Same Sex Marriages

Dutch Uncle said:
Sorry, dude, but you took hard turn there that I can't follow.

The fact remains, all American citizens fall equally under the Constitution. Make the laws apply to all equally or get rid of those laws. Easy-peasy.
Click to expand...

Ok get rid of progressive taxation, everyone pays the same.
No more $7000 for buying an electric car.
No more tax subsidies for anything.
Equal means equal, right ?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Ahh, now I see why are you confused. Sorry, but you are wrong. Marriage is an inalienable right. Obtaining the license means recognition by the government for those precious benefits you and I discussed. Benefits like rights of survivorship, parentage, Social Security laws, etc.

Example; a 21 year old man is betrothed and married to a 10 year old girl. No sex, just marriage in their church. The girl lives with her parents with supervised contact until she's of appropriate age whereupon a marriage license is obtained. Were they married before the marriage license was obtained? Yes. Was their marriage recognized for legal purposes, Social Security, etc by the State or Federal government? No, not until the marriage license was obtained and signed.

Some states have "common law" marriages, but that makes things murky. Again the difference is being married in accordance with their beliefs and being married for legal reasons. A lot of confusion comes out because the term "marriage" is used for both cases but obviously there is a major difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They were not married until the license was registered.
Go talk to any pastor and they will explain to you that they are bound by civil restrictions (age etc).
Not a right or ANYONE could marry ANYONE.
 
Celticguy said:
Ok get rid of progressive taxation, everyone pays the same.
No more $7000 for buying an electric car.
No more tax subsidies for anything.
Equal means equal, right ?
Click to expand...

Agreed. No more tax deductions for kids, homes, anything. Just a flat 20% tax on everyone including corporations. It's good we can find something to agree upon.
 
Celticguy said:
Wrong. They were not married until the license was registered.
Go talk to any pastor and they will explain to you that they are bound by civil restrictions (age etc).
Not a right or ANYONE could marry ANYONE.
Click to expand...

I'm a pastor. I can marry you and your cat if you like. Would that be illegal for me to do? No, it would not. What would be illegal is for you to have sex with the cat or declare it your "wife" on your taxes. Do you see the difference? Separation of Church and State.
 
Celticguy said:
I see, so I should be permitted to marry my sister ? Your toddler ? A giraffe ?
Click to expand...

I can marry whomever you like. That's a different issue than having the Federal or State government recognize that marriage for tax or contractual purposes.
 
Celticguy said:
I see, so I should be permitted to marry my sister ? Your toddler ? A giraffe ?
Click to expand...

Ah, the same ridiculous argument that all bigots have used to prevent others from having the same rights that they enjoy. The exact same thing was said during the debates over mixed-race marriages, finally settled in 1967 in Loving vs. Virginia. "If we let whites and n-words marry, next they'll be marrying their dogs or sisters or cattle."

See how ridiculous you sound? In the end, you have not a single valid reason why two same-sex adults who love each other should not be able to be legally married and thus enjoy all the benefits from that institution that the rest of us enjoy. Your argument boils down to "It's icky."
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I'm a pastor. I can marry you and your cat if you like. Would that be illegal for me to do? No, it would not. What would be illegal is for you to have sex with the cat or declare it your "wife" on your taxes. Do you see the difference? Separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...

Good reply. The SSM opponents always revert to the same tired hyperbole when they can't prove that their objections have legal merit other than "icky."

Heh, I'm also a minister and wedding officiant. More proof that in the diseased mind of ItWhoShallNotBeNamed, you're my sock. Or I'm yours. :laugh: :rofl2: :laugh:

(Now watch another non-sequitur cray-cray post appear in the TSSH. lol)
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Good reply. The SSM opponents always revert to the same tired hyperbole when they can't prove that their objections have legal merit other than "icky."

Heh, I'm also a minister and wedding officiant. More proof that in the diseased mind of ItWhoShallNotBeNamed, you're my sock. Or I'm yours. :laugh: :rofl2: :laugh:

(Now watch another non-sequitur cray-cray post appear in the TSSH. lol)
Click to expand...

Is that who the nutjobs think I am? Your sock? I vaguely remember someone making that claim when I first came aboard, but newbies, as I've discovered, are always hit for being socks. Sane people quickly gain a better sense of who is a sock and who isn't.

Indicators to me are a "newbie" who knows a lot about different personalities on this forum. IMO, most people don't do in-depth research on key members before signing up for JPP.

Another indicator is a person who has had a JPP account for years but only has a few thousand posts. Normal until they suddenly come alive and, posting in support of another JPP member. Usually the RWNJs.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Is that who the nutjobs think I am? Your sock? I vaguely remember someone making that claim when I first came aboard, but newbies, as I've discovered, are always hit for being socks. Sane people quickly gain a better sense of who is a sock and who isn't.

Indicators to me are a "newbie" who knows a lot about different personalities on this forum. IMO, most people don't do in-depth research on key members before signing up for JPP.

Another indicator is a person who has had a JPP account for years but only has a few thousand posts. Normal until they suddenly come alive and, posting in support of another JPP member. Usually the RWNJs.
Click to expand...

Well, only *one* nutjob thought/thinks that. The narrative seems to have changed a bit though. Now you're not a sock, but my puppet, and are told what to post. :laugh:

Yeah, that's a cardinal tell when a "new" person shows up and immediately commences to attacking the same ppl that the sockmaster goes after. Use of the same pet nicknames is a dead giveaway. Right, Lesion? lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Well, only *one* nutjob thought/thinks that. The narrative seems to have changed a bit though. Now you're not a sock, but my puppet, and are told what to post. :laugh:

Yeah, that's a cardinal tell when a "new" person shows up and immediately commences to attacking the same ppl that the sockmaster goes after. Use of the same pet nicknames is a dead giveaway. Right, Lesion? lol
Click to expand...

Good point and agreed. Not a sock but a puppet was, indeed, the accusation.

LOL on Lesion's ineptness and tells.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Good point and agreed. Not a sock but a puppet was, indeed, the accusation.

LOL on Lesion's ineptness and tells.
Click to expand...

In The Beginning... you were said to be my sock. But then, there are probably a half dozen other real ppl here who have been accused of the same. My favorite is the claim that some banned person no one ever saw post is also my sock, yet oddly enough I'm still here. The minds of the paranoid are truly inscrutable. lol

Speaking of paranoid, did you enjoy the pics? ;~)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I'm a pastor. I can marry you and your cat if you like. Would that be illegal for me to do? No, it would not. What would be illegal is for you to have sex with the cat or declare it your "wife" on your taxes. Do you see the difference? Separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Ah, the same ridiculous argument that all bigots have used to prevent others from having the same rights that they enjoy. The exact same thing was said during the debates over mixed-race marriages, finally settled in 1967 in Loving vs. Virginia. "If we let whites and n-words marry, next they'll be marrying their dogs or sisters or cattle."

See how ridiculous you sound? In the end, you have not a single valid reason why two same-sex adults who love each other should not be able to be legally married and thus enjoy all the benefits from that institution that the rest of us enjoy. Your argument boils down to "It's icky."
Click to expand...

There are conditions placed upon marriage and for goid reason.
Its not a right or there woukd be no conditions.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
In The Beginning... you were said to be my sock. But then, there are probably a half dozen other real ppl here who have been accused of the same. My favorite is the claim that some banned person no one ever saw post is also my sock, yet oddly enough I'm still here. The minds of the paranoid are truly inscrutable. lol

Speaking of paranoid, did you enjoy the pics? ;~)
Click to expand...

The sock paranoia is catching. I bitched about it when first arriving but now find myself caught up in it a bit. :D

Pics are always great and I sincerely appreciate you sharing yours.
 
Celticguy said:
Flat has a certain appeal but allows the black and gray market to go untaxed.
Click to expand...

Dude, "black and grey" markets are illegal. One way to resolve that is to legalize or legislate them. Drugs are one. Medications are another.

Legalize all drugs then regulate and tax them.

If it's cheaper to illegally purchase medications in Canada than in the US, then figure out why Canadian medications are cheaper and fix the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top