Page 152 of 159 FirstFirst ... 52102142150151152153154 ... LastLast
Results 1,511 to 1,520 of 1585

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

  1. #1511
    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
    Tah-tah.
    Tah-tah to you, too.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #1512
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.
    This is not true. The state's definition of marriage is limited by the US Constitution. The state cannot show any legitimate state interest being furthered in restricting marriage based on sex/gender.
    "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.

  3. #1513
    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 definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.
    And yet, as we already discussed, you have failed to show SSM changes the legal aspects. We have interracial marriage as an example, how did the recognizing of those rights change the inner workings of govt? How will SSM be different.

    Back up your claim.
    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. #1514
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,682

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    This is not true. The state's definition of marriage is limited by the US Constitution. The state cannot show any legitimate state interest being furthered in restricting marriage based on sex/gender.
    What is the legitimate state interest in restricting alcohol sales on Sunday? There are many laws, based on custom and social norms, that have nothing to do with any legitimate state interest other than pleasing the majority of voters - which, when you think about it, becomes a legitmate interest of our elected representatives, i.e. the state.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #1515
    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
    And yet, as we already discussed, you have failed to show SSM changes the legal aspects. We have interracial marriage as an example, how did the recognizing of those rights change the inner workings of govt? How will SSM be different.

    Back up your claim.
    What you and those of your mindset seem to always overlook is that marriage is two things that are opposite and utterly different coming together to form one that is a combination of both. Male and Female are opposite but come together to form a marriage. Male and male or female and female come together to form roommates, not marriage.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #1516
    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
    What you and those of your mindset seem to always overlook is that marriage is two things that are opposite and utterly different coming together to form one that is a combination of both. Male and Female are opposite but come together to form a marriage. Male and male or female and female come together to form roommates, not marriage.
    That is not you showing how the workings of govt is going to be impacted by SSM, that is you switching back to your tired, moronic "oxymoron" argument.

    That is called a non-sequitur.
    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.

  7. #1517
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What is the legitimate state interest in restricting alcohol sales on Sunday? There are many laws, based on custom and social norms, that have nothing to do with any legitimate state interest other than pleasing the majority of voters - which, when you think about it, becomes a legitmate interest of our elected representatives, i.e. the state.
    Then those stupid laws should be overturned too. The fact that stupid laws exist doesn't mean we should perpetuate more of them.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  8. #1518
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,682

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Then those stupid laws should be overturned too. The fact that stupid laws exist doesn't mean we should perpetuate more of them.
    When the majority considers them stupid then, and only then, should they be repealed/amended. What you desire is a system allowing a judge to force that to occur by invoking "strict scrutiny" for selected statutes, hundreds of years after they are passed. I consider most of the FIT code to be both stupid and unconstitutional, because its basis, the 16th amendment, allowing for the taxation of individual income from all sources, makes no mention of based upon how it was later spent (most of the FIT code). To find a judge that agrees with me should be no reason to toss out all of that FIT law.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-30-13 at 03:02 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #1519
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    When the majority considers them stupid then, and only then, should they be repealed/amended. What you desire is a system allowing a judge to force that to occur by invoking "strict scrutiny" for selected statutes, hundreds of years after they are passed. I consider most of the FIT code to be both stupid and unconstitutional, because its basis, the 16th amendment, allowing for the taxation of individual income from all sources, makes no mention of based upon how it was later spent (most of the FIT code). To find a judge that agrees with me should be reason to toss out all of that FIT law.
    Laws that violate the Constitution, when brought before a judge, should be overturned. This nation is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by the Constitution. The courts exist to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  10. #1520
    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 Lakryte View Post
    Laws that violate the Constitution, when brought before a judge, should be overturned. This nation is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by the Constitution. The courts exist to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
    While it may be your opinion that marriage laws violate the constitution, your argument is a poor one, indeed because marriage laws weren't created for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but merely for the sake of providing the protections and legal framework our society felt important for family units. Granted, now that raising children out of wedlock, artificial insemination and homosexual adoptions are all so well accepted, it has thrown the whole purpose of marriage into a state of question, but it's a fool's task to try to argue that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. They weren't. That is just the tack being taken now by some and I don't think it's going to be the angle that will ultimately get homosexuals what they're looking for because it's a weak argument.
    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
  •