Prop 8 Striked down in california, allowing gay marriage - Polidicks

Homosexual: n. A cross dressing pedophilic Satanist who looks to defy god and advance the agenda of evil. Christian: n. Gods among men, rulers of the Earth, looks to advance the agenda of all that is right. Fox News: n. God's infallible word, the newest edition of the Bible.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840700]A gay judge passed a law permitting gay marriage. That you actually just called that circumstantial blows my mind. Regardless, I'm still amazed that people actually still argue about this. It all seems like an incredibly minor change to me that only retains its importance because it has the word "Marriage" in it.[/QUOTE] It's not that minor really. In any marriage, the couple gets to file taxes jointly. Which AFAIK means you spend less on taxes. If you aren't married, you don't get that benefit. I really don't care if it's called gay marriage or just civil unions. The wording doesn't matter, but what does matter is that two men or two women can get the same benefits from the government as a man and a woman. [editline]12:52AM[/editline] If the church doesn't want to recognize two men as being married, then whatever. They can believe what they want, and being sanctioned by the church has no real benefit anyway.

[QUOTE=Raneman;23840725]Homosexual: n. A cross dressing pedophilic Satanist who looks to defy god and advance the agenda of evil. Christian: n. Gods among men, rulers of the Earth, looks to advance the agenda of all that is right. Fox News: n. God's infallible word, the newest edition of the Bible. Catholic: n. Don't get me started. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;23840800]It's not that minor really. In any marriage, the couple gets to file taxes jointly. Which AFAIK means you spend less on taxes. If you aren't married, you don't get that benefit. I really don't care if it's called gay marriage or just civil unions. The wording doesn't matter, but what does matter is that two men or two women can get the same benefits from the government as a man and a woman.[/QUOTE] I absolutely see your point on taxes, and I can see how having tax breaks for straight couples (they make babies - this is good) versus same-sex couples (they don't make babies, for reference) could be detrimental. However, many rights that come with civil unions, such as hospital visitation, are really quite straightforward, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could be against them. The only problem I really have is how many people on both sides of the argument - gays and those opposed to them - are under some perception that if they only get/deny gay marriage, they will have won some great ethical and religious battle. Allowing gay marriage doesn't let people just walk into a church and get married. Religion influences this argument, but [B]this argument does not influence religion.[/B]

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840853]I absolutely see your point on taxes, and I can see how having tax breaks for straight couples (they make babies - this is good) versus same-sex couples (they don't make babies, for reference) could be detrimental. However, many rights that come with civil unions, such as hospital visitation, are really quite straightforward, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could be against them.[/QUOTE] So people that have medical issues that prevent reproduction should not get tax breaks?

[QUOTE=SSBMX;23840923]So people that have medical issues that prevent reproduction should not get tax breaks?[/QUOTE] It's been statistically proven that same-sex couples are 100% less likely to get each other pregnant than opposite-sex couples.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840977]It's been statistically proven that same-sex couples are 100% less likely to get each other pregnant than opposite-sex couples.[/QUOTE] Are you that fucking thick?

[QUOTE=SSBMX;23841015]Are you that fucking thick?[/QUOTE] I could ask you the same question. It wouldn't get us anywhere, though.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840977]It's been statistically proven that same-sex couples are 100% less likely to get each other pregnant than opposite-sex couples.[/QUOTE] True, but same sex couples are probably more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples. Also, a lesbian can be artificially inseminated (hope that's the right word)

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840700]A gay judge passed a law permitting gay marriage. That you actually just called that circumstantial blows my mind.[/QUOTE] Do you even know what that means The ruling isn't any less correct because he's gay. [editline]02:09AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;23841040]I could ask you the same question. It wouldn't get us anywhere, though.[/QUOTE] It especially wouldn't get anywhere because you're making nonsensical arguments and that would be another one

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841040]I could ask you the same question. It wouldn't get us anywhere, though.[/QUOTE] I asked you a question about couples that cannot reproduce, and all I got was a troll answer. I demand a real one.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;23841074]True, but same sex couples are probably more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples. Also, a lesbian can be artificially inseminated (hope that's the right word)[/QUOTE] The adoptions are true, but the ideal situation would be for the child to not be given up in the first place for adoption. Not to mention a large part of adoptions are now foreign adoptions. Artificial insemination (have no idea if that's really how you spell it) is an interesting case, although tax cuts for people who adopt or have children should obviously still be in effect. [editline]02:14AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23841075]Do you even know what that means The ruling isn't any less correct because he's gay.[/QUOTE] The ruling is correct because he's a federal judge. There's nothing you or I could do about that even if we wanted to. Looking at his motives nevertheless does show why he may have made the decision that he did. The question that should be asked is whether another judge (obviously a straight one) would have made the same decision. I would assume he would have. If an ultra-religious judge made the ruling that Prop 8 was constitutional, you probably would have been angry. This is no different, but your perception has changed nonetheless.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841122]The ruling is correct because he's a federal judge.[/QUOTE] No the ruling is correct because if you don't agree with gay marriage you are probably insane

[QUOTE=SSBMX;23841099]I asked you a question about couples that cannot reproduce, and all I got was a troll answer. I demand a real one.[/QUOTE] I would assume that since reproduction is a fairly private matter (whether or not you can reproduce) they would have been treated the same as any other opposite-sex couples. That's taking advantage of the system, but since the alternative is requiring people to put down whether they are impotent and sending it off, it seems reasonable. They obviously would not receive any child benefits. [editline]02:19AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23841209]No the ruling is correct because if you don't agree with gay marriage you are probably insane[/QUOTE] So in other words, you don't actually have any objectivity on the matter other than that everyone else is wrong? That's fine with me, you could have voted against proposition 8 in the first place, then we wouldn't even have to be discussing this right now.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841212]I would assume that since reproduction is a fairly private matter (whether or not you can reproduce) they would have been treated the same as any other opposite-sex couples. That's taking advantage of the system, but since the alternative is requiring people to put down whether they are impotent and sending it off, it seems reasonable. They obviously would not receive any child benefits. [editline]02:19AM[/editline] So in other words, you don't actually have any objectivity on the matter other than that everyone else is wrong? That's fine with me, you could have voted against proposition 8 in the first place, then we wouldn't even have to be discussing this right now.[/QUOTE] Get your head out of your ass. Gays are just as human as anybody else and if you cannot see that then you should just gtfo. You fucking religious bastards treat gays like objects. Guess what buddy, we arn't. We are fucking humans too and you cannot segragate us for the way we are you dick. We don't choose to be gay, it is how we are born. You thick fucks need stop acting like it is a choice.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841212]So in other words, you don't actually have any objectivity on the matter other than that everyone else is wrong?[/QUOTE] "Running over people on the sidewalk is a dick thing to do and if you do it you're a dick" "YOU'RE NOT BEING OBJECTIVE YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG" Just because the issue isn't objective doesn't mean one side isn't argued entirely by sociopaths. [QUOTE=Morcam;23841212]That's fine with me, you could have voted against proposition 8 in the first place, then we wouldn't even have to be discussing this right now.[/QUOTE] Two issues with that, compadre: I don't live in California and I wasn't 18 when this was being voted on.

why is there even a debate about this

[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;23841380]why is there even a debate about this[/QUOTE] Beats me

[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;23841380]why is there even a debate about this[/QUOTE] Religion

[QUOTE=SSBMX;23841317]Get your head out of your ass. Gays are just as human as anybody else and if you cannot see that then you should just gtfo. You fucking religious bastards treat gays like objects. Guess what buddy, we arn't. We are fucking humans too and you cannot segragate us for the way we are you dick. We don't choose to be gay, it is how we are born. You thick fucks need stop acting like it is a choice.[/QUOTE] Apparently I really pissed you off. Care to elaborate how? Also, I'm not religious. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23841327]"Running over people on the sidewalk is a dick thing to do and if you do it you're a dick" "YOU'RE NOT BEING OBJECTIVE YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG" Just because the issue isn't objective doesn't mean one side isn't argued entirely by sociopaths. Two issues with that, compadre: I don't live in California and I wasn't 18 when this was being voted on.[/QUOTE] 1. I didn't realize people who disagreed with gay marriage approved of running people over in the streets. Thanks for warning me. 2. I'm sorry you don't live in the right place at the right time. If we got to pick where we wanted to be at what time, I would have recommended you the writing of the Constitution. Would have cleared everything up a long time ago.

You are still ignorant

[QUOTE=Morcam;23840853]I absolutely see your point on taxes, and I can see how having tax breaks for straight couples (they make babies - this is good) versus same-sex couples (they don't make babies, for reference) could be detrimental. However, many rights that come with civil unions, such as hospital visitation, are really quite straightforward, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could be against them.[/QUOTE] What the fuck. Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? People make babies anyway and we're brimming with people who want to enter the country, that's fucking stupid. Besides, why should the government be in charge of curbing your lifestyle, that's pretty goddamn stupid too. If you're going to give tax breaks to straight couples who marry, give them to gay couples too who marry too, simple as that. [editline]02:44AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;23841425]1. I didn't realize people who disagreed with gay marriage approved of running people over in the streets. Thanks for warning me.[/QUOTE] I think you missed the point of the comparison. [QUOTE=Morcam;23841425]2. I'm sorry you don't live in the right place at the right time. If we got to pick where we wanted to be at what time, I would have recommended you the writing of the Constitution. Would have cleared everything up a long time ago.[/QUOTE] Bitch about a person not voting on something, person wasn't able to at the time, then proceed to be smug about it. Flawless victory.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841425]Apparently I really pissed you off. Care to elaborate how? Also, I'm not religious. 1. I didn't realize people who disagreed with gay marriage approved of running people over in the streets. Thanks for warning me. 2. I'm sorry you don't live in the right place at the right time. If we got to pick where we wanted to be at what time, I would have recommended you the writing of the Constitution. Would have cleared everything up a long time ago.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=174572&dateline=1270021148[/IMG] People who brags about it, are normally pricks :colbert:.

[QUOTE=Billiam;23841521]What the fuck. Why would the government give an incentive to reproduce? People make babies anyway and we're brimming with people who want to enter the country, that's fucking stupid. Besides, why should the government be in charge of curbing your lifestyle, that's pretty goddamn stupid too. If you're going to give tax breaks to straight couples who marry, give them to gay couples too who marry too, simple as that.[/QUOTE]

It was completely fucking retarded that it had to get thrown out in the first place, how the fuck did that get through in this day and age? Now the rest of America needs to grow up and follow suit, and then maybe the UK will do it too, it's utterly stupid that two people can't get married to one another based on what fucking chromosomes they have.

marriage has nothing to do with making babies at all. there is absolutely zero fucking reason a couple's ability to reproduce should have any sort of effect on whether or not they can marry. if you disagree, do give me an example reason why i'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841425]1. I didn't realize people who disagreed with gay marriage approved of running people over in the streets. Thanks for warning me.[/QUOTE] I didn't realize drawing a comparison meant the things you were comparing were the exact same. Thanks for warning me. [QUOTE=Morcam;23841425]2. I'm sorry you don't live in the right place at the right time. If we got to pick where we wanted to be at what time, I would have recommended you the writing of the Constitution. Would have cleared everything up a long time ago.[/QUOTE] :irony:

Obvious troll is obvious

Morcam, the republican arguing for MORE government invasion in the average persons life. Oh the irony.

[QUOTE=Morcam;23841212]I would assume that since reproduction is a fairly private matter (whether or not you can reproduce) they would have been treated the same as any other opposite-sex couples. That's taking advantage of the system, but since the alternative is requiring people to put down whether they are impotent and sending it off, it seems reasonable. They obviously would not receive any child benefits. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, because it sounds pretty dumb. If you believe the government should be curbing straight couples into reproducing reproduction is kind of a government concern. Uh, it's pretty dumb to say that an impotent couple should receive the benefits that you believe are entitled to straight couples because they can reproduce, if reproduction really was a matter to be left to couple then everyone should be given the benefits.