Page 12 of 116 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 1157

Thread: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    That is incorrect...because governmental authority over marriage already exists.

    The degree of that authority would propotional over all married couples. Not one degree of authority over one lawful group versus separate and different degree of authority over another lawful group.

    Authority over married couples is an irrelevant arguement.
    Yes, the authority already exists, and that is why I said people support expanding that authority to another group of individuals. As I said, if people actually supported liberty they would not support government authority in any marriage.

  2. #112
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    12-14-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    997

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    I guess that is what you are advocating, when it comes right down to it, huh?
    I'm not the one getting upset about a federal judge's ruling.
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  3. #113
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie Loucks View Post
    I'm not the one getting upset about a federal judge's ruling.
    sometimes people get very upset when other peoples rights are protected, its simply because they are the wrong "other people"
    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. #114
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    ummmmm... it was the claim that these thing are not going anywhere ... that is what I was commenting on... we got rid of slavery just like we will the enslavement of this new forced, against our, the majority's, will "health care" plan you say is here for the long run.

    We square on that now, are we?
    I see...so we can extrapolate the short term current effects from the long term historical culture of slavery.

    I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Considering that happened centuries ago, yeah, I was born after that took place. Oh, you mean in the US. Well no, I was born before that took place. I'm not sure how that pushes forward your argument though. Tell me, why can't I be against government marriage again? Is there some sort of reason I have to follow the thoughts of those that came before me?
    Oh you can be against government marriage just be honest about it. People like yourself didn't care about government being involved in marriage UNTIL gays started to get married.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Oh you can be against government marriage just be honest about it. People like yourself didn't care about government being involved in marriage UNTIL gays started to get married.
    When the gay marriage issue started I was pretty young and wasn't even thinking about the marriage issue. Hell, I didn't even know anything about it back then.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    I see...so we can extrapolate the short term current effects from the long term historical culture of slavery.

    I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.
    Gay marriage is just about the only issue people desire more freedom, and even there it's mostly bull****.

  8. #118
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your projected ignorance of the matter is simply that.

    Calling something a "gender-based" issue does not in any way make the issue subject to the equal protection clause.

    The issue itself must be truly gender-based. This issue is not gender based.

    Both the male and female genders have every right to be married, thus there is no gender discrimination in the matter.

    That marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife is constitutionally acceptable, allowing both genders to participate, without bias.

    Your erroneous application of gender-based would allow a woman to enter the men's locker room, strip, and take a show with the men, against gym rules .. or vice versa. For the sake of social propriety, there is nothing in the constitution that forbids the gym from creating these rules, banning any member who violates them.

    If a woman/man who enters the opposite gender shower finds another of the opposite sex there who doesn't mind, or in fact encourages it, in no way constitutes a valid constitutional appeal to the gym's rule; just because a relative few are okay with the violation does in no way validate the violation, much less make the matter a "gender-based" issue.
    This logic was rejected along with interracial marriage bans. Your argument, stated simply, is "everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender." Previously it was "everyone has the same right to marry someone of the same race."

    And for the 900th time, no, equal protection is not universal. Your gym example is wrong. Protecting the privacy of an individual is a state interest and separate wash facilities further that interest.
    That you lament my accurate dog/cat analogy is because again, it is an accurate commonly understood presentation that illustrates the oxymoronic "gay-marriage" violation of both definitive and social propriety, which, of course, flies in the face of your erroneous take on the matter.
    Your dog/cat analogy is erroneous, clearly, because dogs aren't humans.

    Your concern of understanding "equal protection" is not at issue here.

    What's at issue here is grasping when application of "equal protection" is not appropriate .. or, in your case, contrived for the sake of ideological gain at the expense of both definitive and social propriety.

    Your attempt to apply the equal protection clause via appeal to "gender based" is rightly rejected.
    It is appropriate. Your attempt to dismiss it is clearly erroneous. A gender-based distinction is being made that furthers no state interest whatsoever.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #119
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Under what law, concept or rule will society end up stopping anybody, or multiples of of anybodies, from marrying anything, or multiples of things, if we erase the traditional lines?
    Slippery slope fallacy. Pathetic.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #120
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    re: Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Slippery slope fallacy. Pathetic.
    It's not even a legitimate slippery slope, as the other things do not really connect to the issue at hand even a little.

Posting Permissions

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