Page 47 of 89 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 882

Thread: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

  1. #461
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And that last link shows the origins of marriage. It did not involve religion. For many thousands of years, it did not involve religion. Religion became involved where religion was basically involved in the everyday lives of the members of the society. But not all societies had this major interference of their religion. And even some that did, left marriage as a family affair, that had no need for religious involvement.
    I clearly stated that marriage was spiritual/religious - spiritualism is religion and religion is spiritualism - marriage is the result to two individuals (without question man and woman) with the same spiritual or cult/religious beliefs... But like I said there were times where marriage was used as a union to bond families and empires...

    Marriage is a very interesting subject but the way the peons use the concept today as a political tool takes all the interesting out of the idea...

    Marriage to my generation is politics and nothing else.

  2. #462
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yes it is, see Loving v Virginia (1967), but, as usual, the SCOTUS ruling was quite narrow and did not say that any two consenting adults could marry, only that racial difference could not prevent one man from marrying one woman.
    Yup (from Chief Justice Warren's opinion):

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


  3. #463
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I clearly stated that marriage was spiritual/religious - spiritualism is religion and religion is spiritualism - marriage is the result to two individuals (without question man and woman) with the same spiritual or cult/religious beliefs... But like I said there were times where marriage was used as a union to bond families and empires...

    Marriage is a very interesting subject but the way the peons use the concept today as a political tool takes all the interesting out of the idea...

    Marriage to my generation is politics and nothing else.
    Except that isn't what it started as. It was merely pair bonding in order to raise children with a higher chance of survival. That is what it started out as. And it wasn't even permanent. It was a temporary arrangement for the first few years of a child's life, to ensure they reached a more survivable age. Then it became more longterm when more people were needed to work the farms. Still, was about practicality, not spirituality nor religion.
    "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. #464
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yes it is, see Loving v Virginia (1967), but, as usual, the SCOTUS ruling was quite narrow and did not say that any two consenting adults could marry, only that racial difference could not prevent one man from marrying one woman.
    Really?

    And see the numerous SCOTUS' that sought to ban or limit every Amendment 1-10..... Not to mention Loving V Virginia deals with blacks and whites and NOT GAYS - GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT BLACK...

    Do you not realize that legally that blacks have been ILLEGALLY been discriminated against since the Bill of Rights was ratified????

    Seriously, quit using illogical pseudo legislation to make an argument..... You may as well attempt to argue a mouse with an ear attached to its back has the same rights as a man because the ear could be surgically implanted on a man.....

  5. #465
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    1.)No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.
    2.) Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.
    3.)Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.
    4.)Your Opinions are meaningless.
    5.) Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?
    6.) You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.
    7.) You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.
    1.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
    2.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
    3.) you dont have to apologize for your meanignless opinions you are free to have them
    4.) i havent given any only facts
    5.) this is the second most fastest way to not have a argument taken seriously, anytime somebody blames activist judges and there's 60+ of them (30+ federal) nobody honest and educated will take your argument seriously. Theres no reason to because it instantly proves how dishonest and full of hyperbole it is LMAO
    The first way is comparing equal rights to bestiality and pedophilia.
    6.) correct cause im straight but gays are 60+ judges agree on this
    7.) exactly this is why nobody cares about your opinions, especially the fed who are protecting peoples rights

    you can keep trying to deny people rights though but your side is losing and losing big.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 05-21-14 at 07:54 PM.
    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

  6. #466
    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: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    No, actually, they didn't define it as "the most basic of human rights". They defined it as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival".

    I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival.
    Hon, the most basic of civil rights.....is a human right protected by law.

    First you argued that "it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement."

    Now you cite Loving where it is shown that "marriage is the most basic of civil rights"

    So you should be able to see that the civil rights movement, the fight for basic human rights protected by law....is not that far away from gay marriage rights.....especially when Loving is cited in Judge Walker's decision.

    But no, instead you decide to distract with "I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival."

    So I would say....yes, you are done, by default.
    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.

  7. #467
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
    2.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
    3.) you dont have to apologize for your meanignless opinions you are free to have them
    4.) i havent given any only facts
    5.) this is the second most fastest way to not have a argument taken seriously, anytime somebody blames activist judges and there's 60+ of them (30+ federal) nobody honest and educated will take your argument seriously. Theres no reason to because it instantly proves how dishonest and full of hyperbole it is LMAO
    The first way is comparing equal rights to bestiality and pedophilia.
    6.) coorect cause im straight but gays are 60+ judges agree on this
    7.) exactly this is why nobody cares about your opinions, especially the fed who are protecting peoples rights

    you can keep trying to deny people tights though but your side is losing and losing big.
    Denying people tights?

  8. #468
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Denying people tights?
    He does that....
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  9. #469
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Except that isn't what it started as. It was merely pair bonding in order to raise children with a higher chance of survival. That is what it started out as. And it wasn't even permanent. It was a temporary arrangement for the first few years of a child's life, to ensure they reached a more survivable age. Then it became more longterm when more people were needed to work the farms. Still, was about practicality, not spirituality nor religion.
    Really?

    So you're arguing survival of the fittest??

    Then why don't stray cats or dogs get married?

    Oh yeah because everything you just said makes no damn sense whatsoever.

    Also, you may as well argue against selective breeding to boot.

  10. #470
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    You call them discriminators when it was you that redefined marriage for them and now you are going to squawk about making all civil unions? That's choice. It is what you support that has brought about accommodation laws that force people to violate their own conscience to make a friggin living due to redefining marriage. So no, civil unions would end the conflict and protect the 1st amendment rights of all. Eventually people will come to realize it.

    I'm sorry Vesper, if you think "Civil Unions" are going to fix the issue of Public Accommodation laws - you are mistaken.

    Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Oregon, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

    Elane Photography (New Mexico) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in New Mexico, the photographer ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

    Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Colorado, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.


    Even if the State offers "Civil Unions" individuals are still free to call their ceremony a wedding and, under the laws in such states, would be in violation of the law for not providing full and equal services.


    >>>>

Page 47 of 89 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •