Page 87 of 88 FirstFirst ... 377785868788 LastLast
Results 861 to 870 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #861
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,833

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Handouts? Your marriage is a handout from me, is it?
    Only for gays, not for heteros.
    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.

  2. #862
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Why would you think it was "better" just because the government isn't involved in the actual paperwork?
    What I actually said:

    Quote Originally Posted by lakryte
    Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest.
    Why don't you address the actual arguments I am making? It really is frustrating. Do you think the closest relative always has the best interest of someone in mind? Do you think government should make it difficult for people to choose someone who represents their interests in cases where they can't or are dead?

    I think the issue here is how loosely the term kinship is being thrown around. I am talking about next of kin. Spousal benefits such, such as employer provided insurance for the spouse, or tax benefits, have nothing to do with establishing next of kin. You seem to be conflating status as next of kin with the full range of spousal benefits. That is false.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  3. #863
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And I told you to do it. Start a business specializing in that contract. Offer all the same rights and benefits with less hassle and less cost. You'll run the government out of the marriage business with your superior product. Free market at work, right? Do it, if you think it's superior to what we have now. Cheaper and easier, that's what will get people to flock to you.

    It's possible, right?
    And I told you why your suggestion completely missed the point, and then you ignored that response. Let me remind you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    You know as well as I do that the current system as it is set up does not allow for this. Such contracts would be useless and could never have the benefits of a marriage license. You might as well tell a same-sex couple in Texas to "put your money where you mouth is and just get a Texas marriage license." Of course they couldn't do that, because the government does not allow them to. Likewise, government does not allow me to confer the benefits of marriage through a private contract.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  4. #864
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    So then you do support big govt and expanding it so that it can provide a broader definition of marriage which is already covered by anti-discrimination laws (as fed courts are finding for?)
    You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government. And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #865
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,559

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Do you remember when polygamy was legal and included in the definition?

    How about...did you live in the states where the definition didnt include people of different races marrying and THAT had to be redefined?

    No amendments needed.
    Are you kidding? Why would you put in an amendment for something that is already in there? LOL!
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #866
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,791

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    1.)You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government.

    2.)And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
    1.) yes it would, it would be MORE government control, MORE government restrictions, MORE government regulations, LESS freedoms and LESS rights

    thats more government and no amount of spin changes that fact

    2.) need government for a legal contract, no avoiding that either, government will always be involved
    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

  7. #867
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,791

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Are you kidding? Why would you put in an amendment for something that is already in there? LOL!
    100% correct no amendment need for the equal rights of gays it is already there
    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

  8. #868
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    What I actually said:

    Why don't you address the actual arguments I am making? It really is frustrating. Do you think the closest relative always has the best interest of someone in mind? Do you think government should make it difficult for people to choose someone who represents their interests in cases where they can't or are dead?

    I think the issue here is how loosely the term kinship is being thrown around. I am talking about next of kin. Spousal benefits such, such as employer provided insurance for the spouse, or tax benefits, have nothing to do with establishing next of kin. You seem to be conflating status as next of kin with the full range of spousal benefits. That is false.
    Why would you not trust someone that you just married, just made your closest next of kin? Why would they not have your best interests at heart? If you think they don't, there are ways to protect yourself, but most people trust their spouse to keep their best interests in mind.

    I still have no idea what you are going off on. You are free to name someone else, besides who the government recognizes as your closest next of kin as your representative when you cannot speak for yourself. Those private methods are already available.

    And this thread is about marriage not next of kin. Marriage establishes a next of kin for two people (those getting married) but it isn't the only way to do this. Spouse is your closest next of kin, even if you have paperwork that says that someone else gets to do something for you that your spouse would be able to do automatically sans such legal paperwork, and that paperwork, which represents your most current wishes, trumps even that spousal connection.
    "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.

  9. #869
    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: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government. And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
    Yes, that is expanding government. It does not allow flexibility for the changing attitudes and beliefs of the populace. Afterall, the main reason that same sex marriage has become such a big issue is the changing attitudes and beliefs of what is now the majority of the populace.

    There is a reason that I considered DOMA a "lesser evil", because without DOMA, there was enough support throughout Congress and the states to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman within our Constitution, meaning that at this point in time, such an Amendment, although no longer supported by a majority, would still be legal until a much higher number of people were able to change it, a supermajority of support from both Congress and the states. This would have almost certainly taken another decade or so to gain that sort of support in enough areas.

    However, prior to DOMA, just a decade or so (maybe less), there weren't even really laws that said that same sex couples couldn't marry. It was simply viewed as so contrary to marriage by enough of the population (at least 90%) at that time, that it wasn't seen as something that was needed. This is why we should not put definitions of marriage into our Constitution because it cripples the will of the people by doing so. Constitutional Prohibition showed us how disastrous such specific Constitutional Amendments can be.
    "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. #870
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,833

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Are you kidding? Why would you put in an amendment for something that is already in there? LOL!
    Which one?
    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.

Page 87 of 88 FirstFirst ... 377785868788 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
  •