Page 86 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896136 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 860 of 1585

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

  1. #851
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What it demonstrates is that the definition of the word marriage did not meet the criteria to be considered a definition. It has now be corrected.
    No, not even close.

    A 5-4 states' rights decision on DOMA curiously along unexpected ideological lines and a 5-4 states' rights decision on Prop 8 regarding procedure for modifying a state's constitutional provisions is simply not a "marriage definition" matter.

    "Marriage" remains what it has always been for over 12,000 years since the agricultural revolution, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", isolated and pocketed violations never having been "redefintions".

    Your ideological spin as to what the SCOTUS decisions mean is simply erroneous, obviously.
    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. #852
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,482

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, not even close. A 5-4 states' rights decision on DOMA curiously along unexpected ideological lines and a 5-4 states' rights decision on Prop 8 regarding procedure for modifying a state's constitutional provisions is simply not a "marriage definition" matter.
    It is bizarre that people are characterizing the DOMA decision as a states' rights decision. Equal Protection played the most prominent role.

  3. #853
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,651

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    You should actually go the majority opinion before you pontificate on it.

    DOMA was said in that majority opinion to be unconstituti0onal specifically because of a deprivation of equal liberty under the Due Process clause of 5th Amendment.

    The only reference to states rights was the right of states to define the law under state sovereignty, which in fact was nowhere denied by DOMA, with the 10th Amendment "states rights" nowhere being cited as the cause for the ruling. The

    Quotes from Kennedy's decision:
    "Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

    "DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities."

    The references above, and throughout the ruling, presumes same sex couples to be the equivalent of marriage, and ignores that the federal government's recognition of same sex marriage forces other states to recognize that fabricated definition of marriage. That first quote actually shows that presumption of equality in its statement.

    In short, the majority opinion does nothing but presume what it wants to conclude, and uses states rights only to justify that redefinition of marriage by the state, which DOMA never denied. But the decision then compels that recognition of the state's definition, not by any states right to compel other states and the federal government to recognize that redefinition, which is your mistaken claim, but by the presumption of that false equivalence made by that state being valid outside the state, and under the Constitution, and then applies the 5th Amendment due process to reach its preordained conclusion, in disregard of the Constitution's intent and the fact of terminology.

    The court sidesteps and ignores the entire interest of the Congress in making Doma, inclusive of a majority of Democrats in both houses, to prevent the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and prohibit any corrupt compulsion put on the other states by the whim of a few. This was nothing but an example of the corruption of the judiciary, and willingness to engage dictation and legislation from the bench, which is what Scalia and others recognized in their scathing dissent.

    We are no longer a Republic ruled by law, but an aristocracy ruled by men.

    And I'm done responding to you, as your behavior has shown a repeated lack of character, and abuse of your position in order to get an upper hand by inappropriate means. Your repetition of the same arguments and distortions of fact, converting the fact of reproduction originating from heterosexual relationship, into a compulsion to have children, which nowhere is relevant, and reversing cause and effect, have already been dealt with and were gutted elsewhere, hence your need to resort to abuse of position.
    1) Justice Kennedy's statement is on target. SSM and OSM are equivalent in regards to how marriage is seen by the government. Since we know that procreation is not a requirement, we know that children of gays do as well as children of straights, and we know that committed relationships (be they gay or straight) are beneficial to society, we know that Kennedy is on target with his equivalency statement. You have completely failed in proving this position wrong. If you believe that they are NOT equivalent, prove it... but remember, procreation is off the table as it is not a requirement for marriage.
    2) The state's rights position is that the unconstitutionality of DOMA allows the states to decide on marriage, without the federal government's input in regards to benefits and such. Since it sees SSM as equivalent to straight marriage (which by governmental definition, it is), states are no longer prevented from full recognition if they choose.
    3) Consistently, you have contradicted yourself and ignored definitions. You have admitted that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, then denied this when it sinks your argument. Further, your reliance on logical fallacies, even when these were demonstrated to you, seriously hurt your argument This is dishonest debating. Your positions have been completely are totally shredded, not only by me, but by anyone who has responded to you. If you look at the response of others, from either side of the political spectrum, they mirror what I've told you. I understand that you don't like this, as you have invested a lot of time into a failed argument, but that's how it is. Perhaps the next time you debate an issue, you will spend a little more time researching it, so your positions are not so poorly constructed and inaccurate.

    You of course have opportunities to redeem yourself. I have asked you to demonstrate how SSM and OSM are different... and remember, since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, you cannot use this point. I would be interested in seeing your answer.
    "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"

  4. #854
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,651

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, not even close.

    A 5-4 states' rights decision on DOMA curiously along unexpected ideological lines and a 5-4 states' rights decision on Prop 8 regarding procedure for modifying a state's constitutional provisions is simply not a "marriage definition" matter.

    "Marriage" remains what it has always been for over 12,000 years since the agricultural revolution, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", isolated and pocketed violations never having been "redefintions".

    Your ideological spin as to what the SCOTUS decisions mean is simply erroneous, obviously.
    Your ideological spin does not allow you to understand how definitions are formed and what constitutes a definition. You'd prefer to just hold onto your ideological bias. That's fine, but it doesn't alter that you are wrong. Go look up the definition of the word definition and then get back to us.
    "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"

  5. #855
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,651

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Uh, that "opposite sex booty call" is still heterosexual reproduction, and the term "relationship" does not necessitate nor imply any sort of ongoing relationship between people, but references the ongoing and immutable relation of the sperm and ovum necessary for reproduction, to those two heterosexual sexes.

    Likewise, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization also rely on that same heterosexual reproduction process, and rape as well.

    Again, and quite obviously, the reference to "relationship" does not refer to any ongoing relationship between partners, much less a stable one, but the relationship of the reproduction process to that heterosexuality... and it really is an inane claim that it might be.
    Perhaps you might want to define your terms. You are using the word "relationship" NOT in a way that most people use it. With YOUR usage, it does not apply to marriage.
    "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"

  6. #856
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    It is bizarre that people are characterizing the DOMA decision as a states' rights decision. Equal Protection played the most prominent role.
    The due process clause cited applies to the states, not to individuals or couples.

    As Kennedy stated, ""DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. "

    This is not an endorsement of SSM with respect to equality, it's a statement about what the state decided relevant to the case brought before the SCOTUS, that the state lumped OS and SS marriages together and that the state had a right to do that and that DOMA was infringing on the state's right to consider OS and SS marriages marriages.

    Equal protection is being applied to the state's decision in the matter here, not to the nature of the marriages.

    It's important in understanding the matter to grasp this distinction.

    Ideologues on the left will likely miss this very important fact, only to then experience shock and dismay when future decisions in the matter don't go their way.

    This is all about the states and their rights over the federal government, 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?

  7. #857
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Your ideological spin does not allow you to understand how definitions are formed and what constitutes a definition. You'd prefer to just hold onto your ideological bias. That's fine, but it doesn't alter that you are wrong. Go look up the definition of the word definition and then get back to us.
    Actually, it's your very words here that describe your spin on the matter, and have truly nothing to do with me.

    Again, this was a states' rights decision, nothing more, obviously.

    That you think it implies a "redefinition" of the word "marriage" is so laughably ludicrous that it's truly sad, a typical ideologue's overreaction.
    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?

  8. #858
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,651

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Actually, it's your very words here that describe your spin on the matter, and have truly nothing to do with me.
    Not at all. Your refusal to educate yourself on this issue and actually UNDERSTAND what a definition is, is the problem.

    Again, this was a states' rights decision, nothing more, obviously.
    And I've said that from the beginning.

    That you think it implies a "redefinition" of the word "marriage" is so laughably ludicrous that it's truly sad, a typical ideologue's overreaction.
    Didn't say anything about "redefinition". Your ideological bias is causing you to debate what you WANT me to have said, not what I said. This is called a strawman and it is a very weak debate tactic. You might want to correct that.
    "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. #859
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Not at all. Your refusal to educate yourself on this issue and actually UNDERSTAND what a definition is, is the problem. And I've said that from the beginning. Didn't say anything about "redefinition". Your ideological bias is causing you to debate what you WANT me to have said, not what I said. This is called a strawman and it is a very weak debate tactic. You might want to correct that.
    No, once again, you seem to think that the word "marriage" was redefined in the past, which it wasn't, and that now the SCOTUS decisions "validate" that redefinition, which most certainly did not happen.

    The word "marriage" has never been "redefined" in recent decades as you erroneously spin, and referencing word usage in on-line dictionaries is not exemplifying redefinition.

    The use of the erroneous oxymornic phrases "SSM", "same-sex marriage" "gay marriage", etc. in no way redefined the word "marriage", as erroneous reference does not a "redefinition" make.

    Again, the only one of the two of us wearing ideological blinders here is you.

    That's quite obvious.
    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. #860
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,651

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, once again, you seem to think that the word "marriage" was redefined in the past, which it wasn't, and that now the SCOTUS decisions "validate" that redefinition, which most certainly did not happen.

    The word "marriage" has never been "redefined" in recent decades as you erroneously spin, and referencing word usage in on-line dictionaries is not exemplifying redefinition.

    The use of the erroneous oxymornic phrases "SSM", "same-sex marriage" "gay marriage", etc. in no way redefined the word "marriage", as erroneous reference does not a "redefinition" make.

    Again, the only one of the two of us wearing ideological blinders here is you.

    That's quite obvious.
    What's quite obvious is that your ideology is preventing you from debating what I am saying. I understand that it is far easier to debate what you want me to have said, but that's just a logical fallacy. I have never mentioned the word "redefine", nor is that what I am arguing. Now, I know that it is far easier to run from my actual position, but would you like to give it a try, or would you prefer to allow your bias to cause you to take the safe route, and just straw man?
    "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
  •