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  
•       •       •

10826 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
 
2012-11-30 10:43:47 AM
Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp
 
2012-11-30 10:45:08 AM
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.
 
2012-11-30 10:46:03 AM
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.
 
2012-11-30 10:46:41 AM
Imma gonna gay marry a pygmy goat. We want a new blender for our wedding gift, thanks.

/hurr de durrr
//gonna go Freep diving in a minute, because, bwahahahaha!
 
2012-11-30 10:47:17 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.


Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.
 
2012-11-30 10:47:34 AM

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

/derp


I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.
 
2012-11-30 10:48:26 AM

BigBooper: 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.


It's sad to see a full-grown man drolling on his own bib like that.
 
2012-11-30 10:48:51 AM
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.
 
2012-11-30 10:49:09 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.


Yeah, all that freedom. Sucks being an authoritarian at the federal level. Even if they can't find it in the single digit amendments there's always that damn 10th one.
 
2012-11-30 10:50:04 AM
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.
 
2012-11-30 10:51:02 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.


Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:26 AM

Source4leko: 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.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...
 
2012-11-30 10:52:34 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:36 AM
Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.
 
2012-11-30 10:52:58 AM

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.


I think she'll be floored when Clarence Thomas votes to strike down DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:07 AM
They need to just remove stuatory marriage laws and make marriage contractual law. Remove all legal spousal benefits and remove the ability to file jointly (its silly that we ever allowed this in the first place). Then set up a frame work were by law people can enter into a defined contract with another individual cafeteria style. (medical benefits, estate issues, etc).

After going through a divorce which included child and spousal support, I hate the idea of getting into a marriage that eventually falls apart being left up to the courts to decide in the end. EVERYTHING should be spelled out up front and nothing should be left to the courts unless its a breach of contract issue.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:16 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.


Well, they never included language that prohibits either of those, so...yes?

// though they DID make sure to tell us that everyone should have a speedy and fair trial, and we saw how that worked out...
 
2012-11-30 10:53:51 AM

DubtodaIll: 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.


Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public
 
2012-11-30 10:54:41 AM
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.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:15 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.


And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...
 
2012-11-30 10:55:16 AM

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.


Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:36 AM

Source4leko: 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.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


THIS
 
2012-11-30 10:55:50 AM
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!!
 
2012-11-30 10:55:51 AM

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


Civil rights=non-issue. Thanks for your retarded contribution.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:51 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.


Dude. I keep hearing that "marriage is a religious ritual, with federal benefits" but some douchebags never consider their religion isn't the only one. I'm a Nordic Heathen. Gay marriage is totally cool with me. If you swear an oath to one another, you are bound to it, period. That's why it's called an "oath". So if the Christians or Conservatives or whoever is peering in your windows that day while being obsessed with your sex life want tax benefits for "marriage", hand 'em over here, too. The oath has been sworn and they're married now. Turnabout is totally fair play. More importantly, I think the "no separate classes" part of the fourteenth amendment already has this covered. If I can figure that out - and I'm a chef, not a lawyer, for pity's sake! - you'd think other people could as well.

/straight chick with gay friends
//this is relevant to my interests 
///figures you were probably trollin', so plus one for you
 
2012-11-30 10:55:55 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.


Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended all citizens to have equal protection under the law. Sorry.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:00 AM

BigBooper: 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.


All those bacon and shellfish eaters make me sick. And don't get me started on those sick freaks who cotton-polyester blends.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:14 AM
They'll hear one of the DOMA cases but not prop 8. But they'll suspend upholdoing the current ruling on prop 8 until DOMA is heard.


This shiat is annoying
 
2012-11-30 10:56:19 AM

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.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:30 AM

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.


I understand your frustration. But there are real people who are really suffering because of state-sanctioned discrimination. While I'm not happy that this court, with its right-wing activist judges, could make important civil rights decisions, these decisions need to be made at the federal level.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:11 AM

Dwight_Yeast: DubtodaIll: 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.

Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public


i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together. Also, no shame.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:20 AM
covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.
 
2012-11-30 10:58:53 AM

Singleballtheory: 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.rewardslink.info

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...


Oh no you didn't!
 
2012-11-30 10:59:00 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.


The authors of the constitution intended for black people worth less than white people, slavery to be acceptable, and women too stupid to be allowed to vote, so let's not pretend their views should be set in stone and revered after 200 odd years of progress.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:29 AM

Citrate1007: Source4leko: 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.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.

The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...


I understand the sentiment, and I don't begrudge you for feeling that way. But please know that many of us in churches all across the country are fighting against our governing bodies (who tend to be older and significantly more conservative than the actual churches) to support gay marriage. Change is happening.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:40 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:47 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!!


That's not sweat my friend.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:13 AM

lennavan: covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.


I thought they fought and died protecting my right to hate and discriminate
 
2012-11-30 11:00:16 AM

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


B-b-b-but Religious Freedom!!!!!!

(that being the freedom to impose one's religious rules on non-followers)
 
2012-11-30 11:00:17 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.


They might have it on Perry v. Brown, but you really think that Kennedy will allow DOMA to stand after authoring Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Hell, I think if they grant cert to a DOMA case, it'll go down 7-2 with Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas voting to strike it.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:25 AM

DubtodaIll: 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


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.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:32 AM
I wouldn't be too surprised if the conservative Justices decided to hear these cases just to make sure that same-sex couples don't get civil rights rights until June. (If they choose not to hear the cases, same-sex couples will get some civil rights immediately, at least in jurisdictions affected by these cases)
 
2012-11-30 11:00:56 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.


So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.
 
2012-11-30 11:02:02 AM

miscreant: 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!!

That's not sweat my friend.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-30 11:03:59 AM

DubtodaIll: i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together.


This is not about "working together"; it's about sharing a life and all the attendant rights. If there were a workable contract law solution to this problem, we would have found it years ago. The closest gay people have come is being able to adopt their partner, but that's A) weird and B) only works in certain states and countries.

DOMA and the state laws are fundamentally discriminatory. This is an equal protection issues, and doesn't affect what any religious group thinks or wants to do.
 
2012-11-30 11:04:27 AM

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.


If Perry v. Brown is not heard, then the lower court's ruling on the case stands which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. This would mean that gay marriage in California becomes legal in a very short time frame after the Supreme Court formally announces that they will not hear Perry v. Brown.
 
2012-11-30 11:05:49 AM
Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.
 
2012-11-30 11:07:38 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 11:08:28 AM

Dwight_Yeast: 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.

Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.


Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me. As long as we make the building codes strong enough to protect from earthquakes and floods, I don't see a problem.

/Genesis 18-19 are WEIRD stories.
 
2012-11-30 11:09:13 AM
I'm pretty sure gay marriage is covered by the interstate commerce clause.......derpaderpadoo!
 
2012-11-30 11:09:35 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. 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.


I remember watching the current Chief Justice's confirmation hearings (yes, I am that big of a nerd, thank you for asking), and he specifically said that was one of the two times where the SCOTUS was obligated to act.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:07 AM

Dwight_Yeast: DubtodaIll: i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together.

This is not about "working together"; it's about sharing a life and all the attendant rights. If there were a workable contract law solution to this problem, we would have found it years ago. The closest gay people have come is being able to adopt their partner, but that's A) weird and B) only works in certain states and countries.

DOMA and the state laws are fundamentally discriminatory. This is an equal protection issues, and doesn't affect what any religious group thinks or wants to do.


I think we're saying the same thing. You just got butthurt that I don't care about this issue as hard and long as you do.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:12 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:52 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.


It was passed, 144 years ago. We just need to enforce it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You wanna ban gay marriage, you gotta ban all marriage.
 
2012-11-30 11:10:57 AM

lennavan: 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.

So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.


Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood today, and knew that people would be coming in here looking for a fight. So I threw a little gas on the fire to watch the thread burn. Personally, I think government should create legal civil unions with the same rights for everyone.

Of course the reaction I got was probably because I tried to post exactly what my 70 year old far right wing dad would say, so yes, there are plenty of people who think exactly like that. Of course, just like my dad, they are old, and more and more of them die every year. Their way is passing into history.
 
2012-11-30 11:11:47 AM

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.


Oh, I know. DOMA's going down like Lindsay Lohan at 3 a.m.
 
2012-11-30 11:12:46 AM

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
 
2012-11-30 11:13:00 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 11:13:49 AM
I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.
 
2012-11-30 11:17:26 AM

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 can't wait to read Scalia's dissent. It'll be one for the ages.
 
2012-11-30 11:18:10 AM

mbillips: Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me.


Eh, not really. According to the stories, gang-rape was their way of saying "Hi, welcome to our town!"

/ (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.)
 
2012-11-30 11:18:12 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:35 AM
Really? No one Is being That Guy yet? Guess its up to me.

The government should get out of the marriage game altogether. They've got no business defining what is and isn't a family.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:42 AM

BigBooper: Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood today, and knew that people would be coming in here looking for a fight. So I threw a little gas on the fire to watch the thread burn.


Eh no worries, I was in a pissy mood yesterday, lack of sleep. I'm hopin the coffee kicks in soon so I can get some shiat done today.

BigBooper: Personally, I think government should create legal civil unions with the same rights for everyone.


That's the same thing as saying you support gay marriage. A marriage is a government created civil union. That's what the word actually means. The only trouble is a bunch of religious idiots have no idea what the word marriage means and they think a marriage is a religious thing. It's not, they are thinking of the wedding ceremony, which can be the religious thing.
 
2012-11-30 11:19:50 AM

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

/derp


craphound.com
 
2012-11-30 11:20:04 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.




BIE across state lines ?
 
2012-11-30 11:20:49 AM
This all reminds me of the great debates about giving women the right to vote. My teletype was blowing up! Oh how I miss those days. When women couldn't vote that is.
 
2012-11-30 11:21:01 AM

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.
 
2012-11-30 11:21:13 AM

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
 
2012-11-30 11:21:25 AM
The important question will be *which* DOMA case they take. Will it be one than Kagan has to recuse, or one she can participate in?
 
2012-11-30 11:21:45 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!!


Dude, get your chaps on and get laid by some leather wearing dude. You are just stressing yourself out by refusing to get over your self hate.
 
2012-11-30 11:23:57 AM

mbillips: Dwight_Yeast: 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.

Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.

Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me. As long as we make the building codes strong enough to protect from earthquakes and floods, I don't see a problem.

/Genesis 18-19 are WEIRD stories.


Not so weird if you realize the the first half of 18 is about Abe being a good host, and the rest of 18-19 are about how the people of Sodom...aren't. The whole section has a pretty clear moral: "Be a good and gracious host."

Christians somehow got the idea in their heads that the "sin of Sodom" was buttsects, when there is little indication (save for the people's demand - "Send these travelers outside, that we may 'know' them"; the text in 18:20 only points out that "their sin was great") that they practiced it. There is a TON of text supporting the idea that "Sodomites" were pretty shiatty hosts (shiatty people in general). In fact, if they were all about evil sex, they'd have taken Lot's offer of his daughters - the fact that they didn't (they renewed their request for Lot to send the travelers out) suggests they had other motivations.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:03 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.


Sounds like you hate Americans for their freedoms.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:03 AM

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


Damn straight, they should! If Prop 8 hadn't been named so weirdly, it totally would have failed and I'd be decorating a cake or catering a reception for a very nice gay couple right now. The only issue would be, which one is Bridezilla? Anything else is none of my business, just as it should be to anyone with even a tiny bit of manners.

/gonna go Freep diving so I can remember even more why I hate people
//especially those people
 
2012-11-30 11:25:45 AM

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.


Won't that be a stinging rebuke to the conservative movement? This is their last line of defense, put in place specifically for situations like this.
 
2012-11-30 11:25:56 AM

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.


Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.
 
2012-11-30 11:26:08 AM
Would it be possible for them to strike down all marriage laws when considering these cases? Cut a wide swath, so to speak.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:45 AM

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.


That's the whole idea, really.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:59 AM

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?
 
2012-11-30 11:30:05 AM
I look forward to seeing DOMA declared unconstitutional as a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution. i.e. the Full Faith and Credit Clause, IMHO.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
2012-11-30 11:30:19 AM

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 .
 
2012-11-30 11:31:08 AM
 
2012-11-30 11:32:12 AM
The cool kid club where same sex marriage is legally recognized:

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
the Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
 
2012-11-30 11:33:39 AM

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

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.


I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.
 
2012-11-30 11:35:14 AM

THX 1138: 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.


I admit it is quite irritating to be paying 2 to three times as much in federal taxes as my middle class peers who pump out children. But I do also firmly believe that incentivizing population growth was an idea that was, at one time, socially useful to our nation - but stopped making sense sometime mid last century.
 
2012-11-30 11:36:18 AM

BigBooper: 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.


Ezekiel 16:49 "'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."

Yep, we sure are.
 
2012-11-30 11:37:26 AM
It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.
 
2012-11-30 11:38:59 AM

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

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.

I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.


There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.
 
2012-11-30 11:39:08 AM

WorldCitizen: It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.


That's basically every day.
 
2012-11-30 11:40:26 AM

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 TesParty is full of Sodomites on rascal scooters?
 
2012-11-30 11:40:40 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: THX 1138: 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.

I admit it is quite irritating to be paying 2 to three times as much in federal taxes as my middle class peers who pump out children. But I do also firmly believe that incentivizing population growth was an idea that was, at one time, socially useful to our nation - but stopped making sense sometime mid last century.


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.
 
2012-11-30 11:41:01 AM

WorldCitizen: It's a little nerve-racking knowing a hand full of people are sitting in a room today deciding one's fate.


Exactly two handsful, actually, if they're Jerry Garcia's hands.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:08 AM

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

Unlike Clarence Thomas, you sir, are neither serious, nor black.

I definitely am not an African-American, but I am 100% serious here. I would be shocked to see him uphold DOMA.

There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.


Well no shiat man. He'd have to have a stroke to say something during oral arguments. But I am 100% positive that, assuming DOMA is heard, he will at least issue a concurrence saying it's unconstitutional. I can see him not signing the majority if they find that heightened scrutiny is required, but that's about it.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:28 AM

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.


Too many gay activists have already stated that they don't want "mutually beneficial joint tax filing status", they want MARRIAGE.

Also, I didn't think the individual states' rights to "define" marriage was in question? I guess it is - otherwise the SC couldn't hear cases from the states on their rules for marriage...unless they are just considering "taking" that right away from the states...which, sorry, I just won't get behind (don't care what the issue is).
 
2012-11-30 11:42:44 AM

Singleballtheory: This all reminds me of the great debates about giving women the right to vote. My teletype was blowing up! Oh how I miss those days. When women couldn't vote that is.


From a FB post I made a while back on this topic:

Had we had the internet in
1860: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the election of Lincoln (especially in the South) and how it is the end of America. #Revolutionbegins
1863: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Emancipation Proclamation (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Lincoln out to destroy American economy as it depends on slavery. #Lincolndestroysjobs

1866: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Reconstruction (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Big federal government is bad.
1920: Huge conservative outrage at women being allowed to vote and how it is the end of America. #getbackinthekitchen
1935: Unimaginable conservative outrage at the creation of Social Security as this is definitely the most evil socialism imaginable. The end of America is obviously now.
1948: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the racial integration of the US military (especially from the South) and how it is the end of the effectiveness of the US military and the end of America. "Please pray for America" a common posting.
1954: Uproar against activist judges imposing desegregation upon the United States rather than letting each state vote individually to decide upon whether black people should have equal rights. Like button clicked like crazy following post: "Activist judges are destroying America!!!"
1964: Millions lament (especially in the South) on Facebook that the Civil Rights Act is an outrage. Hidden camera captures President Johnson saying: "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." Video goes viral.
1967: Activist judges strike again! Conservatives clog the series of tubes with their outrage at activist judges declaring that laws barring interracial marriage are unconstitutional. Many conservative Christians post and tweet about how Americans obviously don't care about the Bible today and are unAmerican as interracial marriage is not Christian. "America is a Christian nation!" comments explode.
 
2012-11-30 11:42:46 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.


I agree! Since the writers of the constitution were slaveowners, I should clearly be allowed to own other humans, and eagerly look forward to the day when I can fire all the paid employees at my buggy-whip factory, and staff it entirely with hot, 16-year-old Asian slave chicks.
 
2012-11-30 11:43:18 AM

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 TesParty 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. :-)
 
2012-11-30 11:44:44 AM

Serious Black: There is only one thing that would shock me with respect to Clarence Thomas: him asking a question during oral arguments. That'd be farkin nuts.

Well no shiat man. He'd have to have a stroke to say something during oral arguments.


He might say something if his robe caught fire. :-)
 
2012-11-30 11:44:50 AM
Re Sodom:

To nomadic desert dwellers, guest-right is important shiat. Sodom violated it.
 
2012-11-30 11:48:48 AM

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
 
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!
 
2012-11-30 12:57:40 PM

incendi: 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.


well then, i'm convinced

abortions and gay marriages for everyone!1!!
 
2012-11-30 12:58:18 PM

Foundling: I agree with you, but using this argument to put people at ease may backfire.


It's not an argument so much as just easily verifiable fact. That's like saying gravity is an argument.

Anyway, I don't know a single person that would actually hide under their bed crying about immigrants. I'm betting you don't either. But then I live in an area where immigrants are a majority in some major cities. maybe people from the north east might actually be like you describe.
 
2012-11-30 12:59:06 PM

I drunk what: Foundling: You can read Greek,

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


Be my guest. They even give you a side-by-side translation.
 
2012-11-30 01:00:00 PM

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

/derp


You pervert. Marriage is between a man and his turtle.

//Seriously, though, the difference between direct "tyrrany of the majority" democracy and constitutional representative democracy is that the supreme law of the land at least attempts to protect the rights of the individual over all else, and this overrides majority opinion in all cases where a direct negative impact on the welfare of other individuals or the group can be conclusively demonstrated. Non-quantitative impacts are not sufficient to override the default permissiveness of the constitution no matter how many farking idiots you can get to vote that people shouldn't be allowed to eat artichoke because morality or whatever dumb shiat.
 
2012-11-30 01:05:57 PM

lennavan: The pressing problem you are ignoring is many people work their asses off and still cannot afford to have kids.


I didn't ignore that, in the slightest, at all. In fact, I already plainly and explicitly said that tax credits and social programs for families with children near or below poverty level is NOT what i am addressing. I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)

Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said. Let's avoid a lot of pointless annoyance and just say, okay you disagree with. Cool. :)
 
2012-11-30 01:09:00 PM

I drunk what: are they in Greek?


One's been covered already. Mentions greed, and "detestable things," but not homosexuality:

BarkingUnicorn: "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


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


I don't think that giving girls in middle eastern countries the chance to go to school without being attacked will cause "global wellness" by itself, but I know it'll make life better for them personally, because I know I do better when I'm not having acid thrown on me.

I drunk what: 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


Guess what some of the objections are in Muslim countries against girls being allowed to go to school....
 
2012-11-30 01:11:01 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)


I think this needs clarification. A married couple (assuming both are working) will generate twice the income of a single person (on average).

Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?
 
2012-11-30 01:12:25 PM

BigBooper: I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Right to vote, right to not be a slave...

Plus, it seems like the first amendment didn't have any teeth to it until "activist judges" got involved.
 
2012-11-30 01:12:56 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.


Hopefully while they are at it they'll take away that stupid right to privacy that is no where to be found as well.
 
2012-11-30 01:14:47 PM
Yet another holiday for a federal agency to observe.
 
2012-11-30 01:15:26 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: I didn't ignore that, in the slightest, at all. In fact, I already plainly and explicitly said that tax credits and social programs for families with children near or below poverty level is NOT what i am addressing. I am simply talking about your average middle class family with a big screen TV and a garageful of nice cars that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level. (the majority of the population and federal taxpayers)


You and I have a serious difference in factual understanding of the world. Yes, everyone above the poverty level has a big screen TV (which are like $300 these days, what a stupid example), a garage full of nice cars and a refrigerator to boot!

You clearly have no idea what the poverty level is, what the median income is, what the cost of daycare for a single kid is, how much a mortgage might be, how much the tax deduction is, how many other taxes people pay and so on.

Like I said you and I have a serious difference in factual understanding of the world.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.


I wasn't talking about people at or below the poverty line. That you didn't know that clearly demonstrates how oblivious to reality you really are. Make sure to hug mommy and daddy when you get home tonight and thank them for sheltering you.
 
2012-11-30 01:16:44 PM

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.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.


I don't have to show research, unless you can cite one case that shows they voted in line with personal beliefs instead of the rule of law.

They constantly go against what they may personally believe to uphold the law, people ignore that fact.

All I really have to mention to kill your needs citation argument is Obama care which was ruled on even if he didn't personally like it.
 
2012-11-30 01:19:00 PM

Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?


I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.
 
2012-11-30 01:20:02 PM

crzybtch: 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.


You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.
 
2012-11-30 01:21:27 PM

lennavan: Make sure to hug mommy and daddy when you get home tonight and thank them for sheltering you.


Yeah, good argument. *snerk* :)
 
2012-11-30 01:21:34 PM

BigBooper: Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals slaves to have the same rights as straight white people


FTFY
 
2012-11-30 01:22:03 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.


That's kind of his thing, yanno?
 
2012-11-30 01:24:41 PM

steamingpile: I don't have to show research, unless you can cite one case that shows they voted in line with personal beliefs instead of the rule of law.


You realize that the entire point of the USSC is to hear cases where the law is not clear, and clarify how they're supposed to be interpreted using their personal beliefs about, among other things, the constitution and what they think to be common sense and/or "reasonable", right?

Like, that's literally the entire reason they exist, at least according to the constitution.
 
2012-11-30 01:24:55 PM

Deucednuisance: That's kind of his thing, yanno?


I'm starting to pick up on that.
 
2012-11-30 01:26:52 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal"

How about we follow this basic aspect of America, hm? How about we stop obsessing with other people's sex and love lives, hm? How about we stop acting like 2,000-year-old dogma is the best way to live in the 21st century, hm?
 
2012-11-30 01:29:24 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


Well, there are also other federal taxes involved. For example, if I could get my partner into the country to stay with me, my employer will offer health care coverage for him. However, unlike a straight person, the amount they contribute to his health insurance will be taxed as my income (for straight married couples that money is tax free). Also, my plan for a couple requires that the first $2500 is completely out of pocket. However, my employer puts $2500 into an HSA account to be used toward that total. But my partner, since not officially recognized as such by the federal government, can't touch that money as it is federal tax free and cannot be used for any of his expenses. So, for him his first $2500 is completely uncovered. So yeah, I would be paying thousands of dollars a year that a straight married couple would not have to pay. Thanks discrimination!
 
2012-11-30 01:29:51 PM

I drunk what: what do you consider to the be The Authority?

 
2012-11-30 01:32:34 PM

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.


Nah, DoMA puts Article I and the 10th Amendment into question - it's the states, not the federal government, who have the right to define marriage. It's not an equal protection issue, because states are able to define marriage differently, with various ages of consent, degrees of consanguinity, and blood test requirements.

/to be clear: there are equal protection issues around gay marriage, just not within DoMA
 
2012-11-30 01:33:52 PM

I drunk what: 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?


What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

Are single-parent households not families? Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins? Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?
 
2012-11-30 01:34:39 PM

Deucednuisance: ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore what I say, and nitpick with with tangential sidelines that have nothing to do with what i said.

That's kind of his thing, yanno?


You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.
 
2012-11-30 01:35:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I drunk what: 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?

What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

Are single-parent households not families? Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins? Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?
 
2012-11-30 01:35:56 PM
I remember it now. The Republicans warned me about gay marriage day.

Isn't this the day that the godless, fascist, socialist, libtards force all of us straight people to gay marry animals!?!?

Do I still need a divorce lawyer if Obama forces me to leave my wife for a male turtle? Will I get my Obama phone at the ceremony?

Should I stop listening to conservative radio?!?!?
 
2012-11-30 01:36:22 PM

lennavan: You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.


Well, Snookums, you're a bigger idiot if you think that anyone's claimed that.
 
2012-11-30 01:37:33 PM

WorldCitizen: For example, if I could get my partner into the country to stay with me, my employer will offer health care coverage for him. However, unlike a straight person, the amount they contribute to his health insurance will be taxed as my income (for straight married couples that money is tax free).


I wasn't making any distinction between straights or same sex couples. That's just a don't care in my book. But yeah, same sex couples should be treated the same (same benefits, same taxes) as hetero couples.
 
2012-11-30 01:37:53 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.


If you want to go "old school originalist" then I take it you are also pro-Slavery and against women voting?

Or are you just derping?
 
2012-11-30 01:42:11 PM

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. .


The Obamacare mandate was ruled constitutional as a tax. DOMA has much less to stand on. I'm amazed it has taken this long to be struck down. (Yes, I'm anticipating the ruling.)
 
2012-11-30 01:42:18 PM

Deucednuisance: lennavan: You're an idiot if you think the only people struggling to raise a family are people at or below the poverty line.

Well, Snookums, you're a bigger idiot if you think that anyone's claimed that.


Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.

Idiot.
 
2012-11-30 01:46:47 PM

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

/derp

I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.


He has been banging his dog for years and in cohabitation so they could claim common-law marriage.
 
2012-11-30 01:48:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


You forgot fertility. Marriage only counts if there is a possibility of children being born using only the genetic material of the couple, (without the intervention of any modern medical science.) This is why married couples are required to undergo fertility testing, why couples that adopt children are not really "families," why post-menopausal women are forbidden from getting married, and, or course, why any marriage that does not produce children within the first 2 years is annulled by the state.

I hope you've learned something.
 
2012-11-30 01:51:07 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments. I'm asking for something fairly narrow and easy - clarify your original statement so that I understand, before I even create a supporting or opposite argument.

When you said "I am simply talking about your average middle class family ... that pays 50% less in taxes than the single guy next door at the same income level" do you mean that the neighbor pays twice as many dollars to the IRS or that Single Guy's effective rate is twice that of Married Couple's?

An example:
The Smiths live next door to John Jones. Johnny, who has a decent job, paid an effective 15% on his $50k salary ($7,500) to Uncle Sam. For the Smiths (who have no kids and the same deductions as Jonesy, save the marriage credit), each of whom has a $50k/year job, are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy (meaning they'd owe the same $7,500, only for two people) or that they will pay a combined $3,750 in taxes (half of the dollar amount Jonesy paid)?

// commence the Martian Manhunter jokes
 
2012-11-30 01:58:31 PM

BarkingUnicorn: What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"


would you like a religious answer or prefer a scientific approach?

BarkingUnicorn: Are single-parent households not families?


not efficient ones, and certainly not one i would recommend to the be the gold standard

BarkingUnicorn: Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins?


also inefficiently, but i certainly wouldn't add them to the list of people that can marry either

BarkingUnicorn: Can people who adopt children claim to have families?


anyone can claim anything, but the simple Truth is that a Man and a Woman in a monogamous relationship can provide the best environment to raise children (whether or not they gave birth to them)

wolves can also raise children, though i wouldn't recommend including them in the definition of marriage either

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?


the difference between being able to produce offspring and not being capable, which some societies value

BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?


children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support
 
2012-11-30 02:02:05 PM

SpectroBoy: I remember it now. The Republicans warned me about gay marriage day.

Isn't this the day that the godless, fascist, socialist, libtards force all of us straight people to gay marry animals!?!?

Do I still need a divorce lawyer if Obama forces me to leave my wife for a male turtle? Will I get my Obama phone at the ceremony?

Should I stop listening to conservative radio?!?!?


Yes, no, yes but you won't like where you're mandated to keep it, yes.
 
2012-11-30 02:03:40 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


Do not confuse the tax consequences of marriage with the tax consequences of having children. Do not confuse children with dependents; the latter can include dependent relatives who are not one's crotchfruit (and they don't even have to be U. S. citizens). Also, you don't get tax breaks just for having kids; you have to provide more than half of their support.

There are at least two "useful purposes that serve the collective weal" in granting tax breaks to those who support them:

1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.

2. Child care tax credits enable adults to work who otherwise would be on the public dole.
 
2012-11-30 02:06:49 PM

Martian_Astronomer: I hope you've learned something.


a little too much butthurt, dial it back a notch

/you're not helping.jpg
 
2012-11-30 02:09:26 PM

Dr Dreidel: You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments.


No, I'm not. I already said the marriage tax advantages make sense. I said child tax deductions don't. I'm not confusing anything with marriage.
 
2012-11-30 02:10:10 PM

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support


I'm with you. If we start allowing orphaned siblings to call themselves a family, more parents are going to abandon their kids or die.
 
2012-11-30 02:11:03 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: You're substituting "incentivized breeding" for "marriage" and also glomming on some other arguments.

No, I'm not. I already said the marriage tax advantages make sense. I said child tax deductions don't. I'm not confusing anything with marriage.


Fine, good, whatever.

ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION. The rest of it can go to hell, and I'll agree with whatever larger point you're making, but for god's sake, can you at least clarify the wording from your OP?
 
2012-11-30 02:12:45 PM
I'm really hoping that Roberts authors a majority opinion on one of these cases finding that the government cannot prevent individuals from entering into a legal contract on the basis of gender, effectively legalizing gay marriage nation wide. It would make the rage over the ACA ruling look like a tempest in a tea-cup, be a great step forward for our nation, and cement Roberts's place in history both as a judge and as an epic troll.
 
2012-11-30 02:13:00 PM

Martian_Astronomer: I drunk what: and you feel that allowing gays to marry will cause this "global wellness" that you desire?

I don't think that giving girls in middle eastern countries the chance to go to school without being attacked will cause "global wellness" by itself, but I know it'll make life better for them personally, because I know I do better when I'm not having acid thrown on me.

I drunk what: 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

Guess what some of the objections are in Muslim countries against girls being allowed to go to school....


and speaking of butthurt, i didn't respond to this, because i was hoping you could review it and think about it some more before you expect me to reply

if you want to keep this and proceed, i will

until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about):

Foundling: The right of people created Gay or Lesbian by God


because i haven't seen any citations for this claim yet, were they posted in invisible ink?

/and i'm just talking about the physical stuff for now
//we can discuss that other stuff later
 
2012-11-30 02:13:24 PM

SpectroBoy: 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.

If you want to go "old school originalist" then I take it you are also pro-Slavery and against women voting?

Or are you just derping?


Nah, just threw out a couple troll posts for the hell of it. I don't do it often, but as I posted earlier, I'm in a crappy mood today. Apparently I'm a successful troll when I'm in pain and blasted out of my mind on pain meds.

/yes you can be wasted on pain meds, and still in a lot of pain
 
2012-11-30 02:13:39 PM

BarkingUnicorn: 1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.


Agreed. Subsidies for adopting should stay in place. Caring for a disabled cousin should still depend on your need. Are you low income, or have a demonstrated financial need then yes, you receive a dependent deduction (as i already said, btw).
 
2012-11-30 02:15:58 PM

lennavan: I'm with you.


i highly doubt that, however the following word salad wasn't much help in indicating whether or not that is true

can someone translate his post for me? i don't speak gibberish
 
2012-11-30 02:16:44 PM

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: What is your "definition of what a family unit is?"

would you like a religious answer or prefer a scientific approach?

Whichever is your "core-value."

BarkingUnicorn: Are single-parent households not families?

not efficient ones, and certainly not one i would recommend to the be the gold standard

So your answer is "Yes, they are families."

BarkingUnicorn: Can families be headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, adult cousins?

also inefficiently, but i certainly wouldn't add them to the list of people that can marry either

We're talking about the definition of "family."

So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


BarkingUnicorn: Can people who adopt children claim to have families?

anyone can claim anything, but the simple Truth is that a Man and a Woman in a monogamous relationship can provide the best environment to raise children (whether or not they gave birth to them)

So your answer is "Yes, they can claim to have families."

wolves can also raise children, though i wouldn't recommend including them in the definition of marriage either

We're talking about the definition of "family."

BarkingUnicorn: If a family is just two married people, what difference does it make whether they're of opposite sexes?

the difference between being able to produce offspring and not being capable, which some societies value

Should infertile people be forbidden to marry?

BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support

No anwer to my question.

 
2012-11-30 02:17:19 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.


The constitution writers intended black people to be property, and the same for women, because they aren't actual people unless they have testicles and a lack of pigment.

Deifying the constitution writers is pretty dumb, and we can tell right from wrong without their help. That said, the 9th and 14th amendment make it clear that we'll discover all kinds of rights. The right to use a computer is not enumerated in the constitution. The right to use electricity... nope, not in there. The right to get a colorful mohawk... nope, not in there. The right to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle... conspicuously absent.
 
2012-11-30 02:18:26 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.


no just not perverts mariage.
one man one women
no adam and steve
no girl on girl
no multiple wives
no turtles
Just no because i said so.
 
2012-11-30 02:20:40 PM
You know what the Bible says about gay marriage...
 
2012-11-30 02:20:53 PM

I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about)


First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.
 
2012-11-30 02:21:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION.


Wow, okay. I don't see where anyone in your math question has a child.

Dr Dreidel: are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy


I'm not claiming anything about childless persons. So I guess the answer is no? Yes? Whichever will prevent you having a stroke?
 
2012-11-30 02:24:35 PM

natazha: 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. .

The Obamacare mandate was ruled constitutional as a tax. DOMA has much less to stand on. I'm amazed it has taken this long to be struck down. (Yes, I'm anticipating the ruling.)


Actually, it's not a tax, it's a penalty, but the taxing clause gives Congress the power to impose such penalties.

The media coverage of that one was ridiculously awful at explaining the distinction, primarily because the Republican party was set on conflating the two for political purposes.
 
2012-11-30 02:25:32 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: 1. The government doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden of supporting them. Adopt an orphan and you get child tax benefits. Care for your disabled cousin and you get a dependent deduction. Neither example incentivizes making a baby.

Agreed. Subsidies for adopting should stay in place. Caring for a disabled cousin should still depend on your need. Are you low income, or have a demonstrated financial need then yes, you receive a dependent deduction (as i already said, btw).


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?
 
2012-11-30 02:27:49 PM

Martian_Astronomer: I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about)

First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.


IDW is simply going to deflect, give you the run-around, and repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him. He's a professional troll who constantly redefines things to suit his trolling needs.
 
2012-11-30 02:27:49 PM

I drunk what: 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 image 400x246]

lulz....wait a minute

/derp?


Major derp, dude. But in all seriousness, why don't we do the Malaysia thing, just for kicks and giggles? A friend who is a frequent traveler type person told me they have two separate justice systems there. One for the Muslims, one for everyone else. So while I could apparently dance on tables and drink in a bar with impunity, if you're Muslim, you're in trouble if you do that. She said there was even a model (Muslim women can be models? The hussies!) that was publicly caned for being caught drinking there. So let's just do the Christian version of Sharia law here in Cali, but only for the Christians. That way my Vidar worshiping ass can dance to black metal, drink booze, gay marry if I ever catch teh gey, and other such shenanigans and it would be totally legal for me, but totally not legal for the nearest Baptist or some types of Lutheran or Church of Christ member or whatever weird, Judaic-Pagan religion they had joined and claimed as their own.

See? Problem solved. My religion stays over here, everyone else with their religion (or lack of religion, but for some odd reason, total jackholes who think it is their business who others marry) over there or I'll have to discard my Cali heritage and go with the Norwegian heritage and start destoyin' stuff. I'll start by setting a garbage can alight, but it may just end up with churches (or countries) being set on fire. People need to just leave one another alone unless they're helping, and things like the "gay marriage debate", which shouldn't even be a debate, is not considered "helping".

/hasn't gone full Viking yet, but could
//don't push it, I'm armed with a skateboard and a bottle of akvavit!
///GRAR!!! Dudes, just GRAR!!!
 
2012-11-30 02:30:52 PM

I drunk what: lennavan: I'm with you.

i highly doubt that, however the following word salad wasn't much help in indicating whether or not that is true

can someone translate his post for me? i don't speak gibberish


I said I agree with you and then just reiterated what you said -- if let orphaned kids call themselves a family, then parents will abandon their kids more often.
 
2012-11-30 02:31:38 PM

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.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.


When will this cockmunch decide to retire! I only hope Obama get to replace 3 in this term to swing the court to a more normal mindset.
 
2012-11-30 02:31:45 PM

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


Ok, so he does have a point, just not the point he thought he was making.
 
2012-11-30 02:32:31 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: IDW is simply going to deflect, give you the run-around, and repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him.


He and I go way back. You'll notice that I'm not taking the time to write detailed responses in full paragraphs.
 
2012-11-30 02:33:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?


Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)
 
2012-11-30 02:34:19 PM

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

/derp

I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.


What the hell is wrong with you people. It's ducks. (sound).
 
2012-11-30 02:36:12 PM

Martian_Astronomer: First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.


Let's not pretend nothing is known about homosexuality. Possibility has nothing to do with it, homosexuality is both genetic and environment. Pretty close to 40/60 genetics/environment.

It's really easy to do with twin studies. Identical twins share genetics and environment. Fraternal twins do not share genetics but do share environment. If it was entirely genetic, if one identical twin was gay, the other twin would be gay.

Link
 
2012-11-30 02:46:42 PM

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people.


Jefferson did, going by one of his more well known documents

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,"
 
2012-11-30 02:46:42 PM

lennavan: Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.


Sugarplum, if I say that the alphabet extends "from A to Z" am I denying the existence of the other 24 letters?

Nits, you're picking them.
 
2012-11-30 02:50:11 PM

lennavan: 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.

So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.


People actually believe his shiat. I think the opportunity is just too tempting.

/After years of hearing it, though, my reply would be far less eloquent
//And involve a one-fingered salute and lecture on how America is not a theocracy
 
2012-11-30 02:54:02 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Whichever is your "core-value."


2 Parents + offspring (biological)

while i do encourage neighbors taking care of each other, we aren't going to label them family so that people think you can just play silly little semantic games to "argue" your point

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


1/2 Parents + offspring, yes it still falls under the "family" core

BarkingUnicorn: We're talking about the definition of "family."


Actually everyone in this thread is talking about Marriage, Family is a related term, that has some bearing on the discussion but is not equivalent to the topic

if you'd rather put the marriage topic on hold i suppose we can just focus on family for now

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they are families."


in the "blood relation" sense sure, but the core def.? nope

that's why we call them extended "family", and if you extend it out far enough everyone is your family

BarkingUnicorn: So your answer is "Yes, they can claim to have families."


in an artificial sense, there are parents + children, though they aren't a core family (biological parents + children)

BarkingUnicorn: We're talking about the definition of "family."


so if wolves raise children, those children aren't allowed to claim them as "family"? interesting

BarkingUnicorn: Should infertile people be forbidden to marry?


WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY"

see? i can be a butthead, too :)

BarkingUnicorn: No anwer to my question.


family - parents = offspring

they can claim to be siblings, since all people on earth can claim to be family, it tends to make that word lose meaning

though it regains that meaning in a spiritual sense, but aren't anywhere near that point yet

good so far?
 
2012-11-30 02:55:07 PM

qorkfiend: 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.

Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended all citizens to have equal protection under the law. Sorry.


I'm pro-equality, but that's plain incorrect. The writers on the Constitution intended white property-owning Protestant men to have equal protection under the law. Slaves, Indians, and women weren't considered people. This is why contextual interpretation is important regarding the Constitution.
 
2012-11-30 02:56:15 PM

monoski: He has been banging his dog for years and in cohabitation so they could claim common-law marriage.


Once again, and in a truly icky context, I have to point out that open and notorious cohabitation is insufficient to establish common-law marriage (in those states which allow it, and not all 57 do): the parties have to openly and notoriously refer to themselves as spouses.

And while Fido, here, may "speak", he/she cannot give consent nor advise anyone about the level of his/her spousal commitment, so I'm afraid that common-law marriage is right out.
 
2012-11-30 02:57:20 PM

lennavan: Possibility has nothing to do with it, homosexuality is both genetic and environment.


I'm aware of studies like this, (though not as familiar with the current field as I should be.) I was simply responding to the false dichotomy that you either have a gene that's guaranteed to make you flaming gay, or you wake up one day and willfully decide "I hate God, therefore I think I'll start craving cock." Lots of things happen during development, (which is your point, of course.)

I'll look over the article when I'm not at work. Thanks!
 
2012-11-30 03:03:12 PM

Martian_Astronomer: You'll notice that I'm not taking the time to write detailed responses in full paragraphs.


splendid and now you'll notice that i put an equal amount of effort into responding to your posts

/seeing how we go back
//{mirror.jpg}

Martian_Astronomer: First, it is possible for homosexuality to be innate without being genetic, so that's already a false dichotomy.

Second, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" (a misleading term in and of itself) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else.


1st genetic == innate
2nd choice =/= genetic (false "dichotomy")

//enjoy
///the quotes were a freebie
 
2012-11-30 03:09:32 PM
While there's no need to address any of the scum sucking immoral homophobes in a direct sense, I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose. You are also going to be despised by everyone else after you've lost.

You are going to witness the very public collapse of your disgusting ideology and then will be shamed for ever having held it. In your lifetime.

Personally, I think that's awesome.
 
2012-11-30 03:12:23 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: repeat himself until you grow tired of talking to him.


it's almost as if his words have meaning and he actually understands things...???

what a troll, IGNORE FTW

did everyone hear that? I said i'm going to put IDW on ignore, because i'm smart and cool

tell your friends how cool i am, pay attention to me11111!1111!!
 
2012-11-30 03:12:48 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: ANSWER THE DAMNED MATH QUESTION.

Wow, okay. I don't see where anyone in your math question has a child.

Dr Dreidel: are you claiming they'd pay half the effective rate as Jonesy

I'm not claiming anything about childless persons. So I guess the answer is no? Yes? Whichever will prevent you having a stroke?


I was asking you to show your work in how the one "taxpayer's" rate/total owed ends up as double the other's. The same way I presented an example. At no point did I say anything that contradicts anything you've said, and it appeared that you were evading the question. Also in your OP was nothing specific about "childless" couples (though you did say it's an "average" couple - meaning 2.5 kids?).

So really, your first answer might have addressed that my assumptions were wrong, rather than arguing against a point I never made. I asked a math question, you answered a policy question.

// no harm, no foul
// you were still in thread, and it looked more like either evasion or that you were putting arguments in my words that weren't there
 
2012-11-30 03:15:03 PM

Tigger: While there's no need to address any of the scum sucking immoral homophobes in a direct sense, I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose. You are also going to be despised by everyone else after you've lost.

You are going to witness the very public collapse of your disgusting ideology and then will be shamed for ever having held it. In your lifetime.

Personally, I think that's awesome.


I'm with you on this one. Like, totally, dude. I shall raise a shot glass of ice cold akvavit in honor of your prescience now.

/skål!
 
2012-11-30 03:15:27 PM

Tigger: immoral homophobes


lol
hellogiggles.com

/bonus lulz:
//gay people are scary
///rawr

Tigger: I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose.


because nobody cares? in that case we've already lost :( 

/why don't people care anymore?
//sad panda
 
2012-11-30 03:20:10 PM

I drunk what: splendid and now you'll notice that i put an equal amount of effort into responding to your posts


If you would like to have a sincere conversation in which we respond in detail to each other's points without changing the subject, you're welcome to start one.

I drunk what: 1st genetic == innate
2nd choice =/= genetic (false "dichotomy")


Things that happen during fetal development may not be genetic, but can't be said to be a willful choice on the part of the fetus either. Similarly, many things that a child has zero control over affect the brain development producing permanent biological results.

You can argue for genetic vs. not genetic, or "not a choice" vs. "choice," but genetic and "not a choice" are not equivalent.
 
2012-11-30 03:24:45 PM

AirForceVet: I look forward to seeing DOMA declared unconstitutional as a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution. i.e. the Full Faith and Credit Clause, IMHO.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



Um - i want DOMA to go down like NPH on cock, but you do realize that FF&C is a bad tack, as Congress has prescribed the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof: they have said they have no effect whatsoever.

The trick with the FF&C is that the congress gets to decide if and when it kicks in.
 
2012-11-30 03:25:39 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?

Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)


But I'm on Fark's politics tab; gotta follow the rules! :-)

The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements. You've agreed that by supporting dependents people do society some good. Then you say people shouldn't be rewarded by society if they have, by some arbitrary standard, the ability to do society some good. "From each according to his ability." But people who have need for society's help (again, by an arbitrary standard) should get it. "To each according to his needs."

I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

We're far from your original argument that child tax benefits contribute to overpopulation. I'm pointing out that there are considerations besides that one. I'll add that I think the contribution to overpopulation is trivial.
 
2012-11-30 03:27:00 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 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?


I want in on that. Thomas hates teh gay. It's not even a question he'll uphold DOMA. Even the most optimistic SCOTUS watchers know this. You hear Kennedy maybe, Roberts sure, but no one ever says Thomas. The fact that he thinks sodomy are "uncommonly silly" is absolutely no indication of his feelings on gay marriage. Your mistake is in thinking he has integrity and actually gives a damn about state's rights to make laws he disapproves of.
 
2012-11-30 03:29:13 PM

OtherLittleGuy: 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.


That doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-11-30 03:31:30 PM
They're not hearing any of them?
 
2012-11-30 03:34:42 PM
Looks like no action today - so sayeth the SCOTUSblog
 
2012-11-30 03:42:27 PM

BarkingUnicorn: The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements.


Heh. No. Not even close. "From each according to his ability" means you take from them as much as they have the ability to produce. All of it. I'm not advocating anything close to that. And you are being quite silly. Though funny.
 
2012-11-30 03:43:29 PM

Deucednuisance: lennavan: Well honeypie, he did. And you did when you agreed with him. I claimed families are struggling and he replied "Stop nitpicking, I'm not talking about people at or below the poverty line." And you agreed.

Sugarplum, if I say that the alphabet extends "from A to Z" am I denying the existence of the other 24 letters?

Nits, you're picking them.


Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."

Stupidity, you're defending it.
 
2012-11-30 03:52:59 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.


And you are completely wrong. The dependent deduction has nothing to do with "incentivizing breeding" since it also applies to persons other than your offspring. The social advantage is that you gain a slight tax advantage to take care of people who otherwise might have been a much more costly burden on the state.
 
2012-11-30 03:59:41 PM
I drunk what:

Our conversation is still about marriage. I took issue with you when you introduced "definition of core-value family unit" as a reason for denying gays the right to marry.

Is it your position that the only reason to allow a marriage is so that two people can make "legitimate" offspring?

If not, why do the genders of a couple who wish to marry matter?

Marriage does not confer the right to raise kids. Many married couples are denied adoptions. Many married couples have their offspring taken away. The question of whether gays make good parents is unrelated to the question of whether they should be able to marry.
 
2012-11-30 04:06:34 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.


They also apparently intended whites to be able to legally own black people, so I guess you're a big fan of slavery, hunh?
 
2012-11-30 04:12:17 PM

BarkingUnicorn: ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Is really your position?

Continued tax breaks for lower income families is. I'm not sure I would go so far as to sign off on any communist manifesto though. That seems like an awful thin stretch from what was simply a statement about removing a tax deduction. ???

Again, if you disagree, it's okay to just say you disagree. :) You don't have to try to create some elaborate and weirdly unrelated political trap. :)

But I'm on Fark's politics tab; gotta follow the rules! :-)

The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements. You've agreed that by supporting dependents people do society some good. Then you say people shouldn't be rewarded by society if they have, by some arbitrary standard, the ability to do society some good. "From each according to his ability." But people who have need for society's help (again, by an arbitrary standard) should get it. "To each according to his needs."

I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

We're far from your original argument that child tax benefits contribute to overpopulation. I'm pointing out that there are considerations besides that one. I'll add that I think the contribution to overpopulation is trivial.


And why does poverty breed poverty? Lack of opportunity for offspring to better themselves. And when lack of opportunity persists, lack of motivation might be impacted.
 
2012-11-30 04:16:15 PM

silvervial: And you are completely wrong. The dependent deduction has nothing to do with "incentivizing breeding" since it also applies to persons other than your offspring. The social advantage is that you gain a slight tax advantage to take care of people who otherwise might have been a much more costly burden on the state.


Lol. I already said subsidies for adoption should stay.

So, you are completely wrong.  Sorry.
 
2012-11-30 04:17:27 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: The Marxist dictum summarizes your statements.

Heh. No. Not even close. "From each according to his ability" means you take from them as much as they have the ability to produce. All of it. I'm not advocating anything close to that. And you are being quite silly. Though funny.


It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.

Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)
 
2012-11-30 04:18:26 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.


assets.nydailynews.com 

You might want to go back and reread your bible. The crime the people of Sodom were guilty of was lack of charity/hospitality, abuse, and rape.
 
2012-11-30 04:22:00 PM

BarkingUnicorn: It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.


Wow. If you are really this freaked out about my suggestion of removing one tax deduction, you really shouldn't look a few threads up at the hundreds of people who want to raise taxes by 100%. Your head will explode, if you think I'm marxist. :)

BarkingUnicorn: Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)


I guess I can just say, I disagree with regressive taxation in general. Which would include the one you suggest.
 
2012-11-30 04:26:23 PM
It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.
 
2012-11-30 04:37:43 PM

MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.


Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.
 
2012-11-30 04:38:20 PM

Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: 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.

You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.


Actually he wasn't that rich, but I also suspect maybe he had mob connections. And the only reason he even wanted an annulment was because wife #2 wanted to be married in the church!
 
2012-11-30 04:40:09 PM

Rindred: I would argue that the social good done by wealthier people who support dependents is probably greater than the social good done by poor people. The wealthier tend to keep their dependents healthier; educate them better; turn their dependent kids into more productive citizens. Or does poverty not breed poverty?

So who is more deserving of society's reward, on a quid pro quo basis?

And why does poverty breed poverty? Lack of opportunity for offspring to better themselves. And when lack of opportunity persists, lack of motivation might be impacted.


Very true, but a separate issue. We're talking about who deserves dependent tax breaks. ThrobblefootSpectre says wealthier people don't deserve them at all. I counter that the wealthy deserve them more than poor people based upon the social good that each group tends to do.

It depends on your definition of "deserve." Do you deserve it because you need it, or because you earned it? Which takes precedence: what you deserve (either way) or what's best for society?

Fun things to debate.
 
2012-11-30 04:45:47 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.


"Coming to a consensus" has NOTHING to do with civil rights. If we had to have a consensus on these issues, we'd still have slavery.
 
2012-11-30 04:46:11 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Our conversation is still about marriage.


i'm good lad, you must have me confused with some unicorn barking at people

BarkingUnicorn: I took issue with you when you introduced "definition of core-value family unit" as a reason for denying gays the right to marry.


hmm, good point, allow me to correct myself:

I drunk what: 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 Marriage is, are treating someone like shiat?


better?

though as we have already covered, these two terms-concepts are tightly linked together, so changing one will significantly change the other

and contrary to popular belief change isn't always good by default

BarkingUnicorn: Is it your position that the only reason to allow a marriage is so that two people can make "legitimate" offspring?


no, but that is the core purpose of marriage, and why we defined it that way in the first place, the satisfying each other's sexual desires part is just the icing on the cake, it's also designed to reinforce a loyal and monogamous sexual relationship (to set a proper example for the next generation)

BarkingUnicorn: If not, why do the genders of a couple who wish to marry matter?


because the Natural-Physical sexual union (that can produce offspring) between two organisms is with a Male and Female

because the Only Natural-Spiritually approved choice is between One Man and One Woman

BarkingUnicorn: Marriage does not confer the right to raise kids.


yes it does

BarkingUnicorn: Many married couples are denied adoptions.


irrelevant

BarkingUnicorn: Many married couples have their offspring taken away.


irrelevant

BarkingUnicorn: The question of whether gays make good parents is unrelated to the question of whether they should be able to marry.


Marriage and Family are not exclusive concepts, i thought you were keeping up. they are directly related even if they are not directly dependent

you're also constantly confusing IS with OUGHT

wolves CAN raise children but they OUGHT NOT to

gays CAN marry but they OUGHT NOT to

and ultimately we will never agree on what should be the definition of "Marriage" or "Family" until we have a standard from which to derive such things, I asked this very important question earlier:

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

what do you consider to be The Authority?


//bolded for those who have trouble reading

but i only hear crickets since then, so apparently no one cares and we've already lost
 
2012-11-30 04:46:22 PM

crzybtch: Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: 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.

You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.

Actually he wasn't that rich, but I also suspect maybe he had mob connections. And the only reason he even wanted an annulment was because wife #2 wanted to be married in the church!


Newt Gingrich?

// isn't Callista a Roman Catholic?
// I know it's not Newt, because he wasn't Catholic when he was getting his willy wet
 
2012-11-30 04:46:29 PM

lennavan: Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."


Sweetcheeks, it's a hell of lot more like "These are two extremes of a range" and you said, "Why are you fixating on the low end?"

Stubbornness, you're soaking in it.
 
2012-11-30 04:55:48 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.


Ah, you're one of those people who think that if we repealed the Fourteenth Amendment black people wouldn't have rights anymore.
 
2012-11-30 04:59:25 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.

Wow. If you are really this freaked out about my suggestion of removing one tax deduction, you really shouldn't look a few threads up at the hundreds of people who want to raise taxes by 100%. Your head will explode, if you think I'm marxist. :)

BarkingUnicorn: Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)

I guess I can just say, I disagree with regressive taxation in general. Which would include the one you suggest.


I'm not freaked out about anything. This debate is simply entertaining. :-)

So you want to eliminate just one dependent tax break. Which one? There's the dependent exemption worth $X per dependent; the Earned Income Credit; the Child & Dependent Care Credit. That's just off the top of my head; I have no dependents now.

I don't like your idea of eliminating dependent tax breaks based on some arbitrary "need" test. Of course, wealthier people do save more tax dollars per dependent deduction than poor people do, because we have a progressive tax rate structure. But again, the wealthier people tend to return more social good in exchange.

I favor leaving things just the way they are.
 
2012-11-30 04:59:59 PM

Martian_Astronomer: If you would like to have a sincere conversation in which we respond in detail to each other's points


hi, i'm IDW i don't believe we've met

Martian_Astronomer: without changing the subject, you're welcome to start one.


hi, i'm IDW i don't believe we've met, what is "the subject"?

Martian_Astronomer: Things that happen during fetal development may not be genetic, but can't be said to be a willful choice on the part of the fetus either.


1. Environmental factors are not genetic nor predetermined.
2. I NEVER said that their Free Will was the ONLY factor in this equation.

Martian_Astronomer: Similarly, many things that a child has zero control over affect the brain development producing permanent biological results.


correct

Martian_Astronomer: You can argue for genetic vs. not genetic, or "not a choice" vs. "choice," but genetic and "not a choice" are not equivalent.


i'd rather not argue them unless someone is having trouble discerning such things or understanding what bearing they have on the subject

is the subject, "are gays to blame for their gayness? if so how much?" OR "should gays be allowed to marry? (AKA should society have to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a certain group of lifestyle choices?)

/because teh gays aren't the only ones making a lifestyle choice
//i've already listed others, if/when you're ready to actually defend an argument
///ready when you are lad
//we'll just wait patiently here
 
2012-11-30 05:04:04 PM

Deucednuisance: lennavan: Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."

Sweetcheeks, it's a hell of lot more like "These are two extremes of a range" and you said, "Why are you fixating on the low end?"

Stubbornness, you're soaking in it.


Pookiebottom, I was talking about the people in the middle. The only reason you didn't know that cuddlebear, is that you think the only people who are struggling to get by are below the poverty line.

Silver utensils, your mouth is full of them.
 
2012-11-30 05:05:47 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.


Maybe equal rights and freedoms for everyone, like what the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights say America was created for and founded on, shouldn't be at the mercy of the whims of the general public.

Male, female, white, black, Mexican, Asian, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.

Sound good?
 
2012-11-30 05:10:43 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, female, white, black, Mexican, Asian, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.


And not one of them should be embarrassed about their nationality. You are preaching to the choir my friend.
 
2012-11-30 05:16:28 PM

Dr Dreidel: Be my guest. They even give you a side-by-side translation.


thats fine and dandy but where are the ORIGINAL greek texts?

you know when the greek authors wrote the old testament, show me that link

lennavan: I said I agree with you and then just reiterated what you said -- if let orphaned kids call themselves a family, then parents will abandon their kids more often.


IF (we) let orphaned kids call themselves a family,
THEN parents will abandon their kids more often

???

IDW said this?? feel free to use the quote button

wtf is this? i don't even

are you just dumping dictionaries into a blender and posting what comes out the other side?

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Major derp, dude.


you aint just whistlin' dixie
 
2012-11-30 05:16:38 PM

I drunk what: is the subject, "are gays to blame for their gayness? if so how much?" OR "should gays be allowed to marry? (AKA should society have to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a certain group of lifestyle choices?)


The problem with the "Are gays to blame for their gayness?" question is that it automatically assumes that gay is an aberration that needs to be fixed. If the problem is genetics, then just genetically engineer the gay out. If the problem is the environment, then jail the parents or put X laws in to prevent the kid from being grown gay.

How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be gay. Same percentage of the population that left-handed people are, yet there's no one asking if we should be blaming left-handed people for their left-handedness.

As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.
 
2012-11-30 05:20:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, murderer, female, liar, white, thief, black, pedophile, Mexican, incest, Asian, bestial, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.

Sound good?


i'm ok you're ok

let's change some marriage laws! who is with me?!

/we'll just sort out all that "family" stuff later
//it'll probably just work itself out anyway
///meh, don't care
 
2012-11-30 05:21:21 PM

MrEricSir: "Coming to a consensus" has NOTHING to do with civil rights. If we had to have a consensus on these issues, we'd still have slavery.


I'll go ahead disagree with you on that one. In any human endeavor it's better to try to come to a consensus though reason and discussion. Which is what we are doing, and we are getting there on gay rights. Forcing your ideal of civil rights on other through force should be a last resort, after reason and discussion. I'm just saying that reason and discussion takes longer among a population of 300 million than 30 million.
 
2012-11-30 05:21:36 PM

I drunk what: IF (we) let orphaned kids call themselves a family, THEN parents will abandon their kids more often


Makes sense.

I drunk what: IDW said this?? feel free to use the quote button


Will do.

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support


Exactly. Let's not support parents abandoning kids by letting orphans call themselves a family.
 
2012-11-30 05:30:05 PM

Peki: The problem with the "Are gays to blame for their gayness?" question is that it automatically assumes that gay is an aberration that needs to be fixed.


is the subject "are gays to blame for gayness?" OR "is gay an aberration that needs to be fixed?"

you guys gotta quit changing the subject all the time you're driving Martian_Astronomer nuts!

IDW on the other hand, is game, just pick one at a time, for those having trouble keeping up at home

Peki: If the problem is genetics, then just genetically engineer the gay out


that's part of the problem

Peki: If the problem is the environment, then jail the parents or put X laws in to prevent the kid from being grown gay.


that's part of the problem, would you like to know more?

Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here].


any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.


and yet it's illegal to in so many places, hmmm.... darn that reality. Again, deal with it.
 
2012-11-30 05:31:56 PM

lennavan: Pookiebottom, I was talking about the people in the middle. The only reason you didn't know that cuddlebear, is that you think the only people who are struggling to get by are below the poverty line.


Honeybun, your lack of reading comprehension is showing.

Neither of us said anything of the sort.

You have somehow convinced yourself that we did, but we didn't.

That's that whole point of this. That's what we're trying to tell you. So could you please stop wagging your pretty little head and let an idea other than the ones you're making up have a place in there, ok?

It's 5:30 here in Our Nation's Capital and Mr. Nuisance has to got to get to his second job.

So he can "get by". (It's "uniquely American" to do so, I'm told.) Don't wait up!

Now, come give us a kiss and then it's off to bed with you!
 
2012-11-30 05:37:01 PM

lennavan: Makes sense.


*huffs paint* true dat, respek knuckles

welcometofark.jpg

lennavan: Exactly. Let's not support parents abandoning kids by letting orphans call themselves a family.


Precisely. Parents letting orphans not let's themselves abandoning call a support family by kids.

/cupcake
 
2012-11-30 05:43:25 PM

I drunk what:
Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here].

1) any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.

2) and yet it's illegal to in so many places, hmmm.... darn that reality. Again, deal with it.


1) No. Love to hear your ideas, especially as I'm both left-handed and bisexual.

2) Laws can be changed and/or declared unconstitutional. My orientation cannot be changed (in spite of me every once in a while going "Peki, you're straight, just admit it". . . and then Fark has another cosplay thread and so much for that thought).
 
2012-11-30 05:50:07 PM

I drunk what: ///meh, don't care


You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.
 
2012-11-30 06:12:34 PM

I drunk what: i'd rather not argue them unless someone is having trouble discerning such things or understanding what bearing they have on the subject


That's good, but you were the one who tried to go down that road in the first place....

I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about):


My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.

Regardless, you are right, the subject is whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Moreover, since this is the United States we're talking about, the more specific question is whether or not you can find a compelling, secular reason (which does not violate the 14th amendment) to deny homosexuals a legal status that is already not predicated on fertility or "normative" gender rolls.
 
kth
2012-11-30 06:18:05 PM
Cert was granted today in a case my brother-in-law is arguing, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/not a gay marriage case
 
2012-11-30 06:18:44 PM

Martian_Astronomer: My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.


My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.
 
2012-11-30 06:20:06 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.


Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.
 
2012-11-30 06:27:08 PM

Peki: My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


Well, for starters, lennavan's link did mention that there was some genetic correlation (though I'm not sure how they're separating out genetics and prenatal development in that study,) so being "pretty sure" that genetics is not relevant may not be warranted. As for the rest, I'm going to have to go with [citation needed]. (I mean that in a sincere sense, not an antagonistic one.)
 
2012-11-30 06:35:16 PM

gingerjet: I drunk what: ///meh, don't care

You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.


Because he's a professional troll. His method of operation is to go into a thread, make a half-hearted half-true statement, then descend into an orgy of constantly changing the definitions, answering your questions with questions about you or that have nothing to do with the subject, ignoring most of what you say, and eventually he starts insulting and attacking you.

Hell, all you have to do is look at his profile. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Peki: Martian_Astronomer: My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.

My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


If genetics has nothing to do with it, why do straight people make gay children? Many gays are raised in an everyday straight household. And why is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, from humans to fruit flies?

Like everything else in the universe, it's much more complex than "This is the only reason it happens", no matter how much humans want the answer to be simple.
 
2012-11-30 06:39:58 PM
Ooh, apparently I got misread there.

I didn't mean genetics has nothing to do with it, period. I meant, I don't think genetics has anything to do with it in my case. It was meant as an anecdotal story to support Martian's position that there are more factors than just genetics.

I DO believe genetics has SOMETHING to do with. Just not sure if that arguments works in my case.
 
2012-11-30 06:44:50 PM

gingerjet: I drunk what: ///meh, don't care

You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.


sometimes people are sarcastic on the internet

however this happens to be one of those cases where i assume the role of my opponents to illustrate how absolutely ridiculous their statements are, and then watch as they hurl insults at me tell me how stupid i am, then i remind them that i just directly quoted them

meh

i do care
 
2012-11-30 06:55:00 PM

I drunk what: I drunk Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here]. {----- read this carefully

any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?


Peki: No.


i've bolded a hint for you

another hint: homosexuality isn't the only lifestyle choice...

am i right Keizer?

I drunk what: I drunk Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, murderer, female, liar, white, thief, black, pedophile, Mexican, incest, Asian, bestial, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.


right on brah, i'm ok you're ok
 
2012-11-30 07:10:29 PM

I drunk what: I drunk what: I drunk Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here]. {----- read this carefully

any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: No.

i've bolded a hint for you

another hint: homosexuality isn't the only lifestyle choice...


If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.
 
2012-11-30 07:16:12 PM

Peki: My orientation cannot be changed


i disagree

Peki: My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


what? no Free Will?

i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess
 
2012-11-30 07:19:50 PM

Peki: Ooh, apparently I got misread there.

I didn't mean genetics has nothing to do with it, period. I meant, I don't think genetics has anything to do with it in my case. It was meant as an anecdotal story to support Martian's position that there are more factors than just genetics.

I DO believe genetics has SOMETHING to do with. Just not sure if that arguments works in my case.


Your genes contain everything about you and your ancestors, including behaviors. You can't say that one thing works only on one person and brush off it applying to yourself. HOW MUCH of an impact is the debatable part, but it's still there.

I was born into a typical straight Christian household with two loving parents, an older brother, and a typical life. Not exposed to large amounts of sexual material until late teenhood, never lived anywhere that was heavily gay, nothing from either parent telling me what I should be attracted to, in fact I only got The Talk when I was either 13 or 14 and it was a minimalistic version. My brother was and is straight as an arrow. I found I was attracted to both males and females when I started getting the urges and feelings, and to this day I'm as bi as bi can be.

So, if I had to explain how my sexual preferences turned out, it would have to be a heavy genetic influence, because my environment and upbringing certainly didn't influence me. This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.
 
2012-11-30 07:20:03 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.


can i have some preparation time to condition myself first?

or do i have to just go in cold turkey?

/bite the pillow

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

were they simply figments of our collective imagination?

kinda like when jesus was a myth?
 
2012-11-30 07:30:09 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.


I concur.

and i am willing to propose that some people struggle harder than others, that in certain cases their genetics + environment can almost guarantee that they will become predisposed to those desires

unfortunately this does not excuse nor justify the results

the EXACT same argument can be made for a great number of other lifestyles choices

because in the END no matter how many odds-complexities you have working against you, the final decision is 100% up to you

hence, darn that Free Will

that's Life, i never said it was going to be easy...
 
2012-11-30 07:35:51 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.

can i have some preparation time to condition myself first?

or do i have to just go in cold turkey?

/bite the pillow

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

were they simply figments of our collective imagination?

kinda like when jesus was a myth?


Jesus may have been a real person. It doesn't mean he was a piece of God's existence in human form who went around performing amazing miracles that were only recorded in a book written long after his time of existence. You think something of that magnitude would have been written about by everyone in that area (or around the world, but God apparently didn't care about the rest of humanity, only the small number in the Middle East). Anyway, you can stop trying to deflect the issue.

I recall most of those cases were because they were in hiding out of fear for their lives or to be accepted, and they didn't change at all, only hid their homosexuality. And I'm certain that you're perfectly aware that the "gay lifestyle" is just like the "straight lifestyle" except that those involved happen to like people of their own gender.
 
2012-11-30 07:36:44 PM

I drunk what: i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess


No, you can't. Never in a million years. So I'll just tell you:

It's because you're blind.

The whole thread is about choice: to marry or not marry. You don't believe that should be a choice available to gays, because you are blinded by your religion's arrogance.
 
2012-11-30 07:38:58 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.

I concur.

and i am willing to propose that some people struggle harder than others, that in certain cases their genetics + environment can almost guarantee that they will become predisposed to those desires

unfortunately this does not excuse nor justify the results

the EXACT same argument can be made for a great number of other lifestyles choices

because in the END no matter how many odds-complexities you have working against you, the final decision is 100% up to you

hence, darn that Free Will

that's Life, i never said it was going to be easy...


So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex? It can be perfectly easy if people like you would stop acting like loving someone who has the same gonads should be treated like a horrible evil thing.
 
2012-11-30 07:45:45 PM

I drunk what:

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?


You may be able to cite examples of people who changed their sexual behavior, but you cannot show any objective evidence of anyone's sexual orientation. We can only take people's word for the latter. And we know how that often turns out.
 
2012-11-30 07:49:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I drunk what:

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

You may be able to cite examples of people who changed their sexual behavior, but you cannot show any objective evidence of anyone's sexual orientation. We can only take people's word for the latter. And we know how that often turns out.


But they changed, that's all the evidence he needs. Since IDW changes the definitions of things constantly to fit his views, it works fine.
 
2012-11-30 08:08:19 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?


for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it
 
2012-11-30 08:16:47 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?

for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it


Sorry, dude. Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil. When the creation shows itself to be more kind, loving, compassionate, and moral than the creator, something is wrong.

You say God loves everything and gave us free will, but if we do anything that's not OBEY ME!, then we'll be brutally tortured for eternity. That's neither loving nor free will. It also sounds quite like many other deities from before God was created, from the Aztec gods demanding obedience and sacrifices to Zeus thunderbolting mortals who make him grumpy. Do you really want the image of God to be like that?

In your eyes, gays are evil because they love others. That's a sad, pitiable view of life.
 
2012-11-30 08:23:34 PM
I don't care what your personal beliefs are on this subject. If you think that gay marriage is going to continue to be illegal and that gay couples are going to have fewer benefits than straight couples then you are not living in the real world.

You can be against it all you want. I'm not gay but I have been waiting for this day just hoping that it might help bigots shut up.
 
2012-11-30 08:46:31 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.


yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok
 
2012-11-30 08:53:58 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.

yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok


Man created those, not God. Man created God. Man was around a loooonnnng time before God was, and survived just fine before those commandments were thought of. Normal people intuitively know that being a dick and farking everyone else over ruins their chances for a good life, they don't need a fairy tale to tell them. Hell, social animals know that to an extent.

And are we REALLY going to try the "letting two humans love each other and have equal rights = bestiality" "argument"? Really? Don't prove to me you're that stupid and inane.
 
2012-11-30 09:15:22 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?

for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it



I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.

yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok


Where does this "morality" you speak of come from? It surely is not the bible or god, or something of that nature. You speak of the good lessons of the bible, not lying, and killing and stealing, but the bible is full of tales of god not only allowing murder, rape and theft, but demanding them. And then you have the morality of the bible which claims a man should lie with his dead brother's wife to beget children, or that women should go out of the camp when they are on their period, or that we should stone to death those that work on the sabbath and stone disobedient children and force the raped to marry their rapists.

We reject those immoral parts of the bible, trying to justify it away, saying god didn't really mean to kill people working on Sunday, surely. And no one is supposed to really stone disobedient children, or make women move out to the edge of the city when they are on their period. And all that stuff about murder and rape and killing children, it was all for a good reason and not immoral at all, even if those same acts were done by anyone else.

So, if the bible, the source of you morality, has to be "interpreted" in this fashion, where does the moral sense come from that causes us to reject the immoral bible? If we already have a moral sense outside the bible, a superior sense that shows us clearly and without a doubt the immorality of the lessons of the bible, what need a bible? Our morality can be grounded on something other than magic sky-fathers and nomadic fairy tales. And without the fairy tales, the anti-gay sentiment found in the bible can be rejected as immoral as easily the sentiment that says we should stone people who work on Sunday, and that the raped should be forced to marry their rapist.

But what, exactly, is our modern morality grounded in? Not, as you seem to think, "If it feels good, do it." But, it does me no injury for my neighbor to marry a man or a women. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs. And that is that. Mind your own business, your morality is between you and your god. And, seeing how many gay folks are religious and feel their god finds their marriage moral, you are never going to win the argument.
 
2012-11-30 10:22:02 PM
DubtodaIll: 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.

Dwight_Yeast: Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.


Wikipedia has a list:
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
1,138 is an interesting number.
 
2012-11-30 10:31:37 PM

RyogaM: But what, exactly, is our modern morality grounded in? Not, as you (IDW) seem to think, "If it feels good, do it."


Actually, that is what all moral codes are grounded in. If you follow these rules, you will feel better; maybe not now, maybe not until after you die. But you will feel better if you follow these rules than you will feel if you don't.

You may experience stress when you resist the perfectly natural urge to choke the living shiat out of some asshole who desperately deserves it. But later, looking back, you will feel better than you would if you had succumbed to the urge.

You will feel good immediately if you support gay marriage, or if you oppose it. It depends on what moral code you follow. But you always follow that moral code because it makes you feel good.

People don't do things that they believe are going to make them feel worse in the long run. Even suicides believe that they're better off dead. A guy who drinks knowing that he'll get a hangover believes that the near-term good feeling outweighs tomorrow's agony.

The dominant secular view is that life and liberty exist for the purpose of pursuing happiness. The dominant religious view is that God gives us life and free will to give us a shot at Heaven, the perfect happiness. Just different ways of saying the same thing.

It's all about feeling good, baby!
 
2012-11-30 10:38:08 PM

bullwinkl: I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.


You really like corkscrew penii, don't you?

Ballistic Penises and Corkscrew Vaginas is definitely going to be the name of my next band.
 
2012-11-30 10:57:07 PM

ciberido: bullwinkl: I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.

You really like corkscrew penii, don't you?

Ballistic Penises and Corkscrew Vaginas is definitely going to be the name of my next band.


You always have the most interesting links : )
/Although I think I could have made it through life without knowing that.
 
2012-11-30 11:08:25 PM

ManRay: Would it be possible for them to strike down all marriage laws when considering these cases? Cut a wide swath stance, so to speak.


FTFY
 
2012-11-30 11:17:23 PM

eddiesocket: Serious Black: 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?

I want in on that. Thomas hates teh gay. It's not even a question he'll uphold DOMA. Even the most optimistic SCOTUS watchers know this. You hear Kennedy maybe, Roberts sure, but no one ever says Thomas. The fact that he thinks sodomy are "uncommonly silly" is absolutely no indication of his feelings on gay marriage. Your mistake is in thinking he has integrity and actually gives a damn about state's rights to make laws he disapproves of.


I fully admit it's a bold prediction and that it could blow up in my face. But that's why I'm willing to put money to my prediction. Any jagoff can make bold predictions and just ignore that they made them later on (see Dick Morris, Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, Dean Chambers, Karl Rove, etc.). Putting money behind it makes it mean something more than breaking a reputation for a week or less.

I'm game if you are. Just reply in the affirmative here so we have public confirmation and send an e-mail to the address in my profile to iron out the last details.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:58 PM
I just leave this here The Rainbow conection
lostboysconsulting.ca
 
2012-11-30 11:34:18 PM
Or maybe some Willie Nelson : )
 
2012-12-01 12:03:42 AM

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


sounds like the problems outlined with the 1%ers...
 
2012-12-01 12:03:50 AM

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


This is actually relevant because one passage talks about sexual desire for "strange flesh." More conservative Christians would say that the "strange flesh" is the flesh of men, but there's an argument that it's the bodies of angels.

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?'

 

It does say something about how God and/or the people of the time saw women and rape.
 
2012-12-01 12:11:58 AM
I drunk what: so there were no cities that had riches and poor people before or after Sodom?

incendi: The bible is pretty clear that God is a bit of a bastard and not at all consistent in his judgements.


It was a belief at one time that the god of the "Old Testament" and the god of the "New Testament" were completely separate gods at odds with each other. One was essentially the God of Wrath and Vengeance, while the other was the God of Mercy. I'll leave it to you to deduce which was which.

Marcionism
 
2012-12-01 12:27:28 AM
I drunk what: 1st genetic == innate
2nd choice =/= genetic (false "dichotomy")


Martian_Astronomer: Things that happen during fetal development may not be genetic, but can't be said to be a willful choice on the part of the fetus either. Similarly, many things that a child has zero control over affect the brain development producing permanent biological results.

You can argue for genetic vs. not genetic, or "not a choice" vs. "choice," but genetic and "not a choice" are not equivalent.


There is some evidence, for example, that fraternal birth order affects sexual orientation. That would be an example of a non-genetic cause for being "born this way."

Also, some male-to-female transsexuals have reported that female hormone therapy caused their sexual orientation to shift away from gynephilia towards androphilia (i.e., less sexually attracted towards women and more sexually attracted towards men), which suggests that sexual orientation could be at least partly due to hormone levels --- biochemically determined, but not genetic per se.
 
2012-12-01 12:36:11 AM

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

incendi: The bible is pretty clear that God is a bit of a bastard and not at all consistent in his judgements.

It was a belief at one time that the god of the "Old Testament" and the god of the "New Testament" were completely separate gods at odds with each other. One was essentially the God of Wrath and Vengeance, while the other was the God of Mercy. I'll leave it to you to deduce which was which.

Marcionism


I like the Gnostic beliefs that I read in the book "Jesus and the Lost Goddess". Basically IIRC the whole story of of Jesus is an allegory. Man was born in a cave (it's interesting there was a thread about the pope admitting this Jesus was born in a cave) and and Jesus left the cave after death. In the gnostic idea the cave is the physical world and its ruled by a deity most believe to be god but that god wasn't really the creator of all things. Well it's complex and I've read it a few times.
Anyway, if you're interested. Link
 
2012-12-01 05:31:55 AM
Marriage is not a religious construct. It existed before your religion, and will exist long after your religion dies out.


If you think the government should "get out of the marriage business" you're either woefully ignorant, or a lying coward. Either way, STFU and GBTW. Gays WILL gain the right to marry in this country, and there's nothing you can do about it in the long run.
 
2012-12-01 09:20:32 AM

RyogaM: WhereWho does this "morality" you speak of come from?


God

RyogaM: It surely is not the bible or god, or something of that nature.


It shirley does, The Bible is the most accurate account we have of God's Word to Man, (with extra heavy emphasis on the New Testament, if you're claiming to be a Christian) this is where we go to, to learn about what "morality" is

God is the Author-Creator-Judge of Morality

and Nature is simply the systems of existence we live in

RyogaM: You speak of the good lessons of the bible, not lying, and killing and stealing, but the bible is full of tales of god not only allowing murder, rape and theft, but demanding them. And then you have the morality of the bible which claims a man should lie with his dead brother's wife to beget children, or that women should go out of the camp when they are on their period, or that we should stone to death those that work on the sabbath and stone disobedient children and force the raped to marry their rapists.

We reject those immoral parts of the bible, trying to justify it away, saying god didn't really mean to kill people working on Sunday, surely. And no one is supposed to really stone disobedient children, or make women move out to the edge of the city when they are on their period. And all that stuff about murder and rape and killing children, it was all for a good reason and not immoral at all, even if those same acts were done by anyone else.


1st Read the entire Bible in context
2nd Learn the difference between the OT and NT (and who they apply to)
3rd Study, meditate, interpret, learn the differences between:
a. God's Law (10 commandments)
b. Mosaic-Levi "laws" (the jews attempt to make "religion" starting from God's core Law) [the "law" that God ignored-but allowed]
c. The Gospel (NT) = God's completely revealed Law through Jesus our Christ
4th Prophet

RyogaM: So, if the bible, the source of you morality, has to be "interpreted" in this fashion, where does the moral sense come from that causes us to reject the immoral bible?


We reject the JEWISH (only applied to old "law" jews) mosaic-levi laws as a failure of Man's attempt to guide his own footsteps, by accepting The New Law (which clearly repeats God's core Law, btw) and bring Light to this world

We have both history and current Law recorded in our Bibles for background-informational purposes

not to be confused as "everything in the bible" = Christianity

i hope this helps
 
2012-12-01 09:46:45 AM

RyogaM: If we already have a moral sense outside the bible, a superior sense that shows us clearly and without a doubt the immorality of the lessons of the bible, what need a bible?


highly unlikely, but you probably don't want to see the math...

however this sense you are referring does seem to be some sort of safety mechanism God created us with so that we at least have a sporting chance of knowing what is right (you still don't want to see that math either) unfortunately in the long run, we still need the complete picture (The Bible) to know for sure and to guarantee that we will make the right choices, when it REALLY counts...

RyogaM: Our morality can be grounded on something other than magic sky-fathers and nomadic fairy tales.


Ethics =/= Morality, you are talking about ethics here, and your butthurt towards God and spiritual things probably isn't helping your perception.. might i suggest that you let it go?

RyogaM: And without the fairy tales, the anti-gay sentiment found in the bible can be rejected as immoral as easily the sentiment that says we should stone people who work on Sunday, and that the raped should be forced to marry their rapist.


you are correct, Man is able to rationalize any belief his crooked heart desires, regardless of the source material he derives it from

this^ same conclusion could have also been "interpreted" from reading 'The Cat in the Hat'...

darn that Free Will, an unfortunate side effect of free will is Stupidity (not to be confused with ignorance)

tl;dr this is the tired old argument that ANYone can make the bible say ANYthing they want, all you gotta do is cherry pick some verses (out of context) and turn the herpty derp up to 11 and ... voila, you have "interpretation"

RyogaM: But what, exactly, is our modern morality grounded in?


if it isn't exactly the same Morality as ancient times, then it isn't Morality (objective) it is in fact Ethics (subjective) which is capable of Evolving into a new creature with time

only God can change Morality and if you're suggesting He has changed it, you better be prepared to back up your claims with Mountains of evidence

we're not stupid nor were we born yesterday

RyogaM: Mind your own business, your morality is between you and your god.


False. We (humans) are ALL bound to the same morality, and therefore can judge (not in the final sense) whether or not each other are failing or complying.

Sins done in secret that involves no other person, and likewise the forgiveness of that sin is between you and God.

Sins done publicly (and the forgiveness thereof) that involve other people are between the public, you and God.

Taking Sins to an island where other people share your delusions, does not magically make them ok.

I'm ok, you're not ok
 
2012-12-01 10:05:36 AM

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

This is actually relevant because one passage talks about sexual desire for "strange flesh." More conservative Christians would say that the "strange flesh" is the flesh of men, but there's an argument that it's the bodies of angels.


because spiritual beings such as God or angels cannot take the form-avatar of a Man? aren't all humans spiritual beings??

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. ~Hebrews 13:2

rationalization is a helluva drug
 
2012-12-01 10:20:06 AM

ciberido: There is some evidence, for example, that fraternal birth order affects sexual orientation. That would be an example of a non-genetic cause for being "born this way."


environment is part of the problem, would you like to know more?
 
2012-12-01 12:30:14 PM
i drunk what: what do you consider to be The Authority?

I consider the authority on homosexuality to be homosexuals. Funny that, but they just seem to know more about it than anyone else.
 
2012-12-01 12:55:26 PM

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

This is actually relevant because one passage talks about sexual desire for "strange flesh." More conservative Christians would say that the "strange flesh" is the flesh of men, but there's an argument that it's the bodies of angels.

because spiritual beings such as God or angels cannot take the form-avatar of a Man? aren't all humans spiritual beings??

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. ~Hebrews 13:2

rationalization is a helluva drug


Yeah, I wasn't hoping to be taken seriously with that "not men" gag.

So, the reason to be hospitable is because you don't know if a stranger may be a being who can harm or help you? How about because it makes you feel good?
 
2012-12-01 02:35:19 PM

eddiesocket: OtherLittleGuy: 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.

That doesn't make any sense.


Prop 8: Yes, you can pass an amendment that strikes down a court decision, even by popular referendum.....

DOMA: .... but it doesn't matter here,because the "marriage is one man/one woman" is Federally unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-01 03:31:17 PM

I drunk what: Peki: My orientation cannot be changed

i disagree

...
what? no Free Will?

i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess


Srsly? SRSLY??

Go be gay for a few months. Stop craving intimacy with the opposite sex.

Just do it. I mean it is just a matter of free will right? RIGHT??

/hurrrrdudududururururururuuderpppppppppp
 
2012-12-01 05:27:39 PM
Hello,

I'm a Ye Olde Time farker that's probably been forgotten in the 4 years since I last posted on these forums. I've been in and out lurking now and again, but never felt the need to post until today. After four years some folks have changed, some have grown more conservative (read crazy), some have become borderline liberals, and then there are people like I drunk what who haven't changed at all.

They're just as ignorant of their religious teachings, philosophies of the world, and worst of all continue to misrepresent what is discovered by the sciences to justify their horrifically bigoted and ignorant world view. Their kind of thought, the sort that sees full adherence to a self-contradictory and wholy arbitrary collection of books written by people whose knowledge of the world barely extended past "fire is hot" and "pointy things make you bleed" as being either literal truth or the only true way to understand the world, is what is used to justify some of the most egregious abuses of humans if not in the US, then in places where protection for those that need it most is unheard of because they're dehumanised in the face of religious extremism.

More succinctly? I drunk what is still a hatemongering choad that would rather spit lies (remember that thing about not baring false witness? You're failing at it) and religious dogma than try to learn that the world has advanced its understanding of things from the days where women were put outside like a dog that had pissed the carpet because their cycle had started.
 
2012-12-01 06:01:18 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I drunk what: Peki: My orientation cannot be changed

i disagree

...
what? no Free Will?

i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess

Srsly? SRSLY??

Go be gay for a few months. Stop craving intimacy with the opposite sex.

Just do it. I mean it is just a matter of free will right? RIGHT??

/hurrrrdudududururururururuuderpppppppppp


That's why I didn't bother responding. That right there told us everything we need to know about IDW's P.O.V.

IDW thinks he can tell gay people what it's like to be gay, and that they can just "choose" differently.

No one chooses this, you dumbfark. If I could be normal, I would give my right arm to be. I can't. So why do *I* have to change? Why can't you just farking accept me for who I am?
 
2012-12-01 06:04:48 PM
According to IDW, all of us are reading the Bible wrong when we point out the contradictions, inconsistencies, and parts where God tells his followers to kill unbelievers, shellfish eaters, menstruating women who don't leave the city, people who wear mixed fabrics, and disobedient children, as well as the many times God has committed mass murder and cleansing.

Which fits right in with how he redefines everything to continue arguing and trolling.
 
2012-12-01 06:10:09 PM

Peki: That's why I didn't bother responding. That right there told us everything we need to know about IDW's P.O.V.

IDW thinks he can tell gay people what it's like to be gay, and that they can just "choose" differently.

No one chooses this, you dumbfark. If I could be normal, I would give my right arm to be. I can't. So why do *I* have to change? Why can't you just farking accept me for who I am?


Because God, the most loving being ever, who created existence out of love, absolutely hates that you're not exactly how he wants you to be and you're going to be subjected to unspeakable torture for all eternity because you listened to demons and used your free will to choose to love those of your gender. It's much easier and simpler than just waving his hand and fixing what he originally screwed up in the first place (seriously, you or I know better than to leave something you don't want others getting into where they can get to it, and to keep an eye out for those who would try to screw things up).

And IDW doesn't give a damn about anything he's saying anyway, this is how he trolls. Nothing you saw will change his mind or see you in a different way, he'll twist what you say and redefine things yet again to continue his trolling.
 
2012-12-01 09:30:03 PM

Murkanen: and then there are people like I drunk what who haven't changed at all


this is one of the greatest compliments i have received in a long time

thank you

/peace be with you

Peki: Why can't you just farking accept me for who I am?


24.media.tumblr.com

Keizer_Ghidorah: And IDW doesn't give a damn about anything he's saying anyway


this is not true, you haven't already lost, i do care
 
2012-12-01 11:15:42 PM

I drunk what: this is one of the greatest compliments i have received in a long time


Not being willing to change your positions despite being demonstratably proven that you're incorrect time and time again is a bad thing.

That you take it as a compliment just better supports the rest of what was written about you.
 
2012-12-02 12:26:56 AM

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

This is actually relevant because one passage talks about sexual desire for "strange flesh." More conservative Christians would say that the "strange flesh" is the flesh of men, but there's an argument that it's the bodies of angels.

because spiritual beings such as God or angels cannot take the form-avatar of a Man? aren't all humans spiritual beings??

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. ~Hebrews 13:2

rationalization is a helluva drug

Yeah, I wasn't hoping to be taken seriously with that "not men" gag.

So, the reason to be hospitable is because you don't know if a stranger may be a being who can harm or help you? How about because it makes you feel good?


If you want to have fun with this, let's start talking about giants.

Numbers 13:31
Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 2:21, and 3:11
 
2012-12-02 02:05:40 PM

Murkanen: Not being willing to change your positions despite being demonstratably proven that you're incorrect time and time again is a bad thing.


name one thing i am incorrect about

ciberido: If you want to have fun with this, let's start talking about giants.


don't be silly, everyone knows they are just a myth

www.maniacworld.com
2.bp.blogspot.com
www.asianoffbeat.com

next thing you know, you'll be telling us that dwarves are real, that live in a magical place called munchkin land

keep your fairytales to yourself nobody cares
 
2012-12-03 08:49:17 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.


perhaps you could try incest for month, including acting, thinking and behaving like one.

Peki: IDW thinks he can tell gay people what it's like to be gay, and that they can just "choose" differently.


perhaps Peki could try being a pedophile for a month, including acting, thinking and behaving like one.

instead of telling pedophiles what it's like to be a pedophile, and that hey can just "choose" differently.

BarkingUnicorn: How about because it makes you feel good?


should we base our lifestyle choices on what makes us feel good?

BarkingUnicorn: So, the reason to be hospitable is because you don't know if a stranger may be a being who can harm or help you?


i suppose, if you're a fan of a 'pascal's wager' style of "moral" standards..

have you learned nothing from Santa Claus?

how about being Good for Godness sake...?

/He knows if you've been Bad or Good
 
2012-12-03 11:29:42 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Well, for starters, lennavan's link did mention that there was some genetic correlation (though I'm not sure how they're separating out genetics and prenatal development in that study,)


You compare fraternal versus identical twins. In a nutshell, you say if genetics plays zero role, it should not matter whether your twin is fraternal or identical. If it does matter, that means genetics plays a role.

So prenatal development would be considered an environment factor. The study does not address, nor attempt to address, what it is about the environment that plays a role and when.
 
Displayed 325 of 325 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report