Stupid Supreme Court

[Quatre Coureur]

Jeebus Kevin! When did u meet Pandora? And how did u convince her to let u open her Box!? :naughty:

 

[ndcent]

Another liberal who bought panties a size too small....

You sound like you really want to unite this country - that sort of bipartisanship is going to do wonders for your party next year.

 

[KidVermicious]

Jeebus Kevin! When did u meet Pandora? And how did u convince her to let u open her Box!? :naughty:

My secret plan was always to lure all the righties and lefties into one place at the same time. Once they're busy fighting and aren't paying attention to me, I'm gonna nuke 'em all and leave the world for the moderates.

Don't need to thank me, just doin' my part.

 

[Thai]

You sound like you really want to unite this country - that sort of bipartisanship is going to do wonders for your party next year.

I am on your side dude...GO CLINTON!! (Hell, after Obama years, ANYTHING is better!)

Maybe one day, someone will bring prestige back to Nobel Peace Prize...and the Presidency. Maybe one day, we have a President that does not comment on everything and anything on Twitter...and instead have our soldiers' and allies' back.

I can only hope for a brighter future for my kids.

 

[wallytoo]

Yup.

The difference is that a gay marriage has no chance in producing offspring with birth defects or - at the very least - an exceedingly-sub-par intellect bordering on mental retardation. I've worked in Appalachia and seen the result of inter-family marriages, and it goes much further than protruding ears and foreheads. That's why so much of the population there receives disability benefits for mental issues. That's also why inter-family relationships are usually illegal in the rest of the country.

It isn't even in the same ballpark as bestiality, which is usually equivalent to animal cruelty and, thus, a crime. That's just a stupid analogy, period, and is why my 'ignore list' - with its sole occupant - has been keeping this forum largely idiot-free for me for about three years now.

I also don't really see why the government would be involved in this due to "tax implications," as it seems you could collect more taxes from people filing individually than in allowing more of them to file jointly, anyway.

Not just a red herring. It begs the question, to me: is that the only argument (against same-sex marriage) that's left? If it is, it's a pathetic one.

so for you, marriage is only about sex. i wasn't being flippant; why shouldn't anyone be able to cohabitate and be "married"? and whether you like it or not, being married is a benefit with regard to federal income taxes. thus, to be non-discriminitory, all adults should be able to marry whoever they choose.

 

[RandyDaytona]

so for you, marriage is only about sex. i wasn't being flippant; why shouldn't anyone be able to cohabitate and be "married"? and whether you like it or not, being married is a benefit with regard to federal income taxes. thus, to be non-discriminitory, all adults should be able to marry whoever they choose.

It can be about whatever the parties engaged in it want it to be. If you prefer to accentuate the religious aspects, go for it. But if you'd like to have your family members eligible for health insurance, survivorship, or any other "benefit" which - like it or not (and fair or not) - our society has made conditional upon being "married," you shouldn't be denied that, either.

But it has to be legal and not hurt anyone. Same-sex marriages are capable of meeting both criteria. Inter-familial marriages are not.

Saying that in order to have true, across-the-board equality, people engaged in detrimental or criminal activity should be able to do whatever they please isn't a very good comparison.

Because marriage IS a "benefit" taxwise, that's why it makes no sense why the government would be supportive of same-sex marriage for that reason (i.e. they'd arguably collect more taxes if less people had that benefit).

 

[RunninInGA]

It can be about whatever the parties engaged in it want it to be. If you prefer to accentuate the religious aspects, go for it. But if you'd like to have your family members eligible for health insurance, survivorship, or any other "benefit" which - like it or not (and fair or not) - our society has made conditional upon being "married," you shouldn't be denied that, either.

But it has to be legal and not hurt anyone. Same-sex marriages are capable of meeting both criteria. Inter-familial marriages are not.

Saying that in order to have true, across-the-board equality, people engaged in detrimental or criminal activity should be able to do whatever they please isn't a very good comparison.

Because marriage IS a "benefit" taxwise, that's why it makes no sense why the government would be supportive of same-sex marriage for that reason (i.e. they'd arguably collect more taxes if less people had that benefit).

Stepping in here midway through the conversation so I may have missed something. Are you assuming marriage is a sex-based relationship with this comment and that offspring will be an eventual product of such an arrangement?

 

[RandyDaytona]

Stepping in here midway through the conversation so I may have missed something. Are you assuming marriage is a sex-based relationship with this comment and that offspring will be an eventual product of such an arrangement?

Not necessarily, no. But I think it's a more common reason than not. And with regard to inter-familial marriages...by allowing them, you're essentially giving the participants a green light to produce offspring that have been shown to have a much higher chance of serious health or emotional issues.

 

[ndcent]

I am on your side dude...GO CLINTON!! (Hell, after Obama years, ANYTHING is better!)

Maybe one day, someone will bring prestige back to Nobel Peace Prize...and the Presidency. Maybe one day, we have a President that does not comment on everything and anything on Twitter...and instead have our soldiers' and allies' back.

I can only hope for a brighter future for my kids.

I imagine conservatives wouldn't like her being a woman in power or a "democrat" but in all reality she'd be another corporate owned centrist shill like we have now. Cheers to you for her gaining your vote, I'll pass.

 

[KidVermicious]

I'm so conflicted over this year's election. Be damned if I want to see Billary The Third in the WH, but Sanders would be worse, and I can't think of any Republicans I want to see in there either.

Can we have a mulligan and start over with George Washington again?

 

[CXS]

I'm so conflicted over this year's election. Be damned if I want to see Billary The Third in the WH, but Sanders would be worse, and I can't think of any Republicans I want to see in there either.

Can we have a mulligan and start over with George Washington again?

C'mon Kevin, you can always go with Trump! :biggrin1:

 

[nevada]

C'mon Kevin, you can always go with Trump! :biggrin1:

so far im seeing more good than bad with him.



but, I like the idea of starting over...

like the first one, it will be bloody....

 

[ben550]

so far im seeing more good than bad with him.



but, I like the idea of starting over...

like the first one, it will be bloody....

Starting over works... but there should be an entrance exam...

 

[KidVermicious]

C'mon Kevin, you can always go with Fukstick McClownshoes! :biggrin1:

ftfy

 

[Thai]

I imagine conservatives wouldn't like her being a woman in power or a "democrat" but in all reality she'd be another corporate owned centrist shill like we have now. Cheers to you for her gaining your vote, I'll pass.

And yet, some on here voted for the idiot (oh, I mean Twitter king) in office today....

 

[RunninInGA]

And yet, some on here voted for the idiot (oh, I mean Twitter king) in office today....

And most of those would likely do it again.ainkiller:

 

[CXS]

so far im seeing more good than bad with him..

I would hope you're kidding but I suspect you're not. He'd run it like his businesses which means he'd bankrupt the economy every time it was convenient.

We already had a guy that came pretty close, don't need that again.

 

[ndcent]

I would hope you're kidding but I suspect you're not. He'd run it like his businesses which means he'd bankrupt the economy every time it was convenient.

We already had a guy that came pretty close, don't need that again.

He reminds me of a drunker Sarah Palin.

 

[nevada]

I would hope you're kidding but I suspect you're not. He'd run it like his businesses which means he'd bankrupt the economy every time it was convenient.

We already had a guy that came pretty close, don't need that again.

that's funny, considering our current government. we are so far in the hole, just because they don't use that word, doesn't mean we aren't already there...

 

[ndcent]

that's funny, considering our current government. we are so far in the hole, just because they don't use that word, doesn't mean we aren't already there...

Keep voting straight line with the party of senseless war, that military industrial complex is sure to get us out of unnecessary debt in no time at all.