Page 121 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #1201
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    But isn't this whole discussion really about change? I'm telling you what marriage was and why I and so man others think it is what it is. You are telling me what you think it should be. This is the dynamic of change. You are probably younger than I am and eventually the youth will win this one, for better or worse we do not know yet. As Alito said, we are not in a position to know that we are making the right judgment on this if we change it. We won't know for years and years. I do, however, accept that it is inevitable. And I think active and vehement debate is part of the process.
    We are in a position to know that this is the right thing to do now because you have no evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause any sort of harm. Change is not harm in itself. Harm can come from change, but change itself isn't harmful.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #1202
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Yeah, gee whiz.... how could such a clever trap as the one you thought you had set have been found out.
    I have no idea what this means, how does you possibly looking up the subject under debate between us.....constitute a "trap"?

    you dropped the argument, I supposed it was due to your looking up the criteria for suspect class.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #1203
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    A marriage license is required to enter into a marriage contract. This is the problem that comes with calling it a "marriage license". Once the license is filed, unlike other state issued licenses, the marriage license becomes a contract. It is no longer a license at all. It is now a contract and contracts act much differently than licenses and there are no obligations in the state laws pertaining to a marriage contract for procreation.
    Marriage was the license for having children. Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate. I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.

    Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.

    il·le·git·i·mate
    /ˌiləˈjitəmit/
    Adjective
    1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
    2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.

  4. #1204
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    We are in a position to know that this is the right thing to do now because you have no evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause any sort of harm. Change is not harm in itself. Harm can come from change, but change itself isn't harmful.
    Nor do we know that this will not be detrimental to society as a whole. There are arguments that it is. And I think we ignore them at our peril.

  5. #1205
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate.
    Nope. If you do something without a license, it is illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license.
    Let's play "one of these things is not like the other," shall we?

    What does the government do if you operate a business without a license? It takes you to court, issues fines, possibly causes you to spend some time in prison (depending on jurisdiction and details).

    What does the government do if you operate a car without a license? It takes you to court, issues fines, possibly causes you to spend some time in prison (if you're a repeat offender, depending on jurisdiction and details).

    What does the government do if you have a child out of wedlock?

    Absolutely nothing. Not one single thing. Not in any jurisdiction in the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?
    Oh I get it just fine. As usual you're engaging in fuzzy thinking and pretending that's a substitute for reason. Now, apparently, pointing out the factual state of the law is disingenuous. That's just adorable.

    By the way, do you know what would happen if the government tried to issue a procreation license?

  6. #1206
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Marriage was the license for having children. Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate. I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.

    Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.

    il·le·git·i·mate
    /ˌiləˈjitəmit/
    Adjective
    1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
    2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
    No, it wasn't. Not even when the Catholic Church was in charge of it. It was a license for having sex, but not for having children.

    Currently though, it isn't even a license for having sex. And it hasn't been for a while.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1207
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Nor do we know that this will not be detrimental to society as a whole. There are arguments that it is. And I think we ignore them at our peril.
    Yes we do, because it has been legal in many places for over a decade.

    But your argument is not good enough because we do not base whether people are given equality on a possibility (especially small) that it could be "detrimental to society". Giving women or blacks the right to vote could have been detrimental to society. We had no way of actually knowing truly if it would have been without doing it. Allowing interracial marriages could have been detrimental to society. We could not know for sure until it happened. In fact, for all of these things, anyone could argue that either enough time has not passed to truly judge or that they actually have been (some people do argue this, especially for women having the right to vote).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1208
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it wasn't. Not even when the Catholic Church was in charge of it. It was a license for having sex, but not for having children.

    Currently though, it isn't even a license for having sex. And it hasn't been for a while.
    For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

    Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

    When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.

  9. #1209
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

    Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

    When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.
    Would you marry if you couldn't have kids? I would. Having kids was not the reason I married my wife. And homosexuals can care for kids. Can and do. Good reason to encourage they settle down, btw.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #1210
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

    Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

    When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.
    And the Church said that even if a couple could not have children, they could not get divorced (at least in the past). The Church has changed its position on sex many more times than people may think. Those who can't have children are not expected to remain celibate. The whole "sex is only for procreation" thing has not been as universally a rule of the church as is purported.

    The only thing that matters now is what marriage is now. It doesn't matter what it was like in the past because very few wish to go back to how it was in the past. There were a lot of major issues with marriage in the past. Like most things, we change things that don't work. As a "license" to have sex, marriage didn't work.

    Even at 15, I knew DOMA was bad. I was arguing back then (and I actually did argue about this in an English class debate) that it was wrong to deny marriage to same sex couples. And my mother is Catholic, father Methodist, and I have 5 younger siblings. It took some time for me to realize that DOMA was a necessary evil of the time that prevented an FMA. Marriage has been for a long time, much longer than 17 years, about the couple/the spouses, not the children. DOMA, even at the time of its enactment, was only "protecting" a definition of marriage that was outdated then.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

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