User Controls
Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage
-
2016-11-14 at 3:12 AM UTChttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-231310
Hahahaha! Faggots were acting like they were about to be rounded up into concentration camps. I swear, these hysterical pansies.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-14 at 3:34 AM UTCIt should be up to the states individually imo
-
2016-11-14 at 3:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by 180gr 10mm FMJ It should be up to the states individually imo
I can see general arguments for state's rights, I really can, but why is marriage in the bailiwick of states? As far as the law is concerned marriage is largely a legal status, with the occasional piece of legislation about disclosure of information or power of attorney. If government has authority over marriage then why is it not the primary taxor in the federal government who has jurisdiction? My position is that marriage shouldn't be a legal status at all, but if you think it should be (and there are reasonable arguments to be made for that position) what makes it a decision for individual states to make? Is one state's record of marriage binding in all others? What would that mean if it were? What would it mean if it weren't? It seems like an absolute mire to even approach. -
2016-11-14 at 4:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I can see general arguments for state's rights, I really can, but why is marriage in the bailiwick of states? As far as the law is concerned marriage is largely a legal status, with the occasional piece of legislation about disclosure of information or power of attorney. If government has authority over marriage then why is it not the primary taxor in the federal government who has jurisdiction? My position is that marriage shouldn't be a legal status at all, but if you think it should be (and there are reasonable arguments to be made for that position) what makes it a decision for individual states to make? Is one state's record of marriage binding in all others? What would that mean if it were? What would it mean if it weren't? It seems like an absolute mire to even approach.
^your argument sounds very caprisous, in this thread lanny will never get married *much less have sex* but will cow-tow to the federal government. He speaks a lot of rhetoric, but never really gets to the point.
But yes marriage shouldn't be a legal institution
/thead
-
2016-11-14 at 4:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I can see general arguments for state's rights, I really can, but why is marriage in the bailiwick of states? As far as the law is concerned marriage is largely a legal status, with the occasional piece of legislation about disclosure of information or power of attorney. If government has authority over marriage then why is it not the primary taxor in the federal government who has jurisdiction? My position is that marriage shouldn't be a legal status at all, but if you think it should be (and there are reasonable arguments to be made for that position) what makes it a decision for individual states to make? Is one state's record of marriage binding in all others? What would that mean if it were? What would it mean if it weren't? It seems like an absolute mire to even approach.
Ideally it wouldn't be a legal status at all.
But if it has to be, and because it's such a divisive issue I think it should be left to the states.
it's kinda like the gun issue:
most people that support it tend to live in different states from the ones that don't so conflicting laws shouldn't cause too many problems
Of course then we'll end up with a clusterfuck of reciprocity agreements like we have with weapon carry permits.
If they're going to make it a federal government issue (as they have) then they should at least allow ministers to follow their religious beliefs.
I mean, who gives a fuck if this minister doesn't want to marry you because you're a gay couple? There are thousands more that will. -
2016-11-14 at 4:15 AM UTC
-
2016-11-14 at 4:16 AM UTCwhere the fuck is the edit button now?
-
2016-11-14 at 4:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Bill Krozby He speaks a lot of rhetoric, but never really gets to the point.
I swear to god Bill Krozby, you don't know what those words even mean, because 100% of that post was either rhetoric or too incoherent to even quality for the august label of rhetoric.
Jesus man, read a book for one in your life or something.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-14 at 4:21 AM UTC^you sound kinda frothy dog, maybe you need to change your "regular" avatard to "frothy dawg!"
lol
/thread -
2016-11-14 at 4:30 AM UTClanny should go back to being a pretend ladyboi and instead of a fat faggot , he was a lot nicer then =^}
-
2016-11-14 at 5 AM UTC
Originally posted by Bill Krozby lanny should go back to being a pretend ladyboi and instead of a fat faggot , he was a lot nicer then =^}
ladyboys are pretend by definition. a pretend pretend lady, a real lady? fuck I think your retardation might be contagious
Originally posted by Lanny I can see general arguments for state's rights, I really can, but why is marriage in the bailiwick of states? As far as the law is concerned marriage is largely a legal status, with the occasional piece of legislation about disclosure of information or power of attorney. If government has authority over marriage then why is it not the primary taxor in the federal government who has jurisdiction? My position is that marriage shouldn't be a legal status at all, but if you think it should be (and there are reasonable arguments to be made for that position) what makes it a decision for individual states to make? Is one state's record of marriage binding in all others? What would that mean if it were? What would it mean if it weren't? It seems like an absolute mire to even approach.
it's more ideological than anything else; people who advocate states' rights by and large do so because they dislike the idea of a federal government and the wastefulness than comes with it. -
2016-11-14 at 5:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra ladyboys are pretend by definition. a pretend pretend lady, a real lady? fuck I think your retardation might be contagious
you seem confused and slightly butt hurt -
2016-11-14 at 1:53 PM UTC
-
2016-11-14 at 4:42 PM UTChttps://twitter.com/CUNTMAFIA/status/796492113357705216/video/1
Hahaha, I'd crack the fuck up if I saw that IRL. It wouldn't surprise me if I got thrown out for offending them.
