Page 33 of 53 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 524

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

  1. #321
    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 AGENT J View Post
    the fastest way to not be taken seriously on ths equal rights topic is to bring up "beastilaty". Nobody honest and educated will ever take that failed asinine argument seriously.

    the fact is with dealing in legality there is no "slippery slope" its all made up just like the factually notequal solution you proposed.

    Can you present any arguments that actually are accurate have merit and pertain to equal rights? or a solution that is equal besides simply granting equal rights?
    There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

    Equal treatment under different names is still equal treatment. If we are going to argue for semantics purposes and semantics solely than it is not an arguement worth having. IF the LGBT wishes to throw my proposal away due to "semantics" then so be it it simply prooves how rigged, furvent, and blind progressive libdems of the LGBT truely are. Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.

  2. #322
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).
    Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you'll know people of different economic classes will want to marry. Just remember that the thing about slippery slopes is they start at the top.

    Point being is that if a "slippery slope" law is, as you say, a series of slippery slopes of all past law, then all you've managed to successfully argue is that nothing should be legalized and no laws should be made. Much more sensible is to argue the merits of each proposed law.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 06-12-14 at 06:58 PM.

  3. #323
    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 Cardinal View Post
    Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you'll know people of different economic classes will want to marry. Just remember that the thing about slippery slopes is they start at the top.

    Point being is that if a "slippery slope" law is, as you say, a series of slippery slopes of all past law, then all you've managed to successfully argue is that nothing should be legalized and no laws should be made. Much more sensible is to argue the merits of each proposed law.
    Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.

    I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.

  4. #324
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.

    I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.
    (bold mine)

    I don't. After ssm was passed in Massachusetts, far from the collapse of society or revenge killings or whatever, what resulted was one giant yawn-a-thon. In fact you can even see it happening right here on this forum. Some of DP's most ardent past opponents of ssm are now acting supremely bored by the whole thing and just want to talk about anything else.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 06-12-14 at 08:02 PM.

  5. #325
    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
    Ahhh yes thanks ^_^. The two systems would be treated the same only the name would be different which is as simple as adding an extra box to check on forms so that won't cost tax payers anything.

    Straight couple may pursue a civil union if they wish to over a conventional marraige although the two are the same thing.

    While you have listed many ways for Gays to "procure" kids as I would say not "reproduce". Artificial production of children has opened the door for them to be more family oriented and to have kids that may have 1 of the parent's DNA so yes that does help.

    As legal marraige is SOLELY for tax purposes I would suppose that sterile couples, and older couples, as well as couples who do not wish to have kids would be EXCLUDED from having any benefits associated with having children however their union would still be referred to as a marraige as this is still the legal precedent in place today and to change precedent would upset the balance.
    So this isnt a serious proposal, right?

    For one thing, you dont seem to realize that gay people reproduce 'naturally' all the time...men sire babies, women have babies. Unless you suggest NOW, that mixed straight families also have to settle for civil unions? You know, where they have adopted kids (none of their DNA!!!!), step-kids (only one's DNA), used artificial means to get pregnant, etc?

    And I thought that marriage (it's legal...that's the entire discussion) was a strictly religious convention and to be used only for the religious. You wrote that.

    If that's the case, let anyone who wants to marry do so...in their church, in the Eyes of God..and not worry about the legal aspect. Dont need any license. Why do they care? It's about love and babies and God....not tax benefits. Right?

    You also demonstrate a vast ignorance of legal paperwork..where all letterhead, departments, titles, signage etc etc etc have to have the correct titles? And there will be a different bureaus overseeing them....otherwise, who will be checking the genders on all the paperwork? LMAO! $$$$$$$$ for the taxpayers.

    It's utterly ridiculous to create another designation for no other reason than self-righteous indignation.
    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.

  6. #326
    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 Lursa View Post
    So this isnt a serious proposal, right?

    For one thing, you dont seem to realize that gay people reproduce 'naturally' all the time...men sire babies, women have babies. Unless you suggest NOW, that mixed straight families also have to settle for civil unions? You know, where they have adopted kids (none of their DNA!!!!), step-kids (only one's DNA), used artificial means to get pregnant, etc?

    And I thought that marriage (it's legal...that's the entire discussion) was a strictly religious convention and to be used only for the religious. You wrote that.

    If that's the case, let anyone who wants to marry do so...in their church, in the Eyes of God..and not worry about the legal aspect. Dont need any license. Why do they care? It's about love and babies and God....not tax benefits. Right?
    My arguement changed when I was informed that we are debating LEGAL aspects of marraige not RELIGIOUS aspects of marraige. And would it really take the air out of my tires if gay marraige becomes federally recognized? NO in fact I will be happy for the gay community, I am simply being the devil's advocate in this debate and citing possible consequences to a change in law that will have a large effect on culture in general.

  7. #327
    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
    There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

    Equal treatment under different names is still equal treatment. If we are going to argue for semantics purposes and semantics solely than it is not an arguement worth having. IF the LGBT wishes to throw my proposal away due to "semantics" then so be it it simply prooves how rigged, furvent, and blind progressive libdems of the LGBT truely are. Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.
    Your argument is only based on semantics! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Seriously.

    And again....you display ignorance of the law. Animals cannot consent, mannequins cannot consent...they cannot be a party to legal contracts.

    As for polygamy, who cares? I think it's a bad idea for most people (mainly women) but consenting adults can make their own choices. As long as they receive no more tax breaks or benefits than couples, makes no difference to me. I'm not judging people by my own beliefs and trying to force them on others.
    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.

  8. #328
    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 arguement changed when I was informed that we are debating LEGAL aspects of marraige not RELIGIOUS aspects of marraige. And would it really take the air out of my tires if gay marraige becomes federally recognized? NO in fact I will be happy for the gay community, I am simply being the devil's advocate in this debate and citing possible consequences to a change in law that will have a large effect on culture in general.
    ?? The religious aspects of marriage are unaffected by SSM....it doesnt change marriage for anyone else. How could it?

    Apologies if I misunderstood.
    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. #329
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I always find it something of a statistical anomaly how those most opposed to same sex marriage always manage to have the largest number of gay friends, or at least have come across a larger number of gay people in their lives than anyone else has while living in Portland or San Francisco.
    Yeah and how they act all polite in these threads then send gay posters PMs with 3 lines of "faggot"

    The threads might get boring if none replied to them but i'm done trying to reason with those types, only to be met by that and dinged by mods in addition

  10. #330
    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 Lursa View Post
    Your argument is only based on semantics! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Seriously.

    And again....you display ignorance of the law. Animals cannot consent, mannequins cannot consent...they cannot be a party to legal contracts.

    As for polygamy, who cares? I think it's a bad idea for most people (mainly women) but consenting adults can make their own choices. As long as they receive no more tax breaks or benefits than couples, makes no difference to me. I'm not judging people by my own beliefs and trying to force them on others.
    Very well constructed counter arguement and I see your point and by seeing it I grant those points to you as valid and true. I suppose this is a situation I should do a bit more soul searching on in an attempt to further evolve and develop a more informed opinion on. Thank you Lursa.

Page 33 of 53 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... 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
  •