EPTSupreme court strikes down DOMA - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gunther
Germany139 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:17 Bigtony wrote: Sounds like an A+ example of what I just described. Bring us your valid, well thought out argument? How does gay marriage negatively affect you or your relationship? | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:17 Bigtony wrote: Sounds like an A+ example of what I just described. Clearly you'r unhappy with the discussion, so lets hear from you. I honestly want to know what your alternative framing of the debate is. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:17 Bigtony wrote: Sounds like an A+ example of what I just described. I like how you're just crying about being insulted but you haven't actually offered any "valid points" that apparently exist on the other side. And that's why we don't take you seriously babycakes. User was warned for this post | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:18 Gunther wrote: I'm always glad to see federal authority undermined. This doesn't really undermine federal authority in any way. It wasn't a matter of the states placing a check on the federal government, but instead the fgov putting a check on itself through the 14th amendment. | ||
|
IPA
United States3206 Posts
Love is love. Good day today. <3 | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:18 Gunther wrote: I'm always glad to see federal authority undermined. but the federal authority is being undermined by another federal authority!!! | ||
|
Broodwurst
Germany1586 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:17 Bigtony wrote: Sounds like an A+ example of what I just described. Does the law help people? Yes. Does the law hurt people? No. Will the law be difficult to implement? No. Will the law be costly? No. Will people be offended? Yes. Is it the role of government to make sure people don't get offended? No. Pretty simple. Unless there's a secret Bohemian Nightclub where the gays are planning their next strike... and scarlett has already alluded to this: On June 26 2013 23:48 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0DLy2RX.png) | ||
|
Zer atai
United States691 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:23 Broodwurst wrote: Well done new TL logo WE DID IT GUYS! | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
I am talking about things like tax reductions for married people and such, You have those in US? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:42 Silvanel wrote: I am all for equal treatment but i would actually love not to give LGBT couples same privilages as for hetersoexual couples but to take those privilages away from heterosexuals. Most of bonuses and privilages given to couples are rooted in nationalistic ideologies of XIX century. We are wiser than that. I am talking about things like tax reductions for married people and such, You have those in US? Yes and we still have deductions for children as well. We have a shit ton of laws based on marriage, which is basically a highly specialized contract and has special legal protections associated with it. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:42 Silvanel wrote: I am all for equal treatment but i would actually love not to give LGBT couples same privilages as for hetersoexual couples but to take those privilages away from heterosexuals. Most of bonuses and privilages given to couples are rooted in nationalistic ideologies of XIX century. We are wiser than that. I am talking about things like tax reductions for married people and such, You have those in US? Yep. I think there would be a lot of backlash for trying to remove those things though. Married couples are a pretty stable unit in society and their existence is useful for a lot of reasons that the government would want to keep around. To name just a couple: - The idea of a cohesive family makes inheritance much easier - Knowing that there is some stability to whether or not incomes are combined max it easier to asses things like whether or not a couple ought to get a mortgage I don't think the idea of government sanctioned and encoraged marriages is going anywhere anytime soon. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:42 Silvanel wrote: I am all for equal treatment but i would actually love not to give LGBT couples same privilages as for hetersoexual couples but to take those privilages away from heterosexuals. Most of bonuses and privilages given to couples are rooted in nationalistic ideologies of XIX century. We are wiser than that. I am talking about things like tax reductions for married people and such, You have those in US? Joint filing can be a mixed bag. Even if that is taken out, marriage still gives important legal powers for the will, visitation rights, inheritance tax and whatnot. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2104 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:53 Blargh wrote: I don't mind marriages having bonuses, just don't have them religiously associated... Also, not -that- big of a victory considering CA was a rare (or whatever you want to call it) example of "preventing gay marriage". This does not apply to all of the other states who do not have gay marriage at all, right? Anyway, it's nice that the supreme court isn't 100% mongoloids I suppose. The doma decision is more of a big deal. If you can get to a gay friendly state and get married the you get federal benefits too | ||
|
Br0kensword
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:56 Silvanel wrote: Yeah i am not talking about inheritance, visit rights and such. I dont wish to tottaly reconstruct society. I just would like to tax reduction for couples taken away, make sure children adopted and naturalborn children give exactly same financial benefits (or non at all). Things like that. The thing is, all of that legal stuff is a benefit to society since its simple, so the state incentivises people to put themselves in that position | ||
| ||
