Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Huckabee is a GOP establishment plant... His job is to split the base, so neither Cruz nor Paul can gain traction...

    Stranger and Stranger every week Doc....
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #77
      Out of all the many declared GOP candidates (we're up to 29 now), seems good odds that at least one of them is a plant.

      Comment


      • #78
        Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
          The History of Human Civilization

          Prior to recent decades what country, nation/state, civilization has legalized marriage between two persons of the same sex?

          But religious concerns are also legitimate.
          {}

          "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
            Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
            One problem that occurs to me is that encouraging non-conformal behavior could eventually lead to the dissolution of all standards.

            If two men or two women can marry, then why not a man or a woman and a child? Once some of the barriers are down, the remaining barriers cannot be maintained.

            Another reason might be that nature itself defines marriage as a long-term reproductive union between tow members of the opposite sexes. The purpose of mating, after all, is reproduction. Only humans throw "love" into the mix.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
              The History of Human Civilization

              Prior to recent decades what country, nation/state, civilization has legalized marriage between two persons of the same sex?

              But religious concerns are also legitimate.
              Slavery has been a historic norm as well.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                The History of Human Civilization

                Prior to recent decades what country, nation/state, civilization has legalized marriage between two persons of the same sex?

                But religious concerns are also legitimate.
                Does the Roman Empire ring any bells with you?
                First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                  Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
                  1. There is no biological basis for same-sex marriage.
                  2. There is no constitutional basis for the courts to define marriage for the State.
                  3. The ruling is 100% arbitrary and capricious. If the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to recognize same-sex marriage, there is no legal basis for States to prohibit polygamous or incestuous marriages.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    Slavery has been a historic norm as well.
                    It has never been the biological norm.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      One problem that occurs to me is that encouraging non-conformal behavior could eventually lead to the dissolution of all standards.

                      If two men or two women can marry, then why not a man or a woman and a child? Once some of the barriers are down, the remaining barriers cannot be maintained.

                      Another reason might be that nature itself defines marriage as a long-term reproductive union between tow members of the opposite sexes. The purpose of mating, after all, is reproduction. Only humans throw "love" into the mix.
                      Nature doesn't make our laws. Burning the flag is protected by the Constitution and that is definitely non conforming. Many sterile people of people far too old to bear children marry.
                      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        1. There is no biological basis for same-sex marriage.
                        2. There is no constitutional basis for the courts to define marriage for the State.
                        3. The ruling is 100% arbitrary and capricious. If the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to recognize same-sex marriage, there is no legal basis for States to prohibit polygamous or incestuous marriages.
                        1. Irrelevant. We're talking civil rights.

                        2. If I remember correctly wasn't interracial marriage illegal as well before that was changed?

                        3. Do explain. Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't bother me.
                        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          It has never been the biological norm.
                          He didn't say biology, he said history of human civilization.

                          Marriage is not a biological norm.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                            Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't bother me.
                            Me either, but the insurance companies sure ain't gonna like it.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              1. There is no biological basis for same-sex marriage.
                              2. There is no constitutional basis for the courts to define marriage for the State.
                              3. The ruling is 100% arbitrary and capricious. If the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to recognize same-sex marriage, there is no legal basis for States to prohibit polygamous or incestuous marriages.
                              There is no biological basis for Freedom of religion either. Do we drop it?

                              The Courts only step in when the States set up a definition that treats its residents in a manner that kicked in the Equal Protection clause.

                              Yes there is. Because there is and it's laid out in many, many rulings that use the 14th. You just conveniently pretend those don't exist, however in the real world they do.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                One problem that occurs to me is that encouraging non-conformal behavior could eventually lead to the dissolution of all standards.

                                If two men or two women can marry, then why not a man or a woman and a child? Once some of the barriers are down, the remaining barriers cannot be maintained.

                                Another reason might be that nature itself defines marriage as a long-term reproductive union between tow members of the opposite sexes. The purpose of mating, after all, is reproduction. Only humans throw "love" into the mix.
                                Children can't give consent, you can't sell a child a car or have them sign a contract either.

                                Yes they can.
                                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                                “To talk of many things:
                                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                                Of cabbages—and kings—
                                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                                And whether pigs have wings.”
                                ― Lewis Carroll

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X