Page 75 of 193 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785125175 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 1930

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

  1. #741
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,188

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Not in my country, USA, it doesn't. Are you willing to say that for Muslims as well?
    My personal beliefs do.

    Really want to compare Muslim and Christians regarding their feelings toward gays?
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  2. #742
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,305

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    I know what Satan likes and he's loving today's ruling.
    Are you dating Satan? I do not know the nature of the relationship you have with the guy but all these intimate details are creeping me out.

  3. #743
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Semantics, semantics.. What I stated was correct.
    No, it was clearly wrong.

    That was so 1879 ago.. Sheesh man get with the times.. Homosexuals were thrown in jail then too..
    SCOTUS decisions don't have an expiration date.

    Ha! Define legal argument for us would you? Are you suggesting that the 4 dissenting justices lacked citation in their arguments? I suspect you didn't actually read it if that's your contention?

    Tim-
    If you don't understand what legal argument means, I can't help you
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #744
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,416

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You know I think highly of you, and I understand the desire to kinda rub it in, but really, things like this are really unhelpful. Raising emotional ire is exactly the last thing that gay people and those who want to get SSM and live a happy life need. It just makes people mad, and they will then take it out on the most obvious targets. It is time to celebrate(and I am incredibly happy right now), but it is also time to start working on mending fences and getting past the ire. And I think it is those of us who have pushed for this to happen who should start doing the mending.
    I was being tongue-in-cheek. However, they are going to be mad anyway. Social Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history on every issue in at least the last 200 years. They are classic authoritarians and in this case are getting angry about something that has zero impact on their lives.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  5. #745
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Looking back at your post, you did write that. Sorry. I don't think "the left" is stupid, they wouldn't try that in million years.. There are some on the right in this thread who thinks a church can be sued for refusing to marry a man and woman.
    That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  6. #746
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,926

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.
    I guess the "people of faith" have their hatred and disrespect excused because a book told them to be that way.

  7. #747
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,065

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    Even Regenerus himself said that his study was flawed.
    Most studies of this type are flawed and they are almost always skewed to support whatever point a person wants to make for fun or profit or to fulfill an academic requirement or whatever. I have no clue why so many people want to diminish or discredit traditional marriage or why it is so important to them to change the definition. From what I have witnessed with my own eyes so far, what I have read, what I see of the evidence out there, I doubt that my opinion that kids, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a mom and a dad will change in my lifetime here on Earth.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #748
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    - Study after study has shown a loving mother and father in the home is the very best circumstance for children growing up in that home. While there will always be exceptions, the children, whether straight or gay, are far less likely to have confusion about their own gender roles, are far less likely to experiment with harmful substances or engage in illegal activities, are more likely to form stable and healthy relationships themselves, and are far more likely to be socially and materially successful when they grow up in a traditional home. All traditional marriage laws in all 50 states were designed to be beneficial to any children born within the marriage.

    - Study after study has shown that neighborhoods composed of mostly traditional families tend to be more prosperous and more stable, produce more voluntary social services, are more aesthetically pleasing, produce good neighbors, better schools, and provide a more secure and safe environment to bring up kids.
    But only a very small minority of gay couples adopt children or have children and they are doing it today, even where SSM is not legal. I know several gay couples with children, not legally married in TN, so far....

    So you're somehow assuming that gay couples with children getting married affects straight couples and reduces the likelihood of them getting or staying married or living in nice neighborhoods. I can't connect those dots. A gay couple lives a few doors down from me. If they marry, then...... nothing happens. I'm still married, so are all my married neighbors, etc.
    --Traditional marriage throughout the ages has always been the means of establishing bloodlines and how people are related and in more modern times has been invaluable in studying genetics, dna, and how various issues are transmitted from generation to generation. It has helped people keep track of who their relatives are and prevented the unwanted consequences of inadvertent incest or marrying somebody too closely related.
    Again, traditional marriage will be unaffected by SSM. And if gay couples marry, how does that harm any of these benefits?

    While single parents and gay parents can do exemplary jobs bringing up children, and I know of many examples in which they do, they cannot provide the same dynamics that a loving mom and dad in the home can do. And strong family ties with the child's natural family are rarely maintained.
    I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm confident that there are maybe 100 or perhaps 1,000 single straight mothers, straight divorces, broken straight families for every one gay couple with a child or children. So we are, as I see it, focusing on the least of the problems with raising children in 2015 in America. In other words, I'd suggest the goal should be to strengthen ALL families instead of focusing on preventing or limiting the rights of a very small share of families with children.

    And while I have long personally fought for gay people to have the necessary protections and benefits in our common society together, it is for the listed reasons and others that I have opposed changing the definition of marriage to something it never was before and was not intended to be.

    I believe that the changed definition strongly signals to the young that marriage is pretty meaningless after all and is not a necessary or even a desirable goal. I cannot see how that will be a good or healthy thing for us as a society.
    I appreciate the sentiment otherwise, but I don't see how more marriage or more people with the right to marry signals that marriage is meaningless. I'd argue the 180 degree opposite, that it signals that marriage is important to many families, including gay families.

    What gives the signal that marriage is meaningless is a high rate of straight divorce.

  9. #749
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,652

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, it was clearly wrong.
    Well if you say so?



    SCOTUS decisions don't have an expiration date.
    They expire when overturned..



    If you don't understand what legal argument means, I can't help you
    Nice dodge, I understand and have demonstrated many, many times on this forum exactly what a legal argument is.. Fail on your part. The dissenting justices provided ample legal precedence for their dissenting opinions.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #750
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    46,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Unaffiliated View Post
    Meh. I used to be against gay marriage out of ignorance. My views evolved just as Obama's did. It's not a big deal. Why do you care hiding behind "Independent" yet espousing Christian conservative Republican views?

    Why should I or any normal functioning modern person care what other people do in the privacy of their homes be it smoke weed or be gay? Why would I or anybody seriously care unless you have nothing better to care about in life?
    Your 'views' evolved because you needed campaign cash too? Awesome. Funny though. Here you are admitting you and a sitting democrat had values you now despise...and you insist they must be Christian Conservative GOP views. And THATS what makes you so ****ing adorable.

Posting Permissions

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