Page 98 of 110 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100108 ... LastLast
Results 971 to 980 of 1094

Thread: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

  1. #971
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    now lets see



    mar-riage




    [mar-ij] Spell Syllables

    Examples
    Word Origin


    noun
    1.
    (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:


    ok now




    ox-y-mo-ron




    [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Spell Syllables

    Examples
    Word Origin


    noun, plural oxymora

    [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] (Show IPA), oxymorons. Rhetoric
    1.
    a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.


    ok then


    well it seems same sex marriage is not a contradiction to the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities

  2. #972
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Well that is true.

    Of course prior to Loving, there were claims that there wasn't racial discrimination because hey blacks could marry, they were just REQUIRED to marry other blacks. White could marry, they were just REQUIRED to marry other whites. It was just ridiculous to argue that was about racial discrimination.


    ***********************************


    BTW - Technicially speaking, if it's not gender - what characteristic below is the controlling factor?

    Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
    Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
    Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
    Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
    Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
    Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
    Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
    Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
    Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
    Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal


    >>>>
    ok sure in that case it was discrimination

    but obviously if they had just required every one to marry some 1 of another race then it could not have been racial discrimination to make it illegal to have a 1 race marriage

  3. #973
    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: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Well that is true.

    Of course prior to Loving, there were claims that there wasn't racial discrimination because hey blacks could marry, they were just REQUIRED to marry other blacks. White could marry, they were just REQUIRED to marry other whites. It was just ridiculous to argue that was about racial discrimination.


    ***********************************


    BTW - Technicially speaking, if it's not gender - what characteristic below is the controlling factor?

    Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
    Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
    Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
    Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
    Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
    Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
    Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
    Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
    Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
    Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal


    >>>>
    The controlling factor is that marriage is a union between two consenting people of opposite sexes, requiring one of each.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #974
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,887

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I keep hearing the homosexuals tossing around the word "bigotry" like it's some kind of magic word that makes people who disagree with them shut up. And it doesn't seem to be working for them. A little look at what the word actually means tells you why.



    Aha! That's why it doesn't work for them. They're the ones that are intolerant of any opinion other than their own. The advocates of homosexual marriage are, by definition, the bigots because of their utter lack of tolerance for any opinion but their own on this matter.
    I lol'd.

    YOU are the one who advocates exclusionary policies.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  5. #975
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,163

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Thank you. That definition in it's entirety fits the way those of you advocating homosexual marriage act and react toward everyone that opposes your agenda. The shoe fits. Wear it with pride.
    Reading in context and understanding is the key here and you are not even close to the pier, thus missing the boat. Let me help you with that.

    While it is true that people who do not like other or some ideas they can be called bigots also, the term is hardly if ever used for that purpose. The real meaning is the first part of the definition which clearly you are attempting to deflect from. The real meaning, the first one in every definition is about persons who are unfairly intolerant of others. Are you ashamed of being intolerant and wishing to deny others what you can enjoy?

  6. #976
    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: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Reading in context and understanding is the key here and you are not even close to the pier, thus missing the boat. Let me help you with that.

    While it is true that people who do not like other or some ideas they can be called bigots also, the term is hardly if ever used for that purpose. The real meaning is the first part of the definition which clearly you are attempting to deflect from. The real meaning, the first one in every definition is about persons who are unfairly intolerant of others. Are you ashamed of being intolerant and wishing to deny others what you can enjoy?
    Marriage is the union of one of each sex. It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals. It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary". It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Whether they're straight or homosexual is irrelevant. I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them. What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences. Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.

    The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #977
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Marriage is the union of one of each sex. It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals. It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary". It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Whether they're straight or homosexual is irrelevant. I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them. What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences. Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.

    The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
    You don't understand because you only see homosexuality as "sexual preferences," You refuse to acknowledge the love and commitment of the relationships and so it is beyond your comprehension.

  8. #978
    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: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You don't understand because you only see homosexuality as "sexual preferences," You refuse to acknowledge the love and commitment of the relationships and so it is beyond your comprehension.
    This hasn't got anything to do with how I view homosexuality. It has to do with how I see marriage and what marriage actually is. Love and commitment are one thing - marriage is another thing. They're not even necessarily related and people can have all the love and commitment they want without being married. And some marriages are entered into without love and maybe not even commitment nor is marriage actually a guarantee of either love or commitment. The fact that marriage is an institution comprised of one consenting member of each sex does not keep homosexuals from living together and loving together in a committed relationship if that's what they want to do. It just means that they aren't husband and wife, which wouldn't make sense, anyway.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #979
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,163

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Marriage is the union of one of each sex.
    Says you? Who dies and left you in charge to define it?

    It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals.
    Of course it is and your denial does not alter that. Can you honestly claim that you like gays and no I do not mean it in a sexual way. Would you freely associate with them have them as your friends?

    It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary".
    Well if you oppose gays getting married you are denying them something, something civilized rational people call rights.

    It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman.
    Why? Can you name a single reason why or how it affects you one way or the other?

    I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them.
    No you are attempting to deny it from them.

    What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences.
    Society by and large is more than willing to accept that gays should be included in any endeavors that any people undertake. What makes you think that you have some monopoly in how marriage should be defined?

    Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.
    So why are you opposing the inevitable if that is the case? But it is not, the states do not get to decide which people get to be denied what.

    The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage
    I have a traditional marriage, for more than 40 years, was married in a Cathedral by a Cardinal no less and I feel no threat from gays getting married. Why do you?

    which has served mankind very well for thousands of years
    So did the beliefs that the Earth was flat and slavery was OK. Should humanity have opposed those changes too especially considering that including gays into marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone?

  10. #980
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    Re: South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    This hasn't got anything to do with how I view homosexuality. It has to do with how I see marriage and what marriage actually is. Love and commitment are one thing - marriage is another thing. They're not even necessarily related and people can have all the love and commitment they want without being married. And some marriages are entered into without love and maybe not even commitment nor is marriage actually a guarantee of either love or commitment. The fact that marriage is an institution comprised of one consenting member of each sex does not keep homosexuals from living together and loving together in a committed relationship if that's what they want to do. It just means that they aren't husband and wife, which wouldn't make sense, anyway.
    How would you summarize that argument if you were presenting it in front of a Federal Court judge?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •