Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 187

Thread: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

  1. #61
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm trying to make a point. Even if you disagree with my point I need you to demonstrate that you understand what I'm saying so that I will then listen to what you have to say. While your posts are your own, communication between us is a team effort and I need your cooperation. Right now you're trying to make a point while I'm trying to make a point. I feel like you're basically interrupting and speaking while I'm speaking, and what I would like is to be understood and understand you in return. I would be more than happy to read your own analogy when I'm finished, but right now it's my turn.

    ***

    My point on this thread concerns only the law, and nothing else. Heteros got the same civil right to marry someone of the same gender as gays did.

    The scale being the 14th amendment and each wait being the actual civil right given to each side, neither side got anything more than the other side, legally. Each side got the same thing, so if marriage is equal now, it was equal then; if gay marriage was unequal then, it is unequal now.

    I think you and I are beginning at very different places. I appears to me that you begin where there are distinctions between gay/striate, whereas I begin where there are only citizens per-se.
    There are certainly distinctions between gay/straight on an emotional and love level; which is intricate to the current discussion of marriage as marriage pertains to more than just a regular ol' contract but is reserved as a sacred bond between two people whom love each other totally and fully. If this were a "paint my house" sort of thing, I may be more inclined to agree with you; but as it deals with base emotion and desire it becomes complicated. It used to be mere contract between two people and their god; with rules for eligibility and such set by the Church, which is fine since it was mostly a religious event. State usurped it and complicated the matter because of it. Thus we have to see what it is that marriage does, it allows for many benefits typically reserved for the one person opposite someone by which they fully share and invest their lives with. That sharing and investing is dependent upon many factors, one huge one being love. There is a difference in who hetero and homosexual people love, markedly in sex of partner. Hetero chooses those of opposite sex, homo chooses those of same sex. That has to factor into the equation when discussing marriage because marriage is also based on love. Who can you and can't you marry. You may say it was even before because homosexuals could marry people of opposite sex; but that mistakenly bars whom one would choose to be married to. A homosexual obviously wouldn't choose to be married to someone of opposite sex anymore than a heterosexual wouldn't choose to be married to someone of same sex. Thus previously you allowed one set of people to marry those whom they would naturally choose and forbid another group to marry those whom they would naturally choose. Marriage must take into account these factors.

    I explained very clearly and by your own analogy previous this distinction of what is going on. Furthermore, my argument has the added bonus of showing why interracial marriage is ok and should be allowed. Your argument is quite the opposite and could be used to argue against interracial marriage. The breakdown of that point on something we nearly universally accept as ok and something which government can't bar should show the real world end points of our arguments and which one fits the data better.

    BTW, the first part of your post is BS. I responded in full to posts you've made, you weren't in middle of something else you would have finished it before you posted it. I've taken your argument, I know where you're coming from, I think you've purposefully left out key bits of information in order to make your argument. As your argument doesn't fit reality (i.e. in the application of interracial marriage) I think that's a big clue as to some starting assumptions being wrong or missing. Don't sit there and try to play the "I'm making an argument" blah blah blah. Cause I'm not in the room with you, I can't hear you talk. All I can go off of is your posts and when you've posted something that seems to say, this is my argument as of right now respond to it and we'll continue. Otherwise, finish your post before posting it. I'm not going to fault myself with this when you're basically making some deflect as to not consider my arguments but to demand your arguments be heard to their full.
    Last edited by Ikari; 04-07-09 at 08:19 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #62
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Wate...there are still 2 seporate institutions?

    What did I mis?
    ?

    How is a heterosexual marriage changed by virtue of gays being allowed to marry?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    ?

    How is a heterosexual marriage changed by virtue of gays being allowed to marry?
    Who's talking about "a heterosexual marriage"?

    Not me.

    We're talking about the legal institution of civil marriage, not any given marriage specifically.

    Heteros can now marry someone of the same gender, that's the change I mentioned.

    When you tell me that I'm wrong, you are saying that heteros can not marry someone of the same gender.

  4. #64
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And 5 years later, the court held in Baker v. Nelson that Loving did not apply to gay marriage.

    lol, no, it has not. That's just absurd.
    Baker v. Nelson was never heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, the Court has not actually "held" anything related to gay marriage. Because they denied hearing the case, it is a precedent for all other lower courts to follow.

    There is evidence, though, that with the current make up of the Court, same-sex marriage will be approved. That was in Lawrence v. Texas and that occurred more recently than Baker v. Nelson.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are certainly distinctions between gay/straight on an emotional and love level;..
    Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.

  6. #66
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Who's talking about "a heterosexual marriage"?

    Not me.

    We're talking about the legal institution of civil marriage, not any given marriage specifically.

    Heteros can now marry someone of the same gender, that's the change I mentioned.

    When you tell me that I'm wrong, you are saying that heteros can not marry someone of the same gender.
    I agree that the institution of marriage itself is different, but you said "Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed."

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Baker v. Nelson was never heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, the Court has not actually "held" anything related to gay marriage. Because they denied hearing the case, it is a precedent for all other lower courts to follow.

    There is evidence, though, that with the current make up of the Court, same-sex marriage will be approved. That was in Lawrence v. Texas and that occurred more recently than Baker v. Nelson.
    What in Lawrence makes you think the court will get involved, much less approve of it?

    The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.
    Kennedy is listing it along with other things that everyone would agree are not legal.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #67
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What in Lawrence makes you think the court will get involved, much less approve of it?.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057980216

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I agree that the institution of marriage itself is different, but you said "Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed."
    Well I suppose the flaw in my argument is in using 2 different groups (hetero and gay) when I don't see sexual orientation at all while looking at the issue; I see only citizens per-se.

    So that's my fault.

    Maybe after dinner I'll give it another go.

  9. #69
    Educator azura28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    landlocked U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-29-11 @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    729

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No. In California, the legislature, not only once, but twice passed gay marriage legislation, only to have it vetoed by our Republican Governor (who incidentally said the issue should be decided by the California Supreme Court).
    But...but....Obama himself said he is against gay marriage.

  10. #70
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Again, I don't see anything in the majority that indicates they think the same rationale would apply to marriage. O'Connor's concurrence was actually the broadest opinion in terms of application to a marriage case, and even she suggested that it would be possible for states to limit it.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 04-07-09 at 09:19 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •