Best tweet so far...
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013
Yes! We (and by we I mean all of us polygamous related-juvenile-animal-fuckers) shall overcome! Indubitably and inevitably.The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013
You stole that.Jerloma wrote:I think in 20 years or so, society will look back on these people the same way it looks at the people trying to suppress rights for blacks. I bet they'll be embarrassed by it. They'll probably have to lie to their grandchildren.
The idea that I would not live in union with the person I loved and chose to, because the government told me I could not, is just ludicrous. Nearly as ludicrous, that I would praise that government because they changed their mind.The Federal Government has no right to enter your bedroom and dictate to you what constitutes a marriage in the first place. Neither do State governments. Both arrogated to themselves powers they did not have and which, at least in the Federal case, violate the 1st Amendment.
Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. It predates our modern governments. In the early days of what was to become the United States, and through the lands before, you posted your Banns of Marriage on the church door. The only "involvement" the government had historically was in organized bigotry -- that is, making damn sure you didn't marry a Lord if you were a commoner.
That translated directly to the United States; the original marriage "laws" were for the explicit purpose of making sure you didn't marry a white person if you were black, or an American Indian if you weren't one yourself.
Think I'm kidding? I'm not -- go look it up.
So what you, dear readers who support this, gay or straight, have bought into is turning what is supposed to be about two individuals who love one another into a tri-party deal with the State -- the damned government -- in the middle of your relationship.
You cheered this today.
You fools.
See? I'm watching the Dodgers/Giants game. And I understand why your view of the world is askew.howard wrote:Yeah, but fuck Scalia anyway. On general principle. And cause the Giants are getting swept.
Don't we have threads for sports and stuff? Yeesh.Scottie wrote:Three game same-sex marriage Californian sweep.
See ya' in Fogtown on the 5th, 6th and 7th.
(Wow, thread drift)
Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.howard wrote:One filled with gaps, loopholes, and insanity not tolerated in the remainder of the body of contract law.
For this, it isn't about government controlling people. I think, actually, it is about government helping people.howard wrote:All those functions involve contracts. Sure, government is involved in contract law.
You get married, you draw up a contract. Or not. Your choice, not government's choice that 'once you are married, you are subject to this contract we have designated for you'. One filled with gaps, loopholes, and insanity not tolerated in the remainder of the body of contract law.
All these functions you cite are handled every day by government involvement in contract law, between parties who are not married. To suggest that government would have no involvement suggests that government also would have no involvement in contract law of any sort. This is on the short list of essential government functions that I advocate (protection of private property).
(There is irony in the fact that married people are allowed to file income tax separately; but that is just amusement for my brain I guess. And completely beside the point, but whaddya gonna do?)
Of course, this will not change (and you are correct, Steve). Government loves control of people. People seem to love the warm embrace of government control. Freedom dissipates.
This is not an analogy; this is a description of what the government does with marriage laws. This is not analogous to contract law; this is contract law. Rather, marriage laws function as a contract you enter into, with the terms set by the government.Steve of phpBB wrote:I don't think the contract analogy really works, because for the most part, governmental involvement in marriage is either about setting up default rules when people don't actually write up contracts, like the inheritance situation.
It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.
According to Tony Perkins' letter (and I thought the star of Psycho died years ago, the Lord led them to found this organization.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
....let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?
rass wrote:Guess who:
....let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?
So you wouldn't if the law didn't tell you to?ZMan wrote:It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.
A fair amount of people wouldn't.P.D.X. wrote:So you wouldn't if the law didn't tell you to?ZMan wrote:It's a raw deal to take care of your kids?P.D.X. wrote:Read something the other day to the effect that marriage is the only legal contract that can be unilaterally dissolved at any time and for any reason, and still hold one party to 18 years of financial obligation. Pretty raw deal.
Note:
This guy obviously thinks about gay sex a lot.We are talking about one man inserting the male organ used to create life into the part of another man used to excrete waste.
We are talking about one man taking the penus of another man into his mouth, or engaging in penus-to-penus grinding.
We are talking about a woman using her mouth to stimilute the nipples, vulva, clitoris or vagina of another woman, or using her hand or other “toys” to simulate sexual intercourse.
We are talking about anilingus and other things I still cannot name or describe.