Page 176 of 193 FirstFirst ... 76126166174175176177178186 ... LastLast
Results 1,751 to 1,760 of 1930

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

  1. #1751
    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 scatt View Post
    But it does. The basis is any two people now.
    No, it doesn't, and no it isn't. I can do this for a while though.
    "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.

  2. #1752
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    SCOTUS says it does.

  3. #1753
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    SCOTUS says it does.
    That is factually incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  4. #1754
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    It is factually correct.

  5. #1755
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    It is factually correct.
    No, it's not.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  6. #1756
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinthaniel View Post
    No, it's not.
    But it is. Incest marriage cannot be made illegal any more because of this ruling.

  7. #1757
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    But it is. Incest marriage cannot be made illegal any more because of this ruling.
    Nope. Not True. That's why you are unable to point to any text from the ruling that would make your claim correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  8. #1758
    Sage
    JumpinJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.
    Well, cousins can marry. So that's not incest, I guess. The prior definition of marriage (one man, one woman) did not prevent siblings from getting married, yet it was against the law. So there's nothing in this new S.Ct. decision that changes anything regarding siblings getting married. There is a genetic basis for that not being legal, if they are full blood siblings. However, pro-lifers would force a minor to have a baby, even if it is the result of incest, so go figure.
    ________________________________

  9. #1759
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpinJack View Post
    The prior definition of marriage (one man, one woman) did not prevent siblings from getting married, yet it was against the law.
    The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinthaniel View Post
    Nope.
    But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.

  10. #1760
    Sage
    JumpinJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.



    But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
    That is not germaine to incest, any more than the prior definition. The prior definition could have been one man (the brother) and one woman (the sister). Nothing has changed regarding incestuous marriage.
    ________________________________

Posting Permissions

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