Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 284

Thread: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

  1. #271
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    well equal rights is always important but i do agree, in a country like the US this shouldnt be an issue as. In 2015 there are other important things to do instead of even entertaining the rantings of off bigots and anti-rights people.
    Personally I think this should have remained a state issue. But at any rate there were more important issues than gay marriage in the past 10 years. Important enough that during election years they shouldn't have focused on the gay marriage soundbites. Maybe economy soundbites.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  2. #272
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    1.)Personally I think this should have remained a state issue.
    2.) But at any rate there were more important issues than gay marriage in the past 10 years.
    3.) Important enough that during election years they shouldn't have focused on the gay marriage soundbites.
    4.) Maybe economy soundbites.
    1.) you are allowed to feel that way but individual rights arent a states issue and theres no support for such a feeling based on the constitution and rights.
    2.) nothing really "trumps" equal rights . . there are things that should have gotten more attention because this shouldnt be a focus at all but infringement of rights is never low on the totem pole IMO
    3.) i agree but again you are picking a domino further down the line and not domino number one. SInce people that are bigots and or against equal rights made this an issue and government allowed these rights to be trampled on the politician didnt really have a choice. The easy solution would have simply have been for politician not to be against equal rights.

    since enough media and extremists made it an issue they had to address it but they shouldnt have played along thier response should have been its not an issue

    4.) i agree here also but again economy doesnt just trump equal rights IF they are being tramped on.
    what we were seeing happen is like a 3rd world issue instead of an american one. I see what you are saying but PEOPLE made it an issue. If rights werent being trampled them we could have focused on those things.
    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

  3. #273
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) you are allowed to feel that way but individual rights arent a states issue and theres no support for such a feeling based on the constitution and rights.
    2.) nothing really "trumps" equal rights . . there are things that should have gotten more attention because this shouldnt be a focus at all but infringement of rights is never low on the totem pole IMO
    3.) i agree but again you are picking a domino further down the line and not domino number one. SInce people that are bigots and or against equal rights made this an issue and government allowed these rights to be trampled on the politician didnt really have a choice. The easy solution would have simply have been for politician not to be against equal rights.

    since enough media and extremists made it an issue they had to address it but they shouldnt have played along thier response should have been its not an issue

    4.) i agree here also but again economy doesnt just trump equal rights IF they are being tramped on.
    what we were seeing happen is like a 3rd world issue instead of an american one. I see what you are saying but PEOPLE made it an issue. If rights werent being trampled them we could have focused on those things.
    "Equal rights" isn't as important as the nation facing economic ruin. Sorry but when you are starving you shouldn't be worried about who someone should or shouldn't have sex with. Our nation has a lot of problems and I feel that this last election focused way too much on gay marriage. Why? Because we have all kinds of economic woes.

    Additionally the idea that this can't be solved at the state level is ridiculous. States can legalize the issue and it is easier than fighting the fed. But at any rate we are talking about an issue that faces far less than a 10%. I've seen a high of 7% and as low as 2%. Unfair? Sure. But when an issue faces 100% of the nation I think it matters more.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  4. #274
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    1.)"Equal rights" isn't as important as the nation facing economic ruin. Sorry but when you are starving you shouldn't be worried about who someone should or shouldn't have sex with. Our nation has a lot of problems and I feel that this last election focused way too much on gay marriage. Why? Because we have all kinds of economic woes.
    2.)Additionally the idea that this can't be solved at the state level is ridiculous.
    3.) States can legalize the issue and it is easier than fighting the fed.
    4.) But at any rate we are talking about an issue that faces far less than a 10%. I've seen a high of 7% and as low as 2%. Unfair? Sure. But when an issue faces 100% of the nation I think it matters more.
    1.) ahhh i see where your mistake is, you think equal rights is about "who someone should or shouldn't have sex " thats no even close, You would change your tune if this was an equal rights issue for men and men werent allowed to work, then the economy wouldn't matter much. You viewing this as a non issue for yourself is the problem. ALso we arent facing "ruin" lol
    The issue is denying people equal rights greatly effects thier own household financially.
    2.) actually its the opposite, this factually cant be solved on a state level because the state has no power to solve it
    3.) nobody is fighting the fed except the states who are trying to make it ILLEGAL. you have it backwards.
    4.) again another huge mistake, equal rights effects us ALL. You shallow and illogical vision of the economy would just be like anybody that isnt suffering money wise simply not caring, thats not to smart.
    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

  5. #275
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,575

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    "Equal rights" isn't as important as the nation facing economic ruin. Sorry but when you are starving you shouldn't be worried about who someone should or shouldn't have sex with. Our nation has a lot of problems and I feel that this last election focused way too much on gay marriage. Why? Because we have all kinds of economic woes.

    Additionally the idea that this can't be solved at the state level is ridiculous. States can legalize the issue and it is easier than fighting the fed. But at any rate we are talking about an issue that faces far less than a 10%. I've seen a high of 7% and as low as 2%. Unfair? Sure. But when an issue faces 100% of the nation I think it matters more.
    If you were part of a minority group that didn't have equal rights would you still consider it an unimportant issue that should only be resolved when we have no other problems? I tend to find that people who overly emphasize the "states rights" aspect of SSM actually just don't want it to happen at all and hope their state can squeak by without it. If your state made an unconstitutional law say, that Christians couldn't marry, would you be just as upset if the federal government stepped in and overruled them?
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #276
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    If you were part of a minority group that didn't have equal rights would you still consider it an unimportant issue that should only be resolved when we have no other problems? I tend to find that people who overly emphasize the "states rights" aspect of SSM actually just don't want it to happen at all and hope their state can squeak by without it. If your state made an unconstitutional law say, that Christians couldn't marry, would you be just as upset if the federal government stepped in and overruled them?
    You pose an interesting point. Sure I might be upset. Especially if the government were making laws against a LARGE PERCENTAGE of the population. I might be upset regardless of who they are. And it would probably impact how I vote. But I don't really care what happens in your experience. It has no basis on the way I feel. I don't like the federal government defining marriage. I personally think that marriage shouldn't be the definition used. I think it should be a civil union for all so that ANYONE can get "married" and that all the government does is approve a contract that says "you can have this that and the other."

    And sure you will probably argue that that is what marriage is, but NO it isn't. Not in this day. It isn't just a government contract anymore. It has to do with love. In the instance I am discussing something that would expand the contract to anyone and would not imply love. You can have a celebration celebrating your love and the government won't be involved in your bedroom/love life at all. I hate the government.

    I also feel the state debate is more logical because it is a power that is granted to the state. So the state should regulate it. And the state has a better understanding of what the people of the state want than the fed does. I hate when laws are made bigger than they should be. A local law should be local. A state law for the state. A federal law for the fed.

    But I digress: if this were a state issue it would have passed many many times by now. And it is starting to pass in many states. And maybe our federal elections should be decided on fiscal policies, foreign policies, and other things that are powers granted to the fed. Ya know? The way it is supposed to be?
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  7. #277
    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: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    You pose an interesting point. Sure I might be upset. Especially if the government were making laws against a LARGE PERCENTAGE of the population. I might be upset regardless of who they are. And it would probably impact how I vote. But I don't really care what happens in your experience. It has no basis on the way I feel. I don't like the federal government defining marriage. I personally think that marriage shouldn't be the definition used. I think it should be a civil union for all so that ANYONE can get "married" and that all the government does is approve a contract that says "you can have this that and the other."

    And sure you will probably argue that that is what marriage is, but NO it isn't. Not in this day. It isn't just a government contract anymore. It has to do with love. In the instance I am discussing something that would expand the contract to anyone and would not imply love. You can have a celebration celebrating your love and the government won't be involved in your bedroom/love life at all. I hate the government.

    I also feel the state debate is more logical because it is a power that is granted to the state. So the state should regulate it. And the state has a better understanding of what the people of the state want than the fed does. I hate when laws are made bigger than they should be. A local law should be local. A state law for the state. A federal law for the fed.

    But I digress: if this were a state issue it would have passed many many times by now. And it is starting to pass in many states. And maybe our federal elections should be decided on fiscal policies, foreign policies, and other things that are powers granted to the fed. Ya know? The way it is supposed to be?
    Marriage can be both a government contract and a personal commitment to each other based on whatever the people wish to make of their marriage. It is stupid to separate the two in verbage though just because some feel that so long as they aren't "legally" sharing the term they can ignore that others that they don't like aren't using it. They are. And it is their right to do so and completely stupid to appease people's feelings about what words should or shouldn't mean, who shouldn't be able to use a word.

    You can't force people to vote for others, for any reason. And you will never have elections solely about those things you mentioned, even if all the little stuff we see today got cleared up to the vast majority's satisfaction, because there will always be other stuff to distract people with and that people would like politicians to tackle as well, stuff that is much easier to deal with than fiscal or foreign policies.
    "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.

  8. #278
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Marriage can be both a government contract and a personal commitment to each other based on whatever the people wish to make of their marriage. It is stupid to separate the two in verbage though just because some feel that so long as they aren't "legally" sharing the term they can ignore that others that they don't like aren't using it. They are. And it is their right to do so and completely stupid to appease people's feelings about what words should or shouldn't mean, who shouldn't be able to use a word.

    You can't force people to vote for others, for any reason. And you will never have elections solely about those things you mentioned, even if all the little stuff we see today got cleared up to the vast majority's satisfaction, because there will always be other stuff to distract people with and that people would like politicians to tackle as well, stuff that is much easier to deal with than fiscal or foreign policies.
    It is more than that garbage about "people not liking word's crap."

    The fed shouldn't be involved in marriage because you don't get married by the fed. You get married by the state. And you won't disassociate love and marriage. Not now. So get rid of the definition in favor of something more broad and more useful. We aren't getting rid of the words in "verbage." We are simply trashing the current concept, letting it stand on its own the way society views it not ANYWAYS, and then giving a NEW contract in the place of the old that would allow 2 sisters that are 70 years old to sign the contract so they can get the benefits and all that. And you don't have to hurt currently married individuals because you simply redefine the legal aspect of current laws.

    The point is that it kills this asinine debate and let's people do as they choose. It creates real equality.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  9. #279
    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: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    It is more than that garbage about "people not liking word's crap."

    The fed shouldn't be involved in marriage because you don't get married by the fed. You get married by the state. And you won't disassociate love and marriage. Not now. So get rid of the definition in favor of something more broad and more useful. We aren't getting rid of the words in "verbage." We are simply trashing the current concept, letting it stand on its own the way society views it not ANYWAYS, and then giving a NEW contract in the place of the old that would allow 2 sisters that are 70 years old to sign the contract so they can get the benefits and all that. And you don't have to hurt currently married individuals because you simply redefine the legal aspect of current laws.

    The point is that it kills this asinine debate and let's people do as they choose. It creates real equality.
    The fed is who recognizes most spousal relationships, hell most legal kinships to begin with. That is where they are involved, in that recognition.

    As for this particular case, state bans on same sex marriages, the federal government is involved only because such bans violate the US Constitution, so that involves the Supreme Court.

    Changing the terms in no way changes anything, and in fact would only complicate things further and cost more money to do. We have marriages, they work just fine.

    2 old sisters don't need a spousal kinship because they already have a legal kinship of being sisters, which is much of the benefit of becoming legal spouses. No one is being hurt here. I'm in an opposite sex marriage and I guarantee you that my marriage is not hurt in any way by other people getting married. Hell, even if we did allow sisters and brothers to marry it doesn't actually harm my marriage unless my marriage is based around crap to begin with, which still puts it as my issues harming my marriage, not those couples being allowed to use the term marriage for their legal relationships.
    "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. #280
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Re: As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) ahhh i see where your mistake is, you think equal rights is about "who someone should or shouldn't have sex " thats no even close, You would change your tune if this was an equal rights issue for men and men werent allowed to work, then the economy wouldn't matter much. You viewing this as a non issue for yourself is the problem. ALso we arent facing "ruin" lol
    The issue is denying people equal rights greatly effects thier own household financially.
    2.) actually its the opposite, this factually cant be solved on a state level because the state has no power to solve it
    3.) nobody is fighting the fed except the states who are trying to make it ILLEGAL. you have it backwards.
    4.) again another huge mistake, equal rights effects us ALL. You shallow and illogical vision of the economy would just be like anybody that isnt suffering money wise simply not caring, thats not to smart.
    1) you don't get married by the U.S. Government.

    2) you get married by the state.

    3) the state should define the law.

    4) Currently marriage is associated with love. Any argument to the contrary is stupid. It makes no sense because everyone knows this. So the logical thing is to simply not let the government continue to fight this concept. Redefine the contract more broadly, and rename the contract so that it applies to a broader scope of people.

    And you kill any further debate on this topic.

    5) Your mistake is to assume I should care about this issue. Especially since the states are allowing gay marriage.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 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
  •