Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 506

Thread: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

  1. #141
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't know. Why?
    I am trying to understand the limits of what a sanctioned marriage should look like in your estimation. I then plan to test for logical consistency in your position.

    In your previous post you said the state had an interest in promoting stable marital relationships (which I'm not sure I agree to this point, with the exception of procreative and child rearing purposes), so I need to know how to define stable relationships.

    Will your definition be arbitrary? or will there be consistency and a principled reason that designates the boundaries of those relationships.
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    I am trying to understand the limits of what a sanctioned marriage should look like in your estimation.
    Well here ya go....
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    SSM is objectively beneficial, and that's why gays are pursuing SSM in the first place. SSM provides more stable homes for children (many gay couples already have children, believe it or not), and marriage itself, the simple act of being committed, supports stable relationships, which in turn is good for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest. Same-sex relationships are not otherwise harmfull and thus should be afforded access to marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    In your previous post you said the state had an interest in promoting stable marital relationships (which I'm not sure I agree to this point, with the exception of procreative and child rearing purposes), so I need to know how to define stable relationships.
    I define words by looking them up in the dictionary. I do not use personal definitions since I did not invent the language. Therefore, using the dictionary, a "stable relationship" is the consistent and change resistant way in which two or more spouses talk to, behave toward, and deal with each other. The state in which the relationship exists when they marry is thought to be the starting point, and any change to that should occur slowly and with careful consideration so as to be constructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Will your definition be arbitrary? or will there be consistency and a principled reason that designates the boundaries of those relationships.
    My definitions are as arbitrary as the dictionary.
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-30-14 at 07:23 PM.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, because equal protection is not a silver bullet that applies to any and all perceived inequalities.
    Right, exactly. Just because you think a SSM ban sucks, doesn't mean the 14th applies. That's just a surrogate argument used to get SSM. It is not a valid way to enact policy.

  4. #144
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well here ya go....




    I define words by looking them up in the dictionary. I do not use personal definitions since I did not invent the language. Therefore, using the dictionary, a "stable relationship" is the consistent and change resistant way in which two or more spouses talk to, behave toward, and deal with each other. The state in which the relationship exists when they marry is thought to be the starting point, and any change to that should occur slowly and with careful consideration so as to be constructive.


    My definitions are as arbitrary as the dictionary.
    Good non answer. I can use a dictionary just fine.
    The context of my questions were, if you remember, why limit it to two? I want to know if you would personally be in favor of limiting in some fashion the parties in a sanctioned marriage. Must a stable relationship be limited to two? Are there any other possible relationships that might be considered stable, yet appropriately be limited and stand outside sanctioned marriage by law? If so what is the distinction in those relationships that makes it so?
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Good non answer.
    It was a direct answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    I can use a dictionary just fine.
    Then you don't need to ask for definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    The context of my questions were, if you remember, why limit it to two?
    I have no reason why marriage should be limited marriage to 2. Do you?


    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    I want to know if you would personally be in favor of limiting in some fashion the parties in a sanctioned marriage.
    Yes. I literaly just answered that question for you. When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest, marrying minors or anyone else who cannot consent.


    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Must a stable relationship be limited to two?
    Not IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Are there any other possible relationships that might be considered stable, yet appropriately be limited and stand outside sanctioned marriage by law?
    Incest, again. That relationship may be stable but it's otherwise harmfull.

    ****
    Ive already answered these questions so Im thinking you dont read all the words in a post.

  6. #146
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    It's a fair question. Aren't you concerned that every single time this goes to court bans against ssm are shot down? Even accounting for the dreaded "activist" judge, if bans against ssm are not, in fact unconstitutional, then even you have to admit that this defies the laws of odds. Maybe, you know...you just don't really understand what this whole Constitution thing is about and how it works?
    OR it could be that YOU don't understand how our courts function as opposed to how they are supposed to function. SCOTUS abandons their oath, makes a decision that is basically rewriting the Constitution. That decision becomes precedent from which a number of lower court decisions derive. Some of them even interpreting in their own rewrites thusly.

    That's the problem when you allow the courts to do what the people should be doing.

  7. #147
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I guess, in the end, some people are just afraid of the precedent of a court expanding individual liberty. That's fair, clownboy. We can agree to disagree.
    The only fear I have in this has already come to pass. That people will forget they must maintain their Constitution because the courts are more than willing to take that over for them.

  8. #148
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Right, exactly. Just because you think a SSM ban sucks, doesn't mean the 14th applies. That's just a surrogate argument used to get SSM. It is not a valid way to enact policy.
    No, that's not why the 14th applies.

    The 14th applies because classifications of gender require intermediate scrutiny under the 14th amendment, the test being that the measure is "substantially related to an important state interest."

    Name the interest.
    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.

  9. #149
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    OR it could be that YOU don't understand how our courts function as opposed to how they are supposed to function. SCOTUS abandons their oath, makes a decision that is basically rewriting the Constitution. That decision becomes precedent from which a number of lower court decisions derive. Some of them even interpreting in their own rewrites thusly.

    That's the problem when you allow the courts to do what the people should be doing.
    The "problem" of expanding individual liberty. Shaking in my boots.
    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.

  10. #150
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It was a direct answer.



    Then you don't need to ask for definitions.

    I have no reason why marriage should be limited marriage to 2. Do you?



    Yes. I literaly just answered that question for you. When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest, marrying minors or anyone else who cannot consent.



    Not IMO.


    Incest, again. That relationship may be stable but it's otherwise harmfull.

    ****
    Ive already answered these questions so Im thinking you dont read all the words in a post.
    Given your answers I might guess that you are in favor of polygamy, yes? Further it is discriminatory to pass laws against it, yes?
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

Page 15 of 51 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
  •