Page 30 of 53 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 524

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

  1. #291
    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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    That counter arguement is inherently flawed. Comparing this to 'seperate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" arguement. In the case of seperate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment. With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name. Would same sex partnerships recieve the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes. Your 'seperate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.
    You have no legitimate reason to create a fully separate legal situation (partnership, union) for same sex couples that functions legally exactly the same way that marriage does only without using the word marriage. There is no reason to do that except to appease some people's sensibilities, which is not legally necessary at all and would cost more money and time to implement.

    Plus, then the question would have to be why not simply share the term marriage to describe same sex unions that are the same as opposite sex unions? What legitimate state interest does doing this serve?
    "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.

  2. #292
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    you qotued the wrong person lol but we know who you wanted to qoute
    Ack! You're right. This is what I was supposed to quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post


    God can be proven to exist, and the true religion can be proven:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...post1063196439

    I wouldn't want the government supporting a false god, because that would be disconnected from reality. What makes the true God different is that he is the true God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    LMAO! You are trying to prove there is a God because 11 people swore Christ arose after being crucified?

    How about you prove he was actually dead when they took him down? Doctors still make that mistake today.

    Besides, didnt thousands see Jesus after he was resurrected? As he spread God's Word? Why do we need 11 witnesses?

    Apparently he wasnt actually killed during the crucifixion. Not surprising, there are no mortal injuries inflicted during a crucifixion (that type).

    (Not to mention you have to prove Jesus was actually the Son of God.)
    I bolded the "true" whackiness and the "true" reason we NEED to keep state and church separate.

    My Lord! That is the same as Muslims with blind extremism.
    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.

  3. #293
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    1.)That counter arguement is inherently flawed.
    2.)Comparing this to 'separate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" argument.
    3.)In the case of separate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment.
    4.) With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name.
    5.) Would same sex partnerships receive the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes.
    6.) Your 'separate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.
    1.) not at all since its factually accurate lol
    2.) weird judges and many law professionals have already stated this. You can claim this but facts disagree.
    3.) yes that was SOME of the things that happened but not the only reason nice try but that starwman wont fly since thats an argument YOU made up and i never mentioned lol
    4.) which is what would factually be UNEQUAL. why is a different name needed if it is equal that is illogical and exposes the truth. You want a different name because you in fact dont see it as equal hence the problem and the failure of your proposal.
    5.) meanignless did blacks receive water from colored fountains? the same water? yes etc etc
    6.) again except its factual while you have nothing to support your claim with any basis of legality or rights.

    here the example that will make expose your proposal for what it is

    what if when obama became president he was told, "listen because in the history of this country a black man has never been president some people dont think its right for you to be" "It would violate the sanctity of the office and all its traditions" "SO we are going to call you CEO of the US instead. Now mind you, you will have all the same power, and responsibility and everything will be equal, juuuuuuuuuust a different name" . . .

    oh and by the way, as soon as a white guy wins again we'll go back to calling him president of the united states"

    yeah that reeks of "equality" LMAO

    sorry what you want is factually not equal and its intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise, even you suggesting that its not deserving of the same name proves you dont see it as equal and nobody educated and objective will ever by it.

    quick question to further show its wrong.

    do you think hetero and homosexual marriages are equal?
    if no then theres nothing to talk about, you already admit you dont view them as equal

    if yes simply tell us why you want a different name for somethign that is the same?

    the only thing desperately grasping at straws is your fall equation to equality.
    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. #294
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???
    So you propose 'separate but equal?' The decision was that it is not equal.

    And why should tax payers pay for the bureaucracy to maintain two systems? I thought Republicans and conservatives wanted smaller govt?
    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.

  5. #295
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    Given the changes that I proposed care to explain how they would be inferior?? If they are given all the same legal rights?? Prove to me that the statement I made was wrong without simply stating otherwise, thank you.
    already done

    if you want more proof simply answer this question

    why do YOU feel it needs a different name?
    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. #296
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post

    God can be proven to exist, and the true religion can be proven:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...post1063196439

    I wouldn't want the government supporting a false god, because that would be disconnected from reality. What makes the true God different is that he is the true God.
    Apologies. I responded to this in post 292.

    Accidentally quoted the wrong person initially.
    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.

  7. #297
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Chicago, Suburbs
    Last Seen
    06-27-14 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    307

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You have no legitimate reason to create a fully separate legal situation (partnership, union) for same sex couples that functions legally exactly the same way that marriage does only without using the word marriage. There is no reason to do that except to appease some people's sensibilities, which is not legally necessary at all and would cost more money and time to implement.

    Plus, then the question would have to be why not simply share the term marriage to describe same sex unions that are the same as opposite sex unions? What legitimate state interest does doing this serve?
    My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

  8. #298
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.
    So then all new straight civil ceremonies would also be moved to the new civil unions?

    And you are incorrect about reproduction. There are millions of families headed by gay couples. They have bio kids, step-kids, adopted kids, and use in-vitro and surrogacy. Gay couples wish to have families just as much as straight people...being gay doesnt damage your reproductive instincts.

    Next question would be tho...would any sterile couples, couples beyond reproductive years, and couples who chose not to have kids also have to have a civil union? It seems "equal.'
    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. #299
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    1.)My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state.
    2.)Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition."
    3.) To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life.
    4.) same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money.
    5.) The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.
    1.) already separated. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion
    2.) yes it can be and religious marriage is still in tact and meaningless to the discussion
    3.) all your opinion and meanginless to legal marriage and equal rights
    4.) see #3
    5.) again religion is a non fact in the discussion of legal marriage.


    so using your own failed rational what about religions that already allow ssm? do you then support "overreaching into a religious practice" since its a marriage you deem not equal?
    what about religions different from yours?
    what about marriages that already dont involve religion? are you claim that only religious marriages should also be legal? no more marriages by judges or magistrates or anybody with a license?

    all questions that further exposes your biased and prove you dont view them as equal and your system wouldn't treat them as such.

    sorry but your argument is getting worse and worse.
    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

  10. #300
    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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.
    Marriage is not a religious ceremony, not solely anyway. Religion does not own marriage. Marriage began as a non-religious union, mainly focused on families, political alliances, personal family alliances, etc. Religion did not get involved in marriages until relatively recently, compared to when marriage could be said to have begun.

    History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage

    History of marriage: 13 surprising facts | Fox News

    Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
    Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

    "Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments."

    So it is false to claim that marriage is solely a religious ceremony. It simply isn't. My husband and I are not religious at all, but we still have all the privileges of marriage, as we would have even 4000 years ago in most cultures because marriage really has not been mainly religious or a religious ceremony. It is mainly about creating family ties between two people who are not immediate family already.

    As for reproductive capabilities, that is another false argument because a positive reproductive ability has never been a requirement of marriage in the US. In fact, in 5 states today, a negative reproductive ability (the couple cannot procreate with each other) must be proven in order for certain couples to be allowed to marry. (First cousin marriages in states like Arizona, and others). Plus, homosexuals can reproduce in the same way that infertile opposite sex couples can, even when those couples marry knowing they cannot reproduce with each other for some reason (as many do). Not to mention, many couples are childless by choice in the US and that is in no way held against them.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 06-11-14 at 11:44 PM.
    "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 30 of 53 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •