Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States



*** Pic removed....it had a no no word in it. Steve ***

Everybody knew THAT was coming. They telegraphed that decision right from the start. It was pretty much inevitable anyways, once the arguments against it fell flat.

Sweet. I can go marry my ladder now.

-tg

only if your ladder is a male

I married a very attractive table lamp.

Attachment 127939
But she's French so it doesn't count.

-tg

The warm glow of electric sex.

Ahh but do you get the "married filing jointly" income tax breaks, spousal benefits from work, reduced auto insurance rates, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Attachment 127939
But she's French so it doesn't count.

-tg

---

I actually have one of those (small version) thanks to my mom that has a real sense of humor.

I thought this was cute...

I wonder about the one who says, "Finding my wife...." When did he lose her?

Wonder if she was at the Pride Rally.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Sweet. I can go marry my ladder now.

-tg

---

I married a dishwasher while I was married to my job. I thought it was pretty big of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Ahh but do you get the "married filing jointly" income tax breaks, spousal benefits from work, reduced auto insurance rates, etc?

---

That's the whole point, wasn't it?

Yeah, I'd say so...except that "married filing joinly" doesn't mean the same thing in all states. In most states, that's a legal status that alters the amount of taxes due. In Colorado and Oregon, it's a legal status that excuses all the math errors.

Quote:

---

Sweet. I can go marry my ladder now.

---

Did i miss an in Joke ? :confused:

Probably... it's the usual straw man argument... allow gays to get married and the next thing you know people will be wanting to marry their chairs or their car, or their dog... it's all because the Chair-Marrying Lobby Organizations are all so strong, clearly people are afraid of them. It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Haverty's.

-tg

Adam and Havarti? You mean you can't marry cheese???? But...I love it so much!!!

(not Havarti, necessarily, as it's not a gouda choice).

Actually I meant Haverty's... I gouda gone with the other choice but I would have hada muenster of a time getting it to work. Plus it's a cottage industry that's quite cheesy.

-tg

Well there is a different between wanting to marry another human being who you love and wanting to marry an object that cannot love you back...

So you find an affectionate canary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dclamp

Well there is a different between wanting to marry another human being who you love and wanting to marry an object that cannot love you back...

---

Australian woman marries a bridge in France

The distinction is that both members consent to the marriage. It's not one sided in most of the US (except some towns in Utah and Idaho).

Of course it happened in Japan and from the photos looks even more creepy than I would have imagined:

The bride wore white and the groom wore out his batteries: First robot wedding in Japan takes place and even ends with a kiss

Am I clueless or am I right in thinking you guys are not in favor of this decision or probably doesn't care about this? I am honestly alarmed with this news, it is more alarming than China invading us actually.

Personally, I don't really care much as it doesn't affect me. Despite what the evangelical right would have everyone believe, my marriage is still intact. But I do have several friends whom are directly affected bythis as they are now free to marry their partners if they choose to do so. I'm poking fun at the rediculousness of some of the arguements that have been given over the last few years against this kind of ruling. I'm sure if we re-wind history some 50 years we would hear the same things about interracial marriages. And it was stupid then as it is stupid now.

-tg

Quote:

---

Actually I meant Haverty's... I gouda gone with the other choice but I would have hada muenster of a time getting it to work. Plus it's a cottage industry that's quite cheesy.

---

You win at punning:thumb:

I fully support gay marriage - it leaves more crumpet for us red blooded men! I actually wouldn't have a problem with someone marrying an inanimate object either. Whatever floats yer boat. Come to think of it, go ahead and marry your boat for all I care.

I'm being flippant but I do have a serious point: live and let live. As long as your actions do not affect others you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you like and nobody should be able to gain say you because they find it offensive. They should be allowed to challenge you, but not to stop you.

I do draw the line at marrying your dog because, while no may mean no, the definition of woof has yet to be adequately explored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

Am I clueless or am I right in thinking you guys are not in favor of this decision or probably doesn't care about this? I am honestly alarmed with this news, it is more alarming than China invading us actually.

---

Which news are you alarmed at? That people oppose it, or that it passed?

Really, I think the overwhelming majority could(n't) care less. This would include those that believe it should be allowed and those that shouldn't. But since it does not directly affect those groups, they really are not moved by the whole thing. Theres'a small minority that don't want gay marriage to be legal, and those that fight tooth and nail even when the majority have opposed it through a democratic process, and want everybody and their dog involved with an opinion that matches their own.

Both of those groups are obnoxious.

I, personally, oppose gay marriage but the government should have no hand in who loves whom. The financial 'burden' of the decision is to be decided, but since I earn a S**t ton of cash, and hide it in off shore accounts, it really won't affect me from a financial standpoint. What I really loathe though is people wanting me to not only accept but participate in something which I don't believe is a real thing. But I would stand with a gay couple against those trying to use rule of law or force to prevent them from doing something that has significant meaning to them.

On a lighter note, people joke about marriage, gays, jews, one legged dogs, and frozen waffles on snail. Marrying a couple of two D size batteries is no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

What I really loathe though is people wanting me to not only accept but participate in something which I don't believe is a real thing.

---

What types of things are people asking you to participate in that you don't believe in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Really, I think the overwhelming majority could(n't) care less. This would include those that believe it should be allowed and those that shouldn't. But since it does not directly affect those groups, they really are not moved by the whole thing. Theres'a small minority that don't want gay marriage to be legal, and those that fight tooth and nail even when the majority have opposed it through a democratic process, and want everybody and their dog involved with an opinion that matches their own.

---

I agree with that. My feeling is that few people really care all that much. I probably know some gay people, but they haven't told me and why should I care anyways? There are people beating the drum against it, and they are on the wrong side of history. As for those beating the drum for it...as a single guy, I can't say that I totally understand their position. However, I do get that there are economic, legal, and health related impacts of marriage, so I can understand the benefits in a theoretical sense, and I see no reason why they shouldn't get those beneifts.

I did hear a study on couples fighting. No two people get along all the time, so there will always be fights (or at least disagreements). A research team found that you could predict very accurately how long a couple will stay together by seeing how they fight. One point that came out of this is that it is possible to teach people non-destructive ways of disagreeing, which will help relationships in the long and short run. That's not the point, though. The point is that one thing that came out of the study is that they had an objective scale to measure relationships, and by that scale, gay couples scored FAR higher than hetero couples. That really shouldn't surprise anyone. Men are more like other men than they are like women, and women are more like other women than they are like men. We can understand like more easily than not like.

Quote:

---

On a lighter note, people joke about marriage, gays, jews, one legged dogs, and frozen waffles on snail. Marrying a couple of two D size batteries is no different.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I did hear a study on couples fighting.

---

Oh nice, now we can see couples in fist fights or cat fights.

Not that kind of fighting.

Was it more like this?


-tg

Quote:

---

I did hear a study on couples fighting

---

Ghostbusters II

An assistant draws a curtain revealing a large picture window, actually
a two-way mirror, that looks into a small waiting room. Inside the
waiting room they can see but not hear a youngish couple having a heated
argument.


SPENGLER (to Dana)

They think they're here for marriage
counseling. We've kept them waiting for two
hours and we've been gradually increasing the
temperature in the room.

(checking a heat sensor)

It's up to 95 degrees at the moment. Now my
assistant is going to enter and ask them if
they'd mind waiting another half-hour.

As Spengler, Dana, and the research team watch, the assistant enters the
waiting room and tells the couple about the new delay. They explode
with anger both at him and each other while Spengler monitors them
through the glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve R Jones

I thought this was cute...

---

My general consensus is that people on twitter are (generally) idiots.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-l...re#.btPOVOgDPz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Was it more like this?


-tg

---

Yeah, I think that was it.

Grampa: "So what am I not invited to this time?"
Bart: "A gay wedding. But I can get you in..."
Grampa: "You can? Is it an open bar?"
Bart: "No, cash."
Grampa: (storms off in disgust) "Aw, the whole thing's an abomination!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

However, I do get that there are economic, legal, and health related impacts of marriage, so I can understand the benefits in a theoretical sense, and I see no reason why they shouldn't get those beneifts.

---

I'm not sure how this is a fine point that can escape anyone though:

Basically what these do is move the burden of all of these things further onto single, divorced, widowed, and otherwise "not privileged" (unmarried) people. Your taxes, insurance, etc. will have to go up to cover the lost input into these financial systems.

In the past these were justified as a social good that encouraged and supported families, a form of "welfare" if you will. Yes, there were always plenty of childless married couples and they have always been a sort of parasite on the system (DINKs, Dual Income No Kids, is the economic term for the more egregious parasites). So now you have a larger proportion of legal DINKs and OINKs.

Perhaps the benefits are still justified, but should be moved to families with dependent children rather than simply to every married couple? That at least keeps the social and economic benefit for both natural and adopted children rather than stealing bread from their mouths as the current (and now newly expanded) DINK and OINK reward system does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

DINK and OINK

---

Attachment 128075

Sooie!