Page 18 of 43 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #171
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    The way I see it, unless the government can show demonstrable harm of an activity they don't have a right to ban it. So, yes, you might "have to" allow polygamy. Oh dear, that slippery slope of civil rights. I'm shaking.

    Unless there's demonstrable harm in polygamy. The only possibility I can think of is child custody in the event of a divorce. Say 5 people are a married group, they all have children raised in that home, but one of the biological parents wants to split. Who gets custody? A definitely complicated issue, legally speaking. But is that harm?

    You need to move away from the historical view of polygamy. It's often harmful not because of its nature, but because of the manner in which people have gone about it. Polygamy is often equated with goofy cultists where one man has several (often underage) wives who are basically brainwashed. Using that as a basis for law, however, would be like banning firearms because some people shot up a bank. Oh wait. :P
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-10-10 at 02:06 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.

  2. #172
    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 Deuce View Post
    You think homosexuals are rats. Got it.
    LOL... Obtuse obscruance... I see you're a trail blazer... Congrats on your intellectual independence...

    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?
    People actually are animals, man. And denser populations do exactly the opposite, where people are highly common and like all commonly and easily found commodities, the value of such goes down in direct relationship to it's commonality.

    Try harder...

    I'll be back later, to see how ya did...

  3. #173
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    LOL... Obtuse obscruance... I see you're a trail blazer... Congrats on your intellectual independence...



    People actually are animals, man. And denser populations do exactly the opposite, where people are highly common and like all commonly and easily found commodities, the value of such goes down in direct relationship to it's commonality.

    Try harder...

    I'll be back later, to see how ya did...
    Ahh yes. I am confounded by the amazing (pseudo)intellectual argument of "people are a commodity." You paint yourself as some sort of intellectual superior amongst mere mortals like myself, but you don't seem to grasp basic human emotions and how that might actually affect things.
    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.

  4. #174
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    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...
    Changing the subject from gay marriage to polygamy is not specifically speaking to the issues at hand. In point of fact, it's an effort to evade the issue at hand, since you cannot argue against it. It's not my fault you are helpless to discuss the issue and are clearly ill-equipped to discuss.

    ROFLMNAO... Conservatives....




    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.
    Good thing those in favor of gay marriage do not appeal to popularity. We leave that to those opposed.

    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.
    Wow, now that is an appeal to emotion if I ever saw one. Holy ****, rape. Really?

    Whether being gay is moral or not is not up to me to decide for any one, but I do not have a problem with it, whether the law allows it or not. Laws do not, as you point out, determine morality, we as individuals do. If you want to see gays as being somehow immoral, go right ahead, despite the fact it is legal in several states.

    What's more this principle does not change when the volume of those who believe otherwise extends to NINE... or Nineteen, or nineteenhundredbilliontrillion...
    Again, it is those opposed to GM who appeal to popularity.

    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.
    Well, so much for any polygamy argument.

    [quote]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. [/quoe]

    And no one is claiming differently. Build that straw man all you want though, it's fun to watch.

    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.
    Evolution does not "design". Certain genes are more competitive than others, and those genes are more likely to be passed on to another generation. Science is apparently not a strong suit of yours.

    Nature does not define the scope of marriage either, it is an entirely human construct.

    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.
    False. Homosexuality is an orientation shared by somewhere between ~3 % and 10 % of the population. Further, homosexuality is an orientation, it is not an action. Gay people are perfectly capable of engaging in strait sex(and vice versa), which is part of why there are so many kids with a gay parent these days. Lastly, there are evolutionary justifications for homosexuality that suggest it is at least possible that it is a trait that increases the chance of descendants(both direct and indirect).

    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...
    Being left handed is a deviation from the biological norm. Having red hair is a deviation from the biological norm. That does not make them defective. Logic is a good skill to learn, I strongly recommend it.



    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?
    Nowhere did I say that or imply it. The reverse is also true. You do like building those straw men though.

    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.
    Hey look, we got pedophilia brought up in a gay marriage thread. I think that finishes my gay marriage thread bingo card. Once again, nothing but an appeal to emotion. No logical content whatsoever.

    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.
    You seem to have no clue as to what others argue, and simply argue against what you think they will argue.

    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...'.
    Source?

    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.
    Again, nature dies not design.

    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...
    You have some source for this?

    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.
    So what you are saying is that the largest concentrations of people for gay rights are the same places with the largest concentration of people. Brilliant! I would bet the largest concentrations of those opposed to gay rights are there too.

    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.
    You already destroyed the polygamy argument earlier in your post.
    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.

  5. #175
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-12-10 @ 09:12 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    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...




    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...




    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.

    Just found this forum. And picked out a thread at random.
    Djeezes, djeezes, djeezes.
    Everyone with an ounce of common sense regards homosexuality and same sex marriage as OK as 2 + 2 makes 4. Problem? What problem?
    It's intellectuals like PubliusInfinitu that spend their entire life reaching multiple orgasms by justifying the unjustifiable that make my day.

    ... and let's face it who wants to be France?
    Though I'm not French, I live in France. Help, I must be doomed.

    Time for a Stella.

  6. #176
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
    It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.
    Actually I think the state and federal government have no business being in the marriage business, nor do the people have a right to interfere with a private institution and it's affairs or beliefs.

  7. #177
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'm going to say something, and I'm going to hope that the two of you both understand the level of honesty that I operate at enough to understand that I'm serious.

    I think that if SSM is legalized, failing to also legalize polygamy or group marriage would be discriminatory and hypocritical. I think at some point it will be recognized as discriminatory, whether that takes 2 years or 20.
    First, let me say I do think you're serious. Let me also say based on your views on issues I think you've come to this view not because of honest thought, but because it allows your mind to justify the use of the polygamy argument as when the obvious counters to it come out you can proclaim others hypocritical and thus assert a higher ground. Or, more precisely, you want this to be true and thus you've fashioned a view point that will allow it...a view point that I don't think you'd have come to if not for your stances on gay marriage. This does not invalidate it, nor do I think its dishonest, but I don't think its coming from a reasoned stand point but rather a biased stand point of your brain fashioning an argument against something that is used against you.

    Is there evidence to demonstrate that adult-only polygamous marriage is a societal negative? Not that I know of. Would it be somewhat more complex legally? Yes, but that could be handled... there are legal complications in SSM that aren't as typically encountered in traditional marriage, namely custody issues for children that are genetically the product of one partner and an outsider by consent of the couple. If we can handle that some smart group of lawyers can come up with a legal structure to handle polygamy/group marriage.
    First, the legal differences between the difficulties in polygamy and the difficulties in Same Sex Marriage is astronomically large. For example, at its barest form, polygamy could enable every individual within the united states theoretically have power of attorney over every other entity and all paying one large joint tax plan. Is that ridiculous to the nth degree? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. But it highlights just how HUGE of a difference in legislation and practice it would be and nothing even close to that big or glaring is applicable in same sex issues. The vast majority of laws regarding marriage and the benefits that come with it would be a relatively minor tweak with allowing SSM where as with polygamy a large amount of laws would need to be rewritten if not just created all together. Additionally the potential for abuse, IE people using the joining for nothing but the benefits bestowed upon it such as for example green cards, would be far greater with polygamy. SSM is a relatively small tweak, polygamy would be a gigantic rewrite.

    Secondly, on protected status. As I've already stated, discrimination based on gender is prohibited, there is no such protection against discrimination based on amount. Additionally if one is to count sexual orientation as a protected state there would need to be actual sufficient evidence to suggest that polygamy is somehow an "orientation" that one has. Could it reach that point? Perhaps, but there is no evidence no definition of such at this time so you're arguing a completely baseless hypothetical against a definitive fact, which is a worthless argument. But I go back to my whole point, which no one has really commented on at all save for saying "Um, I've never seen it before so it must not be good but I can't tell you why!", is that gender discrimination is unconstitutional which is what the current marriage laws is.

    To be frank, I consider a pro-SSM / Anti-Polygamy position to be hypocritical.
    You may consider the argument a hypocritical one, but I believe that to be an amazingly lacking conclusion to state so broadly and generally. It CAN be a hypocritical one depending on the reasons one says gay marriage should be legalized...I agree with you in regards to the "love" thing (I don't, and will never, use that argument because "love" isn't required for marriage.) I agree with you in regards to the automatically equating polygamy to using underage girls, however again you won't see me make that argument.

    My argument is that there is no protected class that is being discriminated against in their inability to marry multiple people with regards to polygamy, and more to the point that the immense rewrite of the laws and the amount of problems and pitfalls it could cause outweigh the benefit to the government in bestowing the benefits to a coupling of more than 2 people. Highlighting a handful of legal issues with SSM, the majority of which could equally or even more so apply to polygamy, does not prove it to be hypocritical when there would be as many to the power of 10 likely needed for polygamy. I have not seen anywhere near the same amount of potential legal pitfalls and issues of system shock that could be put on the systems we have here in this country with regards to benefits for SSM as I have for polygamy. Until such can be shown for either the notion that its hypocritical for me to be for one or against another is ridiculous.
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 07-10-10 at 05:36 PM.

  8. #178
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    but due to the standard that DEFINES MARRIAGE
    And who says we can't change the legal, governmental standard? We change laws and legal standard routinely.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    I don't know what all the fuss is over this decision when it will be overturned by the district court and rightfully so........Again we have Liberal judges making law instead of interpreting it............
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  10. #180
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I don't know what all the fuss is over this decision when it will be overturned by the district court and rightfully so........Again we have Liberal judges making law instead of interpreting it............
    Based on what Navy? How is this ruling inappropriate legally?
    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 18 of 43 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •