Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Irrelevant. The question was whether there is a list of approved sexual practices. There clearly is such a list. Now we're just quibbling about which practices are on the list. I'm not going to waste my time with that discussion. It's diversion designed to keep the discussion off the important issues.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
That you think homos are icky is not a legal foundation for discrimination.
.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Irrelevant. The question was whether there is a list of approved sexual practices. There clearly is such a list. Now we're just quibbling about which practices are on the list. I'm not going to waste my time with that discussion. It's diversion designed to keep the discussion off the important issues.
Truely? And where IS that list? Do you have a link?
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
That you think homos are icky is not a legal foundation for discrimination.
.
I didn't say it was. However, the fact that they are incapable of having children is a good reason.
The issue is the constitutionality of DOMA. DOMA permits opposite-sex marriages to receive cash and prizes and excludes same-sex marriage from receiving them.
This is discrimination established by law. That is what is at issue.
So far, the ONLY justification we have for this discrmination from the peanut gallery is that gay men butt fuck each other.
That's it.
And that's why DOMA failed in court. There is no rational reason for discriminating against gay marriage.
.
Do you realize you just claimed that giving someone else government marriage benefits costs you money?
Yes, actually, it does cost me money. I personally don't believe the government should be providing privileges of any kind to anyone for any reason. However, so long as it does, it should have a good reason. Allowing to fuck buddies of the same sex to feel like they're normal isn't a good reason. Why should they have any more rights than a single person?
Correct. Sex with a minor causes societal harm. Sex between two consenting adults does not.
.
One could argue all day that Sex between two consenting adults can cause plenty of harm. For instance, it spreads diseases.
However, no one is making that argument. The issue here is whether two consenting adults should be entitled to government benefits just because they are having sex with each other. No one has made a valid case for that.
Monogamist couples spreading diseases? OK, maybe in your world (certainly don't want to think about that one).
The issue is the constitutionality of DOMA. DOMA permits opposite-sex marriages to receive cash and prizes and excludes same-sex marriage from receiving them.
This is discrimination established by law. That is what is at issue.
So far, the ONLY justification we have for this discrmination from the peanut gallery is that gay men butt fuck each other.
That's it.
And that's why DOMA failed in court. There is no rational reason for discriminating against gay marriage.
.
Wrong. That isn't the justification I gave. Same sex couples cannot have children, so why should the receive the benefits of laws designed to protect mothers and children?
You studiously avoid answering that because you know there is no good answer.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
That you think homos are icky is not a legal foundation for discrimination.
.
I didn't say it was. However, the fact that they are incapable of having children is a good reason.
Irrelevant. The question was whether there is a list of approved sexual practices. There clearly is such a list. Now we're just quibbling about which practices are on the list. I'm not going to waste my time with that discussion. It's diversion designed to keep the discussion off the important issues.
Truely? And where IS that list? Do you have a link?
Investigate your local ordinances about statutory rape, incest, child molestation and various other sex related legislation.
Yes, actually, it does cost me money. I personally don't believe the government should be providing privileges of any kind to anyone for any reason. However, so long as it does, it should have a good reason. Allowing to fuck buddies of the same sex to feel like they're normal isn't a good reason. Why should they have any more rights than a single person?
One could argue all day that Sex between two consenting adults can cause plenty of harm. For instance, it spreads diseases.
However, no one is making that argument. The issue here is whether two consenting adults should be entitled to government benefits just because they are having sex with each other. No one has made a valid case for that.
Monogamist couples spreading diseases? OK, maybe in your world (certainly don't want to think about that one).
The subject wasn't "monogamous adults." It was merely "two consenting adults."
Pretending you're too stupid to follow the discussion isn't a convincing argument.
Perversion, corruption, filth, deviancy and immorality. That is what motivates our judicial system. This nation is freaking doomed when we even give passing attention to an idea as perverse as thinking two homosexuals living together and carrying on a deviant sexual relationship can even remotely be considered a marriage. You freaking people are filth.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
That you think homos are icky is not a legal foundation for discrimination.
.
I didn't say it was. However, the fact that they are incapable of having children is a good reason.
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
c. Defending traditional notions of morality.
The third reason proffered by Congress when passing DOMA was its asserted interest in
defending traditional notions of morality. Basing legislation on moral disapproval of same-sex couples does not pass any level of scrutiny. The animus toward, and moral rejection of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships are apparent in the Congressional record. See Dragovich, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 1190. [M]oral condemnation of homosexuality [does not] provide the requisite justification for the DOMAs section three. The bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate [governmental] interest. Id. (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 634-35).
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
Apple and oranges.
The first two examples are not specific sex acts.
Thanks for playing.
New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com
The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.
A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.
So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.
There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.
No societal harm arises from these activities.
.
There is nothing preventing them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so how has equal protection been denied?
Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman, or hell, a man and several women.
Even if you get by on the equal protection route, You can give same sex couples the same rights in another contract recognized by the state, and equal protection can be met.
I am denied the right to marry someone because I havent found someone dumb enough to marry me yet, Are my rights under equal protection denied?
[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Even if you get by on the equal protection route, You can give same sex couples the same rights in another contract recognized by the state, and equal protection can be met.
I am denied the right to marry someone because I havent found someone dumb enough to marry me yet, Are my rights under equal protection denied?
Then the law would prohibit monogamous brothers and sisters from benefiting from the law, or fathers and daughters. Or, people who voluntarily want to be in marriages of multiples. Why shouldn't five women get tax filing benefits or death benefits if they all want to be married to the same man. It's love. Warren Jeffs didn't do anything wrong. Why is he in prison? He just loved more than one woman and took more than one woman to wife.
Even so, mainstreaming homosexual marriages into legality would not come close to causing the kind of damage that it will without the ability to punish people who do not accept that legality. Legalize same sex marriage as far as government benefits go, but allow the wedding cake baker, the photographer, the relationship counselor to say no. Allow schools the power to send homosexual children home and by all means, permit the Boy Scouts to tell the newly outed scout that he doesn't get the Eagle badge.
Then you have an argument that this is only about federal rights.
