You are right. Lets remove those rights entirely so NO ONE can use them.You don't think it kind of sounds like an exploit so that they can do whatever they want and still get money and benefits? Sounds fishy to me.
They want the same money and special treatment that a man and woman that hated each other could still get.Ah, so they want more money and special treatment. Okay I get it. Thanks
So it's an exploit that I want to visit someone I love if he's dying in a hospital?You don't think it kind of sounds like an exploit so that they can do whatever they want and still get money and benefits? Sounds fishy to me.
Don't fall for the obvious trolling. Use your footsies.So it's an exploit that I want to visit someone I love if he's dying in a hospital?
Quick, footsies gif!Don't fall for the obvious trolling. Use your footsies.
We're overpopulated.Ya but they hate each other for babies and the good of the earth
Quick, footsies gif!
the same reason people were happy when women or blacks were finally able to vote like white men. People are happy when a social injustice is abolished, whither that is segregation or marriage. If one group of people have a right, then all groups of people should.I think it's fine was just wondering what the point of it all was and why everyone was so happy.
You seem to be forgetting the bush-era patriot act. Any controlling party is going to be engaged in violations of privacy for the rest of our lives.Its not all good news.
Republicans are anti gay rights, Democrats are anti privacy.
Shit sucks in the good ole USA.
You seem to be forgetting the bush-era patriot act. Any controlling party is going to be engaged in violations of privacy for the rest of our lives.
The numbers would be flipped if the controlling party were also flipped. Same thing.I meant more of voters. All politicans hate privacy.
I remember a recent poll that said 39% of republicans agreed with Prism while 51% of democrats did
I think Antigay people are going to have a rough time because of this ruling. Anyone else catch this part of the decision?
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
Emphasis mine. Seems like its not far from there to argue individual states have no legitimate purpose in not allowing gay marriage.
Funny how gay marriage will send some people into a panic, but arranged and child marriages (still popular in some parts of the world) get the gloss over from them.
One argument against gay marriage is "where will it stop? Should we allow three people to marry?". Basically a bad slippery slope argument.my attitude is if its 2 concenting adults 18 and older hey more power to you and its none of my buisness
One argument against gay marriage is "where will it stop? Should we allow three people to marry?". Basically a bad slippery slope argument.
Since you explicitly said two consenting adults, I'd like to ask, why stop at two? I'm of the mindset that consenting adults should be able to make their own decisions and I can't think of any good reason not to allow that.
It is already written in law that to have more than one spouse is illegal. The other argument I here is what if people want to marry their dog or cat, or w/e, but its between two consenting adults, an animal cannot consent. That is the only justification outside of religion many try to argue.One argument against gay marriage is "where will it stop? Should we allow three people to marry?". Basically a bad slippery slope argument.
Since you explicitly said two consenting adults, I'd like to ask, why stop at two? I'm of the mindset that consenting adults should be able to make their own decisions and I can't think of any good reason not to allow that.
It is already written in law that to have more than one spouse is illegal. The other argument I here is what if people want to marry their dog or cat, or w/e, but its between two consenting adults, an animal cannot consent. That is the only justification outside of religion many try to argue.
Ya I don't think those are good reasons either.It is already written in law that to have more than one spouse is illegal. The other argument I here is what if people want to marry their dog or cat, or w/e, but its between two consenting adults, an animal cannot consent. That is the only justification outside of religion many try to argue.
Lmao, nicely said.if someone wants to have multiple wives i aint going to judge because hes going to be the one to worry about 3 pairs of inlaws that will do nothing but nag him to death. that my friend is why i will never get married because even the thought of one pair of inlaws already says its going to annoy me