marraige as a legally binding contract between two +18 humans
The "why not just let people marry dolls and horses next *rolleyes*" slippery-slope argument is literally one of the dumbest self-entitled shit-spiels I've ever had the misfortune of hearing
It's a complete cognitive failure on everything from logic to empathy
Amendments are way harder to pass than a simple DOMA repeal.
Plus the SCOTUS precedent does treat marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia, others). Doesn't mean Scalia et al won't weasel out of following precedent without breaking a sweat, but it is there.
Maybe it does but it's obviously not treated as such when a marriage is subject to a license and approval from a judge.
Just because something is a fundamental right doesn't mean the government can't regulate it. People have a fundamental right to travel around the country, doesn't mean that speed limits and airport security are unconstitutional. Theoretically it means that the government has to give everyone equal access to it or else have a damn good reason why certain people don't. The practice has a ways to go to catch up with the theory though.
Swainwalker on
0
GRMikeThe Last Best Hope for HumanityThe God Pod Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
I know this isn't totally on topic but does anybody have a FULL link to the Stewart vs O'Reilly interview that happened this week? All I can find are very edited pieces.
Nevermind... I actually found it on O'Reilly's own page... didn't think to look there.
I know this isn't totally on topic but does anybody have a FULL link to the Stewart vs O'Reilly interview that happened this week? All I can find are very edited pieces.
Nevermind... I actually found it on O'Reilly's own page... didn't think to look there.
You found it in the No Spin Zone.
godmode on
0
GRMikeThe Last Best Hope for HumanityThe God Pod Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
Yeah... I didn't even think to go to any Fox News pages because I assumed they wouldn't have the unedited stuff... shows how biased I am.
Amendments are way harder to pass than a simple DOMA repeal.
Plus the SCOTUS precedent does treat marriage as a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia, others). Doesn't mean Scalia et al won't weasel out of following precedent without breaking a sweat, but it is there.
Maybe it does but it's obviously not treated as such when a marriage is subject to a license and approval from a judge.
Just because something is a fundamental right doesn't mean the government can't regulate it. People have a fundamental right to travel around the country, doesn't mean that speed limits and airport security are unconstitutional. Theoretically it means that the government has to give everyone equal access to it or else have a damn good reason why certain people don't. The practice has a ways to go to catch up with the theory though.
Speed limits and airport security don't preclude any fundamental right to travel. Driving and flying a privileges not rights. If you don't like the rules you can walk.
Voting is a fundamental right as defined by the constitution. Voter registration for example is regulated but is not subject to approval by a judge. You fill out the proper registration and then they have to process it.
Marriage is not just regulated by the government. It (and divorce for that matter) require approval not just application. Now there are constitutional arguments to be made about equal protection under the law which I certainly agree with but that doesn't make marriage a right. It should be a right but its not.
what the fuck is up with america repealing gay marriage laws
why do the shitty backwater states get to keep discriminating aganst people by law
this should have been a scotus decision 30 years ago
Unfortunately marriage is not a right in this country so it's difficult to challenge state authorities when they place limitations on marriage privileges.
I'm not too familiar with how this works -
would a broad equality rights / anti-discrimination amendment to the Bill of Rights along the lines of:
“(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability."
render discriminatory laws at the state level unconstitutional?
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Sure it should. I am merely saying that since marriage isn't a right it makes prevention of discrimination more difficult than say voting rights of minorities.
I remember when we had the TSA Security thread back in November and we started debating on whether or not the new security measures infringed on paying customers who want to travel without being groped. I think that debate went south when I brought up seeing a rape victim on Dexter freaking out when she was being groped and Dru called me an idiot for citing fiction.
I actually believe that SOME of the sentiment behind opposing Same-sex marriages comes from members of the opposing argument thinking "well if I were allowed to kiss and hug and marry someone of the same sex when I was younger then OF COURSE I would. Therefore I'd never have gotten married to this ice queen/impotent weasel! THEREFORE, heterosexual marriages will be destroyed by these sinful unions. Why doesn't everyone see this? Don't they feel the same urges we all do?"
Larry Flynt just published a book about sexuality and U.S. presidents.
Like apparently Eleanor Roosevelt had lesbian relationships or something.
Also James Buchanan was probably gay?
Also there is an actual Historian who co-wrote it so it is (maybe) not a bunch of horse shit coming from a dude who published pornography for a living.
I wouldn't give a fuck if someone married their dog. I don't see how it impacts my life in any way
Sexual abuse of children and animals doesn't normally affect you directly, but it's still bad.
Which is why animals and children cannot give consent.
Which is why same-sex marriages will not slippery-slope into bestiality and pedophilia!
I could see it potentially leading to polygamy somewhere in the future, but that's all consenting adults and if they're happy or at least pretending to be happy like many marriages, I don't see how that isn't also just as valid.
So many angry thoughts are trying to get themselves out my brain that it's all congealed into one black mess dripping out my ears and burning holes in my carpet
why do people gotta be hating on anyone for dumb reasons
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I find it fascinating(aka horrifying) that despite becoming more accepting of things like homosexuality the majority of people are still unaware of or mocking of people who fall outside of the gender expression or sexuality binary. A friend of mine just finished up a gender and sexuality class in University and they touched on asexuals on the last day of class and it was pretty much met with laughter and scorn and mockery.
And, just to tie this back to the thread, notable asexuals from America? Edward Gorey. Tim Gunn. Bradford Cox. Paula Poundstone. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).
Larry Flynt just published a book about sexuality and U.S. presidents.
Like apparently Eleanor Roosevelt had lesbian relationships or something.
Also James Buchanan was probably gay?
Also there is an actual Historian who co-wrote it so it is (maybe) not a bunch of horse shit coming from a dude who published pornography for a living.
Flynt has been talking about a DC sex book for like 10 years and there's been Eleanor gay rumors for a long time too.
I wouldn't give a fuck if someone married their dog. I don't see how it impacts my life in any way
Sexual abuse of children and animals doesn't normally affect you directly, but it's still bad.
Which is why animals and children cannot give consent.
Which is why same-sex marriages will not slippery-slope into bestiality and pedophilia!
I could see it potentially leading to polygamy somewhere in the future, but that's all consenting adults and if they're happy or at least pretending to be happy like many marriages, I don't see how that isn't also just as valid.
Woah who said anything about sexual abuse. I'm just saying if they got married I wouldn't care.
Posts
The "why not just let people marry dolls and horses next *rolleyes*" slippery-slope argument is literally one of the dumbest self-entitled shit-spiels I've ever had the misfortune of hearing
It's a complete cognitive failure on everything from logic to empathy
Just because something is a fundamental right doesn't mean the government can't regulate it. People have a fundamental right to travel around the country, doesn't mean that speed limits and airport security are unconstitutional. Theoretically it means that the government has to give everyone equal access to it or else have a damn good reason why certain people don't. The practice has a ways to go to catch up with the theory though.
Nevermind... I actually found it on O'Reilly's own page... didn't think to look there.
blog facebook steam twitter
You found it in the No Spin Zone.
blog facebook steam twitter
Speed limits and airport security don't preclude any fundamental right to travel. Driving and flying a privileges not rights. If you don't like the rules you can walk.
Voting is a fundamental right as defined by the constitution. Voter registration for example is regulated but is not subject to approval by a judge. You fill out the proper registration and then they have to process it.
Marriage is not just regulated by the government. It (and divorce for that matter) require approval not just application. Now there are constitutional arguments to be made about equal protection under the law which I certainly agree with but that doesn't make marriage a right. It should be a right but its not.
I'm not too familiar with how this works -
would a broad equality rights / anti-discrimination amendment to the Bill of Rights along the lines of:
render discriminatory laws at the state level unconstitutional?
Ahh memories.
Coran Attack!
it's a rite of passage, and has been since time began
More like a SCROTUS decision, am I right?
Coran Attack!
gay history
not uh, current gay affairs
Yeah this is pretty much my opinion as well
Like apparently Eleanor Roosevelt had lesbian relationships or something.
Also James Buchanan was probably gay?
Also there is an actual Historian who co-wrote it so it is (maybe) not a bunch of horse shit coming from a dude who published pornography for a living.
Lot's of historians have/do write total horse shit and they always will.
http://www.onenationundersex.com/
Oh snap! You should do political cartoons!
Though I am sure he must have published some, as he has a PhD and is a Professor at Columbia.
In any case I reckon most of it will be conjecture based off interviews and so on
Sexual abuse of children and animals doesn't normally affect you directly, but it's still bad.
Which is why animals and children cannot give consent.
Which is why same-sex marriages will not slippery-slope into bestiality and pedophilia!
I could see it potentially leading to polygamy somewhere in the future, but that's all consenting adults and if they're happy or at least pretending to be happy like many marriages, I don't see how that isn't also just as valid.
well sir
that's consent enough for me
why do people gotta be hating on anyone for dumb reasons
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
And, just to tie this back to the thread, notable asexuals from America? Edward Gorey. Tim Gunn. Bradford Cox. Paula Poundstone. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).
but what do I care I'm Canadian
ain't nuttin' like nuttin'
but thats a pretty butt thing to say
it's not like being asexual is being an eunuch
just like
yuck why would you even be gay
super gross
Thing of the dogs.
Flynt has been talking about a DC sex book for like 10 years and there's been Eleanor gay rumors for a long time too.
Because if Tesla supports it, I support it. Otherwise I'll need to meet a real-life asexual person before I can form a generalization about it.
Woah who said anything about sexual abuse. I'm just saying if they got married I wouldn't care.
can i have a flag?