Page 43 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3341424344455393 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #421
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    It doesn't and that's why the full faith and credit clause is almost a sure failure as a constitutional back-door to forcing same-sex marriage nationally.
    Let's hope. At some point the equal protection clause needs to be applied to gay marriage in general. It seems irrational to deny gay people marriage.

    By the way, if it's any solace, I'd dump the word "marriage" from official language and use civil unions for ever qualified case. Let religions have the word "marriage" but get rid of the legal force of it. Should satisfy everybody.

  2. #422
    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: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    The desire to have children is separate from sexual orientation. Historical studies show gay men have always had children, just at a lower rate then heterosexual men. How does this promote your "argument"?
    So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.

  3. #423
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.
    Yep, people of any sexual orientation can actually have children. Que mirabile dictu! What does that biological fact have to do with sexual orientation?

  4. #424
    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: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Let's hope. At some point the equal protection clause needs to be applied to gay marriage in general. It seems irrational to deny gay people marriage.

    By the way, if it's any solace, I'd dump the word "marriage" from official language and use civil unions for ever qualified case. Let religions have the word "marriage" but get rid of the legal force of it. Should satisfy everybody.
    I agree with that. Too many of us old people consider marriage to be a fundamental social structure that's not subject to change by fashion or whim. I'd much rather "civil union" be implemented as the sanctioned unit of legal pairing. Let marriage be what it is "off the record" and let the government sanctioned version be changed to "civil union" and everyone should be satisfied.

  5. #425
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.
    You are getting pedantic since "widespread" is totally subjective.....and even though you recognize it is more "widespread" than SSM, I was never arguing that SSM was or was not "widespread".

    You skipped over the argument that polygamy was and more than likely will be argued on the basis of religious rights, not social rights.

    I just find it funny that those arguing against SSM bring up polygamy (something that was outlawed long before SSM was an issue in the US) which was recognized as assault on monogamy. Here we have SSM advocates arguing FOR monogamy and not for polygamy, while those who are against SSM bring up polygamy as being the next step......towards LESS monogamy.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #426
    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: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Yep, people of any sexual orientation can actually have children. Que mirabile dictu! What does that biological fact have to do with sexual orientation?
    They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.

  7. #427
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I agree with that. Too many of us old people consider marriage to be a fundamental social structure that's not subject to change by fashion or whim. I'd much rather "civil union" be implemented as the sanctioned unit of legal pairing. Let marriage be what it is "off the record" and let the government sanctioned version be changed to "civil union" and everyone should be satisfied.
    Well, we agree on something.

    If churches want to have any restrictions or qualifications for marriage rights, that's fine with me -- so long as they have no legal force. The only legally recognized union should be civil unions, and they should be applicable to all consenting adults.

  8. #428
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
    Or they can use a test tube

  9. #429
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
    Actually that's not true in the modern world for obvious reasons, but more to the point your premise that having intercourse with another gender is impossible to gays is false. If people want children they can do all sorts of things. What does that have to do with sexual orientation?

  10. #430
    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: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    You are getting pedantic since "widespread" is totally subjective.....and even though you recognize it is more "widespread" than SSM, I was never arguing that SSM was or was not "widespread".
    You were the one arguing that polygamy was "wide spread". I agree with you that your argument was purely subjective, which means that could never be anything but a pissing match. It make a good introduction to the point that polygamy has a much more "widespread" history than homosexual marriage, though.

    You skipped over the argument that polygamy was and more than likely will be argued on the basis of religious rights, not social rights.
    We saw how this worked with homosexual marriage.

    I just find it funny that those arguing against SSM bring up polygamy (something that was outlawed long before SSM was an issue in the US) which was recognized as assault on monogamy. Here we have SSM advocates arguing FOR monogamy and not for polygamy, while those who are against SSM bring up polygamy as being the next step......towards LESS monogamy.
    Polygamy is a more tried and true marital model than homosexual marriage. It's a no-brainer that it's going to be the next challenge once homosexuals have achieved homosexual marriage in all 50 states.

Page 43 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3341424344455393 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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