If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   All you need to know about the seven cases the Supreme Court has on its menu for gay-marriage day   (motherjones.com) divider line 325
    More: Interesting, California Supreme Court, personnel management, Lambda Legal, domestic partners, Office of Personnel Management, US House of Representatives, California Constitution, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

10827 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



325 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 11:49:39 AM

Serious Black: My guess is SCOTUS will take up DOMA since it's ludicrous to have a federal law be unenforceable in parts of the country but enforceable in others.


They'll probably pick up the DOMA cases because they go to the constitutionality of a federal statute, really don't have all that much to do with expanding marriage rights (after all, these states already have gay marriage) and have federal tax uniformity issues, which is IMPORTANT.

The Prop 8 case really isn't all that interesting from a SCt standpoint because it's purely a california issue inapplicable to the rest of the country, has a crappy factual record at the trial court (could the prop 8 proponents have picked a worse, more stupid, "expert" who basically concedes all the issues on cross-examination), and really falls directly within Supreme Court precedent (romer v evans).
 
2012-11-30 11:50:24 AM

Luminaro: Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!


Is there a certain stickiness in your tighty-whities, as well?
 
2012-11-30 11:51:45 AM
Yes, government, please tell me that if I get married in my church that does gay marriage, the federal government shouldn't recognize it, but they should recognize the marriages in the churches it endorses.
 
2012-11-30 11:52:34 AM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 14: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
 
2012-11-30 11:52:45 AM

Serious Black: Notabunny: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

mbillips: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.

They do vote based on personal belief, and the current Court is weighted towards people who believe in personal liberties, which is why more or less this same court finally and definitively overturned any and all sodomy laws.

I honestly can't envision Kennedy or Roberts voting in favor of DOMA.

I'll one-up you here. I can't imagine Clarence Thomas voting in favor of DOMA.

That's quite a statement. Thomas is such a far-right extremist.

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?


- This isn't a states rights issue.
- He voted to uphold sodomy laws. He was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision which found the Texas law violated the equal protection clause. That's the clause at the heart of Prop 8.
- In Romer vs. Evans, Thomas sided with Scalia's and Rehnquist's position that State laws should not protect gay rights saying, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." And he called the decision is an "unsupported victory for homosexual activist," saying Colorado constitutional provision was merely a "rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."
 
2012-11-30 11:53:44 AM

a_bilge_monkey: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50

So you're saying we dodged a bullet by not electing a Republican to the Whitehouse?

/threadjack


I'm saying that if we're farked it's not because of teh gays.
 
2012-11-30 11:54:06 AM
can we just let the gay people get married and concentrate on economic issues?

This is ridiculous. We already know gay people are going to sodomize each other. Anti-sodomy laws have already been ruled to be unconstitutional. So we've already got gay people living together and doing unspeakable things to each other, let's just allow them to get a piece of paper which grants them the same rights as any self-respecting Baptist couple who never had sex before they got married.

This should not even be a political issue - it shouldn't be an issue at all. If your religion says homosexuality is a sin, that's fine, but keep it in your church. I have not heard any rational argument against gay marriage ever. Let's legalize it and move on. We should have more important things to worry about besides who is farking who and whether they have a piece of paper from the government.
 
2012-11-30 11:54:39 AM

qorkfiend: I can sort of understand deductions for dependents. The existence or nonexistence of the tax credit probably won't change anyone's decision on whether or not to have children, but not having the credit means less money in the family's pocket, and raising children is expensive.


I'm not saying get rid of tax credits, social programs, etc, for low income families that need them. I just mean the general across the board deduction for the general middle soccor mom SUV driving middle class family. It doesn't benefit our society any longer to pay people to have children. Though i admit that in the 1800's it probably did.
 
2012-11-30 11:56:49 AM

BarkingUnicorn: fracto: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50


So the TeaParty is full of Sodomites on rascal scooters?

Most people assume that the Sodomites' gang-rape of visiting angels was a homosexual act. But angels aren't men. :-)



That story has always bothered me. My questions are usually 'So your saying God is OK with gang rape as long as it isn't homosexual?' and 'They guy offering up his daughters is a good thing?'.

People have some farked up priorities.
 
2012-11-30 11:57:08 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: qorkfiend: I can sort of understand deductions for dependents. The existence or nonexistence of the tax credit probably won't change anyone's decision on whether or not to have children, but not having the credit means less money in the family's pocket, and raising children is expensive.

I'm not saying get rid of tax credits, social programs, etc, for low income families that need them. I just mean the general across the board deduction for the general middle soccor mom SUV driving middle class family. It doesn't benefit our society any longer to pay people to have children. Though i admit that in the 1800's it probably did.


I don't recall the "soccer mom" check box deduction on my tax forms. What specifically are you talking about? There is a dependent deduction, is that what you mean?
 
2012-11-30 11:59:36 AM
You know what would be great? Having the same right to bring my foreign partner to the US that a straight person would have to make a home here together. Is that really too much to ask, America? A little taste of the equal rights, please sir?
 
2012-11-30 12:01:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I'm saying that if we're farked it's not because of teh gays.


I got that. I called my comment a threadjack because it points out Republican thought re: immigration, so called entitlements, coded racism and the like. Them in power would effectively make us guilty of the sins of Sodom.
 
2012-11-30 12:01:26 PM

lennavan: I don't recall the "soccer mom" check box deduction on my tax forms. What specifically are you talking about? There is a dependent deduction, is that what you mean?


Start from my boobies post. 

/self filtered
 
2012-11-30 12:01:48 PM

DubtodaIll: The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


That's a shame, since you have not thought it through, at all. It's about a hell of a lot more than taxation, and religion got into the game very late, and really has nothing to do with it. Consider: which entity issues the marriage license, the Church or the State?

Marriage is (and has been since forever) a contract about property. Who owns it, who gets to use it, where it devises upon demise, etc. From that spring all of the "mutual obligation" parts of the marriage contract: who gets to speak for another in cases of incapacity, that sort of thing.

None of which should be precluded by the sex /gender of the parties entering into the contract.

As much as I hate to agree with the man, Heinlein had it right about marriage: Willing, competent parties should be able to enter into whatever contracts they care to enter so long as they do not harm others.
 
2012-11-30 12:09:04 PM
Obligatory.
cdn.front.moveon.org
//Dude makes sense when he isn't yelling at a chair.
 
2012-11-30 12:10:04 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Liberal Christians tend to argue that the tendency to rape and murder strangers was the actual sin of Sodom that caused them to get barbecued.


i don't recall any accounts of murder? however the intended rape was implied to be of the homosexual flavor which made it extra special

meanwhile i guess this means that homosexuality is kosher since God didn't declare it was the only reason for destroying them

i'm ok you're ok
 
2012-11-30 12:10:52 PM

Notabunny: Serious Black: In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?

- This isn't a states rights issue.
- He voted to uphold sodomy laws. He was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision which found the Texas law violated the equal protection clause. That's the clause at the heart of Prop 8.
- In Romer vs. Evans, Thomas sided with Scalia's and Rehnquist's position that State laws should not protect gay rights saying, "Coloradans are entitled to be he called the decision is an "unsupported victory for homosexual activist," saying Colorado constitutional provision was merely a "rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."


DOMA absolutely is a states rights issue (at least it will be to him I think). Congress's powers are enumerated and limited. None of them involve defining what a marriage is. That's a power that is reserved for the states. Clarence Thomas has consistently ruled in ways that promote the authority of states, and allowing the federal government to define marriage can be seen as usurping that power.

Yes, he voted to uphold sodomy laws, but he did it while saying he thought the laws were ludicrous and that he would repeal the law if he had the power to do so.

The dissent he signed on Romer v. Evans was written by Scalia. Compare and contrast the language in that dissent with the dissent Thomas wrote himself in Lawrence v. Texas. All of the hateful screed about the homosexual agenda was Scalia's invention.

If you're as confident that he'll uphold as I am that he'll strike it down, would you like to make a friendly wager? Say, one month of TotalFark or an equivalent donation to a charity of the victor's choice?
 
2012-11-30 12:11:39 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: lennavan: I don't recall the "soccer mom" check box deduction on my tax forms. What specifically are you talking about? There is a dependent deduction, is that what you mean?

Start from my boobies post. 

/self filtered


So the dependents then. You might shy away from referring to it as the "across the board soccer mom deduction."

You get a deduction for dependents because its expensive to raise kids. So we cut families a break. On the brighter side, that kid will grow up and pay taxes someday, slightly reducing the burden for the rest of us.
 
2012-11-30 12:12:06 PM
Dear America,

Please hurry up and catch up with the rest of us. You're starting to look bad.

Love,

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
 
2012-11-30 12:12:59 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Imma gonna gay marry a pygmy goat.


Free Radical: Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!


cdn.front.moveon.org

lulz....wait a minute

/derp?
 
2012-11-30 12:15:03 PM
BigBooper you are a hateful idiot and you would not allow Jesus into your house.

The original Greek text indicates that Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while some of it's people were poor: do you see anybody lobbying to fix that problem in the United States on religious and moral grounds?

Yes: the United States is a modern Sodom, but it's not because of Americans demanding the same rights as their neighbors. It is because of inherited wealth and billionaires that never had to apply for a job but had authority handed to them by luck of birth.

Your book of Leviticus applies to Levites; none have lived since the founding of the United States, so it applies to dead people. If you are so in love with Leviticus, find out what "abomination" meant before the Pontiac Aztec: it meant "not of the Levites". No where in the entire Bible does it say that gays and lesbians can't marry, but if forbidding marriage to a third of Americans is your kind of kink, but let's take in all of Leviticus: forbid people with tattoos from marrying, and people that have worn blended fabrics.

I understand that you don't like Americans nor the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Fine: you can leave. Start now.
 
2012-11-30 12:15:26 PM

Galvatron Zero: Dear America,

Please hurry up and catch up with the rest of us. You're starting to look bad.

Love,

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden


if history has taught us anything, it's that the majority is always right

lets all raise our glasses, TO PROGRESS!!1!
 
2012-11-30 12:18:31 PM

mrshowrules: The cool kid club


isn't that what killed the dinosaurs?

tenerife-training.net
 
2012-11-30 12:19:04 PM

lennavan: ThrobblefootSpectre: qorkfiend: I can sort of understand deductions for dependents. The existence or nonexistence of the tax credit probably won't change anyone's decision on whether or not to have children, but not having the credit means less money in the family's pocket, and raising children is expensive.

I'm not saying get rid of tax credits, social programs, etc, for low income families that need them. I just mean the general across the board deduction for the general middle soccor mom SUV driving middle class family. It doesn't benefit our society any longer to pay people to have children. Though i admit that in the 1800's it probably did.

I don't recall the "soccer mom" check box deduction on my tax forms. What specifically are you talking about? There is a dependent deduction, is that what you mean?


The dependent exemption applies to children and qualifying relatives such as indigent parents. Then there are other credits and deductions that apply only to children.

To qualify for any of them, a taxpayer must provide more than half of the dependent's support during the tax year. (There are other qualifications as well.) Just being a kid's parent does not qualify you for a tax break. The whole idea is to reward taxpayers who take care of people who would otherwise be a burden on the state, not to incentivize pregnancy.
 
2012-11-30 12:19:25 PM

Foundling: BigBooper you are a hateful idiot and you would not allow Jesus into your house.

The original Greek text indicates that Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while some of it's people were poor: do you see anybody lobbying to fix that problem in the United States on religious and moral grounds?

Yes: the United States is a modern Sodom, but it's not because of Americans demanding the same rights as their neighbors. It is because of inherited wealth and billionaires that never had to apply for a job but had authority handed to them by luck of birth.

Your book of Leviticus applies to Levites; none have lived since the founding of the United States, so it applies to dead people. If you are so in love with Leviticus, find out what "abomination" meant before the Pontiac Aztec: it meant "not of the Levites". No where in the entire Bible does it say that gays and lesbians can't marry, but if forbidding marriage to a third of Americans is your kind of kink, but let's take in all of Leviticus: forbid people with tattoos from marrying, and people that have worn blended fabrics.

I understand that you don't like Americans nor the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Fine: you can leave. Start now.



Why is it that the most intelligent, learned analysis of the Bible typically comes from those who aren't promoting it as truth?
 
2012-11-30 12:21:34 PM

fracto: That story has always bothered me. My questions are usually 'So your saying God is OK with gang rape as long as it isn't homosexual?' and 'They guy offering up his daughters is a good thing?'.

People have some farked up priorities.


No, THAT part of the story is allegorical. Duh.
 
2012-11-30 12:22:18 PM

lennavan: So the dependents then. You might shy away from referring to it as the "across the board soccer mom deduction."


I said that specifically and intentionally to differentiate from tax credits for needy families. Sorry if you found it offensive.


lennavan: On the brighter side, that kid will grow up and pay taxes someday, slightly reducing the burden for the rest of us.


As I pointed out, we have the youngest and one of the fastest growing populations in the world outside of Africa. It's not exactly a pressing problem that we have to pay people to do.


Just so you know - it was not an off the cuff, unthought out comment. I have debated the topic at length before.
 
2012-11-30 12:23:15 PM
Gay marriage will eventually come to pass as the norm. Same as interracial marriage. Same as civil rights for blacks.

At the time, people spouted off about how detrimental each of these things would be to society. But in the end, reason overtook the silliness. It will with gay marriage, too. Just give it a couple more years.
 
2012-11-30 12:23:31 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.


But the idea of incentivizing new taxpayers never goes out of style.

BarkingUnicorn: Most people assume that the Sodomites' gang-rape of visiting angels was a homosexual act. But angels aren't men. :-)

I'm finding myself wondering how it would have worked, at all:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-30 12:25:00 PM

Serious Black: Notabunny: Serious Black: In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?

- This isn't a states rights issue.
- He voted to uphold sodomy laws. He was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision which found the Texas law violated the equal protection clause. That's the clause at the heart of Prop 8.
- In Romer vs. Evans, Thomas sided with Scalia's and Rehnquist's position that State laws should not protect gay rights saying, "Coloradans are entitled to be he called the decision is an "unsupported victory for homosexual activist," saying Colorado constitutional provision was merely a "rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."

DOMA absolutely is a states rights issue (at least it will be to him I think). Congress's powers are enumerated and limited. None of them involve defining what a marriage is. That's a power that is reserved for the states. Clarence Thomas has consistently ruled in ways that promote the authority of states, and allowing the federal government to define marriage can be seen as usurping that power.

Yes, he voted to uphold sodomy laws, but he did it while saying he thought the laws were ludicrous and that he would repeal the law if he had the power to do so.

The dissent he signed on Romer v. Evans was written by Scalia. Compare and contrast the language in that dissent with the dissent Thomas wrote himself in Lawrence v. Texas. All of the hateful screed about the homosexual agenda was Scalia's invention.

If you're as confident that he'll uphold as I am that he'll strike it ...


Sorry, I was unclear. I meant marriage equality, not DOMA specifically. Marriage equality is a civil rights and equal protection issue, not a states rights issue.

Regardless of whatever back door justification he tries to use, the fact remains that Thomas voted to uphold the Texas sodomy laws while 6 other justices cited equal protection and voted to strike them down. It's Thomas' vote that counts, and his votes have been consistent.

It's not defensible for Thomas to sign his name in support of a "hateful screed" and then claim to hold the opposite position. Thomas voted that way because he supports the position described in the "hateful screed".
 
2012-11-30 12:29:06 PM

Trivia Jockey: Foundling: BigBooper you are a hateful idiot and you would not allow Jesus into your house.

The original Greek text indicates that Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while some of it's people were poor: do you see anybody lobbying to fix that problem in the United States on religious and moral grounds?

Yes: the United States is a modern Sodom, but it's not because of Americans demanding the same rights as their neighbors. It is because of inherited wealth and billionaires that never had to apply for a job but had authority handed to them by luck of birth.

Your book of Leviticus applies to Levites; none have lived since the founding of the United States, so it applies to dead people. If you are so in love with Leviticus, find out what "abomination" meant before the Pontiac Aztec: it meant "not of the Levites". No where in the entire Bible does it say that gays and lesbians can't marry, but if forbidding marriage to a third of Americans is your kind of kink, but let's take in all of Leviticus: forbid people with tattoos from marrying, and people that have worn blended fabrics.

I understand that you don't like Americans nor the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Fine: you can leave. Start now.


Why is it that the most intelligent, learned analysis of the Bible typically comes from those who aren't promoting it as truth?



Faith discourages critical analysis. An interesting discussion, if you know a true believer who is open to talk about such things, is 'assuming God exists, why is he worthy of worship?'
 
2012-11-30 12:29:09 PM

Foundling: find out what "abomination" meant before the Pontiac Aztec


*snerk*
 
2012-11-30 12:33:48 PM

Serious Black: My guess is SCOTUS will take up DOMA since it's ludicrous to have a federal law be unenforceable in parts of the country but enforceable in others. My guess is also the conservatives are hoping they'll take up California's case so they can declare the states don't have the power to legalize marriage equality.


Here's my take:

Prop 8 is upheld, but is struck down with DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 12:34:15 PM

Trivia Jockey: Why is it that i perceive the most intelligent, learned analysis of the Bible typically comes from those who aren't promoting it as truth?


because of selective bias

the accounts of Sodom (and Gomorrah) are found in the OT which was originally in Hebrew not Greek
 
2012-11-30 12:36:56 PM

THX 1138: ThrobblefootSpectre: Agreed on the tax incentive for a two parent household. But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.


Not trying to be a grammar nazi here, but that's not a paradox. Perhaps you meant paradigm?
 
2012-11-30 12:38:14 PM

nobodyUwannaknow: Dwight_Yeast: Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.

The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.

The most recent ruling in the PropH8 case is that homogays should be allowed to marry in California. If SCOTUS declines to take that case, they will approve state sponsored sodomy in California, without even ruling on it.

So do my friends
So do my lovers
So do my heroes


No.
The right of people created Gay or Lesbian by God is not up to any government to restrict.
Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while there were poor in the city.
Having riches while your people are poor is evil and will get you put in Hell.
You can read Greek, verify the oldest Biblical texts and check this out. If you couldn't read Greek you wouldn't be in here trying to interpret the Bible for Farkers.

Respecting the rights of your brothers and sisters is a bare minimum standard for a human being.
If you assume certain rights for yourself that you would deny others, you are unfit to live with free men and women; please leave North America.
 
2012-11-30 12:41:19 PM

Foundling: BigBooper you are a hateful idiot and you would not allow Jesus into your house.

The original Greek text indicates that Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while some of it's people were poor: do you see anybody lobbying to fix that problem in the United States on religious and moral grounds?

Yes: the United States is a modern Sodom, but it's not because of Americans demanding the same rights as their neighbors. It is because of inherited wealth and billionaires that never had to apply for a job but had authority handed to them by luck of birth.

Your book of Leviticus applies to Levites; none have lived since the founding of the United States, so it applies to dead people. If you are so in love with Leviticus, find out what "abomination" meant before the Pontiac Aztec: it meant "not of the Levites". No where in the entire Bible does it say that gays and lesbians can't marry, but if forbidding marriage to a third of Americans is your kind of kink, but let's take in all of Leviticus: forbid people with tattoos from marrying, and people that have worn blended fabrics.

I understand that you don't like Americans nor the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Fine: you can leave. Start now.


That hook is set pretty deep.
 
2012-11-30 12:42:22 PM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


I think one of the central rights the "writers of the constitution" gave us was the right of self-governance and the power for each generation to decide these issues for itself... not treat a bunch of guys long since dead as if they were minor deities whose every will and opinion should be imposed without question on the citizens of this country forever and ever amen.
 
2012-11-30 12:42:32 PM

BigBooper: PonceAlyosha: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.

It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


Is that the day that all those seafood eaters are going straight to hell??
 
2012-11-30 12:45:48 PM

I drunk what: i don't recall any accounts of murder? however the intended rape was implied to be of the homosexual flavor which made it extra special


I occasionally get the story of Lot confused with the story in Judges 19, for obvious reasons.

I drunk what: meanwhile i guess this means that homosexuality is kosher since God didn't declare it was the only reason for destroying them

i'm ok you're ok


As others have mentioned, there are other biblical sources which plainly state that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and the abuse of the vulnerable. I don't consider the Bible to be authoritative on the subject of homosexuality, but as a citizen of the world I would prefer that people treat people well based as opposed to treating them like shiat, so I am happy to point out historical perspectives on the bible which favor the former as opposed to the latter.
 
2012-11-30 12:46:22 PM
TFA: when it comes to California, it "would be a blow to our democracy to overturn the vote of the people...Then you start to wonder, 'Does my vote count at all?'"

No, your vote doesn't count when it is used to strip fundamental rights from your fellow citizens.
 
2012-11-30 12:46:43 PM
SCOTUS is irrelevant

/just my take
 
2012-11-30 12:47:03 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dwight_Yeast: ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

Nope, same position. Our population growth is among the highest of any industrialized nation in the world, since we are the world's single most popular emigration destination by far, with very simple immigration requirements. Our population is also quite youthful, with more than 25% of the pop being 19 or under .


I agree with you, but using this argument to put people at ease may backfire.
I see foreign neighbors move in and I think, "parties, music and food are about to get better!", but some Americans of European heritage look at the same think and think "military infiltrators!" and hide in their basements, shotgun at their side, crying themselves to sleep with George Jones on the record player.
 
2012-11-30 12:48:09 PM

Foundling: Sodom was destroyed because the city had riches while there were poor in the city.


so there were no cities that had riches and poor people before or after Sodom?

Foundling: The right of people created Gay or Lesbian by God is not up to any government to restrict.


do you have any evidence to support this claim?

btw are the rights of people created pedophiles, polygamists, incestial, bestial, murderers, liars and thieves by "god" not up to any government to restrict?

Foundling: You can read Greek,


can we read the Hebrew while we're at it?

Foundling: Respecting the rights of your brothers and sisters is a bare minimum standard for a human being.


i only have one brother and one sister, so i only have to respect their rights? what are their rights?
 
2012-11-30 12:49:05 PM

quizzical: TFA: when it comes to California, it "would be a blow to our democracy to overturn the vote of the people...Then you start to wonder, 'Does my vote count at all?'"

No, your vote doesn't count when it is used to strip fundamental rights from your fellow citizens.


To be fair, I think I should be able to vote on whether or not he can own land, or if he is 3/5 of a person.
 
2012-11-30 12:49:37 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: lennavan: So the dependents then. You might shy away from referring to it as the "across the board soccer mom deduction."

I said that specifically and intentionally to differentiate from tax credits for needy families. Sorry if you found it offensive.


I didn't find it offensive, I found it confusing. I had no idea what you were talking about.

ThrobblefootSpectre: As I pointed out, we have the youngest and one of the fastest growing populations in the world outside of Africa. It's not exactly a pressing problem that we have to pay people to do.


You seem to only account for the economic impact. That comment was more of a for giggles one. The point you missed was it's about building a society worth living in. You view birth as about generating a work force. It's not. It's about what good is this country if you and your spouse work a full time job and you still can't afford to raise a family. The pressing problem you are ignoring is many people work their asses off and still cannot afford to have kids. We apply the same logic to the mortgage deduction. What good is this country if you work your ass off and still can't afford a house?
 
2012-11-30 12:51:42 PM

I drunk what: Galvatron Zero: Dear America,

Please hurry up and catch up with the rest of us. You're starting to look bad.

Love,

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden

if history has taught us anything, it's that the majority is always right

lets all raise our glasses, TO PROGRESS!!1!


Sometimes the majority is right....Really South Africa made the list? Really? We're more backwards on this issue than farking South Africa:? That's just embarassing.
 
2012-11-30 12:55:50 PM

I drunk what: so there were no cities that had riches and poor people before or after Sodom?


The bible is pretty clear that God is a bit of a bastard and not at all consistent in his judgements.
 
2012-11-30 12:56:22 PM

Martian_Astronomer: there are other biblical sources which plainly state that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and the abuse of the vulnerable


are they in Greek?

[citation needed]

Martian_Astronomer: I don't consider the Bible to be authoritative on the subject of homosexuality


what do you consider to the The Authority?

Martian_Astronomer: but as a citizen of the world I would prefer that people treat people well, as opposed to treating them like shiat


and you feel that allowing gays to marry will cause this "global wellness" that you desire?

because people who disagree with: the idea that homosexuality should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice even to the point of altering the core values-definition of what a family unit is, are treating someone like shiat?

does this apply to anything that people disagree with or just this particular subject? (for some special reason)
 
2012-11-30 12:57:26 PM
My personal favorite is when my Mother's conservative Catholic friends talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, which is really pretty hysterical when in the next breath they are talking about who cheated on who and and the rate of divorce among their children.

Which reminds me, despite being married in the church and taking that "holy vow" I knew a guy who was married for 30 years and had 5 kids but was able to get an annulment so that he could marry the woman he was cheating with. I am sure the fact that he was a big money contributor had nothing to do with that being allowed.

And don't even get me started about how many gay priests I've met over the years!
 
Displayed 50 of 325 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report