Page 30 of 36 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 357

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

  1. #291
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    They don't have a "right" to refuse it....any more than heterosexuals have a "right" to refuse gays...or any more than gys have a "right" to have it changed. No one has a "right" to a DEFINITION being any particular fashion. So your question is idiotic to begin with as it's very premise is illogical.
    Who has a right to refuse bisexuals or sisters/brothers from marrying each other then? Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?

    When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.

    Which is irrelevant to now. You don't seemingly understand or know what "precedence" means. 13 years ago many of the portinos of the PATRIOT Act that have been upheld would've been inconcievable to be implimented or viewed as constitutional. Twenty years ago the notion of needing to worry about charging underage kids with child pornography due to sending their boyfriend a naked picture was inconcievable due to the logistics of how it could be done. 65 years ago the notion of a woman serving in the military was blasphemous. 50 years ago the thought of a black and white couple marrying in the south was inconcievable. What is "inconcievable" in the past is not a basis for a strong and useful argument on how to function within the present.
    It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it. What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group? Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules. I can't marry a man right now. Why should gay people have that special right? Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?

    The founders never would've concieved of gay marriage. They also never would've concieved of an Air Force, Cyber Security, and the world wide web. This is why the Founders laid forth a framework and foundation for the country to function on going forward...because htere's an understanding that they could not hope to know what 100 or 200 or 500 years in the future would bring, so they sought to create a document that would hopefully be both limiting in terms of the governments scope while adaptable to new realities.
    The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country. That's why National Defense is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Show me gay marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. I'd love to see it. Your attempt at morally equating the two is silly.

    Now, do I disagree with the notion of Marriage being some absolute constitutional right? Yes. HOWEVER, unlike some other conservatives, I understand as well that the SCOTUS was established by that very same constitution. As such, I generally function from a mindset of reality. The reality is that until such time that the decision regarding marriage as a federall protected right is overturned, that it IS a right protected by the constitution. And as such, rulings and laws in the future need to adhere to that decision. To not do so it completely invalidate our legal system and the constitution itself as it basically proclaims that the system in place should be replaced with egotistical anarchy.
    Where is marriage in the Constitution. Show me. When did a Founding Father ever state the definition of what marriage is, as it's been known since the beginning of mankind, ever be subject to change because gay people wanted to change it? When did Jefferson ever claim only gays should be given the special right to change the definition of marriage over other sexual interest groups?

    Would my preference be to over turn the precedence that marriage is a federally protected right, allowing individual states to govern it largely because it's simply yet another thing I don't believe the federal government needs to be involved in? Absolutely. But, until that happens, then subsiquent law relating to it MUST adhere to that ruling because THAT'S how it constitutionally works.
    Ok you agree the states should decide. Great. Now we're getting somewhere.

    As to your paranoid conspiracy theorist tin foil rant at the end, save your breath typing that **** to me because I'm not going to gift you the benefit of any further response to such trash.
    it's not a tinfoil hat CT. Your name calling now. That doesn't interest me. Cultural Marxism is very real. The first thing Marxists do is attack traditions and culture. All gay marriage really is, is a product of Critical Theory. Gay marriage goes against Natural Law. It has no social or economic purpose. It's a cultural push firmly grounded in political correctness. The US Culture is dominated by Cultural Marxism.

    Gays do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex over any other sexual interest group. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Gays don't get the right to change it to man + ? or woman + ? at the exclusion of others. Let everyone vote at the state level to decide what marriage is.

  2. #292
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,599
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Maybe in some "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it" philosophical sense, but not in the real world.
    This is only true if you do not understand the definition of orientation, heterosexuality and homosexuality.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
    I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

  3. #293
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is only true if you do not understand the definition of orientation, heterosexuality and homosexuality.
    Do you have an argument to make, or are you just going to paste definitions and pretend that you're making some sort of point?

  4. #294
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,599
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Do you have an argument to make, or are you just going to paste definitions and pretend that you're making some sort of point?
    Since my point is you do not know what you are talking about and are wrong, and I posted the definition to prove that, I think I have done a pretty good job of making my point.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
    I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

  5. #295
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Since my point is you do not know what you are talking about and are wrong, and I posted the definition to prove that, I think I have done a pretty good job of making my point.
    The only thing your definition proved is that you know how to copy and paste.

  6. #296
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,599
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    The only thing your definition proved is that you know how to copy and paste.
    And that orientation is based on who some one is attracted to. And that it does matter. And that you where wrong.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
    I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

  7. #297
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    52,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Who has a right to refuse bisexuals or sisters/brothers from marrying each other then?
    If you cannot articulate any demonstrable harm, then nobody.

    Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?
    Private organizations are not subject to the all of the same limitations as the government.

    When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.
    Facts like "marriage has never changed?" That has been refuted, but feel free to keep ignoring that.

    It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it. What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group? Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules. I can't marry a man right now. Why should gay people have that special right? Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?
    What? Why on earth would you think "only gays would be allowed to marry men?" You could marry a man if same-sex marriage were legal. Have fun!

    The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country. That's why National Defense is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Show me gay marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. I'd love to see it. Your attempt at morally equating the two is silly.
    It is covered by the 14th amendment.

    Where is marriage in the Constitution. Show me. When did a Founding Father ever state the definition of what marriage is, as it's been known since the beginning of mankind, ever be subject to change because gay people wanted to change it? When did Jefferson ever claim only gays should be given the special right to change the definition of marriage over other sexual interest groups?
    Oh, well, if this all-important definition isn't in the constitution, you have no right to it and therefore have no right to keep it the same! I'm glad we've settled this.


    Gays do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex over any other sexual interest group. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Gays don't get the right to change it to man + ? or woman + ? at the exclusion of others. Let everyone vote at the state level to decide what marriage is.
    But marriage isn't in the constitution! You have no claim to its 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.

  8. #298
    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
    If you cannot articulate any demonstrable harm, then nobody.
    Ok then as far as marriage is concerned, anything goes right?

    Private organizations are not subject to the all of the same limitations as the government.
    So as far as Government and marriage is concerned, anything goes yes?

    Facts like "marriage has never changed?" That has been refuted, but feel free to keep ignoring that.
    Marriage has always meant man + woman. What gives gays the special right over any other sexual interest group to change what the definition of marriage is?

    What? Why on earth would you think "only gays would be allowed to marry men?" You could marry a man if same-sex marriage were legal. Have fun!
    Why should gays get the special right to marry anything they want over everyone else?

    It is covered by the 14th amendment.
    14th amendment had to do with slavery. Not man marrying a man. Founders never envisioned gay marriage. Marriage is not in the Constitution.


    Oh, well, if this all-important definition isn't in the constitution, you have no right to it and therefore have no right to keep it the same! I'm glad we've settled this.
    Nobody is denying gays the ability to have a ceremony and call it marriage right now. Marriage is an institution with a specific purpose and it has specific meaning. Gays want to change the definition of what that has been for thousands of years. What gives them the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual interest group? Who defines the limits?


    But marriage isn't in the constitution! You have no claim to its definition!
    Words have meaning and definitions. Marriage has had one definition always. Man + woman. Not man+ ? or woman + ?

  9. #299
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    And that orientation is based on who some one is attracted to. And that it does matter.
    LOL right, and intelligence is based on how smart you are and motivation is based on how much drive you have...

    None have any real world significance devoid of behavior.

  10. #300
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    52,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Ok then as far as marriage is concerned, anything goes right?
    So as far as Government and marriage is concerned, anything goes yes?
    No. Where did you get that idea?

    Marriage has always meant man + woman. What gives gays the special right over any other sexual interest group to change what the definition of marriage is?
    Personal liberty gives me that right.

    Why should gays get the special right to marry anything they want over everyone else?
    Um, dude, same-sex marriage isn't magically limited to homosexuals. You can marry a dude if you want to. Really, nobody is going to stop you. It's not "over" anybody.

    Why should you have the special right to marry who you want?
    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 30 of 36 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •