Page 49 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1585

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

  1. #481
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    They've definitely gotten a lot better, but it still does decide to equip certain citizens with special privileges, while denying the same privileges to others.
    Absolutely it does, you're right. I just support giving certain groups special privileges while denying other groups. The criteria I use to judge rather a given group should have said privileges or not is simple: is the relationship otherwise harmful. Polygamy is harmful to women while SSM is not harmful to anyone, so polygamists can go boil an egg while gays are getting married, and "marriage equality" and "equal rights" and all that bull**** can go **** itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    There's no rational reason to oppose SSM.
    I read that to mean there's no reason you agree with, because there certainly are reasons which exist firmly within a logical construct.

  2. #482
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I read that to mean there's no reason you agree with, because there certainly are reasons which exist firmly within a logical construct.
    None that I've seen. 95% of it is "jesus told me so" and the other 5% is "gays could never raise children properly", which is also completely false, and has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
    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.

  3. #483
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    None that I've seen. 95% of it is "jesus told me so" and the other 5% is "gays could never raise children properly", which is also completely false, and has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
    Well....I'm afraid if I go down the road of providing examples (not that I support them, I just see the reasoning behind them) we will derail the thread with a tangent neither of us really care about anyway.

  4. #484
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Absolutely it does, you're right. I just support giving certain groups special privileges while denying other groups. The criteria I use to judge rather a given group should have said privileges or not is simple: is the relationship otherwise harmful. Polygamy is harmful to women while SSM is not harmful to anyone, so polygamists can go boil an egg while gays are getting married, and "marriage equality" and "equal rights" and all that bull**** can go **** itself.


    I read that to mean there's no reason you agree with, because there certainly are reasons which exist firmly within a logical construct.
    Jerry, I am not going to read the whole thread, but something you asserted above just doesn't ring well with me. I bolded it.

    "Polygamy is harmful to women".

    Jerry, I am no supporter of polygamy, but that is just plain stupid. Its a voluntary choice, which can be rescinded. If you want to argue that its not smart for most women, forgive me for pointing it out, but "smart" is not for the government to legislate when it comes to emotions. And by whatever hair-brained standard you sought cover by, I would put forward that SSM can sure be harmful to some, as can be good old basic one man- one woman marriage.

    I am quite Conservative. But your post struck me as really stupid. Really really stupid. I think you need to go back to square one with your logic, and take your time with a do-over.

  5. #485
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Jerry, I am not going to read the whole thread, but something you asserted above just doesn't ring well with me. I bolded it.

    "Polygamy is harmful to women".

    Jerry, I am no supporter of polygamy, but that is just plain stupid. Its a voluntary choice, which can be rescinded. If you want to argue that its not smart for most women, forgive me for pointing it out, but "smart" is not for the government to legislate when it comes to emotions. And by whatever hair-brained standard you sought cover by, I would put forward that SSM can sure be harmful to some, as can be good old basic one man- one woman marriage.

    I am quite Conservative. But your post struck me as really stupid. Really really stupid. I think you need to go back to square one with your logic, and take your time with a do-over.
    Hm...being forced to compete for your spouse's attention for yourself and for your children? Having children who could compete for future spouses kicked out of the home? The fact that such institutions tend to be coerced via religious pressures from an early age? The tendency to create imbalanced communities along gender lines? The tendency to devalue women and treat them as interchangeable?

    I'm sorry, but we can observe the effects of polygamy in foreign countries and even within some of the religious movements within our country. The effects are not good and trying to compare them to regular marriage or same sex marriage is intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #486
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Hm...being forced to compete for your spouse's attention for yourself and for your children? Having children who could compete for future spouses kicked out of the home? The fact that such institutions tend to be coerced via religious pressures from an early age? The tendency to create imbalanced communities along gender lines? The tendency to devalue women and treat them as interchangeable?

    I'm sorry, but we can observe the effects of polygamy in foreign countries and even within some of the religious movements within our country. The effects are not good and trying to compare them to regular marriage or same sex marriage is intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
    Hey. You have created a strawman in the ilk of the Jeffries communes. This ain't about that bull****. But more to the point, polygamy is no different than our concept of regular marriage, in that it is supposed to be a contract among consenting adults. It is voluntarily agreed to, and can be voluntarily voided. What you are arguing are arranged marriages, and the bequeathing of minors. That is complete red-herring BS.

    So how about arguing that point without all the bull**** ?

    Your argument is so pathetic Just as goddamn stupid as I said it was.

  7. #487
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Hey. You have created a strawman in the ilk of the Jeffries communes. This ain't about that bull****. But more to the point, polygamy is no different than our concept of regular marriage, in that it is supposed to be a contract among consenting adults. It is voluntarily agreed to, and can be voluntarily voided. What you are arguing are arranged marriages, and the bequeathing of minors. That is complete red-herring BS.

    So how about arguing that point without all the bull**** ?

    Your argument is so pathetic Just as goddamn stupid as I said it was.
    Uh huh. You are just going to ignore how polygamy is ACTUALLY practiced in the real world for an idealized version? You can consent to a polygamous marriage, but let us be real. Once you have made the commitment of having children with someone, you can't just walk away because the reality then is you are no longer making decisions for just yourself. You won't even address that polygamy is inherently a bad idea because of human dynamics within it and the overall effects it has on destabilizing society. Pretend all you want that polygamy is harmless, but there are plenty of real world examples that demonstrate otherwise and pretending they don't exist because they are inconvenient to your point of view is disingenuous at best and outright delusional at worst.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #488
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Its a voluntary choice, which can be rescinded.
    In practice, polygamists arrange marriages, marry their wives in the early teens, and the women have no where to go to try and escape. We had polygamy for a while, not just certain Christian sects but with our 'Natives also. Women suffer where polygamy is legal.

  9. #489
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    More excellent writeup on SCOTUSblog as usual: Waiting on Proposition 8 and DOMA decisions: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

    On DOMA:

    Let’s start with United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may wind up as the less complicated of the two. (More background on the case can be found in my earlier posts here, here, and here.) And let’s be clear on what this case is not about: it is not about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Instead, it is about whether Congress can treat married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples in federal laws and programs like Social Security benefits, immigration, and income taxes.

    ...

    To the extent that you can make any predictions based on the oral argument, Windsor and her supporters may have reason to be cautiously optimistic. The Court’s four more liberal Justices – Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – seemed to be squarely on her side. They may also have a vote from Justice Anthony Kennedy (who is often regarded as the swing vote on the Court) to strike down the law as well, although perhaps for a different reason. Generally a staunch supporter of states’ rights, he seemed troubled by the idea that with DOMA Congress was trying to regulate marriage – which, he seemed to indicate, has traditionally been the role of the states.


    But there’s a chance that the Court might not even get to the question whether DOMA is constitutional at all. The case may have a fatal procedural flaw. In a normal case that comes to the Court, the party that lost in the lower court is the one asking the Court to review the case. But this is not, as you may have figured out by now, the average case. Windsor and the United States won in the lower court, by getting a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. And to make things even more complicated, usually it is the federal government that appears in court to defend the constitutionality of federal laws, but the government isn’t doing that here; House Republicans are doing it instead.
    On Hollingsworth v Perry(Prop 8):

    There is a threshold question of “standing” that piqued the interest of several Justices – the Chief Justice and the Court’s four more liberal Justices in particular – who seemed inclined at oral argument to hold that the sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked the legal right to defend it in court. Justice Kennedy, who had recently suggested that the Court was deciding too many hot-button issues that should be decided by the legislature instead, seemed skeptical about a potential problem with the sponsors’ “standing” but offered another path to avoid deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution: the Court could simply dismiss the case on the ground that it had made a mistake in taking it on.


    The one thing that didn’t seem likely after the oral argument was what some supporters of same-sex marriage had long feared: a decision holding that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. As I explained in an earlier post, some gay rights groups had been irked by Boies and Olson’s decision to bring the Proposition 8 case at all; that split reflected a concern that the country wasn’t ready yet for same-sex marriage, and that a ruling upholding Proposition 8 would be a huge setback for the cause. Of course, public support for same-sex marriage has swelled significantly in the four years since Olson and Boies filed their lawsuit, and the expectations of same-sex marriage supporters have increased along with that support. And so it will be more than a little ironic if the same people who once feared a ruling on the merits will now be disappointed that they won’t get one.
    Should find out a little after 10 if the court is handing down rulings on these cases today.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #490
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

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

    So what did they decide?

Posting Permissions

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