Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    It's not illegal in different states to my knowledge just not recognized but it is now recognized by the federal government which means other than state reasons if you get gay married in DC and live in VA for example, you will get all federal benefits of being married but no Virginia benefits.
    This isn't going to fly for long though. You're going to start seeing a lot of suits based on the full faith and credit clause here.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by IIamaKing View Post
    Those on the right (of whom I typically align with) shout out saying that its not up to the feds to govern states affairs.
    Then "those on the right" would be completely wrong, as the Constitution does and will always cover all states. The judge struck down the law for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: therefore in his interpretation no state has any right to restrict marriage in this way.

  3. #23
    Scarab Lord DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Contracts require government and are the purview of government.
    Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage or regulation of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.
    Marriage is a contract that creates certain arrangements with regard to things like child custody, property rights, inheritance and the like. You're demanding government get out of the business of marriage contracts so they can be replaced by contracts doing the same thing not called marriage contracts. Its stupid.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.
    And without enforcement of a contract, what's the point of it existing?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    By contract signed by the two (yeah there could be more than two if there is some kind of surrogate mother stupidity, but you know what I mean) individuals. If no contract exists, the mother has first right. Simple as that.
    Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?

  7. #27
    The federal government does have to step in at times to make sure states are not doing whacky shit. Civil rights is typically an issues the federal government is great for monitoring the states on. I am not a huge fan of the federal government, but I am glad it is there when it comes to protecting minority rights.

    Sadly, there are many people all over the U.S.A. that get very vocal and motivated when they are on the losing side of those civil rights movements.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?
    I wondered that as well.
    READ and be less Ignorant.

  9. #29
    No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an "everybody wins!" mentality.

    But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.
    Last edited by Itisamuh; 2013-12-23 at 10:01 PM.

  10. #30
    States rights should not, and never will in the long run, outweigh human rights. Period. Doesn't matter which direction a "ban" would go. The rights of minorities should NEVER be voted upon by a majority, lest they not be real "rights."

    Marriage is a legal concept in our country. It should be available between consenting adults as would any other legal contract apply. No one that I've seen has tried to force churches or other religious institutions to approve of these things. So it's a non-issue. It doesn't affect anyone other than those involved. Don't like it? No problem, express that. It's no different than people who wanted to continue with slavery or interracial marriage bans. (And this is NOT a slippery slope to non-consenting concepts like bestiality, etc.)

    It would be nice if marriage offered no LEGAL benefits beyond rights of inheritance and such, perhaps then we could call it domestic partnership and let the pedants stop worrying about the word itself without regard to the benefit the legal aspects bestow.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

    But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.
    How does the state go out of its way by allowing gay marriage. It seems to me the state goes out of its way trying to stop them.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

    But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.
    So you're saying essentially that governments should never have intervened and raised the age of consent from 12 in the first place. They obviously have no business changing along with the society they govern.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

    But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.
    Yes...legalizing gay marriage can easily be equated to legalizing incest and fucking children.

    Sweet merciful fuck...
    "You six-piece Chicken McNobody."
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH816 View Post
    You are a legend thats why.

  14. #34
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman.
    Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Tradewind View Post
    Yes...legalizing gay marriage can easily be equated to legalizing incest and fucking children.

    Sweet merciful fuck...
    You know. Orientations...fetishes...same thing and all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.
    But but, our morals.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.
    Only if you believe Jesus didn't ride a dinosaur. Otherwise it's always been that way!
    "You six-piece Chicken McNobody."
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH816 View Post
    You are a legend thats why.

  17. #37
    Scarab Lord DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    And without enforcement of a contract, what's the point of it existing?
    I think I specifically said "Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government..." in what you quoted, so I'm not sure what you are asking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Marriage is a contract that creates certain arrangements with regard to things like child custody, property rights, inheritance and the like. You're demanding government get out of the business of marriage contracts so they can be replaced by contracts doing the same thing not called marriage contracts. Its stupid.
    Marriage is not currently a contract. It lacks any degree of certainty and specificity in regard to what actually happens in cases like child custody, property rights, inheritance, and the like. It currently simply gives the government the power to decide things in those situations instead of leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved in them. It is bribing the citizenry with tax benefits in exchange for power over children and property in the case of alteration or cancelation of the marriage. Leave people to their own liberty to make those decisions for themselves either in contract or at the time they arise. Demanding that the government enforce its arbitrary will on those matters needlessly is unneeded and unjust.

    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?
    Because she bore the child. She was by nature the first guardian of the child and so retains first claim. Don’t like it? Get your women to sign a contract giving equal rights both you (the father) and her or whatever you want.
    Last edited by DEATHETERNAL; 2013-12-23 at 09:57 PM.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  18. #38
    The Undying Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jaina Proudmoore's side. Always and forever.
    Posts
    39,568
    Quote Originally Posted by IIamaKing View Post
    I wondered that as well.
    In my situation I'm glad my Mom stayed as my parent for obvious reasons. Dad wasn't around(Biological sperm donor if you will) but still rather be my Mom. Honestly it should depend on the circumstances.
    #TeamLegion

    Paladin-Sorcerer at your service! My Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Aeluron

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    I can guarantee if it happened, there would be a lot of outrage.
    Majority rule etc like what right wingers like to pamper themself in when they know they are wrong on the issues of civil rights. The fact that you say it will be outrage just means you arent a fully supporter of states rights at all time. So you admit it is wrong for states to make laws about who can marry whom.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You know. Orientations...fetishes...same thing and all.
    I have an "Orientation" for red heads with firm tits.
    "You six-piece Chicken McNobody."
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH816 View Post
    You are a legend thats why.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •