and DOMA is...

[spartacus1984]

The fact is, there are reasons for those being wrong that have nothing to do with their abnormality.

what reasons?

 

[spartacus1984]

There are reasons why that is wrong outside of it not being normal.

what reasons?

And we don't and won't use this argument to justify any and all behavior.

but that is what you do and will do. this is just the beginning of the descent.

 

[super animator]

Are you being obtuse intentionally?

 

[GenetoJean]

what reasons?

Something should harm another person before it is against the law.

but that is what you do and will do. this is just the beginning of the descent.

As a part of the LGBT community, I say no we wont.

 

[KitKatMatt]

what reasons?

If you don't know those reasons, I'd be scared of letting you outside.

 

[Paulos23]

Are you being obtuse intentionally?

It is his way.

 

[Belk]

Oh yay. Spartacusbot is back.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

tell that to rapist and child molester.

Dear God in Heaven, please hear my plea. Please inform some people that there are actions in which people can be HURT and actions which result in no harm.

Something that two adults freely consenting to do is NOT the same as "rape" or "child molestation".

By this ridiculous metric I assume that some people can't differentiate between MURDER and washing dishes.

They are both "actions".

because you can and will you this argument to justify any and all behavior, this is just the beginning of the descent.

Here's where the DESCENT starts: people who can't think beyond their ability to pile together and make false equivocations between the depths of their depraved imagination and something they simply don't like.

That's the "descent". And the pious and religious have been leading is down this path for far too long.

Gay marriage won't hurt your marriage! If it does then the problem is IN YOUR MARRIAGE.

What gay marriage REALLY poses as a problem is that it makes some people feel icky and even though they won't have to take part in it, they want to make sure NO ONE ELSE does.

I don't like eating bananas (in any orifice), so is it reasonable for me to DEMAND THAT YOU NOT BE ALLOWED TO EAT BANANAS too?

That's the descent. SCOTUS today helped us as Americans take small and timid steps up OUT of this hole the pious have lead us into.

 

[imbadatmakingusernames]

because sticking banana's in your ear (what an analogy, just say anal sex) isn't mainstream, doesn't mean it is abnormal.

anyways straight people have anal sex, and their marriage is legal. and the LGBT population didn't vote on it.

 

[Cearbhall]

if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

I understood what you were attempting (poorly) to convey when you applied this to people of different orientations, but now you've lost me.

CF should change their registration bit too, where you choose your status and remove the "Marriage is defined etc" now that the obsolete act is outta here :3

Yes, a more accurate statement would be "Marriage here refers to the definition that most Christian churches use." You can't even say "the Christian definition" and be correct, since there are churches that perform same-sex ceremonies.

 

[Cute Tink]

what reasons?

Harm.

but that is what you do and will do. this is just the beginning of the descent.

Prove that I have done it or you are libelling me. You cannot even state that I will do it. You assume I will and you don't know enough about me to assume anything.

 

[craigerNY]

OK guys look sparticus has been using the banana in the ear euphemism for years in numerous threads. It is exactly what you think it is. If you wouldn't stick a banana in your ear why would you stick a ...

Finish it yourselves. It was once thought that sparticus is a bot. What ever it is it hasn't been active like it used to be but it looks like now we are going through another flare-up as long as we are dropping euphemisms.

Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Cearbhall]

OK guys look sparticus has been using the banana in the ear euphemism for years in numerous threads. It is exactly what you think it is. If you wouldn't stick a bana in your ear why would you stick a ...

Finish it yourselves. It was once thought that sparticus is a bot. What ever it is it hasn't been active like it used to be but it looks like now we are going through another flare-up as long as we are dropping euphemisms.

Take it for what it's worth.

Yes, and he seems to think that he wins the conversation by making such an ingenious comparison. xD He refuses to explain the connection between the fact that anuses were not designed to be penetrated with his opinion that same-sex marriage should be illegal. We tried ignoring him, but it's almost more fun to see how long he can hold a conversation without actually offering anything.

 

[Maren]

Does the motive matter? What matters is the written law and what the written law accomplishes, not the motivation for the written law. The motivation for the law isn't law. The text of the law is the law, the text of the law regulates behavior, creates privileges, and has results, effects, but not the motivation for the law. The fact is section 3 of DOMA was written for federal tax laws and regulations and not for any state laws, state taxes, or state regulations. Relying upon the motivation for the law is a very poor reason to rule against a law. The motivation for the law has no effect but the law itself has results and it is the law itself which is paramount, not the motivations for passage of the law.

The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact. DOMA section 3 defined the meaning of marriage for federal law and only for federal law, leaving the states complete and absolute discretion to define marriage under state law.

Actually, your last paragraph isn't actually true, to the point Massachusetts was suing the federal government over DOMA Section 3. You have to remember, the state actually administers several federal programs, such as welfare and social security. As such, it was an issue for Massachusetts as they had to have to different classifications of marriage in their database (married per state law only and married per federal law) to determine eligibility for various benefits. With the Supreme Court overturning DOMA Section 3, Massachusetts can go back to only having one class of married couples and offer the same benefits to all married couples.

 

[Tenebrae]

Sorry to dissapoint you

We've had the equivalent of gay marriage in NZ for over 8 years

Amount of people who have married their animals: 0
Amount of people who have married any animal: 0
Amount of people who have married their son, daughter, or any other family member: 0

Dont let the facts get in the way of the hysteria though

For all conservatives who still believe Union and Equality is the answer, this should be proof of it's total and utter failure. I can't wait for marriages involving polygamy, incest, animals, etc. It will just provide more evidence of it's failure.

 

[Hetta]

Sorry to dissapoint you

We've had the equivalent of gay marriage in NZ for over 8 years

Amount of people who have married their animals: 0
Amount of people who have married any animal: 0
Amount of people who have married their son, daughter, or any other family member: 0

Dont let the facts get in the way of the hysteria though

Thank you.

 

[mandelduke]

Yeah, the next hurricane is sure to be labelled "the wrath of God". <eye roll>

No doubt

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry to dissapoint you

We've had the equivalent of gay marriage in NZ for over 8 years

Amount of people who have married their animals: 0
Amount of people who have married any animal: 0
Amount of people who have married their son, daughter, or any other family member: 0

Dont let the facts get in the way of the hysteria though

Exactly.

 

[Skaloop]

Sorry to dissapoint you

We've had the equivalent of gay marriage in NZ for over 8 years

Amount of people who have married their animals: 0
Amount of people who have married any animal: 0
Amount of people who have married their son, daughter, or any other family member: 0

Dont let the facts get in the way of the hysteria though

We've had gay marriage in Canada for about the same amount of time, and that stuff is happening everywhere! Just the other month there was a report of a guy who married his dog, had a daughter with that dog, and then married his human/dog daughter as his second wife.

True story.

 

[Hetta]

We've had gay marriage in Canada for about the same amount of time, and that stuff is happening everywhere! Just the other month there was a report of a guy who married his dog, had a daughter with that dog, and then married his human/dog daughter as his second wife.

True story.

And they went wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way down that slippery slope.