Page 68 of 159 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078118 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 1585

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

  1. #671
    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 Captain Adverse View Post
    Of course a Federal statute that denies such marriages equal protection from state to state and under federal benefits is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
    This decision does not strike that part of DOMA down and that part of DOMA is not unconstitutional. If Ohio does not (and it does not) want to recognize same-sex couples as married, it should not be required by the federal government to do so. That would merely be a back-door (no pun intended) to gay marriage in all 50 states and would further create the precedent that once the first state allows incest marriage (which is actually being debated as something that should be done in some circles) then all states would have to recognize that, too.

  2. #672
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Some cultures recognized plural marriages, too. But the FACTS are that societies overwhelmingly adopted 1 man + 1 woman models as their fundamental societal building blocks. Just like it is in nature with species that mate for life. All of them, too, have a 1 male + 1 female model.

    You are free to live in denial but that doesn't change these facts.
    And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
    "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. #673
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You are wrong. There have been several cultures that recognized two people of the same sex as married. You are free to live in denial but it doesn't change facts.

    The way our laws operate is what matters in this discussion, not what your personal opinion is about what marriage should be. And that is all you are talking about when you say that marriage has to be between a man and a woman only. That is only your personal definition of marriage.

    Marriage is defined through our laws as a contract that makes two people legal spouses, giving them legal recognition as each other's closest legal relatives. This involves certain legal and financial responsibilities along with a protection of their status as "closest kin". There is no need to mention sex because sex cannot be a legal requirement of marriage (since there are disabled people who cannot have sex but still can legally marry). It is none of the states' business if those in a marriage are having sex.
    Those cultures did not recognize marriage to be something other than heterosexual union, and did not recognize gay marriage universally, but specifically, ancient Greece and Rome only recognized gay unions among some select few, and did so only shortly before the collapse and overthrow of these societies.

    Nowhere did any society recognize gay marriage to the exclusion of heterosexual marriage, not at any time, because it is not a haphazard choice of valuation only based on tradition. Had any society recognized and institutionalized only gay unions, that society would have would have guaranteed it's extinction due to its corrupt value system in disregard of biological fact and need.

    Marriage is not defined through our laws, but rather only recognized in law. Our laws do not just recognize any two people as marriage, because there is no need for law to recognize just any two people that do not affect society, cannot produce offspring, do not establish any sort of biological lineage, do not need to have inheritance by that lineage recognized in law, and do not need to have the custody of those those biological offspring established under law.

    Sure, laws recognize the relationship of two people when it comes to lawyers, doctors, and their clients, but that is because those relationships have a need in society, and a positive effect on society. The same is not true of gay unions, which certainly are not the equivalent to society as enduring heterosexual unions - marriage.

    Gays can already, and do, publicly establish the their legal rights, and legal obligations with regard to one another, just as lawyers and doctors do with their clients.

    Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  4. #674
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Those cultures did not recognize marriage to be something other than heterosexual union, and did not recognize gay marriage universally, but specifically, ancient Greece and Rome only recognized gay unions among some select few, and did so only shortly before the collapse and overthrow of these societies.

    Nowhere did any society recognize gay marriage to the exclusion of heterosexual marriage, not at any time, because it is not a haphazard choice of valuation only based on tradition. Had any society recognized and institutionalized only gay unions, that society would have would have guaranteed it's extinction due to its corrupt value system in disregard of biological fact and need.

    Marriage is not defined through our laws, but rather only recognized in law. Our laws do not just recognize any two people as marriage, because there is no need for law to recognize just any two people that do not affect society, cannot produce offspring, do not establish any sort of biological lineage, do not need to have inheritance by that lineage recognized in law, and do not need to have the custody of those those biological offspring established under law.

    Sure, laws recognize the relationship of two people when it comes to lawyers, doctors, and their clients, but that is because those relationships have a need in society, and a positive effect on society. The same is not true of gay unions, which certainly are not the equivalent to society as enduring heterosexual unions - marriage.

    Gays can already, and do, publicly establish the their legal rights, and legal obligations with regard to one another, just as lawyers and doctors do with their clients.

    Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
    Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. In fact, the ability to procreate prohibits certain people from marriage.

    Legal marriage works to give a couple legal recognition as spouses, a recognized legal family relationship. It comes with certain protections for the couple as being one, for each person in the relationship should the relationship need to end, and legal/financial responsibilities. It in no way requires procreative ability to operate/function.

    And no, they cannot get all the legal rights, benefits, and protections of marriage. Nothing but marriage grants legal recognition of spouse. Nothing.
    "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. #675
    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
    And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
    You're right. What matters is what the state decides it will sanction and that's exactly what we have now; as it should be. And the decision today does not change that. There's nothing arbitrary about defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. It is the standard model around the world and through virtually all cultures despite claims that there were some deviances at one time or another. Exceptions don't make the rule.

  6. #676
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
    Anyone ever call you a drama queen.

    I hardly think we have worry about people reproducing.

  7. #677
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
    Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.


    "How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  8. #678
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You're right. What matters is what the state decides it will sanction and that's exactly what we have now; as it should be. And the decision today does not change that. There's nothing arbitrary about defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. It is the standard model around the world and through virtually all cultures despite claims that there were some deviances at one time or another. Exceptions don't make the rule.
    Wrong. The state is held to the standard of the Constitution, which means they must show a legitimate state interest is furthered by restricting same sex couples from getting married. The restriction is on gender, not sexuality.

    But yes, it is just as arbitrary to define marriage as "one man and one woman only" as it is to define it as "two people of the same race" or "two people of the same religion", because those things have no affect on how marriage functions within the laws, nor does removing those restrictions cause harm to anyone. No legitimate state interest furthered, which is the responsibility of the state to show in any restriction in a law.
    "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. #679
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.


    "How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
    In the law, it is irrelevant. Such a restriction does not further a state interest.
    "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. #680
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Lets assume for a split second that you are right, that it is a birth defect even though there is no evidence that it actually is. Mentally handicapped people, which is considered a birth defect, are allowed to marry so obviously birth defects are not a pre-requisite for not allowing someone to marry. The same goes for any other birth defect out there. So your point fails as a reason to not allow them to marry.
    You're arguing against a strawman, as I never once said the nature of homosexuality is grounds for disallowing SS marriage.

    The grounds for disallowing SS marriage is that it violates definitive propriety of terms, as an SS couple is simply not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is what a "marriage" is and has been for over 12,000 years since the argicultural revolution, isolated tiny pockets of violation notwithstanding and, of course, invalid and powerless in their ability to redefine "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides gotten away with by the mafia or horrific governments had the power to broaden redefine "murder", obviously.

    Any decision regarding DOMA will be rightly decided solely on states v. federal, not on whether DOMA violates equal protection.

    Any decision on Prop 8 will be rightly decided based upon the actual arguments brought before the court, and Prop 8 argument was strangely strained, not at all an appeal to historic reality of definitive propriety of terms, so again, whatever the court decides here will not at all be a statement of SS couples should be allowed "marriage".

    SS couples do deserve equal protection in their civil union domestic partnerships.

    They just can't rightly call them "marriages".

    I suggest the win-win term homarriage for them.

    Most people support equal protection for them, just not the ridiculous oxymoronic use of the term "marriage", obviously and understandably.

    Create homarriage civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples and everyone wins.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

Posting Permissions

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