• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

Go back one page.


You said it specifically allows incest marriage.

Yet a discussion of incest marriage isn't contained in the opinion.


Your inability to quote what you specifically said existed is noted.



>>>>
 
You said it specifically allows incest marriage.

I gave you the page numbers from your link, as well as the start of each quote. Not looking at them is you admitting defeat. Any response to this post that does not specifically address what I linked you will be admission of defeat. I dare you to admit defeat to me again.
 
Reagan was the last Republican President that wasn't completely in the pocket of the religious right. He didn't take them seriously, he knew when to pretend to be on their side to get their support but I'm pretty sure he thought they were idiots.

From comments gleaned from his survivors and his biographer, he was privately tolerant if not very PC. There was a gay couple who stayed at the white house and he was friends with rock hudson. He was also, while preparing to run for his 1st term, very outspokenly opposed to anita bryant's crusade against gay teachers. From this angle, it's ridiculous that repubs today will trip over each other trying to declare undying allegiance to reagan.

In terms of governing, he's frequently accused of doing nothing during the AIDS crisis, but i find this to be a little more complicated. Spending requires congressional approval, and while if the victims had been mostly children (ex: polio), the government would've spent untold billions finding a cure, spending did go up substantially between 1984-1990 and reagan did force his surgeon general to make it a priority.

If someone in an interview pointed this all out to ted cruz or huckabee, i'm sure they'd deny it endlessly
 
I gave you the page numbers from your link, as well as the start of each quote. Not looking at them is you admitting defeat. Any response to this post that does not specifically address what I linked you will be admission of defeat. I dare you to admit defeat to me again.


I've read the decision and incest isn't mentioned.


This case does not specifically authorize incest (which was your claim). If incest marriage ever becomes legal, that will be a whole new set of laws and/or court decisions.



>>>>
 
Thank you for admitting defeat again.
 
From comments gleaned from his survivors and his biographer, he was privately tolerant if not very PC. There was a gay couple who stayed at the white house and he was friends with rock hudson. He was also, while preparing to run for his 1st term, very outspokenly opposed to anita bryant's crusade against gay teachers. From this angle, it's ridiculous that repubs today will trip over each other trying to declare undying allegiance to reagan.

In terms of governing, he's frequently accused of doing nothing during the AIDS crisis, but i find this to be a little more complicated. Spending requires congressional approval, and while if the victims had been mostly children (ex: polio), the government would've spent untold billions finding a cure, spending did go up substantially between 1984-1990 and reagan did force his surgeon general to make it a priority.

If someone in an interview pointed this all out to ted cruz or huckabee, i'm sure they'd deny it endlessly

He lived in Hollywood since the 30s and was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Of course he didn't have any problem whatsoever with behind the scenes homosexuality. And by the time he "outspokenly opposed" Bryant it was all the political rage to do so. This is Clayfoot Reagan you're talking about.
 
Thank you for admitting defeat again.


No "defeat" admitted.


You were unable to support your claim that the ruling specifically allows incest marriage and could provide a citation.


Must be a liberal mentality, make a claim, don't support and instead of admitting the claim was unsupported claim "victory".




>>>>
 
Why do you keep admitting defeat?
 
funny. they get the law passed with the motto "it won't effect you so shut up bigot". then, as it becomes more obvious now and in the future how it WILL effect MANY things, the new motto will be something different and the original motto will be quickly forgotten.
suckers......I mean us.
 
funny. they get the law passed with the motto "it won't effect you so shut up bigot". then, as it becomes more obvious now and in the future how it WILL effect MANY things, the new motto will be something different and the original motto will be quickly forgotten.
suckers......I mean us.


OMG bakers are going to have to (gasp) bake a cake!
 
Stop lying, you admitted defeat.
 
Stop lying, you admitted defeat.


I never admitted defeat.

Now, post the part of the majority ruling that specifies incest is now allowed and I will admit defeat.



Or will you admit that the word "incest" doesn't appear in the majority opinion of the court in the Obergefell ruling?



>>>>
 
Good to see you agree you have no argument.

Kennedy's ruling does not exclude incest marriage.

You are seriously stretching dude....but I guess that's about all you have left.
 
No idea what the princess guy is talking about.

Now, post the part of the majority ruling that specifies incest is now allowed and I will admit defeat.

I did, turbo. Thanks fore admitting defeat again.

Why can't you just post the part of the ruling you're referring to?

I posted the specific pages and the start of sentences.
 
No idea what the princess guy is talking about.



I did, turbo. Thanks fore admitting defeat again.



I posted the specific pages and the start of sentences.

I know why you won't post the exact verbiage you are referring to -- because it will show - as we have seen - it doesn't say what you say it does.

It's all in your ImaginationLand.
 
And all rights can be limited.

Is it a problem for you or anyone else to come up with defensible reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages? I wouldn't think so....

Yes, it is a problem now. It wasn't before.
 
No, it doesn't. I'm willing to bet the US would not see it that way either.

An Amendment to the Constitution, by its very nature cannot be unconstitutional so long as it is enacted in the proper manner. There is nothing in the ruling that includes it either.

There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.
 
I posted the exact pages and start of sentences, from the link turbo posted.

Yes. I know. It doesn't say what you say it does.

Fin.

If you think you're doing a good job of making your case, I'm here to tell you,

you ain't.
 
Oh, and you referring to page 13 "A second principle" is not even the right page -- that sentence starts on page 18

-- there is no "A third principle," on page 16 - in fact that term does not appear at all anywhere in the ruling.

A third basis does, on page 19.

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it
safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning
from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education."

And your "Fourth and finally," appears on page 21.

Fourth and "Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.
Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth on his travels through the United States almost two centuries ago:
“There is certainly no country in the world where the
tie of marriage is so much respected as in America..."


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Nothing there in your "go looksee" makes your case.
 
Yes, it is a problem now. It wasn't before.

It's actually not a problem at all. Incest and incestuous marriages are as illegal today as they were a month ago.

And if opponents of it can't come up with objective reasons to ban incestuous marriages, they should be legal. But I don't see coming up with good reasons to ban such marriages would be hard for anyone with 10 minutes to give it some thought.
 
I posted the exact pages and start of sentences, from the link turbo posted.


None of those said anything about incest which you said was specifically authorized now in the opinion.


Not there.


>>>>
 
He lived in Hollywood since the 30s and was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Of course he didn't have any problem whatsoever with behind the scenes homosexuality. And by the time he "outspokenly opposed" Bryant it was all the political rage to do so. This is Clayfoot Reagan you're talking about.

so why is he so venerated by today's anita bryant (all repub candidates)?

as for it being "all the rage" to write op-eds condemning bryant in 1978 (as reagan did), i highly doubt it, since gay relationships were still illegal in many states - in fact, the supreme court had just upheld those laws - and the military reagan would soon preside over would keep its strict ban on gay members for another 15 years.

So if you ask me, it was a legitimate risk he took, and hell, no republican would lay into, say, the FRC or pat robertson even today.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom