Page 97 of 159 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107147 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 970 of 1585

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

  1. #961
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    It would seem a statement of fact in need of no external support.

    Any familiarity at all with the positions regarding gay marriage, should recognize that quite a number of those persons who defend the institution of marriage, have no desire to withhold similar recognition to gays under some other name than marriage, myself included.

    This is a reasonable expectation of logic and statistics: by expanding the parameters of a consideration to make them less stringent, it is anticipated under a normal distribution that a greater number of people would be included in those expanded parameters.
    I just posted stats that prove you wrong. Ontologuy posted them also (unintentionally I'm sure) and Redress also posted them. Let's see if you have the integrity to admit that you are incorrect.
    "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"

  2. #962
    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
    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.

    Take it up with Alito.


    Alito (p. 74)

    "While modern cultural changes have weakened the link between marriage and procreation in the popular mind, there is no doubt that, throughout human history and across many cultures, marriage has been viewed as an exclusively opposite-sex institution and as one inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.

    The other, newer view is what I will call the "consentbased" vision of marriage, a vision that primarily defines marriage as the solemnization of mutual commitment--marked by strong emotional attachment and sexual attraction--between two persons."


    Strange, Alito is recognizing marriage as it has existed in this country by the same terms I do: "throughout human history" and "across many cultures", "inextricably linked to procreation" and "biology(ical) kinship".

    The conspicuous thing about that "newer view" of marriage is that nowhere in that definition does it offer any benefit to cause society, much less societies "throughout human history", to recognize that union, as it provides no such procreation nor biological kinship, nor does it promote and populate society!

    The fact is that the Constitution speaks on neither recognition, nor does it give any authority to the Court to dictate either. However the Congress is entirely within its authority to legislate the terms of federal statute regarding marriage... making DOMA entirely constitutional.

    Notice that nowhere in the Court opinion, not even the majority opinion, do they argue about "requirement to procreate".

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

    ~ James Madison

  3. #963
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Take it up with Alito.


    Alito (p. 74)

    "While modern cultural changes have weakened the link between marriage and procreation in the popular mind, there is no doubt that, throughout human history and across many cultures, marriage has been viewed as an exclusively opposite-sex institution and as one inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.

    The other, newer view is what I will call the "consentbased" vision of marriage, a vision that primarily defines marriage as the solemnization of mutual commitment--marked by strong emotional attachment and sexual attraction--between two persons."


    Strange, Alito is recognizing marriage as it has existed in this country by the same terms I do: "throughout human history" and "across many cultures", "inextricably linked to procreation" and "biology(ical) kinship".

    The conspicuous thing about that "newer view" of marriage is that nowhere in that definition does it offer any benefit to cause society, much less societies "throughout human history", to recognize that union, as it provides no such procreation nor biological kinship, nor does it promote and populate society!

    The fact is that the Constitution speaks on neither recognition, nor does it give any authority to the Court to dictate either. However the Congress is entirely within its authority to legislate the terms of federal statute regarding marriage... making DOMA entirely constitutional.

    Notice that nowhere in the Court opinion, not even the majority opinion, do they argue about "requirement to procreate".
    No, I think I'll just stick with the decision that was rendered today. The dissenting opinion really doesn't interest me. It's a mere footnote.

    Oh, and the requirement to procreate is my argument with you, refuting your entire position. Btw... did you ever find any of that evidence that shows that there is a requirement to procreate in any marriage license paperwork? I asked you for it to prove your position, but I haven't seen it. Feel free to post it when you are ready.
    "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. #964
    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
    I just posted stats that prove you wrong. Ontologuy posted them also (unintentionally I'm sure) and Redress also posted them. Let's see if you have the integrity to admit that you are incorrect.

    Uh, no, what you posted is data that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

    You really don't grasp statistics and groupings, do you?

    The choices on that question made the "stats" irrelevant to this discussion. People were given a choice, as in an ideal choice, between marriage, civil unions, no legal recognition and unsure.

    The respondents were NOT asked what they were willing to accept as reasonable. The normal distribution of these, under a question of what they were willing to accept, would likely indicate that many who were were split between marriage, and no legal recognition, might find common ground under some variation of civil unions, thereby increasing the numbers that Ontologuy suggested.

    While some gay marriage proponents may be unwilling to accept civil unions, it is very likely that these numbers would be far more than compensated by those who previously indicated no legal recognition but would be willing to recognize civil unions.

    At this point things are bound in irreconcilable differences between those who demand the false equivalence of gay marriage, and those who refuse that false equivalence.

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

    ~ James Madison

  5. #965
    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
    No, I think I'll just stick with the decision that was rendered today. The dissenting opinion really doesn't interest me. It's a mere footnote.

    Oh, and the requirement to procreate is my argument with you, refuting your entire position. Btw... did you ever find any of that evidence that shows that there is a requirement to procreate in any marriage license paperwork? I asked you for it to prove your position, but I haven't seen it. Feel free to post it when you are ready.

    The decision that was rendered today, does not give you gay marriage, and does not have any legitimacy to it to do so, even as recognized by legal scholars.

    Furthermore that case was a corrupt set-up arranged by the Obama Justice Dept and the appellant, to take a case that was already resolved, and give the court a chance to dictate society. I suspect that at least 4 members of the Court were complicit in this.


    This corrupt court hearing is cause for Americans to take up arms, even as recognized by Scalia's discussion of the deliberate corruption of Constitutional principle, and the collusion. It's not a good thing to push unless you're eager to see Americans fighting in the streets against a corrupt and tyrannous government.

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

    ~ James Madison

  6. #966
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Uh, no, what you posted is data that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

    You really don't grasp statistics and groupings, do you?

    The choices on that question made the "stats" irrelevant to this discussion. People were given a choice, as in an ideal choice, between marriage, civil unions, no legal recognition and unsure.

    The respondents were NOT asked what they were willing to accept as reasonable. The normal distribution of these, under a question of what they were willing to accept, would likely indicate that many who were were split between marriage, and no legal recognition, might find common ground under some variation of civil unions, thereby increasing the numbers that Ontologuy suggested.

    While some gay marriage proponents may be unwilling to accept civil unions, it is very likely that these numbers would be far more than compensated by those who previously indicated no legal recognition but would be willing to recognize civil unions.

    At this point things are bound in irreconcilable differences between those who demand the false equivalence of gay marriage, and those who refuse that false equivalence.
    I figured you wouldn't have the integrity to admit that you were correct, though I did have hope. No, it seems that you have no idea how to read statistics and all you are doing is distorting the results because you don't like what these results were. The question that people were asked was completely appropriate and one that would yield methodologically accurate results. People who were willing to accept civil unions as reasonable, did so. People who wanted nothing to do with SS partnerships, voted "no recognition. Since we know that stats nowadays when the question is either for SS partnerships or against turns out to be around 53%-47%, we can see by the stats that I presented that when offered the CHOICE between marriage or civil unions, some folks who would vote "no" will switch their vote, probably to civil unions. That is evidenced by the fact that the percentage of "no" votes goes DOWN. Your interpretation is not only wrong, but it is the OPPOSITE of what has occurred.

    What this continues to prove is that those on your side of the issue will distort facts rather than admitting when they are wrong.
    "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. #967
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    The decision that was rendered today, does not give you gay marriage, and does not have any legitimacy to it to do so, even as recognized by legal scholars.

    Furthermore that case was a corrupt set-up arranged by the Obama Justice Dept and the appellant, to take a case that was already resolved, and give the court a chance to dictate society. I suspect that at least 4 members of the Court were complicit in this.


    This corrupt court hearing is cause for Americans to take up arms, even as recognized by Scalia's discussion of the deliberate corruption of Constitutional principle, and the collusion. It's not a good thing to push unless you're eager to see Americans fighting in the streets against a corrupt and tyrannous government.
    More whining and crying by someone proven wrong and unwilling to accept that after all his claims, his claims turned out be incorrect. The Constitution was upheld today. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the facts of what happened. No matter how much you complain, you will be unable to avoid this simple fact.

    Oh, and I notice that you STILL have refused to demonstrate how procreation is found to be required anywhere in marriage licensing. Are you conceding or just running from this point?
    "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. #968
    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
    I figured you wouldn't have the integrity to admit that you were correct, though I did have hope.

    What this continues to prove is that those on your side of the issue will distort facts rather than admitting when they are wrong.
    I have a graduate degree in stats from Wharton. And I admit that I am correct.



    You however, have not answered my question:If the Federal government does not have authority to write legislation and terms only applicable to the actions of the federal government itself, then who does?


    The only answer to that rhetorical question, is that the federal government obviously does have the authority to legislate marriage within the federal government's recognition.

    And the equal recognition by the federal government is in no way covered by the majority's claim of "due process".

    Gay rights were not violated in any way. There is no such "right" by anyone to have the federal government recognize them and legislate favorably for them, and particularly not when they are fabricating a definition of marriage that was not recognized "throughout human history" and "across many cultures".

    Rights don't work that way.

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

    ~ James Madison

  9. #969
    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
    Oh, and I notice that you STILL have refused to demonstrate how procreation is found to be required anywhere in marriage licensing.
    I still have yet to figure out whether you're actually that objectionable, slow, addled or dishonest.

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

    ~ James Madison

  10. #970
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    I have a graduate degree in stats from Wharton. And I admit that I am correct.
    And I've tutored in both statistics and research methods, along with conducting my own studies using and analyzing statistics. So I admit that you are wrong.

    I'm not big on the presentation of credentials. Pretty boring and pointless.



    You however, have not answered my question:If the Federal government does not have authority to write legislation and terms only applicable to the actions of the federal government itself, then who does?


    The only answer to that rhetorical question, is that the federal government obviously does have the authority to legislate marriage within the federal government's recognition.

    And the equal recognition by the federal government is in no way covered by the majority's claim of "due process".

    Gay rights were not violated in any way. There is no such "right" by anyone to have the federal government recognize them and legislate favorably for them, and particularly not when they are fabricating a definition of marriage that was not recognized "throughout human history" and "across many cultures".

    Rights don't work that way.
    You have STILL not responded to my question/challenge... one I have posted several times already. If you would like me to address your question, address mine. Please provide any evidence that procreation is listed as a requirement on any marriage licensing paperwork. Links are required.
    "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
  •