Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Zephie]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

[Wamitoria]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Whoa, wait, how would taxes get raised?

[Katganistan]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Whom shall I believe has the greater understanding of the constitution -- a federal judge or an anonymous internet poster......


That's a real poser.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

I'm sorry, I don't remember faggots being enslaved for hundreds of years, being denied their right to vote, or having to use separate and inferior facilities.

Apology accepted.

It's not an apology, I'm just acknowledging what happened to them. I don't really care about them, but that's not how I would have ran things.

Ah, you meant the other "I'm sorry". I took you at face value and mistakenly assumed honesty. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

How is using a common phrase in a common manner dishonest?

[Lelouche]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

[Apertior]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

I don't want a higher tax burden because my upper thigh itches.

See? I can connect completely random things to tax raises too!

[Grave_n_idle]

It"s is horribly disgusting. It's morally atrocious. I'm not sure how it's not some sort of mental disorder. They won't just go off, live their lives in this new found freedom, and leave us alone. They'll make us see this shit with their parades and demonstrations ,and push for a bunch of rights and privileges and never go away, never be happy, so you have to shut em up and drive them away as best you can. Also, I've never met a homo worth a lick.

Why would you lick a homosexual, if you are so against them?

Oh, you know... you've been working up a real fury, yelling at all the 'fags', and acting masculine, and then there's that pool-boy all slick and glistening. Is that peanut oil, it couldn't hurt to.... NO, must hate. MUST HATE!!!!

Must it always come to this? I didn't make any jokes about AIDS or stinky peckers, so please leave this level of immaturity for your pals.

You don't get to act all hurt. Your opening gambits in this thread were flamebait, at best.

Also - I have to say, I didn't actually target you in my humour - yet you took it as a personal insult. I think this is more about you, than about me.

[Tekania]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Your tax burden is a non-issue when it comes to protecting people's due process rights.

[Grave_n_idle]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You said: "This argument is about greed, pure and simple" - I can't reconcile that with your explanations.

Are you shifting goalposts on me, or were you not really saying that this issue is "about greed, pure and simple"?

Because I'm confused.

[The Rich Port]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

ZOMFG, YOU GUISE, TEH TAX MONSTAH'S GONNA GIT US!!!

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

You think they're going to make you pay for the cake, or something?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Your tax burden is a non-issue when it comes to protecting people's due process rights.

I love the idea that rights are negotiable based on how it will affect taxes...

[Katganistan]

but they have to justify it and if you are just a district court judge you are very subject to being overruled by a higher court.

What about Supreme Court judges?

As the title suggests, they are the justices with the supreme authority in the land. However, their decisions are based fairly strictly on precedent and on What the Constitution Says.

[Lelouche]

Yes, and by "my standards" are you implying some kind of insult?

I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union, I don't even need a fictional god to recognize that union, only I and my partner need to recognize that union

State institutionalized marriage is about the benefits you receive for being legally recognized as such, and nothing else. It's greed (albeit a minor greed when compared to others)

Again, you can keep your marriage laws, I don't believe in a thousand years I could campaign and be successful to remove marriage as a state institution, so it'll have to be a theoretical alternative to the current system where by one petitions the government to recognize a status it really has no business recognizing in the first place

... Are you GAY?

And if not, I don't think you can make this kind of a call...

I was Bi for awhile, I'm straight these days. but I do occasionally like things in my ass

And I can make any call I want, regardless of how you feel about it. The key argument used has also been "The benefits of Marriage" this argument was ironically used by both sides.

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

Everybody want's something for nothing

[Tekania]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

You think they're going to make you pay for the cake, or something?

No, he thinks that allowing them benefits places a higher tax burden on him... Which isn't an issue as legal benefits to ANYONE is in someway going to "burden" him, so the argument is moot on face value.

[The Black Plains]

Yes, and by "my standards" are you implying some kind of insult?

I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union, I don't even need a fictional god to recognize that union, only I and my partner need to recognize that union

State institutionalized marriage is about the benefits you receive for being legally recognized as such, and nothing else. It's greed (albeit a minor greed when compared to others)

Again, you can keep your marriage laws, I don't believe in a thousand years I could campaign and be successful to remove marriage as a state institution, so it'll have to be a theoretical alternative to the current system where by one petitions the government to recognize a status it really has no business recognizing in the first place

... Are you GAY?

And if not, I don't think you can make this kind of a call...

I was Bi for awhile, I'm straight these days. but I do occasionally like things in my ass

And I can make any call I want, regardless of how you feel about it. The key argument used has also been "The benefits of Marriage" this argument was ironically used by both sides.

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

Everybody want's something for nothing

THANK you.

[The Rich Port]

BTW, I find it just a LITTLE bit ironic that this is in Zephie's signature, whilst he preaches all of this BS:

"When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives".

Tell us, Zephie, who SAID that so I can shake his hand?

[Grave_n_idle]

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

The only person you're capable of describing here is yourself.

To many people - even the non-religious - there is something important about being married. In my own case - for example - while I am quite vocal in defence of people NOT marrying if they choose, I wanted to be married, for what it would mean to me.

[Wamitoria]

BTW, I find it just a LITTLE bit ironic that this is in Zephie's signature, whilst he preaches all of this BS:

"When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives".

Tell us, Zephie, who SAID that so I can shake his hand?

Well, it doesn't say anything about homosexuals...

[The Rich Port]

I was Bi for awhile, I'm straight these days. but I do occasionally like things in my ass

And I can make any call I want, regardless of how you feel about it. The key argument used has also been "The benefits of Marriage" this argument was ironically used by both sides.

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

Everybody want's something for nothing

Brother, I don't think I appreciate your attitude... And if you care so little about marriage, how come you're here fighting tooth and nail over it?

[The Rich Port]

BTW, I find it just a LITTLE bit ironic that this is in Zephie's signature, whilst he preaches all of this BS:

"When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives".

Tell us, Zephie, who SAID that so I can shake his hand?

Well, it doesn't say anything about homosexuals...

I think pitting the majority against a minority classifies as class warfare. And if that don't work, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

[The Black Plains]

Nobody cares about love. if they did, nobody would be "Married™" instead they would simply live together as committed partners and not care what the state or the world thought about that. Indeed the state has no business managing my love life, or regulating it.

The only person you're capable of describing here is yourself.

To many people - even the non-religious - there is something important about being married. In my own case - for example - while I am quite vocal in defence of people NOT marrying if they choose, I wanted to be married, for what it would mean to me.

The part I really agreed with was the part about the government staying the fuck out. Which it should. You can do anything religious if you want, but get the government out. The government is bloated enough already.

[Lelouche]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You said: "This argument is about greed, pure and simple" - I can't reconcile that with your explanations.

Are you shifting goalposts on me, or were you not really saying that this issue is "about greed, pure and simple"?

Because I'm confused.

You would be confused.
Let me explain this to you slowly

1. State "Marriage™" is an institution whereby one receives benefits for engaging in committed financial bonding arrangement with another human being^{Economic Slavery}. (ostensibly, for creating stable family environments, and procreating, but these arguments have since been debunked)
2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed
3. If the argument was about "Love" or "Equality" then people would either be content that they live in a place where you can live with and love whomever you want, without the need for state recognition, or you would push for the abolition of a the barbaric enslavement ritual that makes people subservient to each other, known as "Marriage™"

[The Black Plains]

BTW, I find it just a LITTLE bit ironic that this is in Zephie's signature, whilst he preaches all of this BS:

"When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives".

Tell us, Zephie, who SAID that so I can shake his hand?

Well, it doesn't say anything about homosexuals...

I think pitting the majority against a minority classifies as class warfare. And if that don't work, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

Uhm class warfare would be rich against poor... which already exists. Or have you not seen the Democratic party?

[Zephie]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

actually that would make alot more sense if you didn't snip out the actual explanation, instead of inventing your own

There's Marriage, and then there's State Marriage.
The first is done for a number of reasons, Spiritual, Cultural, Religious, the desire to "Bond" with your partner, in some pseudo contractual way, as recognized by your community^Love
The Second is done for one Reason, Recognition of status by the state, in order to obtain the benefits of that status, as described by law ^Greed

I allow for the first, that's your business
The Second is a waste of resources, and is entirely arbitrary.

You said: "This argument is about greed, pure and simple" - I can't reconcile that with your explanations.

Are you shifting goalposts on me, or were you not really saying that this issue is "about greed, pure and simple"?

Because I'm confused.

You would be confused.
Let me explain this to you slowly

1. State "Marriage™" is an institution whereby one receives benefits for engaging in committed financial bonding arrangement with another human being^{Economic Slavery}. (ostensibly, for creating stable family environments, and procreating, but these arguments have since been debunked)
2. Therefore the only reason to demand that the government recognize this status, is to receive the legal benefits associated with this status. ^Greed
3. If the argument was about "Love" or "Equality" then people would either be content that they live in a place where you can live with and love whomever you want, without the need for state recognition, or you would push for the abolition of a the barbaric enslavement ritual that makes people subservient to each other, known as "Marriage™"

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.