Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 116

Thread: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

  1. #91
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Most states had interracial marriage bans at some point. And when they defended those bans in court, it was all of the same arguments. It's traditional, interracial marriage bans are the will of the people, they're the will of God, interracial marriage is unnatural, etc etc.
    And they all got overthrown too. Any that are still on the books would never be enforced, the states don't want to waste the money. It's a done issue, the only people who don't get it are the ones whose ridiculous religious beliefs are likewise dead as a doornail.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #92
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,065

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    WOW. The fact that there has never been a marriage in this country between two people of the same sex prior to the last decade or so should have tipped you off but I suppose if you want to believe something badly enough, reality doesn't pose a serious obstacle to self-delusion.
    On the contrary, there have been many since the states first started recognizing legal changes in gender since at least some of those people who got legal gender changes were married to someone who was of the opposite sex prior to the legal gender change. Some of the first court cases involving this issue where the court ruled in favor of the person seeking or after having gotten a legal gender change were in the 1970s, which means there likely have been cases, at least in some states, of people legally being married to someone who is legally the same sex since the 80s if not before.
    "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.

  3. #93
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Most states had interracial marriage bans at some point. And when they defended those bans in court, it was all of the same arguments. It's traditional, interracial marriage bans are the will of the people, they're the will of God, interracial marriage is unnatural, etc etc.
    Banning interracial marriage is not the same thing as defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Quite the contrary. There is no need to ban a marriage that is not really a marriage, or invalidate a marriage that is not really a marriage. Interracial marriage doesn't redefine marriage the way that same sex marriage does.

  4. #94
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Banning interracial marriage is not the same thing as defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Quite the contrary. There is no need to ban a marriage that is not really a marriage, or invalidate a marriage that is not really a marriage. Interracial marriage doesn't redefine marriage the way that same sex marriage does.
    Semantics. They "defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race," if that makes you feel better. They didn't consider interracial marriage to really be a marriage either. They even said allowing interracial marriage was redefining marriage.
    Last edited by Deuce; 10-05-14 at 11:28 PM.
    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.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Semantics. They "defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race," if that makes you feel better.
    Well, no... because it was never defined that way. They were seeking to regulate marriage, not define what it means to be married.

    They didn't consider interracial marriage to really be a marriage either.
    Of course they did, or they wouldn't have written statutes invalidating these marriages. There would have been nothing to invalidate.

  6. #96
    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: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I was referring to the claim that " marriage used to 'virtually always' be defined as 'one man and one woman of the same race,' "
    Again, the reason it is false is because you added "of the same race".
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #97
    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: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Most states had interracial marriage bans at some point. And when they defended those bans in court, it was all of the same arguments. It's traditional, interracial marriage bans are the will of the people, they're the will of God, interracial marriage is unnatural, etc etc.
    And the reason those arguments failed was because race was a suspect class for discrimination and because aside from race, interracial marriages were just like any other (e.g. one man and one woman joined together in marriage). Homosexual marriage is something quite different, but we'll see how it works out.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Why is the government involved in the marriage debate in the first place?
    While we can discuss the merits or legality of whether or not government SHOULD be involved, the fact it IS involved is what we have to deal with now.

    Most people didn't have a problem with the government being involved with marriage until the government started saying gays could get married.

  9. #99
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,065

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Banning interracial marriage is not the same thing as defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Quite the contrary. There is no need to ban a marriage that is not really a marriage, or invalidate a marriage that is not really a marriage. Interracial marriage doesn't redefine marriage the way that same sex marriage does.
    Those that banned interracial marriages did not believe that those marriages, those relationships were "really a marriage", really a relationship, just as you and others believe that same sex marriages aren't really a marriage, aren't really relationships. All subjective beliefs about what constitutes marriage that does not fit reality, especially not the legal function of marriage.
    "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.

  10. #100
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    While we can discuss the merits or legality of whether or not government SHOULD be involved, the fact it IS involved is what we have to deal with now.

    Most people didn't have a problem with the government being involved with marriage until the government started saying gays could get married.
    But some restrictions are still ok, like underage, incest, plural, and multiple marriages, right?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 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
  •