Page 75 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 1157

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

  1. #741
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Want to place some money on it? Say, a forum donation of an amount of your choosing?
    I'd like to get in on this.

  2. #742
    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 Deuce View Post
    All four ballot measures in the 2012 election went to the marriage equality side. Were you out of the country?
    Good for you, so that is your definition of the majority in the country is it? Or the majority of states... maybe? No, that cannot be it either... perhaps the majority in your mind? Yeah, now I get it.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #743
    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
    None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

    There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be untrue to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accomodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.

    Yes indeed, these totalitarian stage liberals probably would kill homosexuals, another reason for homosexuals not to bite the hand of all that treat them so well.

    Show me the votes, actual votes, where the majority of the country is on your side. Not polls conducted by who knows who, what the actual questions were, who they were choosing to poll, etc... How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ]. If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
    There is a necessity to treat the "non-norm" equally in our society. That is in fact part of our very reason for existing, so that the non-norms have the same rights as the norms.

    What you mention are not government things, where the government treats the "non-norms" unequally. In fact, the government many times insists that non-norms must be treated equally to the greatest degree possible. They have left-handed desks in public schools. Those students identified as "higher intelligence" are in fact recognized as such by schools and given work for them, pushed ahead in grades in fact to accommodate that higher intelligence. Treating them equally would not mean going the entire opposite way and forcing others to act differently. It involves recognizing the difference and doing things within reason to treat them as we treat the "norms".

    When you go to extremes, you show your heavy bias. The liberals are not the ones today who are killing homosexuals. That would be the conservative societies. Our society, as it is, is not likely in any way to start killing off homosexuals.

    You aren't going to accept anything I give you. Polls are what we have to show public opinion. Unless we made voting compulsory within our nation, then you would not be getting a full view of the issue and where people stand. This is even more true given that votes, particularly on this issue are taken so infrequently, years, even decades apart. And I've already given earlier the fact that pushing votes as more people come to support same sex marriage is a much longer and more difficult process than simply going through the courts, as is a right of citizens. But then even votes are showing that same sex marriage has more and more support. It is no more reasonable to vote by state on this issue and leave it than it is to vote on the rights of redheads or Methodists or interfaith couples or brown-eyed to blue-eyed marriages. The law would still treat people unequally based on characteristics that have nothing to do with the legal operation of marriage. No state interests are furthered by those restrictions.

    And you still failed to answer the question. You sidestepped (as usual). You contradicted yourself. You said that you had the majority, then when I said you didn't, you said that it didn't matter if you were in the minority, then backtracked again to say that you were in the majority and that gave you the right to make restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.

    Individual citizens get equal protection under the law, not states. States would only get equal protection in regards to federal laws that affect states. States are the government that the 14th and the EPC was meant to limit in favor of the individual rights.
    "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. #744
    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
    You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.

    Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt. If they were happy type people before, they will be after. If not a happy person, they will probably remain unhappy.

    Go back and reread the posts. The majority assertion was in number of states with same sex bans/definitions of marriage being traditional, 34-16, and with the pew poll coming in at 46% opposed to SSM and 45% agreeing---with an article from pew itself indicating that polling understates opposition to SSM by about 5 to 7% I think the article says. Talk about faulty, you really should be able to read, comprehend and remember a bit better than that for your age.
    No one is being treated equally here. That is what you fail to see. Along with the fact that everyone would increase their rights when same sex marriage bans are struck down/gone. Every single person. Everyone would have the ability to marry either a person of the same or opposite sex. Including yourself. Just because you don't want to pursue that particular type of marriage, does not mean that you wouldn't have that right. The same way that removing interracial marriage bans gave everyone the right to marry outside their race, even those who never wish to pursue that right.

    You still have no clue what legitimate state interest is about. The default position for laws within this country is that any laws that treat people unequally are automatically unconstitutional until the state can show in court that those laws further a legitimate state interest. The default position favors the rights of the individuals over the rights of states.

    They are hurt, the same way any person is hurt when laws do not allow them to do something based solely on personal beliefs of a majority rather than reason and actually doing what laws are meant to do, further state interests and protect people.

    And the majority assertion is flawed because such votes are a snapshot of one particular point in time that does not represent the actual level of support/opposition now.

    5-7% still gives the majority to same sex marriage supporters. And understanding what is being said clears up the problem. A percentage of the people (that 5-7%) don't necessarily want same sex couples to get married, but those people realize that it is not their place, nor the place of the states to restrict those couples from making that choice. That is where the discrepancy comes in and that is why it favors my side.
    "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.

  5. #745
    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 Deuce View Post
    Posting more words and fancier words does not a stronger argument make.
    You've spammed the same thing over and over and ignored or dismissed the hard questions.

    Then you've been blatantly hypocritical with this procreation thing when you don't include infertile couples, and refuse to explain why you are treating them differently than homosexual couples.

    No, what's happening is that we're all stepping down to your level of debate.
    Simply, you have ignored my counters because you just do not agree with them. You have yet to counter in any way that overcomes the ability for a society deciding for itself what its society should and, ultimately WILL, be. That does not meet with your satisfaction, but while your satisfaction is desired, it is ultimately unnecessary.

    You try to countermand We the people, I won't let you say you can do that without a fight. We the people are not going to just sit idly by while folks on your side dismantle what is left of the country, surely you are aware of that.

    Oh and...

    If you simply cannot take honest debate, just want people to agree or you want to then disparage, perhaps you might want to stop posting to me? You see, far worse than using fancy words [ which does not mean that those words have any less heft to their significance, btw ], disparaging without merit does nothing much in a debate but cast further doubt on the issuers words, at least to those watching closely and those with some sentience.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  6. #746
    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
    That my dear, is a prevarication on your part. Want to amend, or would you rather me to prove this misstatement of truth?

    Ah what the heck, might as well do it now anyhow, some of the pages/posts just from this thread wherein I posted/gave sources:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...rriage-27.html
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...rriage-28.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1063065356

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...rriage-42.html

    Lets see...
    Provide something from a valid source... not like the Marriage Equality site please... I mean, can one not tell from which side of the bias fence that would be from...any guesses...

    ...Bueller...Bueller...
    Yep, nothing. The closest you got was showing a poll from 2011 on Democrats support for same sex marriage. That was about 3 years ago, and on this issue, that is a long time with a lot of change in the direction of support.
    "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.

  7. #747
    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 1750Texan View Post
    Im not a betting man. I like sure things and SSM will be the law of the land.
    Well, bad luck to you and yours.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #748
    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
    Help me out here. Can you see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?

    And if that second paragraph is what you feel, then you agree that those who cannot procreate, as would be an impossibility of a same sex gender couple together, have no need for marriage, right?
    There is no contradiction. It is apparently simply too hard for you to understand. Some people would still get married in such a situation. The reason many wouldn't is because of a loss of hope for the future itself. Nothing says that some people do not get married for children or that there are not people that give up when they see hope for the future as lost. We would see the same type of thing happen (people no longer getting married) if the world knew that it was doomed or if there was some alien invasion that wiped out all our resources. There would simply be more important things than marriage, especially if the people had no possessions or rights even to protect. (The movie/book The Stand comes to mind here. How many of those couples who hooked up on that journey do you think would feel it was necessary to actually get married, specifically go get the marriage license? They could still have children, still had hope, but marriage simply wasn't needed at that point because there were enough possessions that people didn't need to be greedy and they were so few, that it was not necessary to make it official, as marriage does.)
    "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. #749
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Well, bad luck to you and yours.
    Bad luck?

    Belief in luck is belief in a false God...the goddess Fortuna.
    Goddess Symbols of Fortuna


  10. #750
    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
    Did all that you quote about women change them into something other than the gender they were? They were still marrying the opposite gender, men... so, marriage didn't change, women changed a bit, but they were sill women marrying men... no biggie.

    Yes, well, truthfully I have seen some of your astute analyses prior. I think I'll just comfortably wait for the real decision, thank you very much.
    Marriage changed. Just because the women didn't doesn't mean that marriage itself didn't.

    Of course, the irony is that if a man or woman gets a sex change legally in their state, their marriage does not change at all. In fact, they are (and have been for quite some time) recognized still as legally married. This was true even before DOMA went down and the federal government started recognizing same sex marriages. And people can legally change their gender in order to get married in most states. The marriage is the same one that everyone else enters into.
    "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.

Page 75 of 116 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... 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
  •