Page 7 of 53 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 524

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

  1. #61
    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
    Well, that's just incorrect on several levels. First, you can't know how frequently marriage has happened for same sex couples throughout history.
    Legal marriage? No evidence of it ever occurring or being endorsed by any government until very recently. There are a few stories at certain points in history that sort of relate to it, but do not indicate it was seen as a legal marriage equivalent to that of a marriage between a man and a woman. All indications are that legal gay marriage is really a 20th Century invention that only came into practice in the 21st Century.

    Second, we know that's demonstrably untrue because marriage has in fact been considered to be between people of the same gender for some years now
    For a little over a decade. Obviously, that is not an argument for it being an old or traditional concept.

    third, your use of the singular makes your statement fall apart right at the outset due to polygamous marriages.
    Even polygamous marriages were generally taken as between man and woman, just there were other women who had the same relationship with the man.

    Same sex marriage won't change my marriage anymore than allowing couples of mixed races to marry ended up changing the marriages of couples of the same race.
    I did not say it would change any individual person's marriage, but it does change marriage generally as it moves marriage away from its traditional orientation as between a man and woman. Allowing mixed-race marriages does not change marriage because it was still man and woman and it was hardly as though there was no historical precedent for it. Marriage between people of different races was commonplace in many parts of the world for pretty much as long as marriage has existed. One cannot say the same for same-sex marriage.

    Even accepting that that meaning has been influid over thousands of years (and believe me, I'm not), change happens. And thank god, too, because humanity has had a lot of practices that needed to go, such as slavery and human sacrifice to name just a couple. It's good that we can as a race eventually review practices and beliefs we've steadfastly held for so long and determined they no longer fit in the modern world.
    I do not think not recognizing gay marriages under the law is akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, but then I'm not a partisan. Still, the last point is kind of what I am getting at. This is not reviewing it as a race, but getting some activists to appeal it to some partisan judges and thus forcing the rest of society to go along with their dictates.

    I'm not, and in fact I don't think anybody is arguing for an amendment to the constitution as it's not necessary.
    Natch, why bother when you can just get judges to make **** up and achieve the same result? All that talk of "we as a race" reviewing this matter? Pish posh, just let some clearly "impartial" judges decide for us. They do have degrees and are much, much smarter than us after all.

    Also, unless you're referring to a different document, the constitution was written in 1787 making it a wee bit older than 150 years.
    I figured someone would ignorantly try and be a smart ass about "150 years", when my reference is, of course, to the 14th Amendment that serves as the basis for the equal protection claims. The Bill of Rights and original form of the Constitution are not the basis of these legal rulings.

    Well, it's funny you say that, because Supreme Court rulings do tend to reflect changing social mores, actually.
    What are the social mores in Utah?

    That being said, tyranny of the majority is one of the reasons why we have a constitution, so as to prevent the masses from restricting the rights of the minority without due cause.
    Yes, but this is not one of those cases. There is no "tyranny" involved here or any "rights" in danger. People do not have a right to government handouts or a right to legal recognition of their relationship status. Any actual rights that come with legal marriage can be exercised without it. People can designate beneficiaries, share property, and share custody of children, without needing a marriage contract.

    While there is no doubt that at least a few same sex couples are getting married as an expression of a political agenda, most people just want to get married for the same reasons you and I want to.
    Uh, what? Who said anything about people getting married for a political agenda? I am talking about the various groups and individuals using the courts to force legal recognition of gay marriage on the rest of society.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #62
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Legal marriage? No evidence of it ever occurring or being endorsed by any government until very recently. There are a few stories at certain points in history that sort of relate to it, but do not indicate it was seen as a legal marriage equivalent to that of a marriage between a man and a woman. All indications are that legal gay marriage is really a 20th Century invention that only came into practice in the 21st Century.
    In isolated places (i.e. before fast communication, printed press, fast travel, etc.) even the topic of gay marriage is going to be rare as hell, given that the percentage of gay people never hits much higher than the 5% neighborhood. Historically speaking it doesn't seem like a big thing to be recorded for generations. So naturally there are only going to be, as you say, "a few stories at certain points in history." The difference between then and now is that we know a lot more about what's going on in the world than people did then, and we know now that homosexuality is normal and common.

    For a little over a decade. Obviously, that is not an argument for it being an old or traditional concept.
    Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't talk about the importance of history and tradition, only to then cherry pick the history and tradition that you think supports your argument. History is history, and we're living it.

    Even polygamous marriages were generally taken as between man and woman, just there were other women who had the same relationship with the man.
    Your attempt to take polygamous marriage and try to use verbal acrobatics to somehow frame it as still being monogamous did not work.

    I did not say it would change any individual person's marriage, but it does change marriage generally as it moves marriage away from its traditional orientation as between a man and woman. Allowing mixed-race marriages does not change marriage because it was still man and woman and it was hardly as though there was no historical precedent for it. Marriage between people of different races was commonplace in many parts of the world for pretty much as long as marriage has existed. One cannot say the same for same-sex marriage.
    It's an arbitrary line in the sand. There were people who believed mixed race marriages would be the ruin of the institution. They were wrong.
    I do not think not recognizing gay marriages under the law is akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, but then I'm not a partisan. Still, the last point is kind of what I am getting at. This is not reviewing it as a race, but getting some activists to appeal it to some partisan judges and thus forcing the rest of society to go along with their dictates.
    Never said it was akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, just that when you use the tradition argument you have to take into consideration every tradition we've had throughout history. If you don't want to do that, then you can't use the tradition argument. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. And as I'm sure has been pointed out to you in one form or another infinity times, nobody is forcing you to go along with anything.

    Natch, why bother when you can just get judges to make **** up and achieve the same result? All that talk of "we as a race" reviewing this matter? Pish posh, just let some clearly "impartial" judges decide for us. They do have degrees and are much, much smarter than us after all.
    Do you have a problem with the way our government is set up? Those judges exist to review the constitutionality of laws. If those laws are unconstitutional, then the judges are going to rule against them. Else why have a constitution if you're not going to have a system in place for upholding it?

    I figured someone would ignorantly try and be a smart ass about "150 years", when my reference is, of course, to the 14th Amendment that serves as the basis for the equal protection claims. The Bill of Rights and original form of the Constitution are not the basis of these legal rulings.
    The original form of the constitution can blow me, seeing as women weren't allowed to vote then and black people could be traded as property. Or do you now have a problem with all the amendments?

    What are the social mores in Utah?
    Who cares? The social mores of the United States is changing in that it's growing accepting of same sex marriage, and if it becomes legal in all fifty states, guess what: homophobes in Utah will still be allowed to be homophobes. No one can force anybody to accept gay marriage.

    Yes, but this is not one of those cases. There is no "tyranny" involved here or any "rights" in danger. People do not have a right to government handouts or a right to legal recognition of their relationship status. Any actual rights that come with legal marriage can be exercised without it. People can designate beneficiaries, share property, and share custody of children, without needing a marriage contract.
    Then you don't understand the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Uh, what? Who said anything about people getting married for a political agenda? I am talking about the various groups and individuals using the courts to force legal recognition of gay marriage on the rest of society.
    Link to me a story of two heterosexual people of the same gender being forced to marry each other and we'll talk, otherwise your statement is nonsense.

  3. #63
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The reference is to the whole "we at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" bit in 1984. What is Orwellian is suddenly deciding that an amendment made to the constitution nearly 150 years ago has actually always meant that gay marriage must get legal recognition from the government.
    No, that's not Orwellian. You are invoking oppression where there is none.
    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.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

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

    Quote Originally Posted by blarg View Post
    but marriage was already possibly nothing more then a tax loophole wasn't it?
    Possibly? I think any opinion is possible and that's what this all comes down to.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Possibly? I think any opinion is possible and that's what this all comes down to.
    no I mean a man and a woman could get married for tax related reasons all ready couldn't they? so how's same sex couples doing it change the value of other marriages or marriage itself?

  6. #66
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

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

    Quote Originally Posted by blarg View Post
    no I mean a man and a woman could get married for tax related reasons all ready couldn't they? so how's same sex couples doing it change the value of other marriages or marriage itself?
    I see.... but I don't go along with the argument that "any" justifies "all". The fact that some might do it today doesn't justify opening the floodgates to everyone.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see.... but I don't go along with the argument that "any" justifies "all". The fact that some might do it today doesn't justify opening the floodgates to everyone.
    then im still not seeing how gay marriage signals the end of marriage as an important social institution

    when it crates no new exploitations

    and only helps more couples and family's

  8. #68
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

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

    Quote Originally Posted by blarg View Post
    then im still not seeing how gay marriage signals the end of marriage as an important social institution

    when it crates no new exploitations

    and only helps more couples and family's
    I disagree. Ultimately, it seems to be headed to the point of being irrelevant and once irrelevant, why support it with sanction? I think the current course, if maintained will see marriage wither away to an obscure social tradition eventually, provided society lasts long enough taking it's current course.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I disagree. Ultimately, it seems to be headed to the point of being irrelevant and once irrelevant, why support it with sanction? I think the current course, if maintained will see marriage wither away to an obscure social tradition eventually, provided society lasts long enough taking it's current course.
    unless marge stops conferring rights and benefits how's it become less relevent?

    if anything things like civil unions would be more of a threat as they supposedly would be competing institutions for such things

  10. #70
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Legal marriage? No evidence of it ever occurring or being endorsed by any government until very recently. There are a few stories at certain points in history that sort of relate to it, but do not indicate it was seen as a legal marriage equivalent to that of a marriage between a man and a woman. All indications are that legal gay marriage is really a 20th Century invention that only came into practice in the 21st Century.



    For a little over a decade. Obviously, that is not an argument for it being an old or traditional concept.



    Even polygamous marriages were generally taken as between man and woman, just there were other women who had the same relationship with the man.



    I did not say it would change any individual person's marriage, but it does change marriage generally as it moves marriage away from its traditional orientation as between a man and woman. Allowing mixed-race marriages does not change marriage because it was still man and woman and it was hardly as though there was no historical precedent for it. Marriage between people of different races was commonplace in many parts of the world for pretty much as long as marriage has existed. One cannot say the same for same-sex marriage.



    I do not think not recognizing gay marriages under the law is akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, but then I'm not a partisan. Still, the last point is kind of what I am getting at. This is not reviewing it as a race, but getting some activists to appeal it to some partisan judges and thus forcing the rest of society to go along with their dictates.



    Natch, why bother when you can just get judges to make **** up and achieve the same result? All that talk of "we as a race" reviewing this matter? Pish posh, just let some clearly "impartial" judges decide for us. They do have degrees and are much, much smarter than us after all.



    I figured someone would ignorantly try and be a smart ass about "150 years", when my reference is, of course, to the 14th Amendment that serves as the basis for the equal protection claims. The Bill of Rights and original form of the Constitution are not the basis of these legal rulings.



    What are the social mores in Utah?



    Yes, but this is not one of those cases. There is no "tyranny" involved here or any "rights" in danger. People do not have a right to government handouts or a right to legal recognition of their relationship status. Any actual rights that come with legal marriage can be exercised without it. People can designate beneficiaries, share property, and share custody of children, without needing a marriage contract.



    Uh, what? Who said anything about people getting married for a political agenda? I am talking about the various groups and individuals using the courts to force legal recognition of gay marriage on the rest of society.
    Cardinal is correct, same sex marriage or unions has been happening for eons.

    History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Amongst the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy [20][21][22] and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus,[23] who both supposedly married a man, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code,[24] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist

Page 7 of 53 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •