Page 146 of 159 FirstFirst ... 4696136144145146147148156 ... LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,460 of 1585

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

  1. #1451
    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
    If it was something you could do without a state license, you would have an argument. Sanctioned marriage is a creation and endorsement by the state. It never existed in the first place and what homosexuals are asking is for the state to expand the domain of marriage in new ways to encompass arrangements that were never endorsed before. The fact that you don't see any harm in it is not a compelling reason for the state to make a positive action on this.
    This is the same distraction you used before, so I will make the point again, discrimination has to be justified when challenged. You have not justified it. Saying that it has been a discriminatory practice in the past is not justification for continuing a discrimination going forward.
    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.

  2. #1452
    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
    The fact that you have been unwilling to state what that harm is (along with the lack of examples of victims) is significantly less compelling. The only message you're sending thus far is "I have no argument."
    And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #1453
    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
    You have a right to believe anything you would like. I think it's just so very special that you're sharing your beliefs with me. Thank you so much. It's really sweet of you.
    It is a belief draw from your own words, I had no idea what your beliefs were until you expressed them.

    I can understand why you are now limiting your responses to the questions at hand, you feel you have described yourself too clearly.
    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.

  4. #1454
    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
    And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.
    Wrong, the state has justify a continuing of a discriminatory practice. In CA, the state declined to so because it understood the practice is unconstitutional, the proponents found that out also.
    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.

  5. #1455
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,969

    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.
    Incestuous relationships involve undue influence when intimate pairings is the expectation of a marriage (as we do actually require, proven by our laws pertaining to fraud marriages, you cannot marriage someone openly for the sole purpose of benefits). Now, personally I support giving siblings and even parent/child marriages an ability to receive exceptional recognition of their marriages when they can show that they were raised in different households for the entire childhood of both people in the marriage. But we could even see just allowing siblings at least to marry without regard to anything else or even parent/child, it just isn't likely because the state can show state interests being furthered by most laws on incest, and therefore maintain a ban on those marriages as well.

    Polygamy is about the way the laws work regarding marriage and how it legally functions. It is designed legally (even today) around two people being each other's closest legal relative and having the sole ability to make certain decisions for/pertaining to that person at certain times. This is a legitimate state interest, maintaining this restriction on number of spouses a person can have.
    "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. #1456
    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
    This is the same distraction you used before, so I will make the point again, discrimination has to be justified when challenged. You have not justified it. Saying that it has been a discriminatory practice in the past is not justification for continuing a discrimination going forward.
    I think homosexuals will get their opportunity to make this challenge and the states will get to respond. We'll see how it goes. I don't see it as discrimination against anyone because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1457
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,043

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.
    Actually, the state not being able to explain exclusion of gays from marriage is winning. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

    2000: 0 states with legalized gay marriage and a minority of the population in support of it. 2013: 13 states and one jurisdiction with legal ssm and a majority of the population in favor of it. That's a trend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And I don't need one.
    That thought process is why you're losing (which is really just fine by me).

  8. #1458
    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
    Incestuous relationships involve undue influence when intimate pairings is the expectation of a marriage (as we do actually require, proven by our laws pertaining to fraud marriages, you cannot marriage someone openly for the sole purpose of benefits). Now, personally I support giving siblings and even parent/child marriages an ability to receive exceptional recognition of their marriages when they can show that they were raised in different households for the entire childhood of both people in the marriage. But we could even see just allowing siblings at least to marry without regard to anything else or even parent/child, it just isn't likely because the state can show state interests being furthered by most laws on incest, and therefore maintain a ban on those marriages as well.

    Polygamy is about the way the laws work regarding marriage and how it legally functions. It is designed legally (even today) around two people being each other's closest legal relative and having the sole ability to make certain decisions for/pertaining to that person at certain times. This is a legitimate state interest, maintaining this restriction on number of spouses a person can have.
    I don't think any of those arguments would hold up if the concept of marriage becomes "consenting adults who wish to enter into a domestic partnership". Any legal argument that homosexuals put forward, if compelling, paves the way to virtually any arrangement being endorsed and maybe some people think that's swell, too. I don't.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #1459
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,969

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I don't think any of those arguments would hold up if the concept of marriage becomes "consenting adults who wish to enter into a domestic partnership". Any legal argument that homosexuals put forward, if compelling, paves the way to virtually any arrangement being endorsed and maybe some people think that's swell, too. I don't.
    They have held up in court. Both incest laws and polygamy have been challenged. Arguments regarding these and other things as state interests furthered by those restrictions have held up in court.

    In fact, even after Lawrence, incest laws against just stepparent and child held up.
    "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.

  10. #1460
    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 think homosexuals will get their opportunity to make this challenge and the states will get to respond. We'll see how it goes. I don't see it as discrimination against anyone because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
    Ah, a new distraction/tangent/rabbit hole, the prohibition against SSM....is based upon the argument that it would be an "oxymoron".

    Please, enlighten us with this new moronic argument.

    I mean, when you have nothing left, you change the topic.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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