Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

Thread: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Your right to marry is what the state allows. Your right to push to change the definition of marriage through legislation and free speech is also there, but you do not have the right to invalidate the laws and beliefs of others over your views.
    Damn, talk about using liberal logic against them. It is indeed true that liberals believe rights come from the state, so if the state says no then they would naturally have to accept it. The problem is they never do that. The logic is funny that way.

    Not that agree with your position, but nice going there.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,315

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.
    Did you see the other thread "Beyond Gay Marriage"?

  3. #83
    Outer space potato man

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

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.
    That's just it, the "traditional definition of marriage" changed. So why is "traditional definition of marriage" a defense?

    Before that, marriage was between a man and his property. (the wife) (no seriously the wife was literally property)

    Old testament bible had some people with many, many wives.

    And another thing. Since ****ing when is your tradition good enough to be forced upon me via law of the nation? How come my traditional marriage doesn't count? Why is public opinion even a consideration here? I never got to vote on whether or not I approved of your marriage. I don't. Because I don't approve of people with your hair color being married.
    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. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    Actually he should recuse himself
    Then so should all the ones who are married and religious.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.
    You are discussing two different things. There is a religious definition of marriage which the state does not actually get involved in. that is defined by the religion marrying you in the eyes of god. Then there is the definition of marriage under law which is basically a partnership contract which infers legal responsibilities, benefits, and asset distribution upon breakup. The reason you are confused is because they have allowed religious figures to officiate the forming of these partnerships. However, since a marriage contract can be terminated without the need for a religious figure and the church may not be willing to marry a person a second time in the eyes of god shows that state marriage and religious marriage are two separate issues. I will admit it has caused a lot of confusion with people who want the two combined, but really the state doesn't hold any authority over who marries in the eyes of god even though certain people like yourself are looking for it to validate the religious partnership.

    The reality you need to recognize is that any gay couple is able to get married in the eyes of god in any willing religious institution through their own ceremony. The only thing banning gay marriage does is keep them from getting government benefits. No one will arrest a preist or other religious figure for performing a religious gay marriage ceremony. the only thing that won't happen is the state will not recognize the union as a partnership and bestow things like legal protections, tax benefits, but they might actually allow for the dividing up of assets upon a break up in civil courts. So your point has no basis in the reality of the situation, especially considering congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion which clearly makes certain parts of DOMA unconstitutional.

    As for the putting discrimination on the state level because you like it, I certainly hope they squash such a thing. Certainly if they don't enjoy the time while it lasts because the republicans and conservatives are cracking on this issue. It seems religious fundamentalism is failing them, and even straight people are becoming sick of it.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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