Page 44 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3442434445465494144 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 1585

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

  1. #431
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You must feel frustrated, you're breaking things up again.
    No, I do that when I wish to be precise. Just as you respond as above when you wish not to be precise.

  2. #432
    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 cpwill View Post
    No, I do that when I wish to be precise. Just as you respond as above when you wish not to be precise.
    Hard to believe when it often leads to you missing so much, misrepresenting so much. You should try responding to what I said, you'd find it precise enough.

    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.

  3. #433
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Hard to believe when it often leads to you missing so much, misrepresenting so much. You should try responding to what I said, you'd find it precise enough.
    when I respond to what you say you complain about it. Indicative that... yeah, maybe not

  4. #434
    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 cpwill View Post
    when I respond to what you say you complain about it. Indicative that... yeah, maybe not
    You rarely do. Instead you break it up almost to avoid what us actually said. We've had this discussion before.

    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.

  5. #435
    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 Cardinal View Post
    Personally, this debate has become so absurd that I'm waayyyyy over the fact that the appeal to tradition is a fallacy. I just want to see him prove that marriage was a religious institution first.
    If wikipedia is to be believed, he'll have a hard time with that:

    "While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[16] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[4] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[4] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[4] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[17]
    Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups."



    Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  6. #436
    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 cpwill View Post
    The Constitution leaves defining marriage to the States, and the states themselves are beholden to the expressed will of the people, either directly through referendum or indirectly through the legislature. The States are free to limit marriage in any way they like - which is why some states ban varying levels of kinship, some states have differing ages of consent, so on and so forth. Some states choose to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, some do not. Simply because you feel that someone should get it is not a good reason to overthrow self-government.
    Marriage is still limited by the limitations of the Constitution, including the 14th. The SCOTUS has already used it at least 3 times to strike down state marriage laws.
    "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. #437
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    If you want to alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples so be it. But do so legally.
    That's what the Supreme Court is about to do. They're going to legally rule that states cannot prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

    That's precisely what is the job of the Supreme Court: they rule whether or not a law is constitutional, making you're "do so legally" comment meaningless.

    I could 'legally' discriminate against blacks before Brown v. Board. However, after Brown v. Board, no one can.

  8. #438
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    That's what the Supreme Court is about to do. They're going to legally rule that states cannot prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.
    no, they are not - for the simple enough reason that they do not have the authority to legally do so. that likely will serve little impediment if they decide to do so anyway, these new kings of ours, but it would remain a lawless act nonetheless.

  9. #439
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    The government doesn't discriminate against gays...

    Gays just want to be a "protected class" and have MORE rights than anyone else..

    I find anyone who believes the government should protect them from scrutiny to be obnoxious..
    Protected class? You mean like race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, family status, disability status, veteran status and genetic information? Yeah, I guess they do want sexual orientation to be a protected, equal class, just like the other 10 classes.

    The fact that you enjoy the benefits of several of these protected classes yet bemoan someone else trying to get on equal footing with you is quite disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    I can marry anyone I choose with the proper license...
    That is entirely incorrect. If you wanted to marry a man, in most places you wouldn't be able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    If wikipedia is to be believed, he'll have a hard time with that:

    "While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[16] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[4] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[4] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[4] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[17]
    Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups."



    Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No, no, no. Everyone knows jesus invented then patented it.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 06-22-13 at 05:40 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #440
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The Constitution leaves defining marriage to the States, and the states themselves are beholden to the expressed will of the people, either directly through referendum or indirectly through the legislature. The States are free to limit marriage in any way they like - which is why some states ban varying levels of kinship, some states have differing ages of consent, so on and so forth. Some states choose to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, some do not. Simply because you feel that someone should get it is not a good reason to overthrow self-government.
    Are you saying there should be no restrictions to the tyranny of the majority on this? If california decided to ban christians from being allowed to marry, while everyone else could, would you still champion the "whatever the people want, they get" philosophy? Or would you cry out for equality?

    That's the difference between a republic and a democracy. In a republic 51% does not get to vote away the rights of the other 49%. Being a white christian male you simply haven't been in the situation yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

Posting Permissions

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