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

Obligatory.

//Dude makes sense when he isn't yelling at a chair.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...