Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,416 posts, read 37,017,268 times
Reputation: 15560

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Please don't tell me we are going to have this ludicrous argument again.

Do you ever learn?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) It was a 9-0 vote.

It isn't even a subject for debate. Case closed. You lost this argument 44 years ago.

Do try to keep up with the class.

Seriously.

EDIT; And MOREOVER, why on EARTH would you prefere it NOT be a RIGHT?

Explain yourself, authoritarian marriage-hater.
Please, you know as well as I she is just gonna trot out that tired "gays have every right to marry as long as its the opposite sex" tripe thats been beaten to death already.

 
Old 03-17-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,119,250 times
Reputation: 8527
The threat to marriage are the idiots who work harder on the wedding than they do the marriage.

Whether they be gay or straight.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 01:20 PM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,135,035 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
Please, you know as well as I she is just gonna trot out that tired "gays have every right to marry as long as its the opposite sex" tripe thats been beaten to death already.
Of course.

I notice that argument isn't getting any traction in court, for those few Liberty University lawyers that are dumb enough to blow their credibility making it.


But I would love to hear sanrene's explanation of why she(?) believes marraige should NOT be a right.

If she has one.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Santa Barbara
1,474 posts, read 2,919,019 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA View Post
I've noticed that most Republican posters have skirted away from the thread's intent. Apparently it is OK to use taxpayer monies to push a Right wing social agenda upon the nation.....while we are trying to close a budget deficit. I just wanted to clear that up.
And how is defending DOMA going to get the jobs they kept promising? Wasn't the last election about jobs? I don't seem to remember the this being a party platform during the last election cycle.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 01:33 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,119,250 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillz View Post
And how is defending DOMA going to get the jobs they kept promising? Wasn't the last election about jobs? I don't seem to remember the this being a party platform during the last election cycle.
This is how..

Look!! Squirrel!!!!
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,416 posts, read 37,017,268 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Of course.

I notice that argument isn't getting any traction in court, for those few Liberty University lawyers that are dumb enough to blow their credibility making it.


But I would love to hear sanrene's explanation of why she(?) believes marraige should NOT be a right.

If she has one.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:07 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,022,870 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Human society is based on successful reproduction of the species via heterosexual marriage. To defend that is bigoted? Really? I'd say to attack it is such.
You can have successful reproduction of any species without
marriage The definition of marriage under religious doctrine
and ceremony is much different than it should be under
federal/state law to get "a license". One really has nothing to do with the other.

And no, not all who marry even want or choose to reproduce. e.g. childless couple.

Believe what you believe in your house of worship.
And, leave it there

Respect everyone's personal choice.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:10 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,305,856 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Human society is based on successful reproduction of the species via heterosexual marriage. To defend that is bigoted? Really? I'd say to attack it is such.
I really don't see how a person getting married to somebody of the same sex interferes with YOUR ability to pro-create.

Can you explain that for me?

Also marriage has absolutely nothing to with pro-creation. The acts in involved in pro-creating are purely biological. Marriage is a social construct.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:12 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,305,856 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Well, DOMA IS the law of the land, whether obama wants to obfuscate his duty to defend the law or not.

See, he doesn't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which aren't.

Thank goodness the GOP is now taking up the DUTY to defend this.
He doesn't but his actions are no differnt than other adminstration that have stopped defending certain laws in the courts.
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,961,908 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Please don't tell me we are going to have this ludicrous argument again.

Do you ever learn?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) It was a 9-0 vote.

It isn't even a subject for debate. Case closed. You lost this argument 44 years ago.

Do try to keep up with the class.

Seriously.

EDIT; And MOREOVER, why on EARTH would you prefere it NOT be a RIGHT?

Explain yourself, authoritarian marriage-hater.
Ummm...the question was not if marriage was a RIGHT (it is not), but how the state (VA) was administering the marriage contract.

Loving v. Virginia

Quote:
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
I'm thinking you need to go back to school.

I'll just wait for another case that declares marriage a right. Maybe I missed it, I don't know.

Last edited by sanrene; 03-17-2011 at 02:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top