DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[WinterBorn]

Dancing with the star's has just found their first same sex dancing team. holy shit can yall keep this spin and duck going? A right is a right. period.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

The comment I posted (based on C Clayton Jones' comment) is not dancing. The basis for most lawsuits for gay marriage is that there is a constitutional right to equality.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

I'm not the one that's saying one group should have a right but restricting another group from that same right, you two dancing queens are.

Ok, as soon as someone comes out in favor of it, we will discuss it.

Are you calling for brothers and sisters to be able to marry?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

The comment I posted (based on C Clayton Jones' comment) is not dancing. The basis for most lawsuits for gay marriage is that there is a constitutional right to equality.

And the "Are people being arrested for it?" was not a dance around whether sodomy is illegal? You were shown the ruling of SCOTUS and what it meant. But you still danced.

I'm not the one that's saying one group should have a right but restricting another group from that same right, you two dancing queens are.

Ok, as soon as someone comes out in favor of it, we will discuss it.

Are you calling for brothers and sisters to be able to marry?

No I am not but I am also not being hypocritical as you two dancing queens are being.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not the one that's saying one group should have a right but restricting another group from that same right, you two dancing queens are.

Ok, as soon as someone comes out in favor of it, we will discuss it.

Are you calling for brothers and sisters to be able to marry?

No I am not but I am also not being hypocritical as you two dancing queens are being.

It’s been explained to you in the simplest terms possible, you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok, as soon as someone comes out in favor of it, we will discuss it.

Are you calling for brothers and sisters to be able to marry?

No I am not but I am also not being hypocritical as you two dancing queens are being.

It’s been explained to you in the simplest terms possible, you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding.

And it's been explained too you also in the simplest terms yyou are just too damn stupid too understand it.

 

[tererun]

DOMA is indicative of a much larger problem regarding the contract of marriage. The idea that marriage is something to be decided solely by the states neglects the fact that the contract has federal benefits in terms of protections and taxes. Marriage is a universal contract as per the federal government which follows you around from state to state. having different rules as per state really confuses the issue even for straight marriages.

In accordance with past supreme court rulings the marriage contract of one state was supposed to be honored by every other state to prevent the need to remarry as per the state you are in. If Ny does not respect florida's marriage contracts then you run into some real legal problems moving from state to state which is one of the things the present constitution tried to limit as opposed to the previous attempts to unite the states under a federal umbrella. Divorce, or the dissolving of the marriage contract, already faces huge differences depending on where you reside at the time.

If marriage is to be used as a federally recognized contract between two people then it needs to have stability across the entire umbrella of federal rule. This is the real problem of DOMA and the present varriance of states recognition of a federally supported contract.

For example. let us say I get married to someone of my gender in MA. Now i go to NC where they recently made a law saying the state does not recognize our union. That is nice, but i may already have things like joint bank accounts, mutually owned property, wills, children, and whatever else comes along with the marriage partnership. How does the state of NC now separate 2 people who were legally joined in another state? For instance our car is owned by both of us, but now who has legal responsibility to insure it? Who has legal responsibility for maintaining the car? Who is responsible to the bank? I am driving through NC and get into an accident and all of a sudden the person who can make medical decisions for me might be thousands of miles away instead of right next to me like I had planned.

DoMA gave the states way too much authority to dissolve partnerships which had universal needs across the US. BTW DOMA doesn't limit the states to do this only to gays as far as i have seen. Differences in age could also make trouble with the marriage contract for states which allow marriage at different times. before they had to respect the contract, but now they are told they do not have to.

here comes the major problem with all the arguments against gay marriage. The state is only interested in the marriage contract which is the joining of legal and financial assets and responsibilities by the two people getting married. the state does this for the legal purposes of establishing and dissolving partnerships under a constant legal precedent to protect both parties. It has nothing to do with god at all. the state cannot tell a straight person they cannot engage in a partnership with another consenting adult. The church can say your marriage counts or doesn't in the eyes of god, but the state has no say on whether or not the church is willing to marry you. Some churches wont marry a divorced person and still recognize their previous marriage as valid, but the state allows the dissolve of that partnership at the request of the partners. So all the gay marriage bans and DOMA do not actually ban a gay couple from being married in the eyes of god. they only stop them from entering into a legal marriage contract. So for all the effort the goal of stopping gays from being "married" in the eyes of god is never accomplished and can't be accomplished as per the constitution.

So DOMA should be thrown out because it muddles up the marriage contract from state to state and allows for situations where a permanent contract would become invalid depending on the location in the country. In other words, if a gay couple had a stipulation of fidelity in their marriage contract, they could cheat without penalty in states that did not respect the contract they entered into willingly.

So throw this stupid shit out. It doesn't do what it was meant to do. marriage needs to be federally protected if it is going to apply federally. This just fucks shit up, and doesn't work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

DOMA is indicative of a much larger problem regarding the contract of marriage. The idea that marriage is something to be decided solely by the states neglects the fact that the contract has federal benefits in terms of protections and taxes. Marriage is a universal contract as per the federal government which follows you around from state to state. having different rules as per state really confuses the issue even for straight marriages.

In accordance with past supreme court rulings the marriage contract of one state was supposed to be honored by every other state to prevent the need to remarry as per the state you are in. If Ny does not respect florida's marriage contracts then you run into some real legal problems moving from state to state which is one of the things the present constitution tried to limit as opposed to the previous attempts to unite the states under a federal umbrella. Divorce, or the dissolving of the marriage contract, already faces huge differences depending on where you reside at the time.

If marriage is to be used as a federally recognized contract between two people then it needs to have stability across the entire umbrella of federal rule. This is the real problem of DOMA and the present varriance of states recognition of a federally supported contract.

For example. let us say I get married to someone of my gender in MA. Now i go to NC where they recently made a law saying the state does not recognize our union. That is nice, but i may already have things like joint bank accounts, mutually owned property, wills, children, and whatever else comes along with the marriage partnership. How does the state of NC now separate 2 people who were legally joined in another state? For instance our car is owned by both of us, but now who has legal responsibility to insure it? Who has legal responsibility for maintaining the car? Who is responsible to the bank? I am driving through NC and get into an accident and all of a sudden the person who can make medical decisions for me might be thousands of miles away instead of right next to me like I had planned.

DoMA gave the states way too much authority to dissolve partnerships which had universal needs across the US. BTW DOMA doesn't limit the states to do this only to gays as far as i have seen. Differences in age could also make trouble with the marriage contract for states which allow marriage at different times. before they had to respect the contract, but now they are told they do not have to.

here comes the major problem with all the arguments against gay marriage. The state is only interested in the marriage contract which is the joining of legal and financial assets and responsibilities by the two people getting married. the state does this for the legal purposes of establishing and dissolving partnerships under a constant legal precedent to protect both parties. It has nothing to do with god at all. the state cannot tell a straight person they cannot engage in a partnership with another consenting adult. The church can say your marriage counts or doesn't in the eyes of god, but the state has no say on whether or not the church is willing to marry you. Some churches wont marry a divorced person and still recognize their previous marriage as valid, but the state allows the dissolve of that partnership at the request of the partners. So all the gay marriage bans and DOMA do not actually ban a gay couple from being married in the eyes of god. they only stop them from entering into a legal marriage contract. So for all the effort the goal of stopping gays from being "married" in the eyes of god is never accomplished and can't be accomplished as per the constitution.

So DOMA should be thrown out because it muddles up the marriage contract from state to state and allows for situations where a permanent contract would become invalid depending on the location in the country. In other words, if a gay couple had a stipulation of fidelity in their marriage contract, they could cheat without penalty in states that did not respect the contract they entered into willingly.

So throw this stupid shit out. It doesn't do what it was meant to do. marriage needs to be federally protected if it is going to apply federally. This just fucks shit up, and doesn't work.

Good luck getting a Constitutional amendment. It ain't happening.

 

[tererun]

Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

That was not even an argument. It is like saying I want to make it legal to murder people because I want to let people have guns. the two things are separate ideas which are not interrelated at the level you try and imply. You can very easily legalize the partnership of 2 consenting adults to include those of the same gender without altering the line of consent or legality of things that are abusive or biologically dangerous.

 

[tererun]

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married.

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Actually, we can and do. There is the ability to consent idea which keeps children from being allowed to enter into contracts like marriage. There are things like drinking laws where we do it. Animals obviously cannot consent as per the legal definition so they cannot be married. Yes, you could say that incestual relationships would lead to babies wioth birth defects so doing so would be wrong and abusive.

Still none of this is related to two consenting adults joining in a legal partnership.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sodomy and same-sex relations are legal. End of story.

Both heteros and homos sexually assault people, including children. That is illegal.

bigreb has a massive fail on this issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess we will argue that when gay marriage is made legal and some brother & sister try to get married.

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Actually, we can and do. There is the ability to consent idea which keeps children from being allowed to enter into contracts like marriage. There are things like drinking laws where we do it. Animals obviously cannot consent as per the legal definition so they cannot be married. Yes, you could say that incestual relationships would lead to babies wioth birth defects so doing so would be wrong and abusive.

Still none of this is related to two consenting adults joining in a legal partnership.

A 21 years old Brother and a 20 years old sister can't be consenting adults? I realize you're dizzy for the gay love but stop being hypocritical.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pointless, and a sad attempt at manipulation using an idea that does not exist. Gays are not seeking to make anything other than gay marriage legal. You do not need to make incest legal to make gay marriage legal. if you want to make an argument to marry your sister or brother than please make it in a new place.

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

That was not even an argument. It is like saying I want to make it legal to murder people because I want to let people have guns. the two things are separate ideas which are not interrelated at the level you try and imply. You can very easily legalize the partnership of 2 consenting adults to include those of the same gender without altering the line of consent or legality of things that are abusive or biologically dangerous.

Dingy no it's not. Brothers and sisters can't be consenting adults?

 

[bodecea]

What's pointless about it? one group is given a right all group are also entitled to the same rights.

That was not even an argument. It is like saying I want to make it legal to murder people because I want to let people have guns. the two things are separate ideas which are not interrelated at the level you try and imply. You can very easily legalize the partnership of 2 consenting adults to include those of the same gender without altering the line of consent or legality of things that are abusive or biologically dangerous.

Dingy no it's not. Brothers and sisters can't be consenting adults?

Ah...I see where you are going with this.

 

[WinterBorn]

You can't give a certain group a special right without including all groups. It would be a violation of their rights if same sex marriage is a right.

Actually, we can and do. There is the ability to consent idea which keeps children from being allowed to enter into contracts like marriage. There are things like drinking laws where we do it. Animals obviously cannot consent as per the legal definition so they cannot be married. Yes, you could say that incestual relationships would lead to babies wioth birth defects so doing so would be wrong and abusive.

Still none of this is related to two consenting adults joining in a legal partnership.

A 21 years old Brother and a 20 years old sister can't be consenting adults? I realize you're dizzy for the gay love but stop being hypocritical.

We aren't dizzy for gay love. We're dizzy for equality. Perhaps you have heard of the concept?

 

[WinterBorn]

That was not even an argument. It is like saying I want to make it legal to murder people because I want to let people have guns. the two things are separate ideas which are not interrelated at the level you try and imply. You can very easily legalize the partnership of 2 consenting adults to include those of the same gender without altering the line of consent or legality of things that are abusive or biologically dangerous.

Dingy no it's not. Brothers and sisters can't be consenting adults?

Ah...I see where you are going with this.

He has lost every other phase of this argument, so he latches onto a topics for diversion.

 

[Article 15]

Why are you guys wasting your time so deeply engaging this mush-brained moron?

 

[bodecea]

Dingy no it's not. Brothers and sisters can't be consenting adults?

Ah...I see where you are going with this.

He has lost every other phase of this argument, so he latches onto a topics for diversion.

I don't think this part is diversion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are you guys wasting your time so deeply engaging this mush-brained moron?

Drep boy has arrived.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, we can and do. There is the ability to consent idea which keeps children from being allowed to enter into contracts like marriage. There are things like drinking laws where we do it. Animals obviously cannot consent as per the legal definition so they cannot be married. Yes, you could say that incestual relationships would lead to babies wioth birth defects so doing so would be wrong and abusive.

Still none of this is related to two consenting adults joining in a legal partnership.

A 21 years old Brother and a 20 years old sister can't be consenting adults? I realize you're dizzy for the gay love but stop being hypocritical.

We aren't dizzy for gay love. We're dizzy for equality. Perhaps you have heard of the concept?

Yes you are you are dizzy for gay love. Because if it was for equality you dick suckers would not be against brothers and sister who may want to marry. It has nothing to do will rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dingy no it's not. Brothers and sisters can't be consenting adults?

Ah...I see where you are going with this.

He has lost every other phase of this argument, so he latches onto a topics for diversion.

Not on your life dick sucker not on your life. You have yet to prove that the supreme court has made any ruling on same sex marriages as a right. You argue against allowing one group the right to marriage when you are arguing for another group to have the right too marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

A 21 years old Brother and a 20 years old sister can't be consenting adults? I realize you're dizzy for the gay love but stop being hypocritical.

We aren't dizzy for gay love. We're dizzy for equality. Perhaps you have heard of the concept?

Yes you are you are dizzy for gay love. Because if it was for equality you dick suckers would not be against brothers and sister who may want to marry. It has nothing to do will rights.

Hey retard, can you read at all? The reasons have been stated and I have not seen anyone say they were for or against incest. What they have said is that it is a separate topic or they have given explanations for why is it not the same thing.

So stop lying and stay on topic. Can you manage that?