Page 66 of 159 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876116 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 1585

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

  1. #651
    Sage davidtaylorjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You should read what Jesus has to say on the subject.

    18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-20
    He also said he fulfilled the law. That is what he was talking about when he said "everything accomplished."
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  2. #652
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.
    Black people had equal right to marry someone of the same race. This logic was rejected by the supreme court.

    Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...
    "It was first defined this way" isn't an argument for anything. Marriage also used to be between a man and his property. Literal property, he literally owned his wife.

    ..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.

    Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".
    You keep making this about you, and you keep clinging to this "definition." "Imposing" this definition? How does that "impose" upon you? What effect does two dudes getting married have on your life? If you can't answer this question, don't you inherently have a weak argument?

    And then you come up with the dumbest slippery slope I've ever seen.

    Since when do you own the right to a definition?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #653
    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 Deuce View Post
    Black people had equal right to marry someone of the same race. This logic was rejected by the supreme court.
    And they should have. The definition and very nature of marriage didn't have to be changed in order to accomodate Loving. All that needed done was remove an illegal restriction against race. For this to equate to homosexuals and marriage, marriage would already have to be defined as "any two people of any sex" with an added exclusion "unless the couple is homosexual".

    "It was first defined this way" isn't an argument for anything. Marriage also used to be between a man and his property. Literal property, he literally owned his wife.
    This is a false statement. While a wife was often considered "property" in cultures in the past, a man could not marry anything other than a woman. Seriously... you show me a marriage between a man and his favorite chair somewhere in history and I'll change my mind.

    You keep making this about you, and you keep clinging to this "definition." "Imposing" this definition? How does that "impose" upon you? What effect does two dudes getting married have on your life? If you can't answer this question, don't you inherently have a weak argument?
    An argument about law and society is not inherently weak merely because someone can't define a personal effect of that law. What effect does it have on you if two guys take their dog to a pit and fight them to the death for the amusement of a crowd of bettors?

  4. #654
    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
    And they should have. The definition and very nature of marriage didn't have to be changed in order to accomodate Loving. All that needed done was remove an illegal restriction against race. For this to equate to homosexuals and marriage, marriage would already have to be defined as "any two people of any sex" with an added exclusion "unless the couple is homosexual".


    This is a false statement. While a wife was often considered "property" in cultures in the past, a man could not marry anything other than a woman. Seriously... you show me a marriage between a man and his favorite chair somewhere in history and I'll change my mind.



    An argument about law and society is not inherently weak merely because someone can't define a personal effect of that law. What effect does it have on you if two guys take their dog to a pit and fight them to the death for the amusement of a crowd of bettors?
    The nature of marriage does not change by allowing same sex couples to enter into it. The current nature of marriage is to make two people each other's closest relatives with legal recognition as "spouse". That is the only thing that is true for every single legally married couple. And personal definitions of marriage have no place being enforced in the law.

    In the past, there have been same sex marriages. We have legally recognized same sex marriages today, even on the federal level. When a person legally changes their sex, which can be done in all but one or two states, it changes whether or not they can enter into a legal marriage. However, if they are already married to someone of the opposite sex, then they legally change their sex, they remain legally recognized as married even by the federal government and even if the state legally recognizes them as a same sex couple. But, if you try to argue that they are not really a same sex couple, then it would be those who changed their legal sex prior to marriage and are not only legally married but recognized by the federal government as well. So either way you look at it, there are same sex couples being recognized as legally married by the federal government now. They function just fine within marriage laws since marriage laws are not gender dependent.

    In order for a legal argument to be made in favor of a restriction on a law, you must be able to show that it is has some negative affect on someone or something that the state considers worth protecting, such as animals or the environment.
    "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.

  5. #655
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

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

    SCOTUSblog says five minute buzzer. looks like they're about to release the decision.

  6. #656
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

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


  7. #657
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

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

    DOMA unconstitutional. equal protection; 5:4.

  8. #658
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

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

    DOMA is dead based on equal protection violation!!!

    Hopefully means well for Prop 8!
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #659
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

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

    5-4: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

    SCOTUSblog

  10. #660
    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
    The nature of marriage does not change by allowing same sex couples to enter into it. The current nature of marriage is to make two people each other's closest relatives with legal recognition as "spouse". That is the only thing that is true for every single legally married couple. And personal definitions of marriage have no place being enforced in the law.
    The nature of marriage is a husband and wife joined together. That is... a man and a woman joined together. It's not just US culture or Christian culture. It's global culture and has always been global culture. Headhunters in the jungles of Borneo get it. Natives in Papau Neu Guinea get it. Natives in South America get it. Tribesmen in Africa..... Chinese.... Japanese.... eskimos.... everybody got it. Suddenly there's confusion about it? I don't think so.

    In the past, there have been same sex marriages. We have legally recognized same sex marriages today, even on the federal level. When a person legally changes their sex, which can be done in all but one or two states, it changes whether or not they can enter into a legal marriage. However, if they are already married to someone of the opposite sex, then they legally change their sex, they remain legally recognized as married even by the federal government and even if the state legally recognizes them as a same sex couple. But, if you try to argue that they are not really a same sex couple, then it would be those who changed their legal sex prior to marriage and are not only legally married but recognized by the federal government as well. So either way you look at it, there are same sex couples being recognized as legally married by the federal government now. They function just fine within marriage laws since marriage laws are not gender dependent.
    The fact that the law wouldn't strip people of marriage after one of them decided to undergo a sex change doesn't make a good argument for why marriage must be redefined as "a union between any two people that want to have sex and live together", which is precisely the nature of the argument homosexuals are putting forward in favor of same-sex marriage.

    In order for a legal argument to be made in favor of a restriction on a law, you must be able to show that it is has some negative affect on someone or something that the state considers worth protecting, such as animals or the environment.
    This isn't about a "restriction on a law". An omlette is an egg and cheese. An egg and an egg are just eggs. Cheese and cheese are just cheese. What you're arguing is that an omlette should henceforth be considered any two units of egg and/or cheese being combined. Of course, the confusion that would create is minimal compared to the confusion of "any two people regardless of sex who lust after each other and want the legal restrictions and tax status of marriage" considered to be "married".

Posting Permissions

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