Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 357

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

  1. #301
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Why should you have the special right to marry who you want?
    Because the religious are obnoxious bigots?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #302
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,482

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

    Quote Originally Posted by longknife View Post
    IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
    Why should it be acceptable to cast ballots on which civil rights your neighbor can or cannot exercise? Do you really want to decide our civil rights by popular vote?

  3. #303
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    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? Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?
    You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.

    In THIS Country everyone has a RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.

    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.
    Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?

    It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it.
    No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.

    What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group?
    Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.

    No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.

    Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

    What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.

    That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.

    So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.

    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.
    However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.

    I can't marry a man right now.
    Correct. Yet a female can. The law allows a female to do what you as a man are disallowed to do. For the government to have such a law, it needs to meet certain criteria.

    Why should gay people have that special right?
    They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.

    Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?
    You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.

    If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.

    The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country.
    And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    04-03-13 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by longknife View Post
    IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?

    California and the United States are NOT direct democracies. We do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. With THREE branches of government.

    One of those branches is the judicial branch which has the power of judicial review.

    The will of the majority can not trample the rights the of the minority, which is what happened with Prop 8.

  5. #305
    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
    You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.

    In THIS Country everyone has a RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.
    Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

    Where is marriage labeled a "right" in the Constitution. You're typing a lot here but it's based purely from emotion. Show me where the Founding Fathers ever showed intent to allow Gay Marriage. Where was this concept ever debated? If gays have the right to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want, then why don't other sexual interest groups have the same right as well?

    Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?
    Societal norm is absolutely relevant here. Gay Marriage goes against Natural Law. The concept of gay marriage has never been a societal norm.


    No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.
    Marriage has a specific purpose and it specific meaning. It has always meant man + woman. If it now means man + ? or woman + ? then shouldn't all other sexual interest groups that want to engage in their "right to marry" be allowed to do so as well?

    Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.

    No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.
    YES. GAYS. ARE. ASKING. FOR. THAT. SPECIAL. RIGHT. NOT. MY. PROBLEM. YOU. DON'T. ACCEPT. THAT. REALITY. IT'S. YOURS

    Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
    Marriage has always meant man + woman.

    What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.
    Actually yes that's exactly what's going on here. Gays have always been able to marry exactly the same sex as I've been able to as marriage has been defined throughout the history of mankind. They are now fighting to change that definition to mean man + ? or woman + ?. Why should only gays be given the right to change what marriage means to fit what they want? What makes them so special over any other sexual interest group?

    That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.
    So anyone can marry whatever they want. That's your position. Got it.

    So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.
    it's not a facade. It's just what it is. It's not my problem you're so emotional about it and are getting angry.

    However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.
    ofcourse it's a club. Government has never defined marriage as anything other than man + woman. Marriage psychologically and emotionally has never meant anything other than man + woman. Look listen to the oral arguments. Even the liberal justices on the court recognize this. I understand gay marriage is emotional to a lot of people, and it's probably going to be a reality, but if you change what marriage means now for one group, eventually another group is going to want the same "right". It's inevitable.

    They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.
    Of course it's a special right. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Gays want it to mean something different so they can get what they want. What makes gays so special over any other sexual interest group that wants to marry what they love?

    You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.
    Your emotions and personal attacks do not interest me.

    If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.
    So then why can't people marry more than one person? Sisters and brothers can marry to right? Anything goes.

    And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.
    The 14th amendment was never meant for gay marriage. The Founders certainly never conceived of such a social experiment either and never would have approved of it anyways. Not everyone gets what they want. Not everyone gets to join whatever club they want, ect. Gays will get marriage, through Hollywood propaganda culturally it's here to stay, but that doesn't mean everyone has to accept it as legitimate marriage. It serves no social or economic purpose in reality.

    Anyways it looks like you just want to yell at people and call them names when they don't agree with you. Good luck with that.

  6. #306
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

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

    Bronson, you are the one demanding your definition be used for everyone.
    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. #307
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

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

    Can someone point me to a site that has the transcripts and arguments? I am NOT going to read 31 pages to find out.

    Thanks in advance.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #308
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Can someone point me to a site that has the transcripts and arguments? I am NOT going to read 31 pages to find out.

    Thanks in advance.

    Tim-
    SCOTUSblog

    Check Tuesday and Wednesday's roundup entry, should be a link there.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #309
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Juiposa View Post
    Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.
    How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #310
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
    So if, say Kentucky, decided to vote to reinstate slavery and 99% of the people voted yes, they should be able to do it? Think carefully before you answer.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... 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
  •