Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
    Wrong question .

    Good question is : Why have some people a problem if other people have a problem with homosexual marriage ?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by ljadw View Post
      Wrong question .

      Good question is : Why have some people a problem if other people have a problem with homosexual marriage ?
      They don't care if people have a problem with gay marriage, they only care that Governments treat people equally. Immaterial what others feel about it.
      “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


      • #93
        Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
        1. Irrelevant. We're talking civil rights.
        I don't have a "civil right" to demand that the State issue me a dog license for my pet fish Eric. There is no biological basis for a fish to be a dog.

        The biological basis of marriage is procreation and the establishment of nuclear families. Irrespective of whether or not a traditional marriage results in children, it follows the biological purpose. Same-sex marriage does not.

        Incestuous marriage is generally prohibited because inbreeding is bad for the gene pool. There is a biological purpose to prohibit it.



        Red colors = Prohibition of marriage of first cousins and closer relatives.



        Originally posted by Delenda estRoma
        2. If I remember correctly wasn't interracial marriage illegal as well before that was changed?
        There is a biological basis for interracial marriage. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment's clear intent was to extend equal protection under the law to newly freed slaves. Prohibitions against interracial marriage clearly violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

        Originally posted by Delenda estRoma
        3. Do explain. Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't bother me.
        The issue isn't whether or not polygamy should be allowed. The issue is that these sorts of decisions should be left up to the States.

        I do not have a civil right to a concealed carry license in a State which offers none, even though I have an expressly protected right to "keep and bear arms."

        If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, Arkansas wants incestuous marriage and Utah wants polygamous marriage... They should be able to make those decisions. However, other States should not be required to do so as well.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          Does the Roman Empire ring any bells with you?
          Show me the LAW.

          I am well aware that homosexuality existed in ancient Rome, Greece and other places...but where is the CODE.
          Last edited by BorderRuffian; 26 Jun 15, 16:08.
          {}

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

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            I don't have a "civil right" to demand that the State issue me a dog license for my pet fish Eric. There is no biological basis for a fish to be a dog.

            The biological basis of marriage is procreation and the establishment of nuclear families. Irrespective of whether or not a traditional marriage results in children, it follows the biological purpose. Same-sex marriage does not.

            Incestuous marriage is generally prohibited because inbreeding is bad for the gene pool. There is a biological purpose to prohibit it.



            Red colors = Prohibition of marriage of first cousins and closer relatives.





            There is a biological basis for interracial marriage. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment's clear intent was to extend equal protection under the law to newly freed slaves. Prohibitions against interracial marriage clearly violated the Fourteenth Amendment.



            The issue isn't whether or not polygamy should be allowed. The issue is that these sorts of decisions should be left up to the States.

            I do not have a civil right to a concealed carry license in a State which offers none, even though I have an expressly protected right to "keep and bear arms."

            If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, Arkansas wants incestuous marriage and Utah wants polygamous marriage... They should be able to make those decisions. However, other States should not be required to do so as well.
            There is NOT one biological necessity for marriage to exist. Everything you list is possible and easy without it.

            Doc explain why Texas prohibits close relatives getting married yet still recognized those from other states?
            “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


            • #96
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              There is no biological basis for Freedom of religion either. Do we drop it?
              Freedom of Religion is expressly protected in the First Amendment.

              If the Fourteenth Amendment protects gay marriage, it also protects incestuous and polygamous marriages. Otherwise, this ruling is arbitrary and capricious.

              Originally posted by Combat Engineer
              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.
              The Courts didn't discover the expansive nature of this clause until about 100 years after it was ratified.

              Originally posted by Combat Engineer
              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.
              It is called "the Miracle Amendment" precisely because of those ruling.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Freedom of Religion is expressly protected in the First Amendment.

                If the Fourteenth Amendment protects gay marriage, it also protects incestuous and polygamous marriages. Otherwise, this ruling is arbitrary and capricious.



                The Courts didn't discover the expansive nature of this clause until about 100 years after it was ratified.



                It is called "the Miracle Amendment" precisely because of those ruling.
                Equal protection is expressly protected.

                Still pretending that the various rulings on the 14th don't layout exactly how it used and when it applies. Keep it up, however you need to clean out your ears when you occasionally pull you head out of the sand.

                How long did it take the courts to find out that the Southern states were violating the 14ti when it came to segregation? Did that mean it was less relevant and should have been allowed to continue?
                “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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  There is NOT one biological necessity for marriage to exist. Everything you list is possible and easy without it.
                  There is no biological necessity. However, that biological function is the fundamental purpose of marriage.

                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer
                  Doc explain why Texas prohibits close relatives getting married yet still recognized those from other states?
                  How would it not recognize them? Their marriage licenses aren't registered in Texas. Unlike a drivers license, there is no requirement to re-register the marriage in Texas.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    Wrong question .

                    Good question is : Why have some people a problem if other people have a problem with homosexual marriage ?
                    Depriving people of their rights is a problem.
                    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      I don't have a "civil right" to demand that the State issue me a dog license for my pet fish Eric. There is no biological basis for a fish to be a dog.

                      The biological basis of marriage is procreation and the establishment of nuclear families. Irrespective of whether or not a traditional marriage results in children, it follows the biological purpose. Same-sex marriage does not.

                      Incestuous marriage is generally prohibited because inbreeding is bad for the gene pool. There is a biological purpose to prohibit it.



                      Red colors = Prohibition of marriage of first cousins and closer relatives.





                      There is a biological basis for interracial marriage. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment's clear intent was to extend equal protection under the law to newly freed slaves. Prohibitions against interracial marriage clearly violated the Fourteenth Amendment.



                      The issue isn't whether or not polygamy should be allowed. The issue is that these sorts of decisions should be left up to the States.

                      I do not have a civil right to a concealed carry license in a State which offers none, even though I have an expressly protected right to "keep and bear arms."

                      If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, Arkansas wants incestuous marriage and Utah wants polygamous marriage... They should be able to make those decisions. However, other States should not be required to do so as well.
                      Again we are talking civil rights. People who are too old to bear children or are sterile can still marry. So why not gays?

                      The states don't have the right to deprive others of civil rights. Simple.
                      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        There is no biological necessity. However, that biological function is the fundamental purpose of marriage.



                        How would it not recognize them? Their marriage licenses aren't registered in Texas. Unlike a drivers license, there is no requirement to re-register the marriage in Texas.
                        How did Texas NOT recognize a gay marriage from another state?
                        “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


                        • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          Equal protection is expressly protected.

                          Still pretending that the various rulings on the 14th don't layout exactly how it used and when it applies. Keep it up, however you need to clean out your ears when you occasionally pull you head out of the sand.
                          That's been my point. The "various rulings" turned it into the "Miracle Amendment"...
                          Because many states continued to pass laws that restricted the rights of former slaves, on June 13, 1866, Congress passed and sent to the states for ratification, Amendment XIV. Ratified on July 9, 1868, the amendment granted U.S. citizenship to former slaves and specifically changed the rule in Article 1, Section 2 that slaves be counted only as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in Congress. It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen’s privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.

                          These limitations on state power dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections in the Bill of Rights limited only the actions of the federal government, unless the provision specifically stated otherwise. The Supreme Court, in what is called “the doctrine of incorporation” has since interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights against state and local governments as well. This has meant that the Fourteenth Amendment has been used more frequently in modern court cases than any other constitutional provision.

                          http://constitutioncenter.org/consti...zenship-rights

                          The amendment was ratified in 1868. The "doctrine of incorporation" evolved from 1925-1947.

                          The "Miracle" didn't occur until 60-80 years after the Amendment was written, because the courts fabricated it from whole cloth.

                          Originally posted by Combat Engineer
                          How long did it take the courts to find out that the Southern states were violating the 14ti when it came to segregation? Did that mean it was less relevant and should have been allowed to continue?
                          The express intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide equal protection to newly freed slaves. Desegregation of public schools follows the clear intent of the amendment.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • I'm surprised at this recent decision of the SCOTUS. With that said I support the position of the Church,

                            Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President of Catholic Bishops’ Conference


                            Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

                            The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

                            Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.


                            more,

                            http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              How did Texas NOT recognize a gay marriage from another state?
                              When two guys walked into a courthouse and asked for a divorce... It was hard to miss. Their marriage license said "Chuck & Larry."

                              Unless first cousins, Chuck & Mary's marriage license said "kissin' cousins," the divorce court wouldn't have the slightest clue as to their cousin-ness.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                That's been my point. The "various rulings" turned it into the "Miracle Amendment"...
                                Because many states continued to pass laws that restricted the rights of former slaves, on June 13, 1866, Congress passed and sent to the states for ratification, Amendment XIV. Ratified on July 9, 1868, the amendment granted U.S. citizenship to former slaves and specifically changed the rule in Article 1, Section 2 that slaves be counted only as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in Congress. It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen’s privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.

                                These limitations on state power dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections in the Bill of Rights limited only the actions of the federal government, unless the provision specifically stated otherwise. The Supreme Court, in what is called “the doctrine of incorporation” has since interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights against state and local governments as well. This has meant that the Fourteenth Amendment has been used more frequently in modern court cases than any other constitutional provision.

                                http://constitutioncenter.org/consti...zenship-rights

                                The amendment was ratified in 1868. The "doctrine of incorporation" evolved from 1925-1947.

                                The "Miracle" didn't occur until 60-80 years after the Amendment was written, because the courts fabricated it from whole cloth.



                                The express intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide equal protection to newly freed slaves. Desegregation of public schools follows the clear intent of the amendment.
                                I thought in the Obamacare ruling we were told by the dissenters that the WORDS matter and the courts don't rule on what the intent was. They could have written the 14th to expressly cover only issues with the freed slaves. They did not do so.
                                “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

                                • casanova
                                  Klaudia Tanner
                                  by casanova
                                  During a speech by the Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner to the soldiers one soldier fell down. The minister helped him to stand up again. The...
                                  Yesterday, 23:56
                                • Karri
                                  Doom Patrol
                                  by Karri
                                  Anyone else following?

                                  IMO, it's one of the rare good things to come from this whole superhero genre (which is really mostly the same as...
                                  Yesterday, 23:55
                                • Nikki
                                  Iranian Nuclear Program Setback
                                  by Nikki
                                  Iran's nuclear program was at an advanced stage, this had to be done. Israel carried out this mission to buy the world some more time....
                                  Yesterday, 23:03
                                Working...
                                X