Page 84 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694134 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1585

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

  1. #831
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
    That's fine, they're already doing it and after this decision, there's no doubt that the other dominos will fall into place relatively quickly.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #832
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    If that was true, then the 1 man and 1 woman model of marriage would only be found in cultures that have a strong religious framework and the fact is that 1 man and 1 woman has been pretty standard for virtually every culture, religious or not. Picts, Celts, Native Americans, Eskimos, Asians, Budhists, Hindus, Mayans...
    Um... you don't think any of those groups were religious? Buddhism and Hinduism *ARE* religions.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #833
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Again, what if he claims he's a woman trapped in a man's body. Where's the sympathy? Where's the love, my brutha?
    sympathy has nothing to do with it lol. Rights and laws. nice deflection but its another failure
    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

  4. #834
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    shhhhhhhhh dont use common sense and facts when they are just gonna be ignored
    I know...it just always amazes me how many people on these political message boards don't understand the basics of Constitutional analysis.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #835
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
    That's not what the court said at all. The court simply said that the proponents of prop 8 didn't have standing to bring the challenge.

    As for your state by state claim.....do the basic math. In the Doma decision there are 5 (FIVE) justices saying that while states are free to define marriage, they must do so in a manner that does not violate 5th Amendment equal protection. Kennedy even indicated that there is no legitimate state interest in defining marriage for "straights only". In other words, they are signaling that they are prepared to strike down a "straight only" state law when a case is brought to them. Did you even take a look at Scalia's vitriolic dissent? He pretty much came right out and said the writing in on the wall...the days of straights only marriage are numbered.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #836
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Equal protection does not mean, nor involve, a great many things.

    Equal protection also does not involve equal outcome, nor equal reward.

    Equal protection does not involve equal outcome for groups or pairings, but rather only equal opportunity for individuals.

    Equal protection also does not mean equal protection (or outcome) under different TERMS, but rather only equal protection under the SAME TERMS.

    Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat at the counter at any hour of the day and night, nor to demand whatever they wanted to eat under their own terms, but rather to be able to eat at that counter under the same terms as everyone else.

    Women did not petition for suffrage under their own terms, demanding to vote whenever they wanted, for whatever they wanted, but rather only the ability to vote under the same terms as everyone else.

    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.



    As shown above, the cases before the Supreme Court cannot be legally sound by the terms claimed.

    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, ...

    ..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".
    We now know... as you have been told repeatedly, that this is inaccurate. DOMA was found unconstitutional based on the exact reasons that people have refuted your position with: it violates state's rights issues on regulating marriage. It is good to see that the correct decision was rendered.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #837
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Why do you think that any the Federal government, any state government, or even any populist majority has the authority to dictate something that long precedes this country's existence, and is founded on the biological fact of human reproduction?

    Where do the states have the authority to define marriage, when they have no original jurisdiction over marriage, nor to alter the definition of words to alter outcomes?

    Neither the states, nor the federal government, have any authority in dictating the terms of society, social engineering, by which false equivalences are created, and made to meet the whims of a populist majority.

    The fact of the matter is that marriage is recognized to involve a man and a woman, because this is how human beings are created, and societies promoted and advanced. Societies have a vested interest in recognizing the the public commitment of heterosexual marriages, because these are the means by which offspring are able to mature over the prolonged period to adolescence in a stable environment, to be produced, well-developed citizens.
    Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. You can be infertile and marry and you can choose to not have children and marry. The procreation argument is irrelevant.

    Marriage is promoted for the rearing of children... and we know through research that children do just as well with gay parents as they do with straight ones.

    Your position is refuted and irrelevant.

    Marriage is not a compulsion or demand to procreate, but heterosexual reproduction are the only means that offspring are produced. Marriage is not a guarantee that the offspring will be well-developed and positive additions to society, but the biological home is the best guarantee of this.
    Completely irrelevant since procreation is not required for marriage AS YOU JUST SAID. How offspring are produced is irrelevant, as one does not have to be married to produce offspring. How they are RAISED is relevant, and since we know that children are reared as well with gay parents as with straight parents, your position is refuted.

    Society has no vested interest in whatever union, that cannot possibly produce offspring, and thereby does not promote its own offspring to habit society, and does not thereby advance society, and it is a false equivalence to insist that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions.
    Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, AS YOU HAVE SAID, your point is refuted and irrelevant.

    If homosexual unions do have children, it is only as a result of broken biological and social ties, thus making recognition of these homosexual unions contrary to the interest of society.
    1) Incorrect. There are many ways for homosexual unions to have children.
    2) Since we know that children, overall, do better in a loving 2 parent household, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, having them in a healthy two parents household, where the parents are gay is better for them then for them to be in a single parent household. Research proves this.

    Therefore, it is in the interest of society for SSM unions to be legal. Your position is refuted.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #838
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.

    You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.

    Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
    Wrong. Reproduction has zero to do with the state's interest. The state's interest is in rearing children successfully. This is why the government is so involved in adoption and education... and child protection, but not involved in sex or procreation. And since we know that gays rear parents as well as straights, it's benefit to society gives the government reason to sanction it. Your position is refuted.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #839
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.


    Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.

    That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
    SCOTUS's decision demonstrates adherence to the Constitution along with process for society. Our society has been saved from death by stagnation.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #840
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    The reference to 'diseased root" is not calling homosexuality a disease!

    And while Homosexuals have made 'massive positive contributions to society", these contributions have not come as a result of them being homosexuals, which is the context of the discussion and Society's vested interest in heterosexual marriage.

    They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
    This false assertion of yours has been corrected many times. Procreation is irrelevant. Child rearing IS relevant. Gays do this as well as straights. Your position is refuted.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Posting Permissions

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