Page 58 of 116 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068108 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 1157

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

  1. #571
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    OMG, read the damn thread... its not like I have not answered this more than a couple of times.
    translation: another question you cant and have never answered
    lol no need to get upset that you cant defend you failed claim

    can you give an answer that is accurate and factual or not?
    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

  2. #572
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by blarg View Post
    trees cant agree to it its been mentioned all ready stop playing ( hope its playing ) dumb
    Your posts are becoming increasingly annoyingly vapid. What is the state's legitimate interest in stopping a person's marriage to a tree if nobody [ a tree isn't somebody ] is injured/harmed? You folks want to use this one size fits all tool, so we can use it legitimately back against you.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #573
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    When marriage becomes a farce nobody will marry any longer... who would want to be part of a joke? Without marriage among heterosexuals you have rising poverty rates among single parents and children, besides which they do not get the benefit of training, parenting and a critical understanding of both sexes growing up. Kinda like learning math with only addition and no subtraction.
    What dream world are you living in?

    Most of the states that have legalized same sex marriage have the lowest divorce rates in the country. And they have a higher median age for first marriage, meaning people are marrying more responsibly (at older ages when they are actually able to maintain responsible relationships).

    Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

    Now, marriage rates have been steadily declining since long before the issue of same sex marriage came up, even before Mass. legalized it. But there is no significant difference in that drop between states that have legalized same sex marriage, including even Mass. and states that still have bans in place.

    And same sex couples have been raising children for generations and no parents raise children in a vacuum. Raising children also has very little to do with marriage but rather with stability of the relationship. Marriage helps the parents be more stable, despite their relative genders, and this in turn aids the children. But marriage itself is for the adults, not the children.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #574
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Your posts are becoming increasingly annoyingly vapid. What is the state's legitimate interest in stopping a person's marriage to a tree if nobody [ a tree isn't somebody ] is injured/harmed? You folks want to use this one size fits all tool, so we can use it legitimately back against you.
    Wow
    lets just ignore facts and laws and peoples rights

    your argument fails again since PERSONS enter into contracts.

    Your post Fails again
    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

  5. #575
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The culture of the South was still a culture of the US. Denying that means that you do not even recognize that the same thing is happening today, acceptance of same sex marriage is pretty much a done-deal in much of the Northeast and on the West coast and even within most major cities throughout the country. Opposition to same sex marriage is only a cultural majority right now in the South, Midwest, Rocky-Mountain areas, and in general rural areas.

    As for the interracial marriage thing, here you go.

    Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s *Pensito Review

    "In 1968, the year after the “activist” Supremes legalized interracial marriage in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, a Gallup poll found that the vast majority of Americans still opposed the idea that blacks and whites could marry — 72 percent to 20 percent. Just 10 20 years earlier, in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision that overturned newly minted anti-interracial marriage laws in the state, Gallup found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages."

    You cannot show harm done or even potential harm from same sex marriages. Until you can, you have nothing legally speaking.
    The south was not THE culture of the United States, and to try to squirm your point in there based on your premise, thanks but no thanks. States, regions and the country have a right to establish their own cultures. When we agreed to Federal Union, the states agreed to that based on a contract [ see the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ] that stipulated that the Federal government was limited to what was enumerated in the Constitution as well as a minimal application of those implied powers, only to carry out those powers enumerated. The Federal government have far overstepped, is in breach of this agreement, and is continuing to heap insult upon injury.

    Well, thanks for supplying a liberal source with which to "substantiate" your views. I didn't ask for that, but thanks anyhow. I said that segregation was not a majority view in any event. Yet I would still maintain that if we the people did not want interracial marriage as a part of our culture, the sovereigns will, whether you or I agree or not, should be the rule. That is up to the states individually to decide, and if you don't like how a state does it, move to a state where things are more to your liking.

    You can try to force it and forcing it sometimes works, perhaps in this case. Or you can try to force it and forcing it doesn't work until the people come around, are ready and have been persuaded [ i.e., the Civil War force and the people not coming around and segregation ending until almost 100 years later ]. If the people truly are not ready or truly do not want what you are trying to force it down our throats, its not gonna happen

    You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Trees cannot sign contracts, they are not US citizens, they cannot communicate with humans. Laws apply to humans, not animals, plants, or inanimate objects. When a tree itself can legally sue someone, claim property rights, or be protected by the US Constitution, then we can talk.
    Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.

    Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?

    How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 03-26-14 at 03:46 PM.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  6. #576
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You appear to have a problem with liberals and separating your personal ideology with the individual issues and who stands where on those issues. We do not all fit into perfect little labels. Most people don't in fact. Most people have at least one issue they would easily fit on the other side with when it comes to politics and their personal political view overall. Many conservatives/Republicans are in fact supporting same sex marriage.
    Thanks for the attempt at "educating" me on life, but been around a bit longer than you and have seen more of it, studied more of it than you. I am sure there are plenty of liberals who, on this issue, do not agree with SSM. Hell, I know gay people who are not for it. So, whats your point?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #577
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The 9th and 10th support me. The rights belong to the individual citizens and the states and the states have been limited by the 14th in favor of the individual's rights.

    I provided you the information needed. You refuse to accept it. You refuse to learn how the laws of the US and the Constitution, or even the SCOTUS works.
    Only equal protection, which is in no way an enforcement of equality as you see it.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #578
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    The south was not THE culture of the United States, and to try to squirm your point in there based on your premise, thanks but no thanks. States, regions and the country have a right to establish their own cultures. When we agreed to Federal Union, the states agreed to that based on a contract [ see the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ] that stipulated that the Federal government was limited to what was enumerated in the Constitution as well as a minimal application of those implied powers, only to carry out those powers enumerated. The Federal government have far overstepped, is in breach of this agreement, and is continuing to heap insult upon injury.

    Well, thanks for supplying a liberal source with which to "substantiate" your views. I didn't ask for that, but thanks anyhow. I said that segregation was not a majority view in any event. Yet I would still maintain that if we the people did not want interracial marriage as a part of our culture, the sovereigns will, whether you or I agree or not, should be the rule. That is up to the states individually to decide, and if you don't like how a state does it, move to a state where things are more to your liking.

    You can try to force it and forcing it sometimes works, perhaps in this case. Or you can try to force it and forcing it doesn't work until the people come around, are ready and have been persuaded [ i.e., the Civil War force and the people not coming around and segregation ending until almost 100 years later ]. If the people truly are not ready or truly do not want what you are trying to force it down our throats, its not gonna happen

    You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.

    Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.

    Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?

    How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.
    There is no "main" culture of the US. Unless you count the "freedom and justice for all" mentality. (If you think differently, prove it.)

    I never said segregation was viewed as right by a majority. Try to keep up with what is actually claimed. I said that opposition to interracial marriages was strong across the country even after the Loving decision. And I proved it. There is way more support across the country for same sex marriage right now then there was for interracial marriages when the Loving decision came down.

    I'm not forcing anything. I'm telling it how it is and how the law works and where your position stands in relation to reality, on this issue and similar issues.

    It is not all about harm. It is about state interest. There is no state interest in giving trees legal rights.

    Laws can only be challenged by those with standing and who are able to do so, even if someone else must become their proxy. And their being challenged is what is necessary for them to be changed by courts. So when a tree or animal or inanimate object is able to challenge a law, then they can have some consideration. Til then, lets discuss the actual issue same sex marriage instead of stupid irrelevant cases that may or may not come up in the future, but still would not have to do with same sex marriage being legal, but rather their own arguments for and against.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #579
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The state sanctions my current marriage and if me or my husband were to change our sex, legally, any state that recognized that new sex would also in fact still sanction that new same sex marriage (which is another major thing that proves that sex/gender matters not for any marriage).

    It isn't the same sex marriage supporters that have to show legitimate interest in wanting same sex couples to be allowed to marry, it is the state that must show legitimate state interest in not allowing them to. Again, go study a little more about our laws and specifically how constitutional law works.
    Yeah, based on that, just how screwed up and far are you folks on the left gonna take these things...? Showing your hand now... this is getting to the point of circus level bizzarly absurd.

    See what 40 years of an onslaught against reason has done? Made a total muddle and waste of otherwise good brains, brains that should be striving towards uplifting America, not taking us down.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  10. #580
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Only equal protection, which is in no way an enforcement of equality as you see it.
    Equal protection means being able to have access to the same sort of contracts others do without regard to protected characteristics, such as race, religion, and even sex/gender.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

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