Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 223

Thread: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

  1. #151
    Guru
    The Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Dixie
    Last Seen
    11-26-17 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Wow, so your position is that a religious ceremony binding a same-sex couple is perfectly fine with you, but it should not have the same LEGAL effect as a heterosexual marriage! That’s the first time I’ve seen that argument.
    Well, there’s that ol’ First Amendment thing. They have a right to get married and there’s absolutely no reason for the state to recognize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Not quite true. Marriage, as an “institution” has only existed in relatively recent times as part of the outgrowth of organized religion. For the greatest part of human existence there was no such thing. The dominant male could do whatever he wanted, including have sex with every female member of the tribal group, or “dominate” any younger or weaker male if he felt like it. Even in historical times there are oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture. What is true in your statement is that one important social aspect of organized religion was the power to sanctify a bond between a man and a woman so as to lend stability to a family unit.
    Wow! You’ve made some very, uh, interesting claims here. I would be especially interested in seeing your evidence regarding “oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture”. And please, were, talking about same-sex sexual unions. Not “coming of age male rituals”, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    So having two fathers or two mothers might double antisocial behavior in teens or serve to increase alcoholism in children? Hardly a factual presumption.
    Not a presumption. See here and here and here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I think you misrepresent the problems with having a single parent household as being uncorrectable in a two-parent household of same-sex parents. Having few examples of same-sex situations to prove your point, you again project your personal bias and assume facts not in evidence.
    See links above. Sorry, when I originally wrote this it was for another thread but that helped to make my point here and I copied-and-pasted it but the links didn’t copy over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    It is your assumption this will “hurt the institution of marriage,” but this presumes facts not in evidence.
    Factually untrue! The last change to marriage was the idea of no-fault divorce. Because of this change to marriage is no-longer viewed as a lifetime commitment. People now take a “wait-and-see” view with marriage and today ½ of all marriages end in divorce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Simply because YOU don’t like the idea is no basis for that presumption either. In fact, YOUR heterosexual marriage is not affected at all unless YOU allow it to be.
    Yea, yea, yea--I already heard it. What’s the standard, quaint response again? Oh, yea! “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one.” It’s cute and simplistic and completely misses the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Opining about divorce, aside from being a red herring issue here, only affects those who choose to get a divorce not those who remain “happily married.”
    And you’re missing the obvious. No-fault divorce was a change to the marriage covenant that harmed the institution. The numbers don’t lie. Whether you like the idea or not marriage is divinely designed. You change the design you harm the institution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Again with the “divorce” issue? We are talking about same-sex marriage and thus you are again presuming facts not in evidence.
    I’m am not “presuming facts not in evidence”. I can only use facts that are IN evidence. Marriage is not easily changed and it’s only changed once before with the advent of no-fault divorce. That changed harmed the institution. Whether you like the idea or not the burden is on those that would change marriage to include SSM to show that it will not harm the institution--not on those of us who defend the traditional meaning of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Why should you care about same-sex couples getting a divorce affecting children?
    Because they’re talking about children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Whether or not a same-sex couple makes some arrangement about having a child (adoption, artificial insemination, w/e) at worst it would be little different from heterosexual couples who contemplate children and divorce. All of your “divorce points” apply to marriage in general, thus none of them have special merit in relation to same sex marriage.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    You final point is a blatant appeal to emotion based upon false premises, red herrings, presumptions of facts not in evidence, and simple personal bias. Try again, this "don't make it legal" argument simply won’t fly.
    See here.
    "Liberalism is a doctrine fostered by a delusional and illogical people and rabidly promoted by the mainstream media and ruling elite which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - unknown

  2. #152
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    What’s the standard, quaint response again? Oh, yea! “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one.” It’s cute and simplistic and completely misses the point.
    It's a free country. If you want to tell someone they can't do something, you have to be able to show harm. A gay couple getting married doesn't harm you. I mean, unless they don't invite you to the wedding. That might hurt your feelings, but there's no harm to you in their being married.

    Ergo, you have no basis to tell them they can't do it.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

  3. #153
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,566
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Well, there’s that ol’ First Amendment thing. They have a right to get married and there’s absolutely no reason for the state to recognize it.
    Well, yes there is that "First Amendment" thing, thanks for recognizing it. And in that very same source document, The U.S. Constitution we also have that ol’ "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. This guarantees the same legal protections obtained through “traditional marriage” to citizens engaged in a same-sex marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Wow! You’ve made some very, uh, interesting claims here. I would be especially interested in seeing your evidence regarding “oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture”. And please, were, talking about same-sex sexual unions.
    Well in Greek culture we had the male-male bonding traditions of the Theban Bands, and the Spartan Agoge; During the Zhou Dynasty of China we have the recorded example Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian; Same sex marriage was legal in Rome until 342 AD when the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

    A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova; Boston marriages between women were recognized in Victoria England. Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" very much like marriage in 1989, then legalized same sex marriage fully in 2012. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the modern world to grant legal status to same-sex marriages. There are currently 15 nations that grant legal status and mutual recognition to same-sex marriages. Then there are nations like the USA and Australia that have internal states that have legalized it, and other states that have not.

    Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As you can see, much (though not all) of that information came from a simple examination of wikipedia, but the prime sources for the statements are listed there too for your personal research..

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Not a presumption. See here and here and here.
    You misunderstood. My challenge was not about your claims that kids needed two parents to have a better chance to grow up “well-adjusted.” My response was that you have NO EVIDENCE that the two parents MUST be a man and a women, rather than a couple of the same-sex. That your “presumption” based on personal bias is that two same-sex parents would automatically disrupt a child’s life.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Factually untrue! The last change to marriage was the idea of no-fault divorce. Because of this change to marriage is no-longer viewed as a lifetime commitment. People now take a “wait-and-see” view with marriage and today ½ of all marriages end in divorce.
    No! Factually true because you are only presuming that this has anything to do with same-sex marriage. It is a red herring, unrelated to the issue at hand. That holds true for the rest of your diversion into divorce. Why? As I've previously stated; all marriages face the divorce issue you raise, whether they be traditional or same-sex. Therefore such points as you raise have no special bearing on same-sex marriage. Strange that YOU can’t see it is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your divorce argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Because they’re talking about children?
    So what, as stated above you have no evidence that same-sex marriages cause more harm than traditional marriages (or traditional marriages ending in divorce, or remarriages to stepparents) on child-rearing. We only see your personal assumption bias, that same automatic assumption bias shared by people who think that since homosexuality is immoral the harm to children must be “self-evident.”

    Your arguments remain fallacious, (red herrings, straw man, etc.) full of false analogies based on assumption bias rather than on facts in evidence. If the First Amendment allows the religious sanction of marriage, then the legal protections tradtitionally afforded by this ceremony are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-04-13 at 04:23 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  4. #154
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Then homosexuals can turn around and leave you to practice your religion while they get married.
    If so, the homosexuals could have turned around and not tried to force someone to bake a cake for them that disagreed with their "marriage".
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  5. #155
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    If so, the homosexuals could have turned around and not tried to force someone to bake a cake for them that disagreed with their "marriage".
    They didn't try to force them to bake a cake. They asked them to. Then the business owners said no, they wouldn't do it, because the customer is gay. So they let the state know that there was a business operating in violation of state law. In that state, it's illegal for businesses to discriminate. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to move to a different state where that's allowed.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

  6. #156
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    They didn't try to force them to bake a cake. They asked them to. Then the business owners said no, they wouldn't do it, because the customer is gay. So they let the state know that there was a business operating in violation of state law. In that state, it's illegal for businesses to discriminate. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to move to a different state where that's allowed.
    Not what at happened at all. In fact, just this morning I watched an interview with the lady/owner of the bakery. She didn't mind doing business with anybody that was gay and had done business if the past with people that were gay. That was never the issue. The issue was her religious beliefs would not permit her to be a participant in a gay wedding. Why the gay couple were so "bigoted" and hateful against this woman's religious beliefs I don't know. Seems to me they could have been a little tolerant of her religious beliefs, walked down the street and got their wedding cake at another location. Especially being the Constitution of the US says (not state law) a person has the right to freedom of religion. The lady was also asked about the states "rehab" and she said it was nothing more than an attempt to make her "re -learn things". She's right, it's nothing more than the state of Oregon's spin off of a communist style re-education camp.

    The good news is though the lady has closed down her shop but is still in business from her home. She will just go back to doing business with people who she has done business with in the past and anybody else that will at least respect the Constitution of the US and her religious beliefs. The loser in this is taxpayers who have allowed the thought police to force a small business owner to contract.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  7. #157
    Educator Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    881

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by opendebate View Post
    She is the first. What are your thoughts on this?
    That it represents one giant step for the United States, in a very good direction.

  8. #158
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Not what at happened at all. In fact, just this morning I watched an interview with the lady/owner of the bakery. She didn't mind doing business with anybody that was gay and had done business if the past with people that were gay. That was never the issue. The issue was her religious beliefs would not permit her to be a participant in a gay wedding. Why the gay couple were so "bigoted" and hateful against this woman's religious beliefs I don't know. Seems to me they could have been a little tolerant of her religious beliefs, walked down the street and got their wedding cake at another location. Especially being the Constitution of the US says (not state law) a person has the right to freedom of religion. The lady was also asked about the states "rehab" and she said it was nothing more than an attempt to make her "re -learn things". She's right, it's nothing more than the state of Oregon's spin off of a communist style re-education camp.

    The good news is though the lady has closed down her shop but is still in business from her home. She will just go back to doing business with people who she has done business with in the past and anybody else that will at least respect the Constitution of the US and her religious beliefs. The loser in this is taxpayers who have allowed the thought police to force a small business owner to contract.
    I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****. However, she wasn't being asked to participate in a gay wedding. She was asked to bake a cake. The bible is silent about baking cakes, except for it's concerns about leavened bread.

    This isn't about the religious obligations of bakers. It's about allowing bigotry to flourish in local business, or stopping it. If this lady refused to bake wedding cakes for everyone, out of fear of what kind of wedding it may be used in, then it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination. However, she only refused to bake wedding cakes for a sub-class of citizens -- gay ones -- and that's illegal in her state. They just don't want that kind of nasty bigotry to flourish in their state.
    "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)

  9. #159
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****. However, she wasn't being asked to participate in a gay wedding. She was asked to bake a cake. The bible is silent about baking cakes, except for it's concerns about leavened bread.

    This isn't about the religious obligations of bakers. It's about allowing bigotry to flourish in local business, or stopping it. If this lady refused to bake wedding cakes for everyone, out of fear of what kind of wedding it may be used in, then it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination. However, she only refused to bake wedding cakes for a sub-class of citizens -- gay ones -- and that's illegal in her state. They just don't want that kind of nasty bigotry to flourish in their state.
    Of course she was being asked to participate in a gay wedding. The cake she was asked to make was to be used in that wedding. She wanted no part of it based on her religious beliefs that gays should not be married. Her previous actions as a baker proved that she would do business with gay customers. The "bigotry" in this case is the gay couples complete intolerance towards this lady's religious beliefs. If anything, somehow they should be charged with attempting to violate the constitution of the US in regards to other peoples constitutionally protected rights. The state of Oregon should have the book thrown at them as well for the same thing and for trying to run a communist inspired re-education camp.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  10. #160
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****.
    I don't know where you are getting this from.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •