DOMA ruling is a start.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
DOMA was doomed in the beginning, as was Prop 8. When there is nothing but a religious argument in a secular system, it can't stand. And when that stands in the way of all these admitted social and financial powers it is cruel.

It is possibly, now, quite Un-consititutional to ban a private arrangement from having the full legal standing of other such relationships.

Marriage is the same shaky financial and emotional morass, it ever was. My girlfriends, married just before Prop 8, just got divorced last month. Now what am suppose to do? :)
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Mindmelted said:
So I guess allowing folks to marry dead people and animals or children is next.
Click to expand...
What do you care if they marry the kitchen wall? The sophistry, you provide, is the childern comment. The States alone decide the age to marry.

And marry the dead? Isn't it a contract? Takes two signers?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
I'm not a dead person, a non-human animal, or a child.
Click to expand...
Do you remember, uhhh, was it Boston Legal? Shatner and Spader got married at the end? They were buddies and Shater had "mad cow disease." He was very UN-marriable and divorced many times and still rich as old Crocus.

Spader the younger, un-relenting cock hound was not financially bad off, but he owes his buddy big time for everything and wants to be his legal caretaker when the time comes. So, a legal marriage made perfect sense.

Many, many marriages are just for this, including Niclole's and the Texas bubba-billionaire. Liz Taylor married her young gay buddy, same thing. Lots more to marriage than sex. (Don't I know it!)
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
if it wasn't for the internet i wouldn't have even heard this news. the boston media won't shut the fuck up about the football player who just got a murder charge.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
SHOTGUN420 said:
Transgendered would of been the next but its included in the gay package next up for legalization bestiality .
Click to expand...
serious question here. not trolling.

if there are two transgendered individuals, one male to female and one female to male, and they wish to marry each other, ought they be able to marry under the definition of "traditional marriage" (one man, one woman), or should they only be married where gay marriage is allowed?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Well, it is a legal contract. You can't get a beast of any kind to sign it. (except some people's spouses) :)

One of my gay girlfriends said today...".I'm very happy for those that wish to get married." She knows when you throw the money in, the divorce gets very messy.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
If there were billions of dollars to be made discriminating against homosexual people, DOMA would have passed.


Just sayin...
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
serious question here. not trolling.

if there are two transgendered individuals, one male to female and one female to male, and they wish to marry each other, ought they be able to marry under the definition of "traditional marriage" (one man, one woman), or should they only be married where gay marriage is allowed?
Click to expand...
Trolling because you know darn well that gender is a legal status. A person either does or does not change gender. Save the minutia of the tranny process. There comes a time when you have no equipment for the prior gender. But, you can still sign a contract.

Why does no one complain about the obvious? A 3 way marriage with a stripper and her bi-ambigious, metrosexual, manager brother-in-law.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
The only argument you ever really hear is that the "sanctity" of marriage has to be protected. Well, for that to hold any water divorce rates need to be less than 50% after just a few years. I don't give a rats ass about gay people, no more or less than any other group out there. I do care about freedom. And giving gays the right to marry takes away no rights from anyone else. Its a no brainer. Anyone against it is either ignorant or bigoted.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Trolling because you know darn well that gender is a legal status. A person either does or does not change gender. Save the minutia of the tranny process. There comes a time when you have no equipment for the prior gender. But, you can still sign a contract.

Why does no one complain about the obvious? A 3 way marriage with a stripper and her bi-ambigious, metrosexual, manager brother-in-law.
Click to expand...
i should clarify, my scenario assumes that the individuals have met the requirements for their particular state to be recognized as their new gender. it was a (not so) thinly veiled attempt at distinguishing the issue of transgenderism from homosexuality and pointing out the absurdity of giving enough of a shit to try to legislate it at all. i honestly would like to hear the rationale of someone who concerns themselves with these things and demands we implement genital police.

granting a marriage license based on knowledge of someone's genitals is creepy as fuck if you ask me. it conjures visions of individuals filing through a tsa style x-ray thingy and waiting to either get a thumbs up or a thumbs down from the genital police. every so often someone would be pulled aside and given a blood test to measure hormones to make sure that we don't accidentally grant them "permission" to do something that they are not entitled to do. it's just weird to me that people give so much of a shit about it to come up with strange arguments about bestiality and pedophilia to highlight the dangers of letting people whom they will never meet tie the knot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top