Page 74 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684124 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1585

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

  1. #731
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
    people that feel that was are idiots
    it has ZERO factual impact on them
    it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #732
    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 Fisher View Post
    People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
    Well, by that argument one could say that the blacks were forcing themselves onto whites when they were coming out against segregation. Besides, the government shouldn't worry about offending religions. No one is saying that a religion has to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

  3. #733
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

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

    Dude, figure it out, even the courts have decided that separate but equal institutions are allowable. States. Grades. Public restrooms. Give it up.
    Last edited by cabse5; 06-26-13 at 02:18 PM.

  4. #734
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    people that feel that was are idiots
    it has ZERO factual impact on them
    it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
    If calling it a civil union gives you all the rights of calling it marriage, how does it not work as well if rights are what you are interested in?

  5. #735
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
    +1000

  6. #736
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by afr0byte View Post
    Well, by that argument one could say that the blacks were forcing themselves onto whites when they were coming out against segregation. Besides, the government shouldn't worry about offending religions. No one is saying that a religion has to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
    I am just saying there is an easier path to take. That gays are taking the harder one is their choice, but an unnecessary one.

  7. #737
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    people that feel that was are idiots
    it has ZERO factual impact on them
    it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
    Rights that some plurality of state judges deemed on their state. Just what was the ideology of those state supreme court judges? Were some of them atheists?

  8. #738
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    If calling it a civil union gives you all the rights of calling it marriage, how does it not work as well if rights are what you are interested in?
    because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #739
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I am just saying there is an easier path to take. That gays are taking the harder one is their choice, but an unnecessary one.
    facts disagree with you its not easier and its currently impossible
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #740
    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 afr0byte View Post
    Nah. Definitions of words can change. After all, we just made up the definition originally. It's not as if you're some objective arbiter of proper definitions, either. For example, marriage used to exclude interracial marriages. Would you not think it silly for us to suggest calling them intermarriages, instead of just marriages? Of course you might say something like "but it was still between a man and a woman." That'd be irrelevant, though. The definition still changed.
    The definition of the word isn't 'changing', it is being changed, by legislative and judicial fiat, which involves the gross corruption of fundamental terms in the Constitution such as "rights", and "equal protection". This is not the terms of this country, which is a Republic and not an oligarchy.

    Words cannot simply "change", and particularly not when they are tied to the fact of human biology, and recognition of definitive value to society as a whole, and they have not changed. They have been changed, but illegitimately changed by decree of a few.

    Scalia wrote a scathing dissent which is unlike any other dissent ever produced, indicating that the majority was filled with venom and discord, essentially indicating that the Court had denigrated to a barroom brawl, not the rule of law, and this is the result of social engineering and progressive ideology, the dictate of a few, in disregard for that rule of law.

    Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":

    But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

    And this is from a Court Justice!

    Quite obviously, neither the court, nor the federal government overall, were created for the purpose of "imposing change", but were rather instituted in the Constitution with limited powers to specifically prohibit any legitimacy to that sort of dictate.

    Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton. Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.

    Scalia writes of the opinion,:

    "Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."

    The problem here is obviously what is being exhibited is not at all "judicial temperament", not at all judicial restraint, not thoughtful resolve, but rather the arrogant superiority of those who imagine they are entitled to dictate the terms of society, even when that authority is not provided them, not even this Court -- Liberal fascism.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-26-13 at 02:18 PM.

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

    ~ James Madison

Posting Permissions

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