Page 15 of 53 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 524

Thread: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

  1. #141
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)Plenty compare gay bias to racism
    2.) - not to mention I really don't like you changing my posts - you have no ****ing right to do that
    3.)and if you do it again I will refuse to even acknowledge you even exist on this planet.
    4.)Understood?
    1.) yes and thats NOT what you said by any manner whatsoever.
    The racism displayed against blacks in the manner they are lessers and not deserving of equal rights is the same as the bigotry displayed against gays in the manner they are lessers and not deserving of equal rights.
    2.) your posts haven't been changed
    3.) you are free to do so but this deflection wont stop your posts from being destroyed and proved factually wrong.
    4.) see #3

    do you have anythign that can be backed up by facts that supports your claims?
    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. #142
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    1.)Then what the **** is your problem?
    2.)Oh yeah, you're a progressive and logic doesn't rationalize in your mind/.
    1.) I have no problem with sex being legal
    2.) this deflection doesnt explain why you brought the topic of legal sex in to this discussion?
    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

  3. #143
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,773

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Moderator's Warning:
    Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]Mr. Nick has been thread banned.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #144
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Do you lament that people started marrying each other for love instead of the traditional function of uniting tribes and families or to acquire wealth?
    You always had people who were marrying for love. It would be absurd to suggest it was only ever about financial or political considerations.

    po·lyg·a·my
    noun \-mē\

    : the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time
    Why are you being such a smart-ass? I have already said several times that the point is polygamy was not considered a marriage of all partners i.e. where both female partners would be married to each other, but a marriage of one partner with more than one partner. It was still legally between a man and a woman. The difference was that the man could also be legally married to another woman.

    The position against gay marriage has been about hostility to gay people, and not at all about "tradition."
    For thousands of years? Nonsense, it is just that male-female partnerships are the norm and a biological necessity, while male-male and female-female partnerships are an uncommon and unnecessary deviation from the norm.

    This is demonstrated every time people don't talk about traditional marriage being under attack (or that government needs to step out of marriage) with every divorce or every quickie Vegas marriage.
    Actually, the introduction of no-fault divorce was regarded with some controversy. Divorce was certainly not considered a very good thing a few decades ago. People have just become so accustomed to it that it is much less contentious.

    And it's demonstrated every time they couldn't care less that polygamy and different functions of marriage were abandoned for more modern approaches. We're not stupid.
    Polygamy was common, but not universal and it was not always legal. Again, history shows that it was not free of controversy both legal and social.

    Yes, bit by bit the world moved on from slavery. So? This doesn't challenge my point. Humanity had some crappy practices, we abandoned them, yay team humanity. We're not forced to do something the same way forever just because we always have.
    I am not saying we are forced to do something the same way forever. This is about changing something that has never fundamentally changed for thousands of years. Such changes occurring based on a novel reinterpretation of the law without regard for the societal perspective is the problem.

    What if everybody is wrong and you're right, is that it? Unfortunately for your position, every time same sex marriage goes to court it wins because no argument against it can be upheld. You can only use the "activist judge" routine so many times before you have to consider the very real possibility that the case against ssm simply just sucks.
    Most of these judges were appointed by Obama, most of the rest by Clinton. One was appointed by Bush, but from Tom Ridge's network and thus was more liberal, and another was appointed by Reagan but his ruling makes his political views blatantly obvious. Maybe it had something to do with his long-time friendship with a lesbian staffer or maybe he was just a representation of the more liberal attitude of Michigan Republicans. Regardless, it is fairly clear that these judges all have one thing in common: they support gay marriage personally.

    Except that every time, bans on ssm are overturned citing the the 14th amendment.
    Of course, because that's the only way they could possibly make the argument. If there were some other way they could make the argument seem plausible, they would use that as well or alternatively, in case they thought the 14th amendment argument were not plausible enough for some.

    That's different, and isn't unique to same sex couples. Nobody can be legally required to recognize ssm, just as no law can legally force me to accept Jesus into my heart regardless of Christianity being legal in all fifty states.
    Acceptance and recognition are not exactly the same. People would have to accept the change in the legal definition of marriage, even if they do not believe it is truly marriage.

    Are you married? If so, what does the advent of ssm mean for your marriage? Does it mean less to you now?
    Why do you keep making this argument? It has nothing to do with my point. Changing the meaning of marriage is invariably something that affects society as a whole. Various societal adjustments become necessary when the law of the land says this now constitutes a legal marriage. Whether it affects existing marriages is not important as it will affect society as a whole regardless. You undoubtedly think it would change society for the better, but since it is unprecedented in history what matters is that it is not a change forced on people without their consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Where did it say they weren't recognized under the law?
    I'm not holding your hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You're extrapolating to absolutes where it isn't warranted. The point isn't that intent is irrelevant, the point is that intent isn't gospel.
    Your own words betray you. If you really thought it were relevant, then you would not be using an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss talk of intent.

    You, on the other hand, are absolutely working from personal opinion and just hiding behind this "original intent" nonsense. Well, we don't have an original intent regarding same-sex marriage, or school segregation. We also don't have an original intent regarding nuclear weapons under the second amendment, or search and seizure in reference to electronic property.
    You are making the mistake of presuming there should be explicit original intent regarding things that were not even conceivable in order for original intent to have value. Gay marriage was certainly conceivable at the time of the Constitution, they just never anticipated someone might actually try to force legal recognition with it because that was not in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the amendment. Other aspects of the Constitution were meant to apply to things like nuclear weapons and electronic property even if they did not exist at the time because they are merely evolutions of existing concepts. Those sorts of things are within their legitimate jurisdiction to interpret how the Constitution would apply and other matters that are ultimately dependent on changes in science and technology. Whether gay marriage should be legally recognized or not has nothing to do with science or technology at its core. No scientific or technological advancements would require any reconsideration about the application of the Constitution and its amendments regarding the question.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #145
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    In theory - gay marriage in Illinois is no different than selling pot in Colorado - both ideas are illegal under state law - not federal. However the Tenth Amendment gives leeway to states to operate how they see fit.
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Passed by both houses on 11/5/2013
    Signed by the Governor on 11/20/2013
    Same-Sex Civil Marriages Started 6/1/2014

    Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB0010
    Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 098-0597



    Illinois General Assembly
    Public Act 098-0597

    Section 10. Equal access to marriage.
    (a) All laws of this State applicable to marriage, whether
    they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy,
    common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law, shall
    apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex
    couples and their children.



    >>>>

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Man, I worked as a paralegal and spent days in courtrooms running documents and watching cases so I know what the hell I'm talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    And thanks to Chicago 90% of Illinois is democrat controlled, and that is a non-factor in your blurb.

    You claim to be a paralegal and know what the hell you are talking about and make facutally incorrect statements about the law (that SSCM was illegal in Illinois, yet the law was passed last November).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    And thanks to Chicago 90% of Illinois is democrat controlled, and that is a non-factor in your blurb.
    Correct, the party makeup of Illinois is not factor in my "blurb". You said SSCM was illegal in Illinois and you were wrong.

    Seems like someone that claims to be a paralegal would know that something was legal before claiming it was illegal.



    >>>>

  6. #146
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    edit: Nevermind, saw mod alert.
    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.

  7. #147
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Your own words betray you. If you really thought it were relevant, then you would not be using an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss talk of intent.
    Your talk of intent is ad hominem. You are attempting to dismiss my constitutional argument based on this notion that you think I have some kind of ulterior motives.

    You are making the mistake of presuming there should be explicit original intent regarding things that were not even conceivable in order for original intent to have value. Gay marriage was certainly conceivable at the time of the Constitution, they just never anticipated someone might actually try to force legal recognition with it because that was not in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the amendment. Other aspects of the Constitution were meant to apply to things like nuclear weapons and electronic property even if they did not exist at the time because they are merely evolutions of existing concepts. Those sorts of things are within their legitimate jurisdiction to interpret how the Constitution would apply and other matters that are ultimately dependent on changes in science and technology. Whether gay marriage should be legally recognized or not has nothing to do with science or technology at its core. No scientific or technological advancements would require any reconsideration about the application of the Constitution and its amendments regarding the question.
    No, that's your deal. You're the one obsessing over original intent, not me.
    You're right, whether gay marriage should be legally recognized has nothing to do with science. Nor does it have anything to do with the personal opinion of a bunch of people whom you outright admit never even considered the possibility.

    Classifications of gender require that the state demonstrate that the classification is substantially related to an important state interest. That's the constitutional test. You either provide that interest and pass the test, or the law gets canned. Just because our snail-paced court system hasn't accomplished that yet doesn't render the argument void.

    Interracial marriage was illegal until it wasn't. Sodomy was illegal until it wasn't. Are you saying both of those things should still be illegal because the people who wrote the 14th amendment hadn't overturned those laws?
    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.

  8. #148
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,975

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I
    As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.

    What grounds, in the Const, do you see for recognizing marriage? (If you do)

    And if so, then on what grounds in the Const do you see the denial of marriage to people of the same gender?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #149
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,975

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence. It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage. This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.
    .
    Can you please give some specifics on how the institution of marriage is being changed? Besides gender?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #150
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,108

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I agree. That's why Ohio does not sanction either homosexual marriage or civil unions.
    then some one in Ohio has made a terrible mistake (beyond the arbitrary gender based discrimination) gay marriage doesn't create a rival form of contract it includes more people into the existing one a gay couples that's married has the same kind of marriage you do ( if your hitched ) so it would add relevance to marriage rather then detract form it like a theoreticaly( and it is only in theory for as you imply its not recognized across the nation ) equal civil union would be

Page 15 of 53 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •