Page 89 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1585

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

  1. #881
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.

    You've pulled that "we" dishonesty crap already, and repeated this deliberate dishonesty of stating what I did not say. I said that your own insertion of compulsion <requirement> to procreate, a flaw of argument known as affirmation of the consequent, is not anywhere involved in the cause for the recognition of heterosexual marriage. And if you cannot win the argument by honest terms, I guess you feel you must try to win it by dishonest terms, and having me removed from discussions, which is more than just a flaw of argumentation, but a serious flaw in character.

    The FACT is that procreation only happens by heterosexual means, and that is in FACT the cause for the recognition of marriage by societies the world over.

    As far as DOMA being unconstitutional, I give you these following words:


    "Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

    I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage[/U] and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

    This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

    I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

    Bill Clinton,
    Signing Statement, DOMA
    Friday, September 20, 1996

    Passed by super-majorities in both Houses of Congress,
    and majorities among Democrats in both houses.

    The allegedly offending passage of DOMA:

    Defense of Marriage Act
    Section 7, Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

    ♦ The only thing DOMA applied to was the definition of marriage for federal purposes.

    ♦ The federal government did not outlaw anything, as it did with polygamy, and as the court did with sodomy.

    ♦ It did NOT insist that the states recognize the federal government's definition that had been the sole definition recognized throughout this country's ENTIRE HISTORY!

    ♦ The Federal government does not even issue marriage licenses! The states are completely left alone and not violating state federalism at all! In fact the Court violates federalism by dictating the acceptance of this new definition.

    The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

    The SOLE purpose of DOMA was the prohibition of States coming up with their own definition AND compelling that definition on other states by the corruption of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That's IT! There was no denial of rights here. Rights are not any guarantee of outcome and reward! This was only the federal government indicating the terms by which it would recognize marriage, which is entirely within it's authority!


    And in the hypocritical act of ALL TIME, the 5 liberal activist progressive judges have sought to deny the Federal Congress its legitimate authority of indicating the terms which only the Federal government would recognize marriage, by the abuse of the federal Court's position in the federal government to 1) dictate their own position, to the independent branch of Congress, 2) violating Separation of Powers, and 3) dictating that Federal Court's position to the allegedly sovereign States as well, violating state sovereignty!!

    The U.S. Supreme Court has allegedly recognized the Sovereignty of states, but only select sovereignty, denying the sovereignty of other states entirely, so as to dictate its own Social Engineering dictate to the States and Congress as well!

    Today the Supreme Court showed that it is NOT in defense of States Rights, but willing to dictate its own view of the terms of marriage by the Federal government, and deny Congress' own protection of those States Rights.

    Simultaneously, regarding Prop 8, that Supreme Court denied the appeal, and allowed California to proceed to the denial of the will of the people in referendum, to deny enacted law, and to fail to defend that enacted law already instituted in statute, with the State and Court wanting to have repeated bites at the same apple to get the result they wanted, regardless of anything else, so that it may institute the dictates of a few elites in the State legislature, and Governor's office, to dictate the terms in disregard to all of the populace.

    In one statement before the court is that "no other group in recent history has been subject to popular referendum to take away rights ... the way that gay people have." What they want is there own terms dictated, in disregard of states rights, in disregard of the people's view, in disregard to Congress's view.

    In the hearing of this case, the Leftists Court Justices were arguing Federalism and states rights ALL DAY LONG, .... UNTIL it came to the states actually making decisions against their chosen outcome, UNTIL it involved the States making decisions on their own not dictated by one state under Full Faith and Credit abuse.

    In Fact the Constitution itself, and even the meanings of terms therein, mean nothing to the left, NOTHING in comparison to the Progressive Utopian statist desire to dictate to all of society and impose their view on ever member of society. They DON'T WANT the states to make these decisions! And they only want the federal government to make these decisions, if they are the decisions they want!

    There's no "rights" involved here; there is just a corrupt judiciary, and the rejection of the limits imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution.

    Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-26-13 at 09:01 PM.

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

    ~ James Madison

  2. #882
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Which is changing, as we learned in November.
    Huh? How did that change in November?

  3. #883
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    4 liberal justices and Kennedy was exactly what was expected. What cave have you been living in.
    Whether or not it was "expected" by some is irrelevant.

    It remains curious that in this case liberals pushed states rights when usually they are the ones supporting the people or the fed over states rights.

    The SCOTUS decision process remains more about ideology than ideologues like to admit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The gist of the ruling was not states rights. It was mentioned briefly.
    Absolutely false.

    I quoted Kennedy in proof of the states' rights nature of the DOMA decision.

    Read my post a few back and you'll see.

    Any ideologue that thinks today's decisions were about a sanctioning of the oxymoronic SSM are simply fooling themselves, as usual.


    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Well, except for all the places it has not been like what you think, including previously in this United States. And except for all the places currently where it is not what you think. But I am sure those are just "exceptions". the excuse when something ruins your argument.
    By your thinking, a mafia hitman or abusive dictator that kills arbitrarily in isolated pocketed violation of the law against murder and gets away with it for a time somehow "redefines" the word "murder" to narrow its scope.

    Marriage was created 12,000 years ago just before the agricultural revolution to be "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" and remains simply that to this day.

    Nothing else is "marriage", obviously.

    It really is that simple.

    No amount of oxymoronic mantra chanting will change that forever standing reality.

    You need a new word here.

    I have suggested "hommariage", a win-win for both sides that respects definitive propriety and gets SS copules' domestic partner civil unions so-named recognized by government and private enterprise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You should probably read the decisions before commenting on them. You are pretty much entirely wrong in what they ruled.
    I did read them .. and my presentation is accurate.

    Assuming you read them too, it obviously takes more than just a reading to be able to grasp the obvious reality as I presented it -- it takes a discarding of pre-conceived ideology that so greatly dumbs one down.
    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?

  4. #884
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Then they don't show up to vote in state elections, so essentially they don't count, their opinion doesn't matter, never has. Until that happens it's still going to be true that the majority of the states have a majority of voters that are anti-SSM. That hasn't changed.
    This is not entirely accurate. Firstly, majority support for SSM is only recent... the last few years. Secondly, that does not mean that it has majority support in every state. As would be obvious, there are still many states where it is not supported.
    "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. #885
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    None of this is based in reality since the majority of Americans support SSM, a percentage that has been near continuously rising for over 15 years. And, since we know that younger people tend to support SSM more strongly, this number will only rise. Fact and logic prove you wrong, of course.
    You continue to wax oppositionally defiant of every accurate presentation I make. I wonder why ...

    Americans support SS couples' domestic partner civil unions being recognized by government and private enterprise.

    But they do not in the majority support the use of the word "marriage" to apply to those relationships.

    If that was the case, more than a handful of states would have statutes declaring the oxymoronic SSM .. but, they don't.

    When the facts, all the facts, are told the people, the facts that I have presented, people respond differently than to the comparatively meaningless poll questions they're stuck with.
    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?

  6. #886
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,126

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    But, in reality, you'll simply not be married.
    You are entitled to your opinion.

    And if it were all to be reversed, then fine. That isn't within my control. I'm content just to form the best relationship I can and live my day to day life as best I can. I am not bothered by the opinions of those who would seek to belittle my relationship without even knowing me or my partner. Those opinions say more about the people who hold them than they do about me. I'm interested in doing what I feel is best for the country and the culture and I think same sex marriage is a step in the right direction. I respect that people disagree because they are hesitant to change what they see as how it has always been, but progress is inevitable and I think marriage will be stronger as result of the inclusion of same sex couples.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  7. #887
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    1.)You still have a problem with "lies", using it in a manner few adults actually would, and undoubtedly stemming from your problematic recognition of fact. Your failure to recognize Fact, does not constitute my own lie.

    2) The statements I've made in other posts, or in other threads, are entirely irrelevant to what I said in that specific post in response to you, which is gave you a direct link to post #770, the relevant post, where I did my Carnac routine, stated noting whatsoever about people coming from heterosexual relationships.. The fact is your claim is wrong and irrelevant to my post.




    3.)No, its not 100% false. It is, in fact, 100% correct. Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships, even those that are using in vitro fertilization, are relying on heterosexual reproduction, a sperm and an egg, and that is heterosexually based, with the egg/ovum being called in ancient Greek, gamete γαμετή for "wife" , the sperm being recognized by the term "gametes", ancient Greek gametes γαμέτης for "husband". There's no getting around the fact, and you're wrong.




    4.)See above.

    5.)You haven't proven a thing, except your penchant to offer your own unfounded ramblings as truth, and your failed understanding to accuse lying.




    6.)As shown in the link #770 above, I was referencing heterosexual relationships, not marriage, which shows your statement wrong, and your claim that I lost wrong.




    Yes, and I want to thank you for proving, through your ignorance, the the definition and recognition of marriage comes form the fact that people can procreate outside of marriage, or any relationship at all, and this is why societies the world over, throughout mankind's history, have invariably recognized marriage to be a man and woman.

    You can keep trying to spin, but your misrepresentations of fact, and this conversation, won't change either.
    1.) nice deflection and failed insult, fact remains you still lied
    2.) again nice try nobody honest is buying it lol
    3.) 100% false this fact will never change
    nice try at a back pedal and reframing though but your statement, this statement "Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships" is 100% false. SOrry
    4.) I agree see above
    5.) you are welcome to this false opinion but its proven wrong
    6.) again your statement is meaningless to the facts and your false claim
    7.) already proven false but keep saying it maybe somebody uneducated enough will believe it

    its funny you think any of this will work lol

    I AGAIN ask you "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

  8. #888
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,126

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Every single American should be greatly alarmed by this. Just as the emancipation of blacks from slavery was used to violate real rights and impose utopian dictate, so too will this be used to dictate even more intrusive terms, and annul individual rights.
    Wow...paranoid much? It is one thing to blame gays for undermining the moral fabric of society, but now we get part of the blame for the destruction of individual rights? I really need to get a copy of the Gay Agenda! How are we doing all this nefarious stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  9. #889
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    This is false. Every single person is not the result of a heterosexual "relationship". Many people are the result of an opposite sex booty call. Some are the result of some sperm being donated to a woman for her to get pregnant by. Some are the result of a rape. Some are the result of an egg being donated for use in conjunction with sperm and a surrogate mother in order to make a baby. "Relationship" generally implies much more than any of these things.

    And none of this has anything to do with marriage. Children are not required for marriage. And blood relation is not required to raise a child well.
    ding ding ding

    we have a winner somebody that understands facts and reality

    something tells me these facts will go ignored or a but but but is coming
    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. #890
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

    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.
    did i call it or did i call it

    reframing, deflection and moving the goal post

    classic back pedal
    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
  •