Supreme Court: Same-sex Couples Have Right to Marry.....

Page 4 of 7 [ 111 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

nerdygirl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.

26 Jun 2015, 6:35 pm

blauSamstag wrote:

nerdygirl wrote:

pcuser wrote:

Meistersinger wrote:

blauSamstag wrote:

Meistersinger wrote:

The end of civilization as we know it.

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

Because it is. Marriage is meant purely to between a man and a woman. The Lord created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

There is no God. However, even if you believe there is, it's not your right to pass laws to control another's life based on your delusions or beliefs. Leave the rest of us the hell alone...

*Every* law in some way is "controlling" the actions of another. You know, like law's against murder, or laws that control how the owner of a business treats his/her employees...

In the instance of gay marriage, one might argue that "it doesn't hurt anyone" so it shouldn't be prevented. I don't think we will know until 30-50 years from now how society will be affected by all these changes.

You sound concerned.

A better argument for gay marriage is that it is none of your business who anyone else marries. Gay people have the same rights that you do.

All arguments to the contrary have been shown to be pure bullflop.

You talk as though gay people having committed relationships is a new thing today. It's not.

Neither is, by the way, gay marriage, in the ritualistic and spiritual sense.

They just have guaranteed legal recognition now.

I am only concerned in the sense that this IS a social experiment of sorts.

If you read my very first post on this thread, you would see that I said I thought there could be no other right decision if marriage is defined as a state-sanctioned contract.

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

26 Jun 2015, 6:44 pm

nerdygirl wrote:

If you read my very first post on this thread, you would see that I said I thought there could be no other right decision if marriage is defined as a state-sanctioned contract.

Depends on what the word "state" means.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.

– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)

nerdygirl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.

26 Jun 2015, 6:45 pm

Murihiku wrote:

nerdygirl wrote:

If you read my very first post on this thread, you would see that I said I thought there could be no other right decision if marriage is defined as a state-sanctioned contract.

Depends on what the word "state" means.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Sorry, I don't get the joke.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Jun 2015, 6:48 pm

xenocity wrote:

The end of the ruling opinion.

Chief Justice Robert's dissenting opinion:

From Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion:

From Justice Thomas (black justice) insulting dissenting opinion:

Joe biden (VP) was seen running up and own the White House halls in a rainbow cape.

If Thomas could travel back in time and see how much dignity had been lost by captive Africans sold as slaves, or American citizens interned in camps, and deemed untrustworthy, because they were of Japanese extraction, I think he'd see just how much dignity had been ripped away from them. Or he could just ask gay people how they felt until today about being denied the right to marry in many states.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Rooster1968
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

26 Jun 2015, 6:49 pm

Glad to see "Murica" is catching up with the rest of the civilised world. Maybe they can have a look at gun laws next...

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

26 Jun 2015, 6:51 pm

Rooster1968 wrote:

Glad to see "Murica" is catching up with the rest of the civilised world. Maybe they can have a look at gun laws next...

Giving freedom to one group [that's not harming anyone] and taking it from another [that's not harming anyone] isn't being consistent.

ProfessorJohn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,153
Location: The Room at the end of 2001

26 Jun 2015, 6:55 pm

Does this mean that siblings and first cousins in all states can also marry? If not, doesn't that violate the equal protection under the law principle?

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Jun 2015, 6:58 pm

ProfessorJohn wrote:

Does this mean that siblings and first cousins in all states can also marry? If not, doesn't that violate the equal protection under the law principle?

It might be argued that there could be health ramifications for the children resulting from such a union. Then again, throughout most human history, it was common for cousins to marry - even in the United States in it's earlier history.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

26 Jun 2015, 6:59 pm

nerdygirl wrote:

Murihiku wrote:

nerdygirl wrote:

If you read my very first post on this thread, you would see that I said I thought there could be no other right decision if marriage is defined as a state-sanctioned contract.

Depends on what the word "state" means.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Sorry, I don't get the joke.

That's okay. A lot of people wouldn't.

The day before this decision was released, the US Supreme Court released another major decision on Obamacare. The whole case hinged on one short phrase in the gigantic piece of legislation: "established by the State". Specifically, whether the word "state" here meant an individual state or the entire national "state". Long story short, SCOTUS ruled that the wording was ambiguous enough to allow either interpretation, and thus allowing tax credits to be given to people buying health insurance on state or federal exchanges.

I thought a comparison would be relevant here, in a state's rights versus (interpretations of) the federal constitution kind of way. And I thought it was funny, too.

Last edited by Murihiku on 26 Jun 2015, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ProfessorJohn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,153
Location: The Room at the end of 2001

26 Jun 2015, 7:01 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

The Japanese-American interment was done by FDR, and it must not have been a big deal because we built a monument to the racist in Washington.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Jun 2015, 7:04 pm

It uprooted Japanese people from their homes for no good reason. From their livelihood. Many of these people were born and raised in America, and knew no other home.

It was a big deal.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Jun 2015, 7:07 pm

ProfessorJohn wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The Japanese-American interment was done by FDR, and it must not have been a big deal because we built a monument to the racist in Washington.

FDR was hardly perfect, and had allowed himself to succumb to the paranoid racism of Patton, who had suggested all Japanese Americans be interned. But it had also been FDR who had brilliantly defeated fascism, and the genocide accompanying it.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 7:08 pm

Dillogic wrote:

Rooster1968 wrote:

Glad to see "Murica" is catching up with the rest of the civilised world. Maybe they can have a look at gun laws next...

Giving freedom to one group [that's not harming anyone] and taking it from another [that's not harming anyone] isn't being consistent.

Gun owners are killing people every day...

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 7:12 pm

ProfessorJohn wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The Japanese-American interment was done by FDR, and it must not have been a big deal because we built a monument to the racist in Washington.

I've known people who were interned and believe me when they were still furious about it. They lost everything. They lost all property they owned and their freedom was over for the duration. No matter who was president, it was a terrible blight on our country...

nikkiDT
Deinonychus

Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 326

26 Jun 2015, 7:13 pm

KyleTheGhost wrote:

Finally. This should have happened long ago.

I know, right?

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

26 Jun 2015, 7:15 pm

Dillogic wrote:

What does it entail?

Lettings churches marry gay people if they're ok with it?

That's fine.

No. Churches have always been able to marry whoever they see fit. Gay people could and did get married by clergy. They just didn't have legal recognition.

Your church could marry you to your car if it wanted to. Just wouldn't mean anything to the government.

nerdygirl wrote:

Is there any other way that the federal government can define it?

Page 4 of 7 [ 111 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Supreme Court: Same-sex Couples Have Right to Marry..... Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court: Same-sex Couples Have Right to Marry.....