Page 138 of 193 FirstFirst ... 3888128136137138139140148188 ... LastLast
Results 1,371 to 1,380 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1371
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,835

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Having a child out of wedlock does not mean the child wasn't planned for. There is a difference between the two, at least now.

    Depending on the community, since I have no idea which specific communities you are talking about, many of those children may or may not be planned for. Some are only planned for by one person within the relationship. Others are not planned for at all. Some are completely planned for, even if the person is considered a "single parent".
    In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

    They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

    I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  2. #1372
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    11-11-16 @ 01:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,120

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.
    Less important to whom?

    They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.
    I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  3. #1373
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    You can get a general idea of how much something changed culture, but yes, it's subjective when making a judgment on how much it changed culture or not. Saying that though, it would probably be pretty hard to argue certain things didn't fundamentally change the culture of the country.
    Change happens. There is an obvious change to the culture, but it didn't happen Friday. It has been gradually happening over the last 30 or so years. People slowly changing their perspectives on same sex relationships, even if they weren't gay themselves. Some knew someone who was gay, a loved one, or others simply actually thought about the issue, realizing "why exactly can't they be together, married", and none of the reasons seem rational. Then those people start accepting, and others feel okay coming out, and they are more accepted along with more people thinking it through, figuring out that most of the "rationale" behind preventing homosexual relations, sodomy, same sex marriage is based in religion or tradition, two things that are losing priority in many minds, at least the old religious views anyway. The legal battles on the way to this were a mix of rational thinking and increasing public support, change of thinking within a society.
    "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. #1374
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

    They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

    I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.
    That's what I find entertaining about all of this. More and more straight people are saying no to marriage and yet all the while gay people want in on the fun of marriage. I have a feeling the trend will find its way among gay people before long and when it does all I will be able to do is laugh.

  5. #1375
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    Less important to whom?
    Millennials with women leading the way.

  6. #1376
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,835

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    Less important to whom?

    I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
    I have no doubt there are same sex couples who are excited they can exercise their freedom to marry in any state they chose. However, this is a very small percentage of the population.

    What the general population is demonstrating is that concept of marriage has less and less meaning to them. Facts and polls demonstrate this to be true.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  7. #1377
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,008

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    There are reasonable state interests in not allowing closer than first cousins to be involved in sexual relations, especially if one grew up around the other, related to either undue influence in the relationship (real grooming) or there is a chance of offspring with birth defects (for 1st level relations, it can be close to 40% or more), or both are concerns.
    As I said, there is no concern about genetic defects in offspring when the partners are of the same sex, or, for that matter, where at least one of them has chosen to be permanently sterilized.

    I am not sure what you mean by "undue influence," which is a term from the law of wills and trusts. It's entirely possible that no family member has done anything whatever to cause either would-be incestuous partner to have a sexual attraction to the other.

    I don't really see any reason not to allow case by case bases of marriage between siblings, even blood siblings, if they weren't raised together, since there is little likelihood of undue influence on the relationship.
    It's the very nature of laws to apply generally, rather than "case by case." I know so-called liberals like to imagine technocrats who share their antidemocratic views exercising their undoubtedly superior wisdom and morality to determine who gets to do what with his life, or not. But despite Obergefell, we are still a nation of laws, and that can't happen.

    There are state interests involved in limiting number of legal spouses as well.
    The Chief Justice did not think those state interests were even as strong as those in the case of homosexual marriage. He said that a view of the Constitution that requires this great a leap away from traditional marriage to be recognized as a right must also require that for the even smaller leap of increasing the number of partners beyond two.

    They don't involve tradition, "think of the children" with no science to back up any harm to children, or random possibilities of an unknown future, nor should the argument involve "the people voted for this" (since most of these laws were put in place by legislatures).
    The majority could not have made more clear than it did in Obergefell that neither tradition nor the will of majorities as expressed through their elected legislators means a damn when five judges know better. The Court can only prevent adult incest and polygamy by fiat, but it just made its willingness to issue arbitrary dictates very clear.

    It will revolve around how legal marriage works and protects the spouses from other legal family members, society (in some ways) and each other.
    I don't know what that means. If a certain form of non-traditional marriage were already legal, what question of its legality would revolve around how it worked?

    The arguments prior to any court challenge should include looking for ways to actually change some marriage laws to accommodate multiple spouses in a marriage
    The debate about same-sex marriage that states were engaged in is the very thing the majority cut off in Obergefell. Why should anyone bother with the democratic process when it comes to other forms of non-traditional marriage, if the Supreme Court is only going to substitute the personal views of a handful of judges for the judgments of majorities anyway?

    As with any SC battle, such cases would be decided on their own arguments, both for and against, not mainly on previous cases.
    Again, I don't know what that means. The Supreme Court regularly considers its previous decisions in deciding the case before it. In Casey in 1992, Anthony Kennedy sure as hell made a big deal out of stare decisis when he needed a convenient excuse not to overrule Roe. Or maybe you are trying to say that neither legal reasoning nor the Constitution would have anything more to do with the Court's decision in a future case involving a challenge to state laws against adult incest or polygamy, than it did in Obergefell.

    The notion that Obergefell was decided on the arguments is laughable. You might want to read more about how substantive due process works. Forget about the subject matter--just as a Supreme Court decision, the quality of this monstrosity is right down there with Roe v. Wade, another notorious substantive due process piece of junk.

  8. #1378
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

    They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

    I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.
    Marriage isn't becoming less important though, not to many people. There are people who want to be married, even if they aren't currently married. There are those who don't think marriage is important, as there always have been such people (the group getting larger or smaller at various times in history), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to many other people.

    There is no reason to not give them the right, even if they never exercise that right.

    You are making a lot of assumptions here that don't really support reality, history. While there is currently an increase in those who don't want to ever get married, it is not a significant increase. And many of those still support others getting married, they just don't feel it is right for them. There is no telling how many more or fewer people will feel this way in the future. But this trend has nothing to do with same sex couples who are fighting for their right to marry, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been fighting for the removal of gender/sex restrictions on marriage, whether all, most, or even just some or a few same sex couples in the future decide to get married.

    And it isn't just or even mainly liberals who are against marriage. The majority of those that I've seen against legal marriage are libertarians. There are also some religious fundamentalist groups who are against legal marriage as well, believing that the religious marriage is what counts.
    "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. #1379
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,835

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That's what I find entertaining about all of this. More and more straight people are saying no to marriage and yet all the while gay people want in on the fun of marriage. I have a feeling the trend will find its way among gay people before long and when it does all I will be able to do is laugh.
    I agree. Once they discover what a bitch it is to undo what they have done, and the legal ramification, financial obligations, etc., they might wonder what they were fight for in the first place.

    I happen to support the ability for same sex couples to get married, but as you have seen, I do find some rather interesting irony in the effort. To me, this issue is just one part of a far greater effort. It has been more political, than philosophical.

    Kind of makes me wonder what is next for liberal/progressives.

    Now that this one final issue has been resolved, do gay pride parades need to continue, and if so, can heterosexual pride parades now be endorsed and underwritten by cities across the nation? Should heterosexual couple demand such recognition and endorsement?

    Interesting times.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  10. #1380
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,835

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Marriage isn't becoming less important though, not to many people. There are people who want to be married, even if they aren't currently married. There are those who don't think marriage is important, as there always have been such people (the group getting larger or smaller at various times in history), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to many other people.

    There is no reason to not give them the right, even if they never exercise that right.

    You are making a lot of assumptions here that don't really support reality, history. While there is currently an increase in those who don't want to ever get married, it is not a significant increase. And many of those still support others getting married, they just don't feel it is right for them. There is no telling how many more or fewer people will feel this way in the future. But this trend has nothing to do with same sex couples who are fighting for their right to marry, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been fighting for the removal of gender/sex restrictions on marriage, whether all, most, or even just some or a few same sex couples in the future decide to get married.

    And it isn't just or even mainly liberals who are against marriage. The majority of those that I've seen against legal marriage are libertarians. There are also some religious fundamentalist groups who are against legal marriage as well, believing that the religious marriage is what counts.
    Assumptions that don't exist? I think you are either living in a bubble, or not willing to see reality.

    The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families | Pew Research Center

    The transformative trends of the past 50 years that have led to a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, done in association with TIME, complemented by an analysis of demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

Posting Permissions

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