Page 38 of 46 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #371
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It is more like people don't want to hear anything past "marry for love". That is not reality. Marriage occurs even in the US for many reasons.
    Rogue, I'm just looking for a decision based on merits, an honest focus on the real issue.
    Some arguments are much too broadly drawn and open to unintended (or intended) consequences if successful.
    About that argument, the term "Pandora's box" comes to mind. Overused, yeah, but sometimes relevant anyway.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  2. #372
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Slippery slope isn't how our system works though.
    Slippery slope is an argument that says that, without regard to any other arguments, if one thing happens, it means this similar thing must also happen, even if there are some other, bigger differences in these things from a legal standpoint.
    That what Laws do.
    As a Country we start with the Constitution that guarantees personal freedom and then begin to place limitations on that personal freedom for reasons that should be obvious.
    Don't call it slippery slope if you don't want to, but that's what Laws are intended to guard against.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  3. #373
    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: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

    Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

    What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

    Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

    Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties
    Single people wouldn't have a standing because they could get the same "benefits" by simply getting married, which also comes with responsibilities.

    And you are mistaken on how "compelling government interest" works. It is based on a "compelling government interest" to prevent something, not to have something happen. This means the government would have to show why two people should not be allowed to marry even if they say "I'm not attracted to this person". It isn't any of their business if the people aren't attracted to each other. Court testimony, so long as it still only applies while the people are in a relationship, wouldn't change. Custody rights work or should work the same whether the people are married or not. The only difference should be if married, this shows that someone who is not a parent to the children is willing to take on the responsibility of those children.

    We don't actually require married people to live together now. We don't require a love or attraction test for married couples now. Marriages for reasons other than love or attraction happen all the time.
    "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.

  4. #374
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

    Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

    What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

    Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

    Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties
    Precisely ... rise and fall on it's own merits.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  5. #375
    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: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    That what Laws do.
    As a Country we start with the Constitution that guarantees personal freedom and then begin to place limitations on that personal freedom for reasons that should be obvious.
    Don't call it slippery slope if you don't want to, but that's what Laws are intended to guard against.
    No, it isn't. We take into account all the arguments that come with laws, from both sides, why the law is in place and how and why a person is being prevented from doing something others can do. Slippery slope doesn't take into account arguments that are solely related to the law that is being claimed as similar enough to another that it would be taken down by such a ruling.

    Example: If same sex marriage becomes legal across the country, some claim that the slippery slope this causes means that incest restrictions or polygamy restrictions must also follow because they assume that the logic being used to take down same sex marriage bans is simply same sex couples aren't allowed to marry and that treats them differently than opposite sex couples. But this isn't true. The case and rulings are and will be much more complicated than this. The states' arguments for why same sex couples shouldn't marry is not the same as the states' arguments for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to marry or for why a person shouldn't be allowed to have multiple spouses.
    "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.

  6. #376
    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: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Rogue, I'm just looking for a decision based on merits, an honest focus on the real issue.
    Some arguments are much too broadly drawn and open to unintended (or intended) consequences if successful.
    About that argument, the term "Pandora's box" comes to mind. Overused, yeah, but sometimes relevant anyway.
    What are you talking about? What "merits"?

    Marriage is a legal kinship arrangement, just like adoption or having a child. There is no legal requirement for love or attraction in marriage. There is no additional legal arguments based even off that view that people don't need to love each other to be able to fulfill the legal obligations of being another person's spouse.
    "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.

  7. #377
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,169

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    One has a racial component, and was does not.
    The other has the gender component. How are the two different and why?

    You are comparing one thing that includes all people
    That is simply not true. Are all people the same gender?

    Doesn't work.
    Your reasoning you mean...

    And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide.
    Why? Based on what?

  8. #378
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,564

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, that is not your logic, that is your thinking, your attempt to justify the difference between how you feel about same sex couples and how you feel about interracial couples and the laws that affect/affected each of them. Logically, everyone is not treated the same because men cannot marry men, but women can marry men, just as a white person could not marry a black person, but a black person could marry a black person.
    Ah, so you want to separate people out based on gender, but you don't want to separate them based on race? I don't want to separate them on either. That sounds like... Hmmm. Well, I'll just call it flawed logic.


    In both cases, people are prevented from doing something based on a characteristic such as race or sex (note, that is sex, not sexuality). Or, according to your logic, everyone is treated equally because everyone is restricted from marrying someone based on that characteristic of either race or sex.
    Nope. Got it wrong, I haven't said that. And don't try to draw me into your SSM debate, I'm talking about Constitutional issues, not that little stuff.

    It was your misuse of logic that is the problem, the same logic that was attempted to justify interracial marriage bans, you are using to attempt to justify same sex marriage bans.
    Again, flawed logic on your part.
    "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

  9. #379
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it isn't. We take into account all the arguments that come with laws, from both sides, why the law is in place and how and why a person is being prevented from doing something others can do. Slippery slope doesn't take into account arguments that are solely related to the law that is being claimed as similar enough to another that it would be taken down by such a ruling.

    Example: If same sex marriage becomes legal across the country, some claim that the slippery slope this causes means that incest restrictions or polygamy restrictions must also follow because they assume that the logic being used to take down same sex marriage bans is simply same sex couples aren't allowed to marry and that treats them differently than opposite sex couples.
    But this isn't true. The case and rulings are and will be much more complicated than this. The states' arguments for why same sex couples shouldn't marry is not the same as the states' arguments for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to marry or for why a person shouldn't be allowed to have multiple spouses.
    That depends on the arguments made and how the ruling is worded.
    It should be narrowly focused on the actual issue at hand.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  10. #380
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,278

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    What are you talking about? What "merits"?

    Marriage is a legal kinship arrangement, just like adoption or having a child. There is no legal requirement for love or attraction in marriage. There is no additional legal arguments based even off that view that people don't need to love each other to be able to fulfill the legal obligations of being another person's spouse.
    see #379
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Page 38 of 46 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •