another wife capable of squirting out a dozen kids when she's not making scrapbook pages of the favorite pies she's baked
oh, and date night is watching napolean dynamite w/ the kids on the couch (teh 2 smallest up her shirt - sorry, bro
)Oh the anticipation! (CA Prop 8)
- Thread starter rockofullr
- Start date
oh, and date night is watching napolean dynamite w/ the kids on the couch (teh 2 smallest up her shirt - sorry, bro
)Ummmm, check your history/ constitution knowledge. The framers had a HUGE fear of the majority flipping out and doing something bad to a minority, it's well documented and if you take a look at things like filibusters you will see the government has checks in place to prevent this. ****, look at our federal government, originally the people elected the house; That's it, the state legislatures picked the senate, the electoral college picket the president and the president decided on judges. Is genocide OK if the people support it popularly?
This is America, where in theory personal liberty come over "democracy." In fact, it mentions life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the whole point...... it talks about a republic, but not a democracy
You obviously didn't read this thread if you feel you have to lecture me on our government...
My post was in response to this:
You should definitely share what's being said.
Definatly missed that part
You obviously didn't read this thread if you feel you have to lecture me on our government...
My post was in response to this:
You should definitely share what's being said.
Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:
Judge is openly gay!
Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode
Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
Judge is openly gay!
Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode
Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
Oh, they know, they're convinced it was a conspiracy because of that and they were calling him all sorts of wonderful names.Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:
Judge is openly gay!
Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode
Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
Interior decorators across the state are sitting with pens poised, fingers shaking above the signature line for that new yacht.........
My new favorite reaction from my Tea Bagger friend on Facebook.
"If the judge feels that Prop 8 was too restrictive, what's preventing him from expanding the rules of marriage to include everything else? I mean, if it's okay for same sex couples to marry, why can't a man marry a car, marry many wives, or tie the knot an animal!"
Wait, what?
"If the judge feels that Prop 8 was too restrictive, what's preventing him from expanding the rules of marriage to include everything else? I mean, if it's okay for same sex couples to marry, why can't a man marry a car, marry many wives, or tie the knot an animal!"
Wait, what?
While I support the ruling, I agree to a small extent with your friend... why not allow polygamy? Assuming all parties are consenting adults, I fail to see the harm.
a fair point, esp when making the argument for property, as well as from a contract law perspective
i've yet to get a direct answer from gay-marriage proponents why polygamy should remain illegal.
from different members of this same group, however, i've got many answers as to why it too should be made legal.
"how does polygamy hurt your gay marriage?"
Oddly, wasn't it mostly the mormons who financially backed the whole anti gay marriage campaign in Cali? You'd think the gays would have been smart enough to get polygamy on the docket too, in an effort to divide the enemy.
And you know what, I don't entirely disagree with him on that specific issue. Where he fails is in his Tea Bagger adherence to constitutionality. Once Prop 8 was ruled to violate the strict guidelines of the Constitution, he changed his entire argument to say that the marriage ruling didn't go far enough.
Which is it?
Well Im sure he was just being sarcastic, but accidentally made a decent point.
It shouldn't be illegal.
It would be easier to just make every marriage a civil union and be done with it. Then you can marry as many people as you like, without pulling the splinter Mormon scam of getting everyone in your little inbred retard community on the welfare rolls.
In effect, it's conveying additional benefits over and above what other people have the option to do. For example, if I have 5 wives, I would be able to get 5x the health insurance benefits, tax benefits, dependent credit, etc as someone else. A SS marriage is only conveying the state-granted benefits to a same-sex partner instead of an opposite-sex one. The option for benefits stay the same, it's just the gender of the recipient that changes.
At least that's how I justify it.
In other words, "It's just not natural"
but this would lead to much needed welfare reform
and while it would disproportionately affect blacks, you can't break eggs w/o making an omelet
but wasn't he also a Poppy Bush appointee? Gayness neutralized!Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:
Judge is openly gay!
Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode
Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
????In other words, "It's just not natural"
No, I'm talking about in a purely financial, reasonable sense. Under federal law I have the ability to bestow tax and property advantages to one person. Under current law I can only bestow those benefits to one person of the opposite sex. What SS marriage proponents are aiming to do is to strike out the qualifier "of the opposite sex". "Steve" can still only convey tax and property benefits to one person, whether it's someone named Laura or Gary. Steve always had the ability to give those benefits to one person, so the actual outlay is not different. The problem with polygamy is that suddenly Steve can give benefits to Laura, Amy, Rebecca, Jill and Sandy.
Hell, if polygamy proponents wanted to say that there could be one federally recognized "marriage" between two people and that the rest of the women could live together as a huge family without any of the legal protections, benefits or implied contracts that come with "marriage", GO FOR IT!!
...or the benefits would be divided equally among them, or whatever yeah. I was kidding around because that seemed like such an obvious tweak you'd have to make, it wouldn't really count for much of an argument.
ok, your position's a little clearer now.
yeah, that would certainly deal w/ the perception of treating 1-1 marriages "unfairly" (as if fairness should be a consideration - but i digress)
but how would current tax law (f'rinstance) deal w/ this & not offend current tax law of - say - when a couple takes in a relative as a dependent? i'm thinking of when grandad can no longer take care of himself & doesn't have the means or desire to be in an old folks' home.
i have to imagine there's going to be some re-application of existing law here, possibly to the point of abuse.
Yes and no.
When I referred to the Manifesto of 1890 earlier, I referred to the document issued by Mormon leadership that effectively ended/curtailed mainstream bigamy amongst the LDS in an effort to gain statehood for Utah (the first application was filed in 1849 as the state of Deseret, and there were three or four following that throughout the decades), as the practice of plural marriage had been the basis for denying statehood to Utah. It succeeded and Utah finally gained statehood in 1896 after applying again.
HOWEVER - the Manifesto was NOT issued as doctrine (aka, church dogma), and at the time was viewed as a purely political play on the part of the church (it also triggered a small splinter movement resulting in a number of small polyg factions throughout the West). If you want to get into theological technicality, Mormons dogma still teaches polygamy (along with the believe that polygamy is practiced in heaven), though it's not practiced. That said, it's definitely no longer accepted in mainstream Mormon society as practiced in a temporal sense.
If the SCOTUS ruling goes towards the legalization of SS marriage (and upholding Walker's ruling in its basal sense), bigamy will be legal in the US. This will effectively make the Manifesto of 1890 an artifact, and the possibility that more fundamental elements within mainstream Mormon society could trigger a schism within the church would become very real. This is a massive threat to current LDS church leadership. The reintroduction of plural marriage into Mormon culture would be devastating to the church's image, reputation, power, and finances, not to mention any area where the church holds major sway (ie, Utah).
Thus, it is in the best interest of the church to keep SS marriage illegal given the recent ruling. The other major reason for their opposition is the threat it presents to patriarchal Mormon society, but that's a 50 page thesis in the making.
For SaG, the original 1849-50 statehood application, outlined in orange:
Last edited:
Yup. Plus it wasn't exactly a secret that the judge was a poof and the prop 8 supporters in court did not object to his presiding over the case.but wasn't he also a Poppy Bush appointee? Gayness neutralized!
Interesting, thanks for the insight.Yes and no.
When I referred to the Manifesto of 1890 earlier, I referred to the document issued by Mormon leadership that effectively ended/curtailed mainstream bigamy amongst the LDS in an effort to gain statehood for Utah (the first application was filed in 1849 as the state of Deseret, and there were three or four following that throughout the decades), as the practice of plural marriage had been the basis for denying statehood to Utah. It succeeded and Utah finally gained statehood in 1896 after applying again.
HOWEVER - the Manifesto was NOT issued as doctrine (aka, church dogma), and at the time was viewed as a purely political play on the part of the church (it also triggered a small splinter movement resulting in a number of small polyg factions throughout the West). If you want to get into theological technicality, Mormons dogma still teaches polygamy (along with the believe that polygamy is practiced in heaven), though it's not practiced. That said, it's definitely no longer accepted in mainstream Mormon society as practiced in a temporal sense.
If the SCOTUS ruling goes towards the legalization of SS marriage (and upholding Walker's ruling in its basal sense), bigamy will be legal in the US. This will effectively make the Manifesto of 1890 an artifact, and the possibility that more fundamental elements within mainstream Mormon society could trigger a schism within the church would become very real. This is a massive threat to current LDS church leadership. The reintroduction of plural marriage into Mormon culture would be devastating to the church's image, reputation, power, and finances, not to mention any area where the church holds major sway (ie, Utah).
Thus, it is in the best interest of the church to keep SS marriage illegal given the recent ruling. The other major reason for their opposition is the threat it presents to patriarchal Mormon society, but that's a 50 page thesis in the making.
For SaG, the original 1849-50 statehood application, outlined in orange:
I knew that certain segments of mormon society obviously still support the idea of polygamy (based on seeing and reading reports of those small desert communities where dudes are banging/marrying their 13 year old neighbors and not letting them leave and kicking out the young men) which is why I made that post, but that's a good point about the guys in charge, obviously controlling the money, where it goes, all of that.
http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/Claiming_Dependents.htm
Huh. So technically if you're allowed to live with a harem (according to your local laws) you're allowed to write them off as dependents as long as they fit the rest of the criteria. You're still not allowed to claim additional standard deductions for them, though, or convey any type of survivor benefits or health care on them.
And therein lies the reveal of what this douchebag really thinks.
Gay people are the equivalent of a car. A thing, an object, at the most generous, another farm animal, not a human being worthy of human rights.
I just caught limbaugh on the radio a few hours ago making this same 'case'. All it really does besides show one's own bigotry is claim clearly that they're not afraid of what's in this particular move, but what comes afterwards. Even though what comes afterwards isn't what we're dealing with.
Last edited:
I'd love to legalize polygamy. And since marriage contracts actually increase the tax burden on the participants in exchange for rights (inheritance, visitation, etc.), I don't see it as a problem to have plural marriages. More tax revenues, and the people that should have a say in their loved one's lives, do.
That and replacing the word marriage with civil union for governmental/contractual purposes would remove all of the straw man arguments covering up the fact that conservatives just hate fags.
edit: to be clear all for polygamy, but totally opposed to the fundy practice of marrying off underage girls (that **** should be even more illegal than it already is).
That and replacing the word marriage with civil union for governmental/contractual purposes would remove all of the straw man arguments covering up the fact that conservatives just hate fags.
edit: to be clear all for polygamy, but totally opposed to the fundy practice of marrying off underage girls (that **** should be even more illegal than it already is).
It's required. You pay extra taxes if you fail to marry a horse. But you have to produce babies with it, otherwise there's no point in marriage.
some interesting reading from the right-wing rag LA times:
Prop. 8: You're not helping, Mr. President
c'mon, he's "smarter" than this...right?
Prop. 8: You're not helping, Mr. President
so if it's a matter for the states, why does he disapprove of prop 8? just b/c it's maligned to his [politically convenient] personally held belief? that's a dangerous precident
c'mon, he's "smarter" than this...right?
As a liberal (and Obama supporter), I think he's doing himself a huge disservice by tying himself in knots trying to stake out a middle-of-the-road position on this. He's obviously trying not to completely piss off large groups of Americans who are against gay marriage but have often voted Democrat in the past: Older Americans, minorities and rural-middle-of-the-country voters. Older Americans and minorities in particular have traditionally been very solid Democratic voters, and both are more opposed to gay marriage than the country as a whole (70% of black voters voted FOR prop 8).
So his waffling, and trying to thread a very, VERY narrow line between supporting gay marriage and not turning off a large portion of his base, leaves him looking like a political opportunist who won't say what he really believes...
This is no different than Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
It was a ridiculous rule then but it was necessary to appease the f'king homophobes which make up at least 25% of the vote.
Now there is a large segment who are against gay marriage. Is the majority? I don't think, so although when put to a vote, it was.
The flip side for Democrats is this: I'm not happy with the time it is taking to allow gays to serve in the military although I don't see how gay marriage is a Presidential issue (yet).
But if people want to keep complaining, they can deal with Santorum or Huckabee in 2013. How pro-gay are those guys going to be?
But we're still killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan right? That'll balance out the gay in Jesus's magical ledger in the sky...
He's talking almost as if he's some sort of politician.
what about the other number (a number larger than 25% mind you) who were neither homophobes, nor open-gay service? that's where i was
The problem is that while most issues split relatively evenly down the middle of the political spectrum, acceptance of gays is much more of a demographic issue than a traditional political one. Young people (of all political leanings) are pro gay-marriage, and older people (who have traditionally voted Democrat) are against it. White people are more accepting of gay-marriage yet vote disproportionately Republican, while with black people it's reversed.
So Obama's trying not to completely piss off the large percentage of his supporters who are against gay marriage. I definitely think that the country has grown more accepting of it even than in 2008, so it will be interesting to see if Obama ends up being in the minority on this one...