- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The implications of the forced gay marriage legislation
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:09 am to the808bass
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:09 am to the808bass
quote:Incorrect and, more importantly, irrelevant.
So there's no argument from history
Any time I've mentioned same sex marriage throughout history is only in response to the false claim that same sex marriage is a new development or a "passing fad," as it has been labeled in this thread, if I remember correctly. In no way does the fact that same sex marriage has existed longer than religion has existed predicate how our Constitution is to be executed. In other words, when someone claims that this is a new trend, my response is "You are wrong, but that isn't the point."
Simply put, a state's ban on marriage between two people solely on the sexes of the individuals consenting to the marriage limits the freedoms and abridges the rights of citizens in a way that is specifically forbidden by an Amendment that all 50 states have ratified. Pat and Terry may or may not have the right to marry each other, but whether Pat and Terry are male and/or female just isn't relevant. It may be relevant to (the understood, royal) you, and if so, that is a personal issue that you may deal with however you please. You simply haven't the right to a government promoting your personal agenda in this way.
ETA: Gotta run. Too bad this wasn't done in person over IPA's.
This post was edited on 9/6/14 at 11:11 am
1
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:10 am to ballscaster
What things in his constitutional alaysis were factually incorrect?
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:11 am to BBONDS25
Walking out the door. Can we continue this discussion later? I'll shave my balls out of respect for you.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:19 am to ballscaster
quote:
The idea that same sex marriage is a passing fad is absurd
It's a fad that shows up every now and then and I agree that it has happened before. It seems to be something that people try out in times of opulence, when there is time and wealth enough for leisure.
When times get tough and brutal and it takes all of your energy just to survive, there won't be any room for such a 'luxury' that has no other purpose but hedonistic pleasure.
But hey, times are pretty good right now. If that's your bag, knock yourself out.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:14 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Any time I've mentioned same sex marriage throughout history is only in response to the false claim that same sex marriage is a new development
It's not a false claim.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 2:46 pm to genro
quote:This would be a great argument in the absence of like a dozen court cases from the 1940s and 1950s, and no gay pride events ever. (They're not just dudes in assless chaps curated for maximum editorial outrage.)
Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, they have not thoroughly convinced the people. Instead of maintaining the struggle and fighting the arduous process, they are simply having solitary activist judges change the law, and I guess sort of "hoping" the culture catches up eventually.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:57 am to genro
quote:
They are bypassing the struggle.
wow.
seriously dude? Do you know where there term "fig" comes from?
This post was edited on 9/7/14 at 12:58 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:14 am to BBONDS25
LINK
quote:The fourteenth amendment does not mention racial discrimination, so Feldman's attempt at framing his decision around an inherent difference in banning a person from signing a marriage license because of his or her race and banning a person from signing a marriage licence because of his or her sex as it pertains to the text of the 14th Amendment is pure nonsense.
Heightened scrutiny was warranted in Loving because the
Fourteenth Amendment expressly condemns racial discrimination as a
constitutional evil
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 9:15 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:23 am to TrueTiger
quote:People are trying to be married. That is the complete opposite of hedonistic.
When times get tough and brutal and it takes all of your energy just to survive, there won't be any room for such a 'luxury' that has no other purpose but hedonistic pleasure.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:35 am to ballscaster
quote:
People are trying to be married. That is the complete opposite of hedonistic.
For heteros, sure. Homosexual marriage has little to no analogy to heterosexual marriage.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:37 am to the808bass
quote:Once again, incorrect but irrelevant.
Homosexual marriage has little to no analogy to heterosexual marriage.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:39 am to ballscaster
quote:You've been both gay-married and straight-married? How do you know?
Once again, incorrect but irrelevant.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:43 am to ballscaster
It's relevant to the statement you made. Heterosexual marriage is about procreation and family. Homosexual marriage, by definition, is not.
Secondly, monogamy is nearly non-existent even in long-term homosexual relationships. So marriage for the homosexual is not about exclusivity or monogamy.
Secondly, monogamy is nearly non-existent even in long-term homosexual relationships. So marriage for the homosexual is not about exclusivity or monogamy.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:50 am to genro
quote:As it pertains to government, marriage is a series of signed pieces of paper. Men and women sign the exact same ones, and often they use the same pen.
You've been both gay-married and straight-married? How do you know?
Anything that happens once the T's have been crossed and the lower-case J's have been dotted simply isn't pertinent.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:52 am to ballscaster
quote:
Anything that happens once the T's have been crossed and the lower-case J's have been dotted simply isn't pertinent.
You can't have it both ways. You're arguing philosophical points about marriage and then when you're called out on your arguments' obvious shortcomings, you say they're irrelevant. Well, if they're irrelevant, stop making shitty irrelevant arguments.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:53 am to the808bass
quote:Heterosexual marriage is about whatever the two heterosexuals being married decide.
Heterosexual marriage is about procreation and family.
Also, "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are not relevant terms to the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. A gay man and a lesbian woman may marry each other, and no one in this dialogue has expressed a desire to ban this type of marriage. Two straight men may not marry; neither may two gay men. Therefore, sexuality isn't a factor in the equation. The sole issue here is whether or not it is Constitutional to disallow a person from signing a contract/licence solely on the basis of his or her sex. Obviously, that is not Constitutional.
quote:This appears vague; I don't know what you're talking about.
You can't have it both ways. You're arguing philosophical points about marriage and then when you're called out on your arguments' obvious shortcomings, you say they're irrelevant. Well, if they're irrelevant, stop making shitty irrelevant arguments.
quote:Sexual monogamy within marriage is the decision of the parties consenting to the marriage, and them alone. It has nothing to do with you or your opinion or understanding of the sexual habits of homosexual people.
Secondly, monogamy is nearly non-existent even in long-term homosexual relationships. So marriage for the homosexual is not about exclusivity or monogamy.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 9:56 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:54 am to ballscaster
quote:
Heterosexual marriage is about whatever the two heterosexuals being married decide.
It's really not. You can pretend this for as long as you'd like. The platonic form of marriage exists for patently obvious reasons, whether you tend to the religious or the Darwinian.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:56 am to ballscaster
quote:
This appears vague; I don't know what you're talking about.
Someone said that homosexual marriage was about hedonism. You argued that it was the opposite of hedonism. That's apparently irrelevant to your argument (as you noted when your statement was challenged). If it's irrelevant, then don't challenge the argument. It's a shell game.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:59 am to the808bass
quote:This has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of a same sex marriage ban.
It's really not. You can pretend this for as long as you'd like. The platonic form of marriage exists for patently obvious reasons, whether you tend to the religious or the Darwinian.
Regardless of the obvious benefits that the tradition of marriage affords a society (certainly we agree that the tradition of marriage is one cornerstone of human civilization), in no way does this give our Government the right to ban a citizen from signing a marriage license solely on the basis of his sex.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:59 am to ballscaster
quote:
Sexual monogamy within marriage is the decision of the parties consenting to the marriage, and them alone. It has nothing to do with you or your opinion or understanding of the sexual habits of homosexual people.
You're arguing practice and not function, which is more convenient for your argument but it still sucks. The percentage of monogamous homosexuals in long-term relationships has been found to be rather low (like less than 10% low) in multiple studies by homosexual publications. So it's not like outliers are being discussed.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News