Page 79 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189129 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 1585

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

  1. #781
    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 roguenuke View Post
    They didn't rule on any of those particular laws at all. They were not addressed.
    They left the portions of the federal law allowing states to ban SSM in place, so yes they effectively did. If you want to be a obtuse technocrat, they did not rule that gays could marry in California either.

    Keep dreaming though. Progressive understanding of rights are even more laughable than the extreme gun nuts who think they have a right to a missile defense systems.

  2. #782
    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 roguenuke View Post
    No, they won't. They will only have to have one case where the SCOTUS rules that the state has no valid reason for restricting marriage access based on sex. It will only take one. The CA ruling was based on the challengers to the original court's decision having no legal standing because they were not the government representatives. In other states, such as Southern states, it is not likely that the government will refuse to defend their bans, so there will be legal standing and that would make a ruling that came out similar to DOMA applying to all the state bans that were relevant, which would most likely be all of them.
    And it will only take one case to ban same sex marriage or abortion or affirmative action or Voter Rights too.......and the trend is not going the left's way of late now is it? BTW, the standing issue is why you will see a billion challenges to Obamacare in the next two years. Better hope Ginsburg hangs on awhile. Until then, The SCOTUS just ruled in effect that marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.

  3. #783
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    They left the portions of the federal law allowing states to ban SSM in place, so yes they effectively did. If you want to be a obtuse technocrat, they did not rule that gays could marry in California either.

    Keep dreaming though. Progressive understanding of rights are even more laughable than the extreme gun nuts who think they have a right to a missile defense systems.
    They left it in place because it was not involved in the challenge. They had no place to address that particular part.

    That does not change the fact that when another case reaches the SCOTUS pertaining to the constitutionality of one of the state bans, it could very well take down all the state bans in one fell swoop.
    "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.

  4. #784
    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 AGENT J View Post
    1.) yes they factually are because you are trying to argue your opinion as fact and it has failed
    2.) again your opinion on this is meaningless
    3.) this is meaningless to legal marriage, you trying to change this fact will never work
    4.) 100% false this is NOT a fact because i could easily exist with out marriage and do
    I didn't' offer my opinion at all, and didn't "argue" anything.

    I simply stated that I could say with 100% certainty that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and not a gay relationship.

    I'm correct, aren't I?

    There's a reason I'm correct, and that reason removes my recognition from being only "my opinion" to being the actual fact of why marriage has invariably, without exception, been recognizes as a man and woman, throughout mankind's history.

    And your last point is itself 100% false, as I was referencing "heterosexual relationship" and not marriage.

    However you hit on a crucial point: the fact that you "could easily exist without marriage" is precisely why marriage is recognized and promoted by societies throughout mankind's history.

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

    ~ James Madison

  5. #785
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    And it will only take one case to ban same sex marriage or abortion or affirmative action or Voter Rights too.......and the trend is not going the left's way of late now is it? BTW, the standing issue is why you will see a billion challenges to Obamacare in the next two years. Better hope Ginsburg hangs on awhile. Until then, The SCOTUS just ruled in effect that marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
    Wrong. There is no legal standing to challenge the Constitutionality of legal same sex marriage. Without legal standing, those laws cannot be ruled unconstitutional.

    I'm against Obamacare, just so you know. I want to see a NHS, not mandatory health insurance.
    "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.

  6. #786
    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 same arguments given for legalization of interracial marriage. It isn't. It is about fairness in laws. Marriage is in no way gender dependent legally. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not harm anyone. Your arguments go much further in exposing your own selfishness in wanting to maintain your personal definition of marriage as the only one.
    Like it or not, it's not my definition. It's the traditional definition of marriage by all mankind that I think should remain in place. It spans all cultures and all of history and I agree with the dissenting justice that said we are not qualified nor able to know where this is going to go or what the outcome of this kind of social experiment may be.

    Despite all the crap being flung about this, I know that homosexual marriage is about 2 things and 2 things only:

    1. tax breaks for a very small number of homosexuals
    2. creating the appearance of normality for homosexuality by equating it to homosexuality.

    I know quite a few homosexuals (not all of whom support SSM, by the way) and I don't know any of them that long to be married. Marriage, in fact, was one of the things eschewed by the "alternative lifestyle" advocates. Gee, now homosexuals have the right to drag each other through divorce court whenever they break up. Homosexuals get it. That's why most will never marry. It wasn't rights that were their real issue at all. It was more about busting the "breeder club".

  7. #787
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    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".
    Irrelevant to my statement. The fact that gay people can marry the opposite sex doesn't inherently make same-sex marriage bans constitutional.

    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.
    It's still a change in marriage. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

    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?
    I can demonstrate that dog fights cause harm.

    You cannot demonstrate that same-sex marriage causes harm to you or to anyone else. You can't define a personal effect, but you also can't define any negative effect at all. Go ahead and try. I bet you use vague phrases like "moral fabric."
    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.

  8. #788
    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]

    Deuce, appeal to tradition isn't an argument and, therefore, not a logical fallacy. Society does, in fact, have the right to legislate traditional values and there's no fallacy involved.

    Dogfights don't harm YOU. And that was your position. That you must show how it harms YOU.

  9. #789
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    Like it or not, it's not my definition. It's the traditional definition of marriage by all mankind that I think should remain in place. It spans all cultures and all of history and I agree with the dissenting justice that said we are not qualified nor able to know where this is going to go or what the outcome of this kind of social experiment may be.

    Despite all the crap being flung about this, I know that homosexual marriage is about 2 things and 2 things only:

    1. tax breaks for a very small number of homosexuals
    2. creating the appearance of normality for homosexuality by equating it to homosexuality.

    I know quite a few homosexuals (not all of whom support SSM, by the way) and I don't know any of them that long to be married. Marriage, in fact, was one of the things eschewed by the "alternative lifestyle" advocates. Gee, now homosexuals have the right to drag each other through divorce court whenever they break up. Homosexuals get it. That's why most will never marry. It wasn't rights that were their real issue at all. It was more about busting the "breeder club".
    Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It does not matter how marriage may have been traditionally. All that matters is how it operates currently within our laws.

    Well I know same sex couples who want the option to be married, whether it ever happens for them or not. There is no single group where every person in that group wants the exact same things in life. It is called being different.
    "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. #790
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    1.)I didn't' offer my opinion at all, and didn't "argue" anything.
    2.)I simply stated that I could say with 100% certainty that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and not a gay relationship.
    3.) I'm correct, aren't I?
    4.)There's a reason I'm correct, and that reason removes my recognition from being only "my opinion" to being the actual fact of why marriage has invariably, without exception, been recognizes as a man and woman, throughout mankind's history.
    5.)And your last point is itself 100% false, as I was referencing "heterosexual relationship" and not marriage.

    However you hit on a crucial point: the fact that you "could easily exist without marriage" is precisely why marriage is recognized and promoted by societies throughout mankind's history.
    1.) this is a lie, would you like me to qoute you? you suggested that legal marriage cares about procreation/off spring, it does not
    2.) but the fact remains you cant, you are guessing
    3.) in this case yes you are
    4.) marriage is meaningless to your guess, marriage had nothing to do with me being born and history disagrees with you, so you are wrong twice
    5.) again its not false its 100% true because its meaningless to my creation, 100% meaningless lol this fact will never change

    again do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?
    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

Posting Permissions

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