Page 71 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381121 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 1585

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

  1. #701
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by afr0byte View Post
    I guess it sucks for you that definitions can change.
    The definition didn't change, obviously, from the SCOTUS rulings ..

    .. And, it simply can't change any more than the definition of "dog" can change to include cats.
    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?

  2. #702
    Professor
    afr0byte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A blue state
    Last Seen
    09-12-13 @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The definition didn't change, obviously, from the SCOTUS rulings ..

    .. And, it simply can't change any more than the definition of "dog" can change to include cats.
    It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.

  3. #703
    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 Gimmesometruth View Post
    Wow, not only are children born out of wedlock a "harm to society", but so is the adoption of said children?

    You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?

    I did not mention the adoption of children, but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.

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

    ~ James Madison

  4. #704
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by afr0byte View Post
    It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.
    No, not at all -- in California the definition of "marriage" is simply being violated, thus the violation won't stand the test of time, and remains invalid.

    When you say that we can define a cat to be included in the subset of dogs, in effect, it is you who is being silly.

    With respect to higher intelligece, a cat is simply not a dog, and an SS couple civil union domestic partnership is simply not a marriage.

    No matter what dumbed-down ideological mindsets do in the political dualistic battle, that simply does not mean that redefinition occurred, obviously.

    In this case it only means that violations of intelligence and definitive propriety occurred.
    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?

  5. #705
    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 afr0byte View Post
    It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.
    You can insist that a dog is your child but that doesn't mean that it's your child - or that you can claim it on your income taxes because a dog is a dog no matter what you want to call it or what you want to call the relationship between you and your dog. The same principle applies with homosexual marriage. Most of the world doesn't accommodate the perversity of sanctioning the relationship of two people of the same sex as "marriage".

  6. #706
    Professor
    afr0byte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A blue state
    Last Seen
    09-12-13 @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, not at all -- in California the definition of "marriage" is simply being violated, thus the violation won't stand the test of time, and remains invalid.

    When you say that we can define a cat to be included in the subset of dogs, in effect, it is you who is being silly.

    With respect to higher intelligece, a cat is simply not a dog, and an SS couple civil union domestic partnership is simply not a marriage.

    No matter what dumbed-down ideological mindsets do in the political dualistic battle, that simply does not mean that redefinition occurred, obviously.

    In this case it only means that violations of intelligence and definitive propriety occurred.
    Yep, at least legally, the definition has changed, clearly. Two people of the same sex can get married in California, so clearly marriage has changed its definition there. You're free to disagree, but your disagreeing doesn't make a same sex couple any less married in California. Good for same sex couples, woo hoo!

  7. #707
    Professor
    afr0byte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A blue state
    Last Seen
    09-12-13 @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Most of the world doesn't accommodate the perversity of sanctioning the relationship of two people of the same sex as "marriage".
    And they're wrong for not sanctioning it. But, someday we'll all get there hopefully. Love is love, after all.

  8. #708
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?

    I did not mention the adoption of children, but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.
    Though I agree that your perspective has merit, there is too much here that is subject to interpretation and perhaps unvalidated-by-study conjecture.

    Thus, philosophically, there could be doubt, which is why I disagreed with that tack being taken in the argument for Prop 8.

    The SCOTUS found the same thing to be true, 5-4, though 5-4 is hardly an across the board mandate.

    Better would have been to appeal to the reality of the definitive propriety of marriage always having been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", with isolated pocketed violations being simply that, powerless to redefine the word "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides by the mafia and totalitarian governments have the power to narrow and redefine "murder".

    I thought the Prop 8 argument defense would fail the moment I read about it.

    That the decision was so close and not along ideological lines is what surprised me.
    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?

  9. #709
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by afr0byte View Post
    Yep, at least legally, the definition has changed, clearly. Two people of the same sex can get married in California, so clearly marriage has changed its definition there. You're free to disagree, but your disagreeing doesn't make a same sex couple any less married in California. Good for same sex couples, woo hoo!
    No, obviously, not true.

    No definitions have changed, obviously.

    An error in respect to definitive propriety is what this is, and it only means that a definition has been improperly used, violated, nothing more.
    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?

  10. #710
    Professor
    afr0byte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A blue state
    Last Seen
    09-12-13 @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, obviously, not true.

    No definitions have changed, obviously.

    An error in respect to definitive propriety is what this is, and it only means that a definition has been improperly used, violated, nothing more.
    Nope, not true. The people that are married/to be married in California will be married according to the state, which is the only thing that matters.

Posting Permissions

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