Page 153 of 159 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154155 ... LastLast
Results 1,521 to 1,530 of 1585

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

  1. #1521
    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 Papa bull View Post
    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.
    Nobody is arguing that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. The argument is that they do now, and thus need to be modified.
    "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."

  2. #1522
    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
    Nobody is arguing that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. The argument is that they do now, and thus need to be modified.
    Unless it is proven that the intent was discrimination, the state's views on marriage as an institution that it must define and legislate will likely be subject to be overturned on the basis of discrimination, particularly since homosexuals CAN get married in all 50 states... the issue isn't that they are treated differently than anyone else. The issue is that they ARE different and want marriage laws to be changed to accommodate and normalize those differences and those differences are differences defined by behavior and choices (as in the unwillingness to choose a marital partner of the opposite sex like everyone else). If it can be ruled that marriage discriminates against homosexuals because they can't marry who they love, then we're back to opening the gates wide to any permutation of people that want to be "married" and get whatever tax benefits, insurance benefits, status, property rights, etc. etc. etc. that the state wants to afford to sanctioned couples.

    Let's just say this is not straightforward. If it was, homosexual marriage would already be an institution in all 50 states and probably around the world. Instead, it is a rare and curious change to modern society that was unanticipated even just 20 years ago.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #1523
    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 Papa bull View Post
    Unless it is proven that the intent was discrimination, the state's views on marriage as an institution that it must define and legislate will likely be subject to be overturned on the basis of discrimination, particularly since homosexuals CAN get married in all 50 states... the issue isn't that they are treated differently than anyone else. The issue is that they ARE different and want marriage laws to be changed to accommodate and normalize those differences and those differences are differences defined by behavior and choices (as in the unwillingness to choose a marital partner of the opposite sex like everyone else). If it can be ruled that marriage discriminates against homosexuals because they can't marry who they love, then we're back to opening the gates wide to any permutation of people that want to be "married" and get whatever tax benefits, insurance benefits, status, property rights, etc. etc. etc. that the state wants to afford to sanctioned couples.

    Let's just say this is not straightforward. If it was, homosexual marriage would already be an institution in all 50 states and probably around the world. Instead, it is a rare and curious change to modern society that was unanticipated even just 20 years ago.
    The creation of a marriage license itself is what opened the floodgates to these privileges being conferred on all types of other groups. Gay marriage opened the floodgates no more than interracial marriage did. Democracy and free markets were also a rare and curious change. Perhaps we should do away with those too?
    "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."

  4. #1524
    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
    The creation of a marriage license itself is what opened the floodgates to these privileges being conferred on all types of other groups. Gay marriage opened the floodgates no more than interracial marriage did. Democracy and free markets were also a rare and curious change. Perhaps we should do away with those too?
    That's pretty retarded and I don't use that word often. Democracy is thousands of years old and free markets precede history.

    The stupid is getting very thick in here. I'm going to bug out and do something more productive than refuting grossly stupid remarks.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #1525
    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 Papa bull View Post
    That's pretty retarded and I don't use that word often. Democracy is thousands of years old and free markets precede history.

    The stupid is getting very thick in here. I'm going to bug out and do something more productive than refuting grossly stupid remarks.
    Homosexuality and homosexual relationships are thousands of years old too. The point is that democracy in the past, like homosexual marriage now, was a rarity. Rarity does not make something wrong.

    Arguing against same-sex marriage and homosexuality will never be productive, and will always be stupid. So by all means bug out and thin the air.
    "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."

  6. #1526
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    People don't go to prison for having a dog without a license. This is a strawman argument. The fact that marriage gave permission and approval by society for a couple to start a family does not and did not mean that you can't have as many bastards as you would like or that you go to prison for doing it. Is have thought reasonably intelligent people would understand this. I am thinking this is more just the dishonest argumentation that is a defining characteristic of the progressives than it is stupidity, though. I don't think anyone capable of logging onto a computer is too stupid to understand this.

    I will add one thing as an aside. Those ignorant mouthpieces among you that want to rant about haters and call anyone that opposes homosexual marriage a bigot merely harden the position against it. After all the venom I've seen from the pinko left after this, I'll go out of my way to vote against it. Funny that I never was a hater but all the name-calling, vitriol and nastiness from the punk left may end up making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone that disagrees with the progressive agenda today gets called a racist, bigot and hater. And every time that happens, the chasm between the right and left widens. It makes it damned hard to be sympathetic to "the cause".
    What I was laughing about was the obvious flaw in your argument. People, whether married or not, gay or straight, don't need to have a license issued to them in order to have children. This argument only came about recently once the GOP anti-gay crowd needed something to further justify their position on marriage. But I digress...

    Just so we're clear, I firmly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is how God intended it to be based on Biblical teaching. However, our system of legalism does provide a way whereby gays and lesbians can attain the same rights as a traditional married couple without officially issuing a marriage license. That means is through common-law marriage. Nonetheless, I do believe that the SCOUS ruled properly by throwing out DOMA and over turning CA's Prop 8. Both violated the Equal Protection clause under the Constitution.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #1527
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The far right says that same sex marriage supporters are destroying the country and are going to burn in eternal hell. Is it really wise to let extremists dictate views? How should I respond to those kinds of condemnations?

    You reveal your bias when you acknowledge the extremists of only one side of the debate.
    You're so right. It's as I've been saying for some time now. We Muslim extremist for their extremist views and yet some Americans pat themselves on the back for holding views some would consider "extreme" as well. Granted, these such folks are calling for an uprising (at least none that I've heard of...yet) or going around assaulting or beheading those who disagree with them, but as long as you stand firm in your ideology and are unwilling to at least compromise, I see you as not that different from the "extremist" this country is fighting against.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  8. #1528
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    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.
    No one has ever challenged it. There really isn't one, but until someone who can show standing challenges it, then it is a legitimate law, no matter how stupid the law might be. In order to be unconstitutional, the law has to cause some hardship to some citizen in some way... standing.
    "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.

  9. #1529
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    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.
    Marriage laws as they are now were designed to discriminate against homosexuals because the restriction on sex/gender within marriage laws was just recently placed into actual laws, well after divorce, out-of-wedlock children, and greater than 20% of married couples being childless.
    "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. #1530
    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
    Marriage laws as they are now were designed to discriminate against homosexuals because the restriction on sex/gender within marriage laws was just recently placed into actual laws, well after divorce, out-of-wedlock children, and greater than 20% of married couples being childless.
    They weren't called "defense of marriage" laws for nothing. They weren't put in place to discriminate, but to prevent the institution from being deconstructed and redefined. It might be a fine-line difference but fine-line differences can result in legal precedence being made. There's nothing else in our society that is as great a shake-up to established social structure as this. There isn't even anything that parallels it that we can use as a good analogy for legal purposes and it will be very interesting to see how it all ends up and how it gets there.
    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
  •