Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 101

Thread: SCOTUS and gay marriage

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    Take sex out of it then. Two men love each other and want spend their lives with one another and raise a family. What's the harm? Being gay is more than sexual attraction to men, just as being straight is more than me wanting to go out and bang a bunch of women. Sex or not, I could never emotionally fall in love with another man. Sex or not, my best friend could never emotionally fall in love with a woman.

    The procreation argument against gay marriage is dead in the water. If this were the case we would have already outlawed the marrying of infertile couples, elderly couples, divorce, single parents, etc.
    I don't know what the harm is there isn't good data. We know there is harm in single women raising children vs. traditionally married couples, the data is conclusive.

    It may well be that there is substantial harm? Clearly infertile couples and elderly couples can and do adopt and become legal guardians of children and form traditional nuclear families all the time. We also do know that single mothers and children from divorced families are at a substantial disadvantage over children raised in traditional two parent, husband and wife nuclear families and these children are a substantial burden on their communities.

    Gay adoption is pretty recent and the data isn't available yet for States to make reasonable conclusions one way or another. States certainly can decide with limited data to make gay marriage legal but I don't see those States that make a choice to promote traditional marriage with good data to back up that choice as unconstitutional.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Buncha ladyboys in this thread It's a heterosexual thing...of course you freaks wouldn't understand. The Feds have no business forcing this issue.

    Marry a goat, a kid (goat), a kid (human), 5 eunuchs like you...your same "logic" applies...why not?

    FF etc.: STFU you POS with your bigot BS. That's the 1st thing you cry like a whiny ***** when you don't like what I say. Tell me instead exactly why my marriage should be polluted down to your skeevy standards or GTFO.

    CR: Yes states can "discriminate". The SCOTUS decided long ago if a state has a law banning something they dont have to accomodate others who don't. CT and MA dont set policy for FL and TX and vice versa. That goes for guns, for example. Now run along and do what you do best - catch and release criminals

    Busboy: Who said anything about contracts - gays may contract whatever they wish (and they do). Call the similacrum of phony marriage something else - just don't call it marriage

    Seattle Fan aka Fieri Jr: A "correction" for you, When the federal constitution was ratified in 1789, free blacks held the same legal right to vote as whites in every state except Virginia and Georgia. As of 1792, free blacks could vote in twelve of fifteen states, and not until 1803 did a northern state (RI) restrict the franchise to whites.

    By 1840, free blacks could vote on equal terms with whites in only four of twenty-six states. Despite a movement in favor of black suffrage in the 1840s and 1850s, blacks effectively held the franchise in only five of thirty-six states by the time the Civil War had ended.

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jih/sum...1.1.renda.html

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I dont expect ill-educated, uninformed liberals and crypto-liberals to understand some things should be unique and sacred. The people of our bluest, gayest state voted against institutionalizing this idiocy, a biased gay jurist struck the will of the people down, and now its a federal legal case to force the issue on all Americans most of whom don't want redefinition -they never vote for it whenever it comes to a vote
    Actually, since you're the one using the "polluting down my marriage" argument to deny a whole class of rights, it's YOU who needs to explain exactly how two men getting married impacts you in any way. Like, at all. If Tom and Jeff get hitched, does your marriage automatically invalidate? Do you lose rights? None of those things will happen.

    The tide is turning on marriage equality. All the latest polls have a majority of Americans in favor of it. And 80%+ of young people. In the last election, marriage equality was 4-for-4 in ballot initiatives. We don't go backwards on civil rights in this country. The only question is whether the Roberts court wants to be viewed historically more like Plessy v. Ferguson, or more like Brown v. Board.

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,603
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    So no one wants to discuss this statement? I'm a bit surprised.
    It's not a logical statement.

    Sexual preference <> desire for monogamy / commitment

    Less so for gays-they are more promiscuous / non-committal in their relationships. In their society, there's less normative pressure to maintain being married.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    Actually, since you're the one using the "polluting down my marriage" argument to deny a whole class of rights, it's YOU who needs to explain exactly how two men getting married impacts you in any way. Like, at all. If Tom and Jeff get hitched, does your marriage automatically invalidate? Do you lose rights? None of those things will happen.

    The tide is turning on marriage equality. All the latest polls have a majority of Americans in favor of it. And 80%+ of young people. In the last election, marriage equality was 4-for-4 in ballot initiatives. We don't go backwards on civil rights in this country. The only question is whether the Roberts court wants to be viewed historically more like Plessy v. Ferguson, or more like Brown v. Board.
    Since marriage as an institution has been watered down by society a majority of women under 30 have decided to have children out of wedlock without any commitment to a long term partner. That has had and continues to have a huge cost to the entire community. These kids end up in jail more, earn less, take more social services and in general are a greater burden on society than children raised in traditional nuclear families.

    You now want to create a complete new class of marriage whith adoptive rights that may well have a huge impact on all of us personally. Why not let the States be a testing ground until the data is conclussive that Gay marriage is not an additional burden on society?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Since marriage as an institution has been watered down by society a majority of women under 30 have decided to have children out of wedlock without any commitment to a long term partner. That has had and continues to have a huge cost to the entire community. These kids end up in jail more, earn less, take more social services and in general are a greater burden on society than children raised in traditional nuclear families.

    You now want to create a complete new class of marriage whith adoptive rights that may well have a huge impact on all of us personally. Why not let the States be a testing ground until the data is conclussive that Gay marriage is not an additional burden on society?
    So why don't we take away single parent parental rights? Plenty of data there as you say.

    We don't deny people civil rights in this country. Period. And this is not creating a "new class of marriage". It's extending the rights to everyone. Two consenting adults entering into a civil contract. No more, no less.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,603
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    Actually, since you're the one using the "polluting down my marriage" argument to deny a whole class of rights, it's YOU who needs to explain exactly how two men getting married impacts you in any way. Like, at all. If Tom and Jeff get hitched, does your marriage automatically invalidate? Do you lose rights? None of those things will happen.

    The tide is turning on marriage equality. All the latest polls have a majority of Americans in favor of it. And 80%+ of young people. In the last election, marriage equality was 4-for-4 in ballot initiatives. We don't go backwards on civil rights in this country. The only question is whether the Roberts court wants to be viewed historically more like Plessy v. Ferguson, or more like Brown v. Board.

    Sure, just like the minorities (or B. Hussein himself) who live and die by identity politics vs ability/accomplishment never have to explain why they need perpetual special treatment (contrary to the US Constitution) , an overwhelming majority of normal, married people don't have to explain why their natural, sacred state of matrimony should not be expanded to include all kinds of freaky-deakery.

    Denying rights? You have no right to gay-ify my marriage. Lib skewed polls by gays, for gays, mean nothing. No one ever votes for it, not even the gayest, bluest state. Young people? WTF do they know? Are they all or most people? etc.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Sure, just like the minorities (or B. Hussein himself) who live and die by identity politics vs ability/accomplishment never have to explain why they need perpetual special treatment (contrary to the US Constitution) , an overwhelming majority of normal, married people don't have to explain why their natural, sacred state of matrimony should not be expanded to include all kinds of freaky-deakery.

    Denying rights? You have no right to gay-ify my marriage. Lib skewed polls by gays, for gays, mean nothing. No one ever votes for it, not even the gayest, bluest state. Young people? WTF do they know? Are they all or most people? etc.
    Again, you're making the claim it's going to "gay-ify" your marriage with ZERO basis. How? Will legalized gay marriage lead to a constant 24/7 loop of gay porn being played on your tv? And contrary to what you keep asserting, four states voted in favor of marriage equality in November. Facts. Look them up.

    What do young people matter? They're only going to be the majority of the electorate soon and it's going to happen. Said it before, we do not go back in civil rights in this country.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    So why don't we take away single parent parental rights? Plenty of data there as you say.

    We don't deny people civil rights in this country. Period. And this is not creating a "new class of marriage". It's extending the rights to everyone. Two consenting adults entering into a civil contract. No more, no less.
    The last time I looked single parents weren't applying to the State for a license to change their legal status.

    Almost every law on the books thousands of them all are restrictions of human behavior, rights. Our society routinely denies rights both in what they allow and don't allow in the law and through regulation.

    Gay marriage isn't a right guaranteed in the US Constitution anymore than Marriage is.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    So why don't we take away single parent parental rights? Plenty of data there as you say.

    We don't deny people civil rights in this country. Period. And this is not creating a "new class of marriage". It's extending the rights to everyone. Two consenting adults entering into a civil contract. No more, no less.
    When single parents are found to be unfit we do take away their parenting rights.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 03-27-2013 at 10:26 AM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    So no one wants to discuss this statement? I'm a bit surprised.

    I will admit that I do not know if it is genetic or the result of environment. No clue at all.
    It is possible (probable) that both exist.
    My problem with gay marriage is stricly economic, not moral. The required providing of economic benefits to a partner where sucha requirement does not now exist. That costs money and an additional burden.
    No problem with a same sex relationship. And inheritance/visitation concerns are easily handled with a document.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    The last time I looked single parents weren't applying to the State for a license to change their legal status.

    Almost every law on the books thousands of them all are restrictions of human behavior, rights. Our society routinely denies rights both in what they allow and don't allow in the law and through regulation.

    Gay marriage isn't a right guaranteed in the US Constitution anymore than Marriage is.
    My point is you're using the "think of the children" argument in denying marriage rights. If that's the case, be consistent.

    And while marriage is not specifically outlined in the constitution, scotus has ruled numerous times that it is a basic human right (see: Loving v. Virginia)

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I will admit that I do not know if it is genetic or the result of environment. No clue at all.
    It is possible (probable) that both exist.
    My problem with gay marriage is stricly economic, not moral. The required providing of economic benefits to a partner where sucha requirement does not now exist. That costs money and an additional burden.
    No problem with a same sex relationship. And inheritance/visitation concerns are easily handled with a document.
    You know what else costs all that money? Heterosexual marriage. And last I checked there are way more of those happening.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    You know what else costs all that money? Heterosexual marriage. And last I checked there are way more of those happening.
    That, however, IS the standard.
    Shall we also ok "triads" and the Islamic 4 to 1 concept?
    And the ever popular marry a 12 year old concept?

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    That, however, IS the standard.
    Shall we also ok "triads" and the Islamic 4 to 1 concept?
    And the ever popular marry a 12 year old concept?
    No, the standard is two adults. A 12 year old cannot give consent. Neither can a dog, horse, car or whatever other ridiculous non-consenting adult that anti-equality people bring into the discussion.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,332
    While I am not "for" gay marriage I am also not against it as I don't see how it really impacts me in any way.

    I don't think it legitimizes the gay lifestyle to my kids. Currently there are several "gay families" in our town that our kids know about. I don't think them having a marriage certificate will change my kids view. Also kids are inundated with the lefts view on TV and in school so no matter what happens with legal marriage they still get the same view blended with what I teach them at home.

    My marriage was watered down, impacted, destroyed (insert your verb of choice) by my wife being a selfish whore and society's reduced importance of fidelity, family, fathers, etc. Add in that divorce laws pretty much reward women in divorce what purpose other than love do women have for fidelity?

    On the surface, because I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, of the 2 gay "families" with kids I know in my town 1 is a loving couple of lesbians with a daughter born of a previous marriage who seems like a nice well adjusted girl. The male couple who adopted 3 kids who are genetically related to each other but to neither parent has broken up. Not sure how that is impacting the kids but again on the surface they are good kids but honestly their breakup is no different to the kids than mine is to my kids.

    I am not a religious person so I am not looking to foist my views on others either. The way I see it there is a lot of time, money and energy being wasted on something that isn't going to change my life one way or another. Who cares? Move on and devote our resources to something that can actually make a difference.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    No, the standard is two adults. A 12 year old cannot give consent. Neither can a dog, horse, car or whatever other ridiculous non-consenting adult that anti-equality people bring into the discussion.
    Two adults is stated where? Why is OUR country setting the standard? After all the moslems have different rules. And tribal countries alllow?encourage 12 year olds, correct?
    Standards.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Two adults is stated where? Why is OUR country setting the standard? After all the moslems have different rules. And tribal countries alllow?encourage 12 year olds, correct?
    Standards.
    At one point, two same-race individuals was the standard.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    At one point, two same-race individuals was the standard.
    Race is specifically covered in the US Constitution by amendment. This is not a Federal Constitutional issue. DOMA is.

    You're completely mixed up about the application of Loving. The SC was very specific in Loving.

    The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 03-27-2013 at 02:53 PM.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Race is specifically covered in the US Constitution by amendment. This is not a Federal Constitutional issue. DOMA is.

    You're completely mixed up about the application of Loving. The SC was very specific in Loving.
    Here is the text of the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Regardless of the scope of the decision of SCOTUS in Loving, I would submit that under the equal protection clause, it's hard to deny marriage equality. The fact of the matter is that we're denying rights to a whole group of citizens and not one person has been able to present a rational argument as to how granting same sex couples the SAME (not additional) rights as opposite sex couples will in any way cause legal injury to anyone.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    It's not a logical statement.

    Sexual preference <> desire for monogamy / commitment

    Less so for gays-they are more promiscuous / non-committal in their relationships. In their society, there's less normative pressure to maintain being married.
    I disagree. If anything OBENjet's statement that its not genetic, but is not choice is the illogical statement.

    I don't know if there is real science to back up your other claims of promiscuity, but if gays claim they have no choice, that makes it genetic; if its genetic, and violates some basic rules when it comes evolution and species perpetuation, then I think it can safely be called a disorder (or pick whatever nonhostile/derogatory phrase you wish). Therefore, being against gay marriage, you would logically have to be against marriage between 2 diabetics, 2 people with Down's, etc
    .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us