Page 17 of 43 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #161
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    So you're unable to address the question and couldn't resist the trotting out of this straw dog to pretend that ya had...

    Again the question is HOW DOES NOTING THAT POLYGAMY FALLS OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD OF MARRIAGE AND ACCURATELY COMPARING THE JOINING OF MORE THAN TWO INDIDIVIDUALS IS SYNONYMOUS (IN PRACTICE) WITH THE STANDARD VIOLATING JOINING OF TWO OUTIES AND TWO INIES, BECOME ' A SIGN OF LOSING'
    Ok, slowing this down for you: when you have to change the subject and appeal to emotion by bringing in something unrelated, it is a sign you are losing.

    Note that your response avoids that question entirely... There is no such thing as 'GAY-MARRIAGE'... Marriage is and ONLY IS.... the joining of TWO and ONLY TWO individuals who each represent the distinct genders... Homosexuals, who seek to marry those of the same gender DO NOT RISE TO THE NECESSARILY HIGHER STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... Thus the pretense that Marriage can possibly include homosexuals is a red-herring, as they cannot be included, due to the above noted standard THAT IS MARRIAGE; which is precisely the same reason that polygamist cannot participate in marriage.

    Respectively, they may co-habitate, play house and perhaps even incorporate to establish themselves as one legally recognized entity... but due to the standard that DEFINES MARRIAGE... neither can be married.
    Massachusetts for one disagrees with you, since they HAVE GAY MARRIAGE! SO yes, there is such a thing as gay marriage. Same sex marriage is recognized in 9 different countries, so again, there is such a thing as gay marriage. Facts are good.


    As I stated... no one is claiming that Polygamy is identical to the abnormal sexual cravings which define the homosexual.
    And, as I stated, CC did not claim any one did make that argument. He simply pointed out the key difference.



    I see, so you're not familiar with the Constitutional amendment and the spurious federal laws produced as a result which specifically demand otherwise... But let's not get mired in that abyss of idiocy; let's try this...
    Vague insults with nothing to back them up. Nothing at all in fact.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gay Marriage has been passed... It's the law that Marriage is no longer a legitimate cultural standard designed around the natural biological imperative, to provide the cultural nuclues through which future generations are concieved and raised, with the progeny being influenced by the traits common to each of the respective genders and that instead the declining American culture has crossed yet another milestone towards ruination and authorized the joinging of two outies or two innies...

    Now comes the Polygamists... claiming that their people too and that its not fair that they are locked out of the financial benefits which the law provides for others...

    Show us the argument that you would use, which would lock these poor unfortunate souls out of enjoying those HUNDREDS of Federal, state and local financial benefits that will at that point be provided to people, based exclusively upon their respective sexual orientations...

    BEGIN!
    Nothing easier. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are orientations, they are what you are. Polygamy is an action, it is what you do. They are, therefore, entirely different and because one is allowed has no bearing on the other. Furthermore, there is a wealth of data showing that gay couples are just as good at raising children as strait couples. Polygamy can offer no such data.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum View Post
    ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.

    First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?

    How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?
    Because no one is advocating for polygamy here, because polygamy is different in key ways from gay marriage, and because this court ruling has jack **** to do with polygamy. We have covered all this in this very thread, do try and keep up.
    So you're unable to address the question and couldn't resist the trotting out of this straw dog to pretend that ya had...

    Again the question is HOW DOES NOTING THAT POLYGAMY FALLS OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD OF MARRIAGE AND ACCURATELY COMPARING THE JOINING OF MORE THAN TWO INDIDIVIDUALS IS SYNONYMOUS (IN PRACTICE) WITH THE STANDARD VIOLATING JOINING OF TWO OUTIES AND TWO INIES, BECOME ' A SIGN OF LOSING'

    Note that your response avoids that question entirely... There is no such thing as 'GAY-MARRIAGE'... Marriage is and ONLY IS.... the joining of TWO and ONLY TWO individuals who each represent the distinct genders... Homosexuals, who seek to marry those of the same gender DO NOT RISE TO THE NECESSARILY HIGHER STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... Thus the pretense that Marriage can possibly include homosexuals is a red-herring, as they cannot be included, due to the above noted standard THAT IS MARRIAGE; which is precisely the same reason that polygamist cannot participate in marriage.

    Respectively, they may co-habitate, play house and perhaps even incorporate to establish themselves as one legally recognized entity... but due to the standard that DEFINES MARRIAGE... neither can be married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    Second: No one has argued that Polygamy is identical to the sexual deviancy of homosexuality...
    Nd did CC claim this. He simply pointed out an important difference.
    As I stated... no one is claiming that Polygamy is identical to the abnormal sexual cravings which define the homosexual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    Third: Who has suggested that Polygamy is a sexual orientation?
    When people make an assumption that because one thing is allowed, another must be, it is perfectly logical to point out why it would not be, and why they are different.
    I see, so you're not familiar with the Constitutional amendment and the spurious federal laws produced as a result which specifically demand otherwise... But let's not get mired in that abyss of idiocy; let's try this...

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gay Marriage has been passed... It's the law that Marriage is no longer a legitimate cultural standard designed around the natural biological imperative, to provide the cultural nuclues through which future generations are concieved and raised, with the progeny being influenced by the traits common to each of the respective genders and that instead the declining American culture has crossed yet another milestone towards ruination and authorized the joinging of two outies or two innies...

    Now comes the Polygamists... claiming that their people too and that its not fair that they are locked out of the financial benefits which the law provides for others...

    Show us the argument that you would use, which would lock these poor unfortunate souls out of enjoying those HUNDREDS of Federal, state and local financial benefits that will at that point be provided to people, based exclusively upon their respective sexual orientations...

    BEGIN!

  3. #163
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    So bad you had to post it twice?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #164
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So bad you had to post it twice?
    When the argument is truly awesome, it bears repeating.

  5. #165
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Just going to tackle this one point, since it is the key point to my mind. To the best of my knowledge, there is zero evidence that polygamy is an orientation of some sort. Homosexuality is known to be an orientation, as is heterosexuality.
    Has there been any research done into whether some human beings are inherently inclined (ie inborn orientation) to multiple partners? What did Kinsey have to say on that subject?

    Maybe polyamory isn't considered an orientation because it doesn't have the political power that the SSM movement does...

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #166
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So bad you had to post it twice?
    You can make fun of him all you like but he's right. You cannot exclude pologamy if you allow gay marriage. Not unless you want to become what you claim to be fighting.

    There is no argument you could make that could not be called "discriminatory" or "bigoted" the new favorite arguments the left uses against anyone opposed to gay marriage.

    I think my favorite argument some on the far left are using is the they claim that polygamy isn't beneficial as if that is a new defining standard for allowing marriage for an alternative lifestyle.

    Considering there are 3 times the number of countries that still practice polygamy I'd say its far easier to prove it is more beneficial to a society than allowing 2 homosexuals to marry. That argument made is about the funniest if not dumbest one I've ever seen to try and discriminate against polygamists while in the same breath claim to be fighting discrimination against 2 couple homosexuals.

    And that goes for all other alternative lifestyles as well.
    Last edited by texmaster; 07-10-10 at 01:31 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum

    ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.

    First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?

    How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?
    Because no one is advocating for polygamy here, because polygamy is different in key ways from gay marriage, and because this court ruling has jack **** to do with polygamy. We have covered all this in this very thread, do try and keep up.
    Ok, slowing this down for you: when you have to change the subject and appeal to emotion by bringing in something unrelated, it is a sign you are losing.

    I see... So you feel that specifically speaking to the issue at hand, stating in specific and plain terms, the elements of the issue, outlining each in stark detail; you feel that this is an attempt to change the subject?

    Basically, you are helpless to discuss the issue... and as a result of your inability to muster the discipline to refrain from commenting upon an issue in which you're clearily ill-equipped to speak, you felt that the best ya could do was to trot out a series of specious cliches. Which have no record of working in verbal exchanges; and less where the discussion is executed through written discourse...

    ROFLMNAO... Leftists...


    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    Note that your response avoids that question entirely... There is no such thing as 'GAY-MARRIAGE'... Marriage is and ONLY IS.... the joining of TWO and ONLY TWO individuals who each represent the distinct genders... Homosexuals, who seek to marry those of the same gender DO NOT RISE TO THE NECESSARILY HIGHER STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... Thus the pretense that Marriage can possibly include homosexuals is a red-herring, as they cannot be included, due to the above noted standard THAT IS MARRIAGE; which is precisely the same reason that polygamist cannot participate in marriage.

    Respectively, they may co-habitate, play house and perhaps even incorporate to establish themselves as one legally recognized entity... but due to the standard that DEFINES MARRIAGE... neither can be married.
    Massachusetts for one disagrees with you, since they HAVE GAY MARRIAGE! SO yes, there is such a thing as gay marriage. Same sex marriage is recognized in 9 different countries, so again, there is such a thing as gay marriage. Facts are good.
    Indeed facts ARE good...

    One of my favorite facts is that the argument which rests in the appeal to popularity, rests in a fallacious logical construct; thus the argument is logically invalid, and invalid reasoning is intellectually unsound reasoning... and that such argument discredits itself.

    But hey, as default concessions go... this one is a good as the next.

    Here's the thing... If Massachusetts determined that rape was legal, that would not make rape moral. Laws which fail to sustain sound morality, fail to sustain justice... Surely you'd agree that legalizing rape, or any other immoral act, would not serve justice.

    What's more this principle does not change when the volume of those who believe otherwise extends to NINE... or Nineteen, or nineteenhundredbilliontrillion...

    Marriage is the joing of only two individuals, who each represent the respective genders... that is a morally essential fact; it rests in a principle which is established by the biological imperative.

    If every human being that walked the earth from the origin of the species to the last human being breathing... believed to the core of their existence that homosexuals were perfectly suited for marriage... that considerable volume of individuals would have absolutely NO BEARING on whether or not homosexuals were well suited for joining.

    Because the volume of people who adhere to a given position has ABSOLUTELY NO POTENTIAL CORRLEATION TO THE VALIDITY OF THAT POSITION.

    Nature designed the species in distinct genders... and in so doing, given the purpose of marriage; which FYI is not to scoop up the various tax advantages... Nature defines the scope of marriage; specifically excluding the lowly homosexual.

    Now, I'd be remiss to point out that HAD every human being since the origin of the species embraced homosexuality as a viable lifestyle... the species would not have made it much past that charter class.

    Homosexuality is a deviation from the biological norm. Now I realize that the obsurant progressive will argue otherwise and that's fine... but at the end of the day the fag is a defective human being. Raising defective abnormality to the cultural norm is a stupendously bad idea... because to do so, promotes the acceptance of defective human beings and a culture wherein the norm is defective human beings is a defective culture... and let's face it who wants to be France?

    LOL.. But seriously... Nature is not known for its compassion for the defective organism...


    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    I see, so you're not familiar with the Constitutional amendment and the spurious federal laws produced as a result which specifically demand otherwise... But let's not get mired in that abyss of idiocy; let's try this...

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gay Marriage has been passed... It's the law that Marriage is no longer a legitimate cultural standard designed around the natural biological imperative, to provide the cultural nuclues through which future generations are concieved and raised, with the progeny being influenced by the traits common to each of the respective genders and that instead the declining American culture has crossed yet another milestone towards ruination and authorized the joinging of two outies or two innies...

    Now comes the Polygamists... claiming that their people too and that its not fair that they are locked out of the financial benefits which the law provides for others...

    Show us the argument that you would use, which would lock these poor unfortunate souls out of enjoying those HUNDREDS of Federal, state and local financial benefits that will at that point be provided to people, based exclusively upon their respective sexual orientations...

    BEGIN!
    Nothing easier. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are orientations, they are what you are. Polygamy is an action, it is what you do. They are, therefore, entirely different and because one is allowed has no bearing on the other. Furthermore, there is a wealth of data showing that gay couples are just as good at raising children as strait couples. Polygamy can offer no such data.
    So you're claiming that those saddled with the abnormal desire to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender are incapable of not taking action towards acquiring that satisfaction, through sexual intercourse with an individual of their own gender?

    Interesting. Suffice it to say that this is hardly a valid argument, given that it's patently false. Beyond that, the failure to engage in such foolish behavior does not stand as a means of excusing the behavior. For instance, the sincere desire on the part of a pedophile to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with a minor child, even where that minor child is eager to do so... does not excuse that action.

    And spare us the whole ' valid consent' drivel, as the argument is one which tries to conflate legality with principled morality. Which is precisely how the culture came to the discussion of lowering the marriage standard to provide for homosexuals, resultant from legalizing sodomy and normalizing homosexuality.

    With regard to the vaunted authority of 'the wealth of data' AKA: Academic Studies; during the last big push which revolved around the Congressional approval of 'Don't ask, Don't tell' which in effect provided that homosexuals could serve in the US Military if they did not make their sexual choice known, the American Psychiatric Association released a 'study' which asserted that 'children may actually benefit from adult/child sexual relationships...'.

    So while I appreciate the appeal to such authority, I reject it as invalid reasoning. Nature designed the species in distinct genders and it's a simple fact of nature that defective organisms do not consistently out perform the natural standard.

    But I expect that you'll equally reject my position... so towards that end, I'll see your appeal to the wealth of data that suggests the abnormal, defective human beings often do out perform the standard and raise you the wealth of data that shows that homosexuality is a natural means by which the population is regulated.

    In the 1960s and 70s, the social scientists were all in a lather over the 'Population Explosion'. Most of the argument rested in studies of rats which were subjected to various thresholds of societal stress... from scenarios wherein the population has an abundance of space and resources, where homosexuality was virtually non-existent. Over time the population increased, and given the finite resources the rat culture began to realize shortages of living space, food, etc...

    The first societal reaction was a sharp increase in homosexual behavior... the second was cannibalism. Ironically and quite topically... the first rat citizens to be consumed... were the homosexuals; the second were the rats with other discernible defects... from there it simply came down to the survival of the fittest, until suddenly, equilibrium was established; with the carnage coming to an end where the population was back at the point where each individual rat had sufficient space...

    It's worth noting that while you may reject that data, you'll be hard pressed to avoid the fact that homosexuality and the strongest advocacies for the continued normalization of such is centered in major population centers where space and resources realize the highest levels of stress within our modern human culture.

    Beyond that, your anti-polygamist arguments will fall to the same braying for fairness, that the homosexuals have used to undermine Marriage. With the sweet irony being that it was YOU, the advocates of the normalization of abnormality which set the standard that strips marriage of it's legitimacy... which is the sole purpose of this ludicrous pursuit; and it will be that very standard that provides for all of the other highly pridictable, but which will be declared 'unitended' consequences... consequences that inevitably follow ALL of the addled-minded notions conjured and implemented as policy by the ideological left.
    Last edited by PubliusInfinitu; 07-10-10 at 02:00 PM.

  8. #168
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    You think homosexuals are rats. Got it.

    Me? I'd say that perhaps a denser population leads to more interaction among people. This increased interaction creates a greater understanding and acceptance of those who are different than yourself. Meanwhile, the rural bible belt types are not exposed to these views, so stay in their lonely, bigoted metaphorical caves.

    People aren't animals, man. Who cares what nature and biology think?
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-10-10 at 01:52 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You can make fun of him all you like but he's right. You cannot exclude pologamy if you allow gay marriage. Not unless you want to become what you claim to be fighting.

    There is no argument you could make that could not be called "discriminatory" or "bigoted" the new favorite arguments the left uses against anyone opposed to gay marriage.

    I think my favorite argument some on the far left are using is the they claim that polygamy isn't beneficial as if that is a new defining standard for allowing marriage for an alternative lifestyle.

    Considering there are 3 times the number of countries that still practice polygamy I'd say its far easier to prove it is more beneficial to a society than allowing 2 homosexuals to marry. That argument made is about the funniest if not dumbest one I've ever seen to try and discriminate against polygamists while in the same breath claim to be fighting discrimination against 2 couple homosexuals.

    And that goes for all other alternative lifestyles as well.
    Spot on...

    But the argument which claims to stand against polygamy, which is most assuredly going to follow immeidately on the heels of any potential gains by the homosexual lobby prevailing, is the minority argument in their community.

    The Left could not care less about Polygamists and their legitimacy problems... Most of the dozens of debates in which I've engaged on this issue, inevitably find a stark majority of homosexual advocates openly declaring that they've no problems with polygamists being normalized. Those that claim such do so only as a pretense...

    The delicious irony is that without regard to the respective camp, the only purpose for pursuing marriage is to secure the legitimacy which is inherent in marriage.

    And despite the chronic braying that their claim rests in the 'fairness' relevant to the financial advantages lent to those who adopt the insitution; declaring their intentions to be purely secular; what they crave most, is, as noted above, the legitimacy; legitimacy which is derived purely from the moral component of marriage; and which will evaporates in equal measure with the immorality that is pressed through it.

    Meaning that their success will assure thier failure. And as irony goes... it doesn't get any sweeter than that. But that's nature for ya...

  10. #170
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You can make fun of him all you like but he's right. You cannot exclude pologamy if you allow gay marriage. Not unless you want to become what you claim to be fighting.

    There is no argument you could make that could not be called "discriminatory" or "bigoted" the new favorite arguments the left uses against anyone opposed to gay marriage.

    I think my favorite argument some on the far left are using is the they claim that polygamy isn't beneficial as if that is a new defining standard for allowing marriage for an alternative lifestyle.

    Considering there are 3 times the number of countries that still practice polygamy I'd say its far easier to prove it is more beneficial to a society than allowing 2 homosexuals to marry. That argument made is about the funniest if not dumbest one I've ever seen to try and discriminate against polygamists while in the same breath claim to be fighting discrimination against 2 couple homosexuals.

    And that goes for all other alternative lifestyles as well.
    You make several mistakes. There are reasons to include marriage of gays but not polygamy. They have been stated. You can ignore them, but that does not make them go away.

    No one is claiming that is some new standard. We are stating that is the reason why the government has any argument to be involved in marriage.

    The number of countries that allow same sex marriage is not an argument that it is beneficial, and is not being claimed as such.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 17 of 43 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •