Page 22 of 36 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 357

Thread: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

  1. #211
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    It isn't a slippery slope argument. If you allow gays to change the definition of marriage, you'll have to allow all other sexual interest groups the same right as well. Just because you can't refute logic doesn't make it "slippery slope". You are arguing from emotion. That doesn't interest me.
    That is the textbook definition of a slippery slope argument.

    Yes there is natural law. Gays cannot procreate through gay sex.
    That's biology, not law. This was brought up in court. (sortof) If marriage exists to promote procreation, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? What about couples who are fertile but just refuse to have children?
    Marriage isn't just about children.

    This isn't about ownership. This is about what the definition of the word is and has always been, and what one sexual interest group that makes up about 2% of the population wants to change it to.
    You missed the point. The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly. One man and one woman of the same race, remember? One man and his property. Marriage didn't start as a holy covenant, it started as a contract for the transfer of property. Why is it ok to change that definition and now it isn't?

    Marriage is an institution that is in harmony with natural law. It's purpose it to bring the sexes together for procreation, where children are raised in an optimal environment. Biological parents have a specific purpose in regards to the emotional and psychological well being of a child. Marriage is about children.
    So why are you not arguing for dissolution of elderly couples' marriages?


    Gays do not have the right to change the definition of what marriage is and always has been.
    It has changed before. If you can't see that, there's no reason to discuss this with you further.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #212
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Hey now, I changed my facebook icon
    And you consistently vocalize or debate on the notion of homosexual rights and/or gay marriage and are rather outspoken about it. That's far different then the mass of lemmings that likely populate the facebook page of many people who mindlessly skip to the new cause du jour of any given moment because it's simple and easy and yet they can act like they're some grand supporter of "the cause" or some kinds of activists. Those folk generally annoy me...I get it, I know it's technically good for whatever particular cause they're clinging to this week, but it doesn't annoy me any less. They're the same ones to throw up stuff about the Green Revolution despite never talking about or paying attention to Iran before or since...to then move off and "Spread the word" about Kony 2012 without really knowing what the hell it was actually full about....to raging against/for Chick-Fil-A and on and on and on. Not everything that jumps on these kind of things necessarily are the lemming types...but a large amount are.

    and I do give a damn about SSM, but I doubt you could call me ignorant, though I would celebrate in the case you mention. My primary goal, what I want more than anything, is for my mother and niece to be able to marry if they choose to.
    Which would put you in that latter category. I wouldn't think you ignorant, but then again the ones I was suggesting would be largely ignorant were the facebook lemming activists.

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I would be really disappointed if the court kicked the issue down the road. The nation is crying out for an answer, one way or the other. They should just do it and get it over with.



    Actually, there have. China has records of legal same sex marriages from more than three thousand years ago. There are also records of Roman men, including the emperor Nero, marrying other men. There are records of a SSM performed by a Christian priest in Spain in 1061. So, SSM isn't actually a new concept.
    You really want to use Nero as an example?

    You know as well as I that the definition and concept of marriage has always meant one thing

    What are the limits if we allow gays to change the definition of the word marriage? If you make marriage a "civil right" than anyone can claim that right and say their civil rights are being violated if you don't allow them to engage in that "fundamental right to marry".

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That is the textbook definition of a slippery slope argument.
    Your feelings don't = facts.

    That's biology, not law. This was brought up in court. (sortof) If marriage exists to promote procreation, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? What about couples who are fertile but just refuse to have children?
    Marriage isn't just about children.
    It's not my problem you don't know what natural law is

    Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage. Gay marriage does.

    You missed the point. The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly. One man and one woman of the same race, remember? One man and his property. Marriage didn't start as a holy covenant, it started as a contract for the transfer of property. Why is it ok to change that definition and now it isn't?
    The definition of marriage has never been changed. It's always meant one thing.

    So why are you not arguing for dissolution of elderly couples' marriages?
    You're getting desperate

    It has changed before. If you can't see that, there's no reason to discuss this with you further.
    Nope

    Even SCOTUS recognized this yesterday during oral arguments

  5. #215
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You really want to use Nero as an example?
    As the ruler of an empire who demonstrates the history of legal same sex marriage in multiple cultures, yes. As an example of a healthy attitude towards one's mother, no.

    You know as well as I that the definition and concept of marriage has always meant one thing
    Yes, it meant the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage by giving women autonomy?

    What are the limits if we allow gays to change the definition of the word marriage? If you make marriage a "civil right" than anyone can claim that right and say their civil rights are being violated if you don't allow them to engage in that "fundamental right to marry".
    Marriage already is a civil right. But I'll tell you the limits. The limits are that any two consenting adults can enter into a marriage with one another. Maybe the "two" requirement will go away at some point, too. Even so, I don't imagine a lot of people would enter into polyamorous marriages. A lot of people seem to prefer a two person partnership. But even then, there's nothing intrinsically harmful about them, though many of the examples have been used to allow a few men to control many women, including underage women. But that's illegal due to the coercion faced by these woman and girls, and that many are underage. But that's the extent of the supposedly slippery slope. Children and animals are obviously not going to be included in marriages as neither has legal standing to give consent. Inanimate objects likewise cannot.

    Give it up. You've lost. One more brand of bigotry is going away.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #216
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Your feelings don't = facts.



    It's not my problem you don't know what natural law is

    Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage. Gay marriage does.



    The definition of marriage has never been changed. It's always meant one thing.



    You're getting desperate



    Nope

    Even SCOTUS recognized this yesterday during oral arguments
    I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

    I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #217
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

    I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
    Except through all that, the basic definition of marriage remained unchanged - one man to one woman.

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    As the ruler of an empire who demonstrates the history of legal same sex marriage in multiple cultures, yes. As an example of a healthy attitude towards one's mother, no.
    Nero engaged in all kinds of sexual depravity and made all kinds of things "legal" because it was his whim. Not a good example in comparison to a Constitutional and Civil Society. Gay Marriage is not healthy to society. It serves no social or economic purpose.

    Yes, it meant the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage by giving women autonomy?
    Not sure if serious. Marriage = union between man and women. Men and women have sex. Produce children. Hence reason for the tradition and institution. Has never included gays or groups of people who want to marry each other.

    Marriage already is a civil right. But I'll tell you the limits. The limits are that any two consenting adults can enter into a marriage with one another. Maybe the "two" requirement will go away at some point, too. Even so, I don't imagine a lot of people would enter into polyamorous marriages. A lot of people seem to prefer a two person partnership. But even then, there's nothing intrinsically harmful about them, though many of the examples have been used to allow a few men to control many women, including underage women. But that's illegal due to the coercion faced by these woman and girls, and that many are underage. But that's the extent of the supposedly slippery slope. Children and animals are obviously not going to be included in marriages as neither has legal standing to give consent. Inanimate objects likewise cannot.

    Give it up. You've lost. One more brand of bigotry is going away.
    Here is where the argument for gay marriage crumbles. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is not a "civil right". This is the premise advocates for gay marriage argue from and it's a canard.

    If you exclude one sexual interest group over another, you're denying people their rights. What makes gays so special? Why do they get to change the definition of marriage and other sexual groups don't? Why are you bigoted against people who want to marry more than one person? Why would you deny them that right? What right do you have to deny them their "fundamental rights". A lot of people might not prefer the traditional 2 partner definition of marriage. What if a group of people want to marry so they can get tax incentives? What harmful about that? Who are they hurting? If a guy wants to marry himself so he can get the same benefits of married couples what harm would that cause? Why deny him his civil right to marry something?

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

    I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
    All strawmen

    Interracial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage. No example you have given ever changed the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

  10. #220
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Except through all that, the basic definition of marriage remained unchanged - one man to one woman.
    Except for all the historical cases of polygamy, you mean? Or when it was "one man and one baby factory?"
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 22 of 36 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •