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

Objective Voice · Jun 30, 2013

Papa bull said:
People don't go to prison for having a dog without a license. This is a strawman argument. The fact that marriage gave permission and approval by society for a couple to start a family does not and did not mean that you can't have as many bastards as you would like or that you go to prison for doing it. Is have thought reasonably intelligent people would understand this. I am thinking this is more just the dishonest argumentation that is a defining characteristic of the progressives than it is stupidity, though. I don't think anyone capable of logging onto a computer is too stupid to understand this.

I will add one thing as an aside. Those ignorant mouthpieces among you that want to rant about haters and call anyone that opposes homosexual marriage a bigot merely harden the position against it. After all the venom I've seen from the pinko left after this, I'll go out of my way to vote against it. Funny that I never was a hater but all the name-calling, vitriol and nastiness from the punk left may end up making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone that disagrees with the progressive agenda today gets called a racist, bigot and hater. And every time that happens, the chasm between the right and left widens. It makes it damned hard to be sympathetic to "the cause".

What I was laughing about was the obvious flaw in your argument. People, whether married or not, gay or straight, don't need to have a license issued to them in order to have children. This argument only came about recently once the GOP anti-gay crowd needed something to further justify their position on marriage. But I digress...

Just so we're clear, I firmly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is how God intended it to be based on Biblical teaching. However, our system of legalism does provide a way whereby gays and lesbians can attain the same rights as a traditional married couple without officially issuing a marriage license. That means is through common-law marriage. Nonetheless, I do believe that the SCOUS ruled properly by throwing out DOMA and over turning CA's Prop 8. Both violated the Equal Protection clause under the Constitution.

Objective Voice · Jun 30, 2013

CriticalThought said:
The far right says that same sex marriage supporters are destroying the country and are going to burn in eternal hell. Is it really wise to let extremists dictate views? How should I respond to those kinds of condemnations?

You reveal your bias when you acknowledge the extremists of only one side of the debate.

You're so right. It's as I've been saying for some time now. We Muslim extremist for their extremist views and yet some Americans pat themselves on the back for holding views some would consider "extreme" as well. Granted, these such folks are calling for an uprising (at least none that I've heard of...yet) or going around assaulting or beheading those who disagree with them, but as long as you stand firm in your ideology and are unwilling to at least compromise, I see you as not that different from the "extremist" this country is fighting against.

roguenuke · Jul 1, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
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.

No one has ever challenged it. There really isn't one, but until someone who can show standing challenges it, then it is a legitimate law, no matter how stupid the law might be. In order to be unconstitutional, the law has to cause some hardship to some citizen in some way... standing.

roguenuke · Jul 1, 2013

Papa bull said:
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.

Marriage laws as they are now were designed to discriminate against homosexuals because the restriction on sex/gender within marriage laws was just recently placed into actual laws, well after divorce, out-of-wedlock children, and greater than 20% of married couples being childless.

Papa bull · Jul 1, 2013

roguenuke said:
Marriage laws as they are now were designed to discriminate against homosexuals because the restriction on sex/gender within marriage laws was just recently placed into actual laws, well after divorce, out-of-wedlock children, and greater than 20% of married couples being childless.

They weren't called "defense of marriage" laws for nothing. They weren't put in place to discriminate, but to prevent the institution from being deconstructed and redefined. It might be a fine-line difference but fine-line differences can result in legal precedence being made. There's nothing else in our society that is as great a shake-up to established social structure as this. There isn't even anything that parallels it that we can use as a good analogy for legal purposes and it will be very interesting to see how it all ends up and how it gets there.

roguenuke · Jul 1, 2013

Papa bull said:
They weren't called "defense of marriage" laws for nothing. They weren't put in place to discriminate, but to prevent the institution from being deconstructed and redefined. It might be a fine-line difference but fine-line differences can result in legal precedence being made. There's nothing else in our society that is as great a shake-up to established social structure as this. There isn't even anything that parallels it that we can use as a good analogy for legal purposes and it will be very interesting to see how it all ends up and how it gets there.

They were still put in place to specifically deny marriage to couples they felt were wrong to include. By the time most of those laws got put in place, the law already technically recognized legal same sex marriages of some kinds, and still do in fact. Because by the time of most of those laws, people could legally change their sex/gender in most states.

cabse5 · Jul 9, 2013

roguenuke said:
They were still put in place to specifically deny marriage to couples they felt were wrong to include. By the time most of those laws got put in place, the law already technically recognized legal same sex marriages of some kinds, and still do in fact. Because by the time of most of those laws, people could legally change their sex/gender in most states.

So, do ya think the marriage will last after the sex change?

Erod · Jul 9, 2013

Don'cha know the divorce lawyers are champing at the bit for this to get through? Their case loads will double, although their drama will quadriple.

Paschendale · Jul 9, 2013

There's a new suit in Pennsylvania that includes challenging the state not recognizing out of state marriages. This one, if it goes through the same contention as Prop 8, could end up requiring examination of the remaining part of DOMA, and striking down the refusal by a state to honor those marriages. That, more than anything else, would make SSM the law of the land.

Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban challenged

roguenuke · Jul 10, 2013

cabse5 said:
So, do ya think the marriage will last after the sex change?

In many cases, those marriages have already lasted. It has happened more often than people want to believe.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 10, 2013

Paschendale said:
There's a new suit in Pennsylvania that includes challenging the state not recognizing out of state marriages. This one, if it goes through the same contention as Prop 8, could end up requiring examination of the remaining part of DOMA, and striking down the refusal by a state to honor those marriages. That, more than anything else, would make SSM the law of the land.

Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban challenged

I'm signing up to be Rick Santorum's divorce lawyer. You know, since gay marriage is such a big threat to his marriage. :lol:

Rick Santorum on Gay Marriage in the NYT Magazine said:
“[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

Paschendale · Jul 10, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm signing up to be Rick Santorum's divorce lawyer. You know, since gay marriage is such a big threat to his marriage. :lol:

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how sexual orientation is a value. I would think that kind-heartedness is. Liberty is. Equality, justice, and fairness. But sexual orientation? One of these things is not like the others.

captainawesome · Jul 10, 2013

Paschendale said:
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how sexual orientation is a value. I would think that kind-heartedness is. Liberty is. Equality, justice, and fairness. But sexual orientation? One of these things is not like the others.

Liberty is the important word.

Paschendale · Jul 10, 2013

captainawesome said:
Liberty is the important word.

So, how does valuing liberty require a narrower view of sexuality and marriage? I would think that the opposite is true.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 10, 2013

Paschendale said:
So, how does valuing liberty require a narrower view of sexuality and marriage? I would think that the opposite is true.

Cause you can live by what they consider "liberty."

captainawesome · Jul 10, 2013

Paschendale said:
So, how does valuing liberty require a narrower view of sexuality and marriage? I would think that the opposite is true.

We are in agreement.

cabse5 · Jul 10, 2013

Paschendale said:
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how sexual orientation is a value. I would think that kind-heartedness is. Liberty is. Equality, justice, and fairness. But sexual orientation? One of these things is not like the others.

I can't fathom why marriage is such a value. Many SSM enthusiasts, for example, previously and derogatorily pointed to the 50/50 chance of a marriage ending in divorce. Do you want to be divorced?

roguenuke · Jul 10, 2013

cabse5 said:
I can't fathom why marriage is such a value. Many SSM enthusiasts, for example, previously and derogatorily pointed to the 50/50 chance of a marriage ending in divorce. Do you want to be divorced?

And even if it ends in divorce, marriage is still more protection for each individual than any other legal arrangement.

cabse5 · Jul 10, 2013

roguenuke said:
And even if it ends in divorce, marriage is still more protection for each individual than any other legal arrangement.

Don't get sloppy with you facts. Check out, for example, California's union legislation.

Paschendale · Jul 10, 2013

cabse5 said:
I can't fathom why marriage is such a value. Many SSM enthusiasts, for example, previously and derogatorily pointed to the 50/50 chance of a marriage ending in divorce. Do you want to be divorced?

What's so bad about divorce? Why is permanence so important for marriage? If we weren't conditioned to expect lifelong relationships, we wouldn't get bent out of shape when they ended so much. But either way, the rate of heterosexuals getting divorced has no bearing whatsoever on the constitutional protections of SSM. It's just another weird tangent.

roguenuke · Jul 10, 2013

cabse5 said:
Don't get sloppy with you facts. Check out, for example, California's union legislation.

Those are the facts. It is better to be married and get divorced, in most cases, for most people, than to simply be living together, even with certain legal agreements because it gives you protection while you're married if something does happen and gives you certain rights and protections in case the relationship ends regarding the money and assets that were earned/combined during the relationship.

cabse5 · Jul 11, 2013

roguenuke said:
Those are the facts. It is better to be married and get divorced, in most cases, for most people, than to simply be living together, even with certain legal agreements because it gives you protection while you're married if something does happen and gives you certain rights and protections in case the relationship ends regarding the money and assets that were earned/combined during the relationship.

The union legislation in California proves you wrong, and the California union legislation could be any state's legislation.

cabse5 · Jul 11, 2013

Paschendale said:
What's so bad about divorce? Why is permanence so important for marriage? If we weren't conditioned to expect lifelong relationships, we wouldn't get bent out of shape when they ended so much. But either way, the rate of heterosexuals getting divorced has no bearing whatsoever on the constitutional protections of SSM. It's just another weird tangent.

So, SSM advocates have changed their minds about marriage and divorce? Why?

Deuce · Jul 11, 2013

cabse5 said:
I can't fathom why marriage is such a value. Many SSM enthusiasts, for example, previously and derogatorily pointed to the 50/50 chance of a marriage ending in divorce. Do you want to be divorced?

I can't fathom why gun ownership is such a value. I don't own a gun, so nobody should own one. Sometimes it ends in getting shot. Do you want to get shot?

Deuce · Jul 11, 2013

cabse5 said:
So, SSM advocates have changed their minds about marriage and divorce? Why?

They haven't. You're just misunderstanding the arguments.

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

Objective Voice

Objective Voice

roguenuke

roguenuke

Papa bull

roguenuke

cabse5

Erod

Paschendale

Uncanny

roguenuke

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Paschendale

Uncanny

captainawesome

Paschendale

Uncanny

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

captainawesome

cabse5

roguenuke

cabse5

Paschendale

Uncanny

roguenuke

cabse5

cabse5

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Deuce

Outer space potato man

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

Uncanny

Antichrist

Uncanny

Uncanny

Antichrist

Uncanny

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency