Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

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

  • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    So by that logic we shouldn't have given women the vote because now we can't deny it to children.
    Apples and Oranges. Just pointing out that the next step is going to be requests for threesomes, children, pets, whatever floats their boat, like the pleasure city of Pompeii prior to its fiery destruction.
    “Breaking News,”

    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Well consider you're using the term murder then perhaps this isn't objective fact but personal opinion and interpretation at work. After all, who decides if it was unconstitutional or not?
      The point is that the right to commit infanticide was discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment 104 years after it was ratified.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
        Apples and Oranges. Just pointing out that the next step is going to be requests for threesomes, children, pets, whatever floats their boat, like the pleasure city of Pompeii prior to its fiery destruction.
        And the next step is going to be to demand children can vote then, since the same exact logic applies.

        Or can you explain exactly how these two situations are incomparable to me?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          The point is that the right to commit infanticide was discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment 104 years after it was ratified.
          When has it ever been a right to commit infanticide? Surely you're not referring to abortion, because equating that with murder would be a gross subjective misrepresentation of the act and and objective misrepresentation of its legal definition.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
            They can do so, apparently now in all 50 states here in the USA. If it came down to a vote as to whether I would support the legality of gay marriage or not I would vote no, but obv other American citizens disagree with me and the law is the law.
            Yeah, five of them.
            {}

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
              Why can't two consenting adults who love each other marry!
              Why not 15? or 57?

              25 guys and 32 gals.
              {}

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                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.

                Reference 3....and just to put the idea out there.

                What defines statutory rape? Or child molesting? Is it not morals based on a "magical being or beings? Which were codified into laws by men?

                So if "love" is the only thing that can define what marriage is.......then anyone of reproductive age can marry anyone else. Girls can bear children as early as 9 and definitely by 12 or 13. So if you use no magical being to define marriage then 12 year Olds can marry 30 year olds legally and have intercourse with anyone whom they "love".

                I dare you to find any way to disprove this logic which does not call upon the precepts set down by a magical being in whom you do not believe. .......
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • Since its one of the few rulings that increase, rather than restrict personal freedom, I am okay with this.
                  Honestly.
                  Have fun with it, but just don't try to destroy my life if I'd rather not drive you to the wedding, okay?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    When has it ever been a right to commit infanticide? Surely you're not referring to abortion, because equating that with murder would be a gross subjective misrepresentation of the act and and objective misrepresentation of its legal definition.
                    The point is that the right to do this was discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment 104 years after it was ratified.
                    Last edited by The Doctor; 26 Jun 15, 18:36.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                      Why not 15? or 57?

                      25 guys and 32 gals.
                      And 72 virgins. ..
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                        Why not 15? or 57?

                        25 guys and 32 gals.
                        Don't you love red herrings?

                        Marriage isn't owned by Christianity or any other religion. For many people it has become a very secular affair that religion has no right to meddle in.
                        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                          Reference 3....and just to put the idea out there.

                          What defines statutory rape? Or child molesting? Is it not morals based on a "magical being or beings? Which were codified into laws by men?

                          So if "love" is the only thing that can define what marriage is.......then anyone of reproductive age can marry anyone else. Girls can bear children as early as 9 and definitely by 12 or 13. So if you use no magical being to define marriage then 12 year Olds can marry 30 year olds legally and have intercourse with anyone whom they "love".

                          I dare you to find any way to disprove this logic which does not call upon the precepts set down by a magical being in whom you do not believe. .......
                          It is defined by laws made by men, not magical beings.

                          Love can be between those groups yes. However, we as a society have decided that children don't quite have the capacity to make these choices at such young ages.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            I love it when the silliness comes up. Please post more!!!!!!
                            What's silly about it? If my position is "silly" then the position that argues "two consenting adults" is equally silly.

                            Dismissing my question with nothing but a cheap ad hominem only shows you don't have an answer to them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                              Don't you love red herrings?

                              Marriage isn't owned by Christianity or any other religion. For many people it has become a very secular affair that religion has no right to meddle in.
                              Why is bringing up polygamy a "red herring?" You say it's fine if "two consenting adults" want to marry. Others ask "Why not 3, or 4, or whatever?" What makes polygamy a "red herring?"

                              Or, "Can siblings marry? An adult brother and sister want to get married. Would you be okay with that?

                              Is it acceptable for two heterosexual men or women to marry solely for legal and financial gain?

                              How young is "too young?" Should it be "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed?" or something else...

                              Right now the Progressive side in this is that only gay marriage and only between two individuals is on the table to be discussed. All those other arguments are dismissed as irrelevant because the Progressives know that dragging them into the debate pretty much makes a mockery of their position.
                              But, that's never stopped the Left before from making horrific decisions about how society, economics, politics, or anything else should be done. History is replete with the bad decisions of the Left and the terrible consequences of them.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                The point is that the right to do this was discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment 104 years after it was ratified.
                                And?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X