Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 223

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

  1. #181
    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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    LOL

    I can just see you when you're in your nineties . . . "Them damn gays!" and "You fags get off my lawn!" - with your hair in all sorts of crazy Einstein patches between intermittent bald spots, lips pruned and fingers gaunt.

    The kids on the street will think you strange, and their parents convinced you're suffering from dementia.
    ...let me guess...you forgot your medication, didn't you?...
    "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. #182
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,125

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

    I think this is clear proof that the trollop was prejudiced in her opinion, making the entire ruling meaningless.

  3. #183
    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
    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.
    Yea, the Fourteenth Amendment addressed former slaves but today it’s twisted to mean all sorts of things.

    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.

    So the Theban Bands were gay folks in the military, the Spartan Agoge assumes homosexuality without proof, Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian may or may not have been gay, same-sex marriage in Rome was legal for a time but the extent to which it was utilized is questionable with some “unions” looking more like the legalized rape of young boys. Seriously, where are the remote African tribes that practiced “same-sex marriages” or the Indian tribes here in America.

    Throughout the history of the world there has been no country, culture, religion, people that has ever practice homosexual marriage on any scale of influence. Yes, you can find random examples of same-sex “marriage”. But throughout history, region, culture, religion, etc. marriage is between a man and an woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    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..
    Yep. Wikipedia. It came form Wikipedia just as you pointed out.

    Now think that through…

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    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.
    Evidence? Like this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    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.
    Look. This ain’t hard. My point is that that a change--any change--to the institution of marriage is harmful as evidenced by what no-fault divorce has done. You want same-sex marriage? Provide evidence that it won’t hurt the institution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    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.
    “Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your…argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.”
    "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

  4. #184
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,545
    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
    Yea, the Fourteenth Amendment addressed former slaves but today it’s twisted to mean all sorts of things.
    It exists nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    …Throughout the history of the world there has been no country, culture, religion, people that has ever practice homosexual marriage on any scale of influence. Yes, you can find random examples of same-sex “marriage”. But throughout history, region, culture, religion, etc. marriage is between a man and an woman.
    No, unless you believe God created humanity 5,000 years ago under that “Creationist Theory” then there was no such thing as “marriage” before the development of organized religion. I said there were oodles of examples in history, I never said it was the dominant theme in history. As for using wikipedia? I noticed you ignored the source material from which that particular article cites it’s facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Evidence? Like this?
    Sorry, that link leads nowhere for some reason. However I did find the “about us” section on the website:

    CitizenLink is a family advocacy organization that inspires men and women to live out biblical citizenship that transforms culture. As an affiliate of Focus on the Family, we provide resources that equip citizens to make their voices heard on critical social policy issues involving the sanctity of human life, the preservation of religious liberties and the well-being of the family as the building block of society.
    So, you are quoting from a christian family values website “affiliated” with Focus on the Family. There are many such websites which can be cited to support your position; now try citing one that both sides agree is unbiased.

    In any case I think you used the cite in a prior response and I did see it that day. Nothing in it refutes my position that as long as there are two parents there is no requirement they be of different genders except for your (and their) assumption bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Look. This ain’t hard. My point is that that a change--any change--to the institution of marriage is harmful as evidenced by what no-fault divorce has done. You want same-sex marriage? Provide evidence that it won’t hurt the institution. “Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your…argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.”
    Wrong. YOU assert that any change to the institution or marriage is harmful. That’s merely assumption bias based on a Christian “family values” ideal of marriage. For a long time women and children were considered "chattel" in a "traditonal" marriage allowing the husband to rape and abuse the wife and abuse the children legally, until society changed that "tradition." I'd say that was a pretty positive change, wouldn't you?

    You also seem to be unaware of facts regarding divorce in religious history. Divorce has existed in all other religions except Hinduism and Christianity. Even the other two “people of the Book,” Judaism and Islam have always allow divorce. Therefore I need provide nothing since my only assertion is that same-sex marriage at worst would merely share any “harm to marriage caused by divorce” that you believe traditional marriages already face.

    I certainly do forgive you, since you have no real argument to support your positions. For the third and final time, your position is based on fallacies and assumption bias, not facts. Nothing you have stated, now or previously, supports your argument for denying same-sex married couples all the same legal rights held by a heterosexual married couple.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-04-13 at 11:30 PM.
    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.

  5. #185
    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
    I never said they couldn't get married. But there is no reason for either the state or myself need recognize the "marriage".
    There's no reason you should, but the state recognizing any marriage gives it certain protections under the law, and the Constitution prescribes equal protection fo the law to all people. You can't carve out a sub-class of people to whom certain rights do not apply. Not unless you can show cause.

    For example, felons can't own guns. I personally disagree with that law, but the argument is that the felon has already demonstrated that he's too dangerous to own a gun. That is a penalty for having caused harm to other people. What harm do homosexuals getting married cause you (that heterosexuals getting married do not cause you).
    "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. #186
    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
    There's no reason you should, but the state recognizing any marriage gives it certain protections under the law, and the Constitution prescribes equal protection fo the law to all people. You can't carve out a sub-class of people to whom certain rights do not apply. Not unless you can show cause.

    For example, felons can't own guns. I personally disagree with that law, but the argument is that the felon has already demonstrated that he's too dangerous to own a gun. That is a penalty for having caused harm to other people. What harm do homosexuals getting married cause you (that heterosexuals getting married do not cause you).
    In male/female only marriage, everyone every one is treated equally under the law.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  7. #187
    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
    In male/female only marriage, everyone every one is treated equally under the law.
    How is everyone treated equally under the law when some people are told their relationship is illegal and some people aren't?

    Further, what harm does it do you if all people get the same treatment by the law?
    "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)

  8. #188
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,528

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No. The union is the same period, unless you are simply referring to a sexual component.
    I am, one is of the opposite sex and has the potential for offspring, one is of the same sex and has no potential for offspring. So, yes, there are differences, they are not the same.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #189
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    How is everyone treated equally under the law when some people are told their relationship is illegal and some people aren't?

    Further, what harm does it do you if all people get the same treatment by the law?
    So you support pedophilia?

  10. #190
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I am, one is of the opposite sex and has the potential for offspring, one is of the same sex and has no potential for offspring. So, yes, there are differences, they are not the same.
    Sad that you can only see a sexual component to a relationship. Most people in a successful marriage understand that the sexual component is the smallest part of it.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •