Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

[Gimmesometruth]

Clear logic would tell you that the arguments in favor of the oxymoron called homosexual marriage attempt to establish marriage as an amorphous social contract and that welcomes all players.

Um,you have it backwards (no surprise) in that the state is recognizing a right of an individual in SSM, whereas in the social contract the individual is accepting the loss of a right in exchange for some added protection by the state.

Try again.

Polygamy advocates are trembly pleased with the progress homosexuals have made in paving the way for them. Marriage; its not just for a man and a woman any more. Where it ends is anyone's guess but homosexuals aren't the only interested group.

We have been over this just yesterday, the argument over allowing polygamy stems from a religious perspective, and the courts have long held that there is freedom of religious thought but not freedom of religious practices when it violates the rights of other (this, by the way, IS an example of the social contract in action). We already went over the many negative social impacts that bigamy and polygamy have, it is a dead argument.

 

[Papa bull]

Um,you have it backwards (no surprise) in that the state is recognizing a right of an individual in SSM, whereas in the social contract the individual is accepting the loss of a right in exchange for some added protection by the state.

I'm arguing with a brick wall. The homosexual movement is, indeed, trying to turn marriage into an amorphous social contract. If you question how marriage can be a social contract, here, I'll help google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=...eWU&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=RlnQUZe0C4Ps8gSyt4DYAw

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'm arguing with a brick wall. The homosexual movement is, indeed, trying to turn marriage into an amorphous social contract. If you question how marriage can be a social contract, here, I'll help google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=...eWU&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=RlnQUZe0C4Ps8gSyt4DYAw

You are using "social contract" in an archaic, long abandonned form. Civil marriage is a legal contract, and SSM is not trying to turn back the hands of time, in fact it is quite the opposite.

A social contract as understood today is not how you were using it.

Come, join us in the modern world.

 

[Papa bull]

You are using "social contract" in an archaic, long abandonned form. Civil marriage is a legal contract, and SSM is not trying to turn back the hands of time, in fact it is quite the opposite.

A social contract as understood today is not how you were using it.

Come, join us in the modern world.

So you're reduced to quibbling over semantics. That amounts to conceding the debate. Have a nice day.

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm arguing with a brick wall. The homosexual movement is, indeed, trying to turn marriage into an amorphous social contract. If you question how marriage can be a social contract, here, I'll help google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=...eWU&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=RlnQUZe0C4Ps8gSyt4DYAw

You are free to exercise marriage as you see fit. How one one else sees it is none of your business. So stop trying to read the minds of others and just worry about you.

 

[Papa bull]

You are free to exercise marriage as you see fit. How one one else sees it is none of your business.

It is absolutely the state's business and as part of the state it IS my business. You and your ilk want to make it YOUR business so you've got a lot of unwarranted moxy to pretend it's yours but not mine.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So you're reduced to quibbling over semantics. That amounts to conceding the debate. Have a nice day.

If you think that argument only included a debate over definitions and did not include the aspect of how SSM is progression of civil law development....fine, show yourself as being blind to that.

I'm good with that.

Tah-tah.

 

[Boo Radley]

It is absolutely the state's business and as part of the state it IS my business. You and your ilk want to make it YOUR business so you've got a lot of unwarranted moxy to pretend it's yours but not mine.

Actually it's neither. All the state has to do is not discriminate. Everyone honors and defines marriage for themselves. All I want is that equality. I won't tell you who you can marry.

 

[Papa bull]

Actually it's neither. All the state has to do is not discriminate. Everyone honors and defines marriage for themselves. All I want is that equality. I won't tell you who you can marry.

The definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.

 

[Boo Radley]

The definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.

And the state can't discriminate. See why you're losing yet?

 

[Papa bull]

Tah-tah.

Tah-tah to you, too.

 

[roguenuke]

The definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.

This is not true. The state's definition of marriage is limited by the US Constitution. The state cannot show any legitimate state interest being furthered in restricting marriage based on sex/gender.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The definition that counts is the state definition. Everyone may honor and define their RELATIONSHIP the way they want, but marriage is an established contract of law defined and managed by the state. You can get a Hopi Native American ceremony or some spiritualist union or just exchange vows of your own making with whomever you wish anywhere in this country and you can call that marriage and define it however you see fit. State sanctioned marriage, however, is what it is and it's the state's business to define it and manage it. Since the state has to deal with the legal implications all around from tax laws to property laws and child custody, the state rightfully defines the relationships it characterizes as suitable for sanctioned marriage.

And yet, as we already discussed, you have failed to show SSM changes the legal aspects. We have interracial marriage as an example, how did the recognizing of those rights change the inner workings of govt? How will SSM be different.

Back up your claim.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is not true. The state's definition of marriage is limited by the US Constitution. The state cannot show any legitimate state interest being furthered in restricting marriage based on sex/gender.

What is the legitimate state interest in restricting alcohol sales on Sunday? There are many laws, based on custom and social norms, that have nothing to do with any legitimate state interest other than pleasing the majority of voters - which, when you think about it, becomes a legitmate interest of our elected representatives, i.e. the state.

 

[Papa bull]

And yet, as we already discussed, you have failed to show SSM changes the legal aspects. We have interracial marriage as an example, how did the recognizing of those rights change the inner workings of govt? How will SSM be different.

Back up your claim.

What you and those of your mindset seem to always overlook is that marriage is two things that are opposite and utterly different coming together to form one that is a combination of both. Male and Female are opposite but come together to form a marriage. Male and male or female and female come together to form roommates, not marriage.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What you and those of your mindset seem to always overlook is that marriage is two things that are opposite and utterly different coming together to form one that is a combination of both. Male and Female are opposite but come together to form a marriage. Male and male or female and female come together to form roommates, not marriage.

That is not you showing how the workings of govt is going to be impacted by SSM, that is you switching back to your tired, moronic "oxymoron" argument.

That is called a non-sequitur.

 

[Lakryte]

What is the legitimate state interest in restricting alcohol sales on Sunday? There are many laws, based on custom and social norms, that have nothing to do with any legitimate state interest other than pleasing the majority of voters - which, when you think about it, becomes a legitmate interest of our elected representatives, i.e. the state.

Then those stupid laws should be overturned too. The fact that stupid laws exist doesn't mean we should perpetuate more of them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then those stupid laws should be overturned too. The fact that stupid laws exist doesn't mean we should perpetuate more of them.

When the majority considers them stupid then, and only then, should they be repealed/amended. What you desire is a system allowing a judge to force that to occur by invoking "strict scrutiny" for selected statutes, hundreds of years after they are passed. I consider most of the FIT code to be both stupid and unconstitutional, because its basis, the 16th amendment, allowing for the taxation of individual income from all sources, makes no mention of based upon how it was later spent (most of the FIT code). To find a judge that agrees with me should be no reason to toss out all of that FIT law.

 

[Lakryte]

When the majority considers them stupid then, and only then, should they be repealed/amended. What you desire is a system allowing a judge to force that to occur by invoking "strict scrutiny" for selected statutes, hundreds of years after they are passed. I consider most of the FIT code to be both stupid and unconstitutional, because its basis, the 16th amendment, allowing for the taxation of individual income from all sources, makes no mention of based upon how it was later spent (most of the FIT code). To find a judge that agrees with me should be reason to toss out all of that FIT law.

Laws that violate the Constitution, when brought before a judge, should be overturned. This nation is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by the Constitution. The courts exist to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

 

[Papa bull]

Laws that violate the Constitution, when brought before a judge, should be overturned. This nation is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by the Constitution. The courts exist to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

While it may be your opinion that marriage laws violate the constitution, your argument is a poor one, indeed because marriage laws weren't created for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but merely for the sake of providing the protections and legal framework our society felt important for family units. Granted, now that raising children out of wedlock, artificial insemination and homosexual adoptions are all so well accepted, it has thrown the whole purpose of marriage into a state of question, but it's a fool's task to try to argue that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. They weren't. That is just the tack being taken now by some and I don't think it's going to be the angle that will ultimately get homosexuals what they're looking for because it's a weak argument.

 

[Lakryte]

While it may be your opinion that marriage laws violate the constitution, your argument is a poor one, indeed because marriage laws weren't created for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but merely for the sake of providing the protections and legal framework our society felt important for family units. Granted, now that raising children out of wedlock, artificial insemination and homosexual adoptions are all so well accepted, it has thrown the whole purpose of marriage into a state of question, but it's a fool's task to try to argue that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. They weren't. That is just the tack being taken now by some and I don't think it's going to be the angle that will ultimately get homosexuals what they're looking for because it's a weak argument.

Nobody is arguing that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. The argument is that they do now, and thus need to be modified.

 

[Papa bull]

Nobody is arguing that marriage laws were designed to discriminate against homosexuals. The argument is that they do now, and thus need to be modified.

Unless it is proven that the intent was discrimination, the state's views on marriage as an institution that it must define and legislate will likely be subject to be overturned on the basis of discrimination, particularly since homosexuals CAN get married in all 50 states... the issue isn't that they are treated differently than anyone else. The issue is that they ARE different and want marriage laws to be changed to accommodate and normalize those differences and those differences are differences defined by behavior and choices (as in the unwillingness to choose a marital partner of the opposite sex like everyone else). If it can be ruled that marriage discriminates against homosexuals because they can't marry who they love, then we're back to opening the gates wide to any permutation of people that want to be "married" and get whatever tax benefits, insurance benefits, status, property rights, etc. etc. etc. that the state wants to afford to sanctioned couples.

Let's just say this is not straightforward. If it was, homosexual marriage would already be an institution in all 50 states and probably around the world. Instead, it is a rare and curious change to modern society that was unanticipated even just 20 years ago.

 

[Lakryte]

Unless it is proven that the intent was discrimination, the state's views on marriage as an institution that it must define and legislate will likely be subject to be overturned on the basis of discrimination, particularly since homosexuals CAN get married in all 50 states... the issue isn't that they are treated differently than anyone else. The issue is that they ARE different and want marriage laws to be changed to accommodate and normalize those differences and those differences are differences defined by behavior and choices (as in the unwillingness to choose a marital partner of the opposite sex like everyone else). If it can be ruled that marriage discriminates against homosexuals because they can't marry who they love, then we're back to opening the gates wide to any permutation of people that want to be "married" and get whatever tax benefits, insurance benefits, status, property rights, etc. etc. etc. that the state wants to afford to sanctioned couples.

Let's just say this is not straightforward. If it was, homosexual marriage would already be an institution in all 50 states and probably around the world. Instead, it is a rare and curious change to modern society that was unanticipated even just 20 years ago.

The creation of a marriage license itself is what opened the floodgates to these privileges being conferred on all types of other groups. Gay marriage opened the floodgates no more than interracial marriage did. Democracy and free markets were also a rare and curious change. Perhaps we should do away with those too?

 

[Papa bull]

The creation of a marriage license itself is what opened the floodgates to these privileges being conferred on all types of other groups. Gay marriage opened the floodgates no more than interracial marriage did. Democracy and free markets were also a rare and curious change. Perhaps we should do away with those too?

That's pretty retarded and I don't use that word often. Democracy is thousands of years old and free markets precede history.

The stupid is getting very thick in here. I'm going to bug out and do something more productive than refuting grossly stupid remarks.

 

[Lakryte]

That's pretty retarded and I don't use that word often. Democracy is thousands of years old and free markets precede history.

The stupid is getting very thick in here. I'm going to bug out and do something more productive than refuting grossly stupid remarks.

Homosexuality and homosexual relationships are thousands of years old too. The point is that democracy in the past, like homosexual marriage now, was a rarity. Rarity does not make something wrong.

Arguing against same-sex marriage and homosexuality will never be productive, and will always be stupid. So by all means bug out and thin the air.