Page 144 of 159 FirstFirst ... 4494134142143144145146154 ... LastLast
Results 1,431 to 1,440 of 1585

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

  1. #1431
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,004

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The state is not compelled to endorse someting merely because I am not victimized by it. Necrophelia, incest, polygamy and homosexuality are all examples of things that do not personally affect me. And they are all things that this state does not endorse through marriage. The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me is not a mandate for state endorsement. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

    I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
    No, but those things do affect other people negatively or involve things that cannot legally enter into contracts. There doesn't have to be a victim, only a state interest being furthered and it must be legitimate. No legitimate legal state interest is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. There are legitimate state interests being furthered by most other current restrictions on marriage. But if you or someone else doesn't think so, they are free to challenge those laws legally to determine the actual state interest the state is claiming to further in the restriction and whether the courts agree with them.
    "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. #1432
    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
    The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me
    So SSM does not affect you and you cannot identify a victim of it....and biological argument has failed....what rationale is left for continued banning?

    Is bigotry a legitimate rationale?
    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. #1433
    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 Cardinal View Post
    I asked him for human victims, not abstract ones such as "freedom" or "religion" (and now "tradition").
    And I ask you, what human victims would there be if mothers and daughters were allowed to marry?
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #1434
    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 Gimmesometruth View Post
    So SSM does not affect you and you cannot identify a victim of it....and biological argument has failed....what rationale is left for continued banning?

    Is bigotry a legitimate rationale?
    Mother/Daughter marriage would not affect me and I cannot identify a victim of that, either. I don't see any reason why the state should be compelled to license such a marriage, though. Bigotry?
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #1435
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,004

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Irrelevant. The argument was about "how it affects me". Your marrying a goat wouldn't affect me. So the point is?
    How legal marriage works is not about whether it affects you personally. It is how it legitimately may affect anyone negatively in itself or how it functions (or not) under our laws. Our laws concerning marriage function around adults agreeing to certain conditions of the marriage contract and how those conditions protect the couple from others and each other. If some party in the contract cannot fulfill the legal obligations of that contract, then it is within a state interest to deny access to that contract.

    Despite your arguments to the contrary, there is no legal obligation in the marriage contract to procreate or even raise children. There is a legal obligation in the contract to be able to agree to enter into the contract, and understanding what exactly that contract means. A goat cannot give us any legal indication that they understand a contract of any kind.
    "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.

  6. #1436
    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]

    Maybe it's time to change the question.

    What restrictions should there be on marriage. And why? Clearly many of you think homosexual marriages should be licensed by the state and some of you claim the rationale is because there is no victim.

    So what limitations should be put upon "marriage"? Why should incest, polyandry, polygyny, or just two brothers sharing a house and wanting to avoid taxes... why should anything be barred?

    Go ahead and give it your best shot.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1437
    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
    How legal marriage works is not about whether it affects you personally.
    Finally someone got it. Thank you.

    It is up to the state to define marriage and enforce the laws of marriage and divorce for the people of the state. Any arguments about who would be harmed must be fielded by the state and the state, itself, may claim to be the harmed party if it finds a sort of relationship unsuitable for sanction.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #1438
    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
    I just cut to the chase on you, buddy. Your argument was, essentially, that if I can't produce a victim, then there should be no bar to making the state endorse it. That argument is bankrupt. If there was any other point to the question, go ahead and spit it out.
    No, again you are still changing the question. You said:

    "The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect."

    I said "lets hear your argument about it's negative effects"

    You go on talking about incest, bestiality...yadda....but you can't come up with negative affects that you can cite.


    Homosexual marriage would not affect me, personally.
    Someone marrying a goat would not affect me, personally.
    Polygamous marriages would not affect me, personally.
    You marrying your own mother would not affect me, personally.

    Now go ahead and tell me what the point of the question was?
    you can't come up with negative affects
    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.

  9. #1439
    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
    Maybe it's time to change the question.

    What restrictions should there be on marriage. And why? Clearly many of you think homosexual marriages should be licensed by the state and some of you claim the rationale is because there is no victim.

    So what limitations should be put upon "marriage"? Why should incest, polyandry, polygyny, or just two brothers sharing a house and wanting to avoid taxes... why should anything be barred?

    Go ahead and give it your best shot.
    The reasons for banning a thing should be based on how it negatively effects society.

    You are avoiding describing how SSM negatively effects society.
    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.

  10. #1440
    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 Gimmesometruth View Post
    No, again you are still changing the question. You said:

    "The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect."

    I said "lets hear your argument about it's negative effects"

    You go on talking about incest, bestiality...yadda....but you can't come up with negative affects that you can cite.


    you can't come up with negative affects
    Actually, I can, but they're a whole can of worms all their own and just a lot more for me to explain and for you to naysay ranging from insurance and taxes to the stability of family units. It's best to just go ahead and let the state make the case as it may inevitably be forced to do. If you wish, you may go ahead and start naysaying now preemptively and get a head start on it.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Posting Permissions

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