National Defense of Marriage Act being hit
- Thread starter kakashi owns all
- Start date
kakashi owns all
Active member
Then get a certificate saying that that your church views you as married.
I have no issues with that
you keep your happiness and love, government keep there money
ballerjordan
Banned
Hunty
Active member
Awards
This thread has become almost as stupid as your base argument.
You must be registered for see links
If I can't marry him, then you shouldn't be able to get married either.
kakashi owns all
Active member
The hell you aren't.
Why is marriage a legal issue to begin with?
Honestly, two members of the same *** cannot have the same depth of physical bond that those of the opposite *** can. There's a biochemical basis behind this.
That said - it just so happens that you two are broken and incapable of experiencing that depth with someone of the opposite ***.
What? You weren't starting a fight?
Then why does this ruling matter?
Do you realize what this ruling does - or are you just another mindless flamer who comments on anything regarding homosexuals?
No, it's not a certificate to show you love each other. Marriage is a legal definition and tax filing status. That is all it is to the government. It also conveys a variety of inherent powers of attourney.
The "show you love each other" part is the ceremony where you stand in front of friends, family, and neighbors and say that you will love and take care of that person to the exclusion of all others; that the person is second only to God in importance.
The certificate is simply a legal status.
So... again, I ask... "Why is the national government interacting with us in such a way that it matters what tax filing status two people living together qualify for?"
Unbiased King
Active member
Actually, according to article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights, all human beings have the right to marriage.
Reading from your previous posts to others, you've brought up that marriage fraud would take advantage of same *** marriage.
But don't you think it would be better to crack down on these fraudulent attempts at saving taxes rather than deny human beings their human right to marry?
How would you feel if government denied your right to travel on the basis that although you've never commited a crime, you could commit one then leave the country?
This idea goes against the premises of Liberalism, which is in-turn the foundation of America.
The... what?
Please, tell me what authority the committee responsible for drafting such a daft thing had, and why I should do anything other than ignore it.
What is marriage?
The government recognizes marriage as a specialized relationship conveying special legal privileges and a separate tax status.
How does that infringe upon their "international right" to marry?
Did someone come into their home and replace their king sized bed with two twin beds in opposite rooms of the house?
Did someone come along and give them separate refrigerators and make sure that they were only cooking for themselves?
In this case, the government is simply requiring all international flights to pay a tax that is waived for domestic flights.
*sigh* Another person who I will end up having to kill.
America was founded on the concept of self-governance. "Liberalism" had nothing to do with it - aside from the rejection of British rule and jurisdiction.
Liberalism, as what you believe in, is a cultural conquest of subjugation. People are "free" so long as they agree with you. If someone believes that homosexuality is wrong and refuses to accept it - then you believe they need to be pounced upon and forced to comply with an "enlightened" system.
Which is why it's a false dichotomy.
True liberalism - which has more in line with anarchy - is impossible for humans to achieve. Because we are not wholly self-reliant and independent - we rely upon the efforts and status of others. That means that we have a personally vested interest in the actions, behavior, and status of others.
When another person chooses to live his/her life in a way that acts as a detriment to what you rely upon them for... it creates a scenario where the illusion of liberty collapses. Person A must perform a task to a set standard or person B will be adversely affected and cannot live freely. Neither person A or B can truly live how he/she wishes; nor can society function where everyone simply lives the way they wish.
Which is why governments will form. Even if it's a tribal system... governments will exist. One group will compete for resources or influence (even within the tribes) - and there will be murder and death.
It is the natural order of things. It is just unfortunate that the coming storm is going to cull the lives of billions.
Unbiased King
Active member
The United Nations.
Authority? About as much as a man demanding a stranger polish his shoes.
Why should you do anything other than ignore it? Lol beats me.
But the Declaration of Human Rights serves as a compass for what nations ought to do and how they ought to treat humans. Now of course we have our notorious offenders (communism and the like), but once again, the example of the man demanding a shoe polish from a stranger.
Well it depends on the conte-
Well alrighty then.
How can you call two things the same, but structure them to be different in practice? (And please, do not bring up homophones.)
If the state allows for marriage but holds a double standard to homo/hetero relationships, then the former is not getting the recognition as a specialized relationship conveying special legal privileges and a separate tax status they signed up for; they may have well kept their civil unions and added federal benefits!
It's the same as calling two twin sized beds a king sized bed, when in actuality, the rift in the middle of the two will never be joined by thread or fabric of some sort to qualify as one.
I wouldn't give you two unicycles and call it a bicyc- Or a handful of peanuts and a stick of butter and call it peanut bu- Or slice a thin layer off the top of your lap and call it a lapto- But I digress.
But it doesn't stop someone who can pay the tax from traveling.
I was not speaking to flights specifically either.
Oh, so it did?
From a 3rd party standpoint, where there is Great Britain and their taxes and whathaveyou, yes: America was founded on the concept of self-governance. But from within, internally, our founding fathers wanted John Locke's ideas to be their reality. But once again, I digress.
EDIT: What's wrong with false dichotomies? They're EVERYWHERE in western politics.
True liberalism is liberalism. John Locke said this best: we have natural rights to which it is the government's duty to protect, which is life, liberty, and property; liberalism is doing just that - anarchy is anarchy.
So then you believe liberty can never *really* be achieved? Or is it just that we can't have it if we are dependent in some way to another?
But more importantly, if we want to pursue liberty and all liberalism has to offer, why shouldn't we give homosexual marriages the exact same benefits that a heterosexual one does? I mean it's unfortunate that liberalism comes with drink-the-koolaid-or-else in fineprint, but if it grants what liberalism seeks to give, at least how it does now in America, why not? Why shouldn't homosexuals have every benefit that heterosexual marriages do?
I think that you guys should watch the movie called America's Godly Heritage. It will show you that since America has struck down christianity and brought up church in state since 1962 there has been an explosion in Violent Crimes 460% and unwed pregnancy amongst teenagers 460%. Even the Divorce rate has exploded. All because of the belief of 3% of the population.
Last edited:
Violent crimes and unwed pregnancy have nothing to do with religion. It's a socio-economic issue.
I'm a spiritual fanatic but I'm still neutral about the whole ''mass meditation reduces crime rates'' thing which is the same as your claim.
If what you say is true then why do the charts prove that since 1962 seperation of church and state rulings the numbers for crimes has exploded placing America to one of the worlds leaders in vice? Why was the bible taught in schools and also seen by our forefathers that if it wasn't taught there would be a spiraling result of immorality and chaos in the nation?
I feal angry and sad about the vote, I mean a 5-4? it should have been a clear 9-0!
I mean come on, either everyone should have the same rights or no one should have any, you simply can't just say ohh you have darker skin (or nay other collor) so you get less rights, or you wore born with the wrong gender, hair collor, eye collor, etc...
I mean equality for everyone aint that hard! -.-'
I mean come on, either everyone should have the same rights or no one should have any, you simply can't just say ohh you have darker skin (or nay other collor) so you get less rights, or you wore born with the wrong gender, hair collor, eye collor, etc...
I mean equality for everyone aint that hard! -.-'
I'm not gonna say religion bears no benefits to people's morality. It's a good tool to bring up your children.
The strict environment those oldgen children were raised in would, without doubt, help form them in a good way.
But.. that chart has probably not much to do with the involvement of religion as it's probably created by some fanatics to prove the benefit of religious values. I guess we're still not (or just starting) in a age in which we can manage ourselves without the need of a degraded belief system to hold up our morality and sanity.
There are several reasons for the plummiting of morality in our society that have nothing to do with belief's systems.
Media for one. Cuts on schooling woldwide, health benefits and such that would, on the long run, bring up crime rates. It's a socio-economic issue. Deeming this the lack of religion is just trying to glorify your own belief system's influence.
Last edited:
The movie I quoted also mentioned that if a nation does not clearly define itself within its religious identity it opens the door for all kinds of morality not grounded in scripture including homosexuality and even polygamy. Prior to 1962 Marriage was seen as a god given institution. Its already been proven by others on this board that opening the door to homosexuality logically opens the door to incest and perhaps even other practices.
Last edited:
But how is it any different from a male and a female who are roomates, and then choses to get married to save a legal buck?
So, would it not be better then, to remove the ability for strait people to be married aswell? To save even more money? that's what your interest in right?
Moral values change over time. We once thought slavery was moral. Crime rates and such are the results of the (what I call) Putting the wellbeing of the citizens as a secundary priority and the gain of wealth in any situation, with the transferring of the money from the poor to the wealthy, as our primary priority.
It's more of a socio-economic issue. Incest goes too far imo, but homosexuality is a phenomenon we can't explain (yet), so we shouldn't condemn them due to our ignorance. Gays don't cause crime rates to raise. Gays don't cause any disturbance in our society other than the displease of people with ignorant belief systems and outdated moral values.
I don't think slavery is something logically society has put away. Think of all the third world countries we are using today to get cheap labor done. These people are the modern day slaves. Instead of pretending that the problem of slavery will never exist the bible teaches that masters should treat their slaves fairly knowing that they too have a master in heaven.
Last edited:
We're all modern day slaves. Without exception.
The thing is, slavery went from a direct approach to a more mild, more complex chained system in which we are granted more freedom without us even knowing we're slaves. It's still slavery, but it's also progress as long we keep fighting our government's agenda which is getting harder day by day.
Not going to argue that it constitutes a nice thought.
The problem is that there is some truth to the idiom that "nice guys finish last." There's a time to be part of the herd. There's a time to be a wolf.
The government also calls two people who live together for seven years married.
What the government says versus what it is are two different things.
Because that is the way it is. I'm a native American. I was born in this country. My matriarchal grandmother had a Cherokee lineage, even.
I don't get to file as a native American.
The State governs the rules for marriage. That is specifically outlined in the Constitution. The State can decide whether or not two people are legally married or not, as well as what that does to their tax status as it pertains to states.
The national government was never supposed to tax citizens directly. Because they can - they have now been granted jurisdiction to rule on marriage because the national government has decided to tax people differently based on marital relationships and the like.
Which is what happens when you allow the national government to pay for and tax for everything. It takes over powers reserved to the State through the abuse of "necessary and proper."
The real question is: "Why are we taxing beds?"
Not: "Why are we taxing two Twin beds differently from a King?"
People aren't prevented from marrying, either.
The Founding Fathers were rather diverse in their spread of beliefs about government. Just look at the old 'battles' between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. There were very different ideas about how the government should work just from the get-go. Just look at all of the political insanity under James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution" - and his administration differed radically from the three prior Presidents and there was a wide range of response from the population, as well.
The one unifying thing that brought all of them together was: "we want to govern ourselves." - Which is why the Colonies declared themselves independent nations. The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at doing that - with virtually no centralized authority. It failed - and the Constitution was not exactly seen as necessary at the time, either. The colonies were all their own nation-states. They had to be convinced to yield certain powers to a national system.
That would make a great customer-service come-back. "Oh, your faucet leaked when you installed it? What's wrong with that? Everyone's got a leaky faucet."
True liberalism is anarchy. End of story.
You cannot protect the life, liberty, and property of everyone. At some point - you're going to have to deny someone of those things. Some group has to be in charge of determining what conditions allow that to happen - and the Game of Thrones begins.
The Queen, in all her forms, must be served.
Liberty is always a relative term. You can throw a child out into the woods and he is completely free. You can put a child in a playground with a fence, and he is restrained. There's an exchange of individual responsibility, there. A child in the woods has far more to concern himself with in order to preserve his health than the kid in the playground. The kid in the playground can't see much of the town - but he's not running in front of cars, either.
There are basic things that you will never be "free" from. You will either be restricted by a system that provides these necessities or you will be forced to take time and effort out of your life to see to them, yourself.
True liberalism is true freedom. The closest thing to true freedom is going to be something approaching anarchy - and that's the interpretation that you are free of a system attempting to regulate your behavior.
Because the representatives elected by the people have said that they feel their represented base does not want to.
If you have a government that is always doing things that people don't like - then they will declare it invalid and seek independence from it (which means their tax revenues and any other contributions to membership go elsewhere, too).
The proper question is: "why is the national government taxing individual citizens and couples?"