car I want and so on. It's only fair to say the same to other people: don't take my guns, let me have my fun with them since my "fun" isn't shooting other people...and you can have your fun with your relationship. This is absolutely about maturity, and you ass backwards republicans need to get this idea that YOU can decide who other people can have relationships out of your fucking heads.

A full on libertarian should oppose the "special" recognition of relationships by the government. So you should be opposing SSM and opposite sex marriage.

Government recognized marriage is about the government intruding on people's relationships. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

This is about certain people demanding that other people(through the government) recognize their relationship as special and then throwing a fit that they won't

 

[nehalem256]

You refuse to answer a single question, so I'm done with you.

Have fun with your hyperbole and slippery slopes. :thumbsdown:

I did answer your questions. You just don't like the answers because they reveal how stupid your questions are.

You want special government recognition of certain relationships. I don't need to show why you don't deserve special privileges. The idea is ludicrous. It is your job to show why they should have special privileges.

You have failed to show why the government should grant special privileges to gay relationships. "because gays want to get married" or "because straights can" are horrible answers. As should be evidenced by the fact that they apply equally to human-dog marriages as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I did answer your questions. You just don't like the answers because they reveal how stupid your questions are.

You want special government recognition of certain relationships. I don't need to show why you don't deserve special privileges. The idea is ludicrous. It is your job to show why they should have special privileges.

You have failed to show why the government should grant special privileges to gay relationships. "because gays want to get married" or "because straights can" are horrible answers. As should be evidenced by the fact that they apply equally to human-dog marriages as well.

What would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

 

[nehalem256]

What would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

Wrong about what?

(1) That marriage is about recognizing certain relationships as special?

(2) That when conservatives and liberals talk about marriage they are really referring to completely different things?

(3) That all of the arguments for SSM work equally well human-dog marriage?

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong about what?

(1) That marriage is about recognizing certain relationships as special?

(2) That when conservatives and liberals talk about marriage they are really referring to completely different things?

(3) That all of the arguments for SSM work equally well human-dog marriage?

What would it take for you to admit that you're wrong about #3?

 

[nehalem256]

What would it take for you to admit that you're wrong about #3?

Well for starters you would need an argument for SSM that could not be used for human-dog marriage with obvious word replacements.

 

[fskimospy]

Well for starters you would need an argument for SSM that could not be used for human-dog marriage with obvious word replacements.

Please be more specific. Can you lay out exactly what you want others to provide that would make you admit to being wrong? Be exact.

 

[MrPickins]

I did answer your questions. You just don't like the answers because they reveal how stupid your questions are.

Show me where you answered this question:

In either case, how does the right for gays to marry each other in any way harm you or anyone else? And if there is no harm done (and such great benefit to be gained), why would you prohibit it?

And I don't mean by responding to another question or by saying you don't have to answer it.

And for the record: I'm NOT gay, I find the idea of being with another man truly disgusting, and frankly have historically been against gay marriage. I just finally came to the realization that I'm a full on libertarian; I want people to leave me do my things (shoot guns at the range or in the woods, maybe smoke weed...legal in my state now, drive whatever car I want and so on. It's only fair to say the same to other people: don't take my guns, let me have my fun with them since my "fun" isn't shooting other people...and you can have your fun with your relationship. This is absolutely about maturity, and you ass backwards republicans need to get this idea that YOU can decide who other people can have relationships out of your fucking heads.

This pretty much describes my view on the topic.This whole view that marriage is for "special" people only is asinine. As long as it harms nobody, there is no justification for prohibiting it.

People like nehalem256 act like it would negatively impact their lives somehow, but never really explain how.

It's ok, though. In 25 years we'll all get to laugh at the arguments he's presented.

 

[MrPickins]

Please be more specific. Can you lay out exactly what you want others to provide that would make you admit to being wrong? Be exact.

Don't bother. He obviously doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't bother. He obviously doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum.

For a good time you should look up some of his other amazing opinions on here. He has said that police should be able to arrest women and forcibly abort their children, among other gems. He has pretty serious problems with gay people and women.

 

[nehalem256]

This pretty much describes my view on the topic.This whole view that marriage is for "special" people only is asinine.

I didn't say special people. I said marriage is about society recognizing a relationships as special.

As long as it harms nobody, there is no justification for prohibiting it.

So as I said there is no justification in prohibiting human-dog marriage as it harms nobody. :hmm:

Now for the damage of SSM:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/douthat-marriage-looks-different-now.html?_r=0

Frum defended what was then the consensus conservative (and consensus national) position. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, he argued, would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation, that it had evolved to address. In so doing, it would replace a traditional view of matrimony with a broader, thinner, more adult-centric view, which would ultimately be less likely to bind parents to children, husbands to wives.

“Proponents of gay marriage can only get what they want,” Frum wrote, “by weakening Americans’ attachment to the traditional family even more than it has already been weakened,” and speeding the “process of social dissolution” that the 1960s and 1970s began.

Also, you statement implies that marriage is inherently between 2 people and that society "just decided" for 2000+ years to deny it to gay couples...

BS. Marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. Society just saw no reason to extend it to gay couples, because it makes no more sense than extending it to human-dog couples. As you are the one arguing for changing the definition of marriage it is on you to tell me what benefit is derived by changing, not on me to tell you why we shouldn't.

see: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34927156&postcount=145 by me

 

[nehalem256]

For a good time you should look up some of his other amazing opinions on here. He has said that police should be able to arrest women and forcibly abort their children, among other gems. He has pretty serious problems with gay people and women.

You can't abort a child idiot

 

[MrPickins]

So as I said there is no justification in prohibiting human-dog marriage as it harms nobody. :hmm:

That's not an answer, that's a deflection.

This time I mean it; I'm done with you. You're not worth my time.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not an answer, that's a deflection.

Its not a deflection. If you argument works just as well for supporting human-dog marriage as it does for SSM then it is a stupid argument.

This time I mean it; I'm done with you. You're not worth my time.

You apparently missed the quote from the NYTs which directly addresses you question on the damage of SSM.

 

[zsdersw]

It's ok, though. In 25 years we'll all get to laugh at the arguments he's presented.

I'd say 20 years or less.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say 20 years or less.

Wait, you guys aren't laughing now?

 

[nehalem256]

It's ok, though. In 25 years we'll all get to laugh at the arguments he's presented.

I assume you mean we will be laughing when the first human-dog marriage happens and we all see how right I am...

 

[zsdersw]

I assume you mean we will be laughing when the first human-dog marriage happens and we all see how right I am...

Assumptions are the mothers of all fuck-ups, and you're an Exhibit-A fuck-up.

 

[nehalem256]

Assumptions are the mothers of all fuck-ups, and you're an Exhibit-A fuck-up.

The only argument the left has against human-dog marriage is "THATS not marriage D:"

Love is love man. Why are you trying to prohibit relationships that don't hurt anyone?