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

I wonder what's going to happen to the conservative right and the GOP playing culture wars when gay marriage is completely legal...

ludin said:

it is about equal right to marry. nope I am just bring up another group of people that don't have equal rights under the law. yet you are being bigoted and opposing their rights.
I am trying to understand why you can't answer your own argument. you are either for equal rights for marriage or you are not.

you seem to support it as long as it fits your point of view which is a contradiction. why are being bigoted against people that want to marry more than 1 person? I don't understand.
where is your sense of equal rights.

I never mentioned animals that is a strawman.

nope equal rights is what matters. yet you oppose real equal rights for people? why are not consistent in your argument and a bigot against people that want to marry more than 1 person.

I never mentioned pedophiles it has nothing to do with it. that is a strawman.

Click to expand...

I said you might as well have mentioned marrying animals because it has as much to do with gay marriage as polygamy does. It doesn't matter that you feel multiple partners are preferable to couples, you have a right to your opinion but right now marriage is between 2 people that love each other and polygamy is not recognized or legal.
Perhaps you could start a movement to recognize polygamy but I honestly it would probably be easier just to "shack up", that's what polygamists do now. I won't tell a soul.

Lursa said:

Yes but his perspective works for him because he doesnt care if there is nothing to replace it, so his opinion is valid, even if you and I dont agree with him.

Click to expand...

who said anything about his "opinions" and why does his prespective matter? it doesnt
the fact is he has never answered, that fact wont change and was the whole point.
I could not care that 2 +2 = 4 or have the perspective it equals 45 that doesn't change the fact that it does equal 4 :shrug:

ludin said:

1.)so you oppose this then it is prevented by law. they do not get equal treatment more so it is a violation of the constitution since this is a religious belief that they ar e not allowed to practice.
2.)so technically they have every right.
3.) funny you guys are so vicious over the gay marriage thing but now that we drift into another alternative form of marriage it tends to disappear.

Click to expand...

1.) false because nobody can have a marriage contract with muiltiple partners . . so no there is no religious belief violated based on religious views.
people have religious beliefs that they can kill or eat people . . . thats not allowed either nor is it a violation
thanks for further proving your analogy completely fails
2.) see #1 your statement is 100% false
3.) again this lie has been destroyed and you have ZERO facts to support it lol

ludin said:

it is about equal right to marry. nope I am just bring up another group of people that don't have equal rights under the law. yet you are being bigoted and opposing their rights.
I am trying to understand why you can't answer your own argument. you are either for equal rights for marriage or you are not.

you seem to support it as long as it fits your point of view which is a contradiction. why are being bigoted against people that want to marry more than 1 person? I don't understand.
where is your sense of equal rights.

I never mentioned animals that is a strawman.

nope equal rights is what matters. yet you oppose real equal rights for people? why are not consistent in your argument and a bigot against people that want to marry more than 1 person.

I never mentioned pedophiles it has nothing to do with it. that is a strawman.

Click to expand...

repeating your false argument wont work. nobody educated honest and objective will ever buy it because its a fallacy and a failed strawman .. try again

if you disagree simply use FACTS and prove otherwise . . you wont be able to . . but please continue because watching your posts try and muiltiple posters prove it wrong is just more and more proff.

AGENT J said:

1.) false because nobody can have a marriage contract with muiltiple partners . . so no there is no religious belief violated based on religious views.

Click to expand...

False because no one could have marriage between same sex couples. so there is no equal rights being violated. also they perfectly had the right to marry just not someone of the same sex. so no equal rights were violated.
actually there is because their religious beliefs allow them to practice polygamy read the 1st amendment again. it says right there that the government cannot make any law regarding the practice of religion.

people have religious beliefs that they can kill or eat people . . . thats not allowed either nor is it a violation

Click to expand...

because we have other laws that say you can't murder people. strawman

thanks for further proving your analogy completely fails
2.) see #1 your statement is 100% false
3.) again this lie has been destroyed and you have ZERO facts to support it lol

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving you have no clue about what you are talking about.
posting your opinion as fact is meaningless.

Because I have caused so much difficulty and fun for this thread, and others have already mentioned it... why should polygamy between consenting adults be outlawed? Far as I am concerned the "consenting adults" part means the government should have no say so in the boundaries of personal relationships.

ludin said:

1.)False because no one could have marriage between same sex couples. so there is no equal rights being violated. also they perfectly had the right to marry just not someone of the same sex. so no equal rights were violated.
actually there is because their religious beliefs allow them to practice polygamy read the 1st amendment again. it says right there that the government cannot make any law regarding the practice of religion.
2.)because we have other laws that say you can't murder people. strawman
3.)Thank you for proving you have no clue about what you are talking about.
4.) posting your opinion as fact is meaningless.

Click to expand...

1.) boom! and there you have it more proof you are severely uneducated on this specific topic, you REALLY need to look up the many many cases on this and youll see how it violates the 14 and how some cases used sexual orientation and gender discrimination NONE which apply to polygamy so again the fact remains its not the same no matter how many times you try to make it the same. facts ,laws rights, the constitution and many court cases all prove you wrong.

remind us what you have supporting you besides you saying "nu-huh"

2.) not a strawman at all its factual proof that religion cant do anything it wants. you post fails again. and if they do use religion it will be a NEW right and a DIFFERENT argument further proving your claim that it is the same argument. are you trying to back pedal now? lol
3.) except for the facts that support me, destroy your post and further prove it wrong
4.) i agree this is why you should stop doing it.
facts win again

OrphanSlug said:

Because I have caused so much difficulty and fun for this thread, and others have already mentioned it... why should polygamy between consenting adults be outlawed? Far as I am concerned the "consenting adults" part means the government should have no say so in the boundaries of personal relationships.

Click to expand...

i didnt see any difficulty you cause but definitely much fun and entertainment!
has anybody said it should be outlawed? I missed that . . . . .

CRUE CAB said:

Please tell me how this is a "civil right". Just because you wanna, don't make it a right.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a concept called "Equal Protection"? Explain what legitimate governmental interest is involved in denying gay people from marrying. If you are able to do so, then you are one step ahead of most of the opponents on the issue (who have pretty much given up this argument and are trying other legal tactics).

The right to marry has also been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Of course, you probably don't realize that either.

disneydude said:

Have you ever heard of a concept called "Equal Protection"? Explain what legitimate governmental interest is involved in denying gay people from marrying. If you are able to do so, then you are one step ahead of most of the opponents on the issue (who have pretty much given up this argument and are trying other legal tactics).

The right to marry has also been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Of course, you probably don't realize that either.

Click to expand...

Gays have equal protections. Marriage is not a protection.

CRUE CAB said:

1.)Gays have equal protections.
2.) Marriage is not a protection.

Click to expand...

1.) false, see the many court cases that disagree with you
2.) no but protection of equal rights for the right to marry is

we know we know BIASED JUDGES (40+) . . CONSPIRACY THEORY!

AGENT J said:

i didnt see any difficulty you cause but definitely much fun and entertainment!
has anybody said it should be outlawed? I missed that . . . . .

Click to expand...

It was an open question really. In most states it is outlawed in some respect, that was the motivation for the question.

OrphanSlug said:

It was an open question really. In most states it is outlawed in some respect, that was the motivation for the question.

Click to expand...

gotcha

OrphanSlug said:

It was an open question really. In most states it is outlawed in some respect, that was the motivation for the question.

Click to expand...

The justifications for banning it are slim, however the constitutional hurdle is also lower.

OrphanSlug said:

Because I have caused so much difficulty and fun for this thread, and others have already mentioned it... why should polygamy between consenting adults be outlawed? Far as I am concerned the "consenting adults" part means the government should have no say so in the boundaries of personal relationships.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Should it? Not at all relevant to the question of whether same-sex marriage should be outlawed, which is what this topic is about.

Lursa said:

That's not what it means. The govt is involved *because* the threat of them enforcing consequences exists. That threat is tangible and is present in every contract.

A contract would not be necessary otherwise. There would just be big lists of stuff for people to remember since it was a 'given' that they'd be fulfilled.

Click to expand...

A threat can always be tangible theoretically - this is not philosophy class - actual involvement only occurrs a I already stated now twice - your comments do not change that fact. Therefore, government is not involved unless an actual enforcement dispute is made by one or the other parties of the contract. Period.

Ockham said:

A threat can always be tangible theoretically - this is not philosophy class - actual involvement only occurrs a I already stated now twice - your comments do not change that fact. Therefore, government is not involved unless an actual enforcement dispute is made by one or the other parties of the contract. Period.

Click to expand...

Marriage contracts involve no government force unless a dispute arises. Yeah, I don't think that's ever been in question.:shrug:

Deuce said:

Marriage contracts involve no government force unless a dispute arises. Yeah, I don't think that's ever been in question.:shrug:

Click to expand...

It's been difficult to get some posters to realize that.

Ockham said:

It's been difficult to get some posters to realize that.

Click to expand...

Well, some people think the existence of a government is some horrible infringement of their liberty :shrug:

Deuce said:

Well, some people think the existence of a government is some horrible infringement of their liberty :shrug:

Click to expand...

Government is needed - the issue is how much and where should government exist.

iguanaman said:

Let me guess. Because he wanted to protect the "rights" of bigots and racists?

Click to expand...

No. He thought that in our system of government we should follow the law, the highest written form of which being the Constitution. Federalism is important. Goldwater was de-segregating in Arizona well before the national government decided to push that policy down.

RabidAlpaca said:

This is not about state's rights, it's about basic human rights. The government can not play favorites, denying rights to "sinners" and granting rights to others. It is completely in the power of the federal government to step in. If Mississippi decided black people shouldn't vote, the feds would step in there as well.

Click to expand...

Amen you're right. Bring on the federalization of State decisions! No more shall States issue licenses! Hooray for Centralized Government!

cpwill said:

No. He thought that in our system of government we should follow the law, the highest written form of which being the Constitution. Federalism is important. Goldwater was de-segregating in Arizona well before the national government decided to push that policy down.

Click to expand...

So you think bigotry and racism are guaranteed under the Constitution? I'm afraid I have a higher opinion of this country and it's founders. They would be horrified to find that people like you are claiming that they wrote the document to protect discrimination by racist and bigots. That is disgusting and you should renounce your citizenship if you persist.

iguanaman said:

So you think bigotry and racism are guaranteed under the Constitution?

Click to expand...

Yup. Not by a government, mind you. But individuals? Yeah. If you want to be idiotic and spiteful and full of bile, well, everyone has the right to distance themselves from you for that, and you have the right to be so. That's how come we allow people like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, or Al Sharpton to speak freely, it's why we allow groups like La Raza to push the racist platforms that they do. It's even whey we let people like you suggest that those with whom you disagree must over legal procedure and authorities must obviously be racist bigots, when that charge is so hilariously, blatantly, false. Because in this country, we do not limit your liberty merely because we find your exercise of it to be offensive.

However, you are raising a strawman here. To argue that states have the right to decide to issue guidance to county clerks as pertaining to the issuance of licenses is an argument that is inherently bigoted is so an argument so devoid of self-awareness and critical thought that only a member of the modern authoritarian left could make it

I'm afraid I have a higher opinion of this country and it's founders.

Click to expand...

Oh. Then you have no idea what you are talking about . This country and its' founders would have considered the centralization that we have now to be a ridiculous caricature of the anti-federalists worst claims. I would recommend to you the writings of Brutus and his respondents

They would be horrified to find that people like you are claiming that they wrote the document to protect discrimination by racist and bigots. That is disgusting and you should renounce your citizenship if you persist.

Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating the tolerance of the modern left. Freedom is slavery. Enforced Unanimity is Diversity. Abuse of those who are different is tolerance.



More generally, liberals have no more right to use the federal government to force states to expand their definition of marriage to include homosexual unions than conservatives have to use the federal government to force states to restrict their definition so as to exclude them.