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 12-20-2013, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,953,573 times
Reputation: 6128

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
No, I don't think that. If the court finds that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case, then the court is bound by obligation not to rule.
Yet, the gay army somehow takes the SCOTUS decision as meaning that there is a constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage.

That couldn't be any more further from the truth.

 
Old 12-20-2013, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,492 posts, read 33,224,714 times
Reputation: 7609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
That seems fair, but first...


You're going to have to tell me the exact date you made the conscious decision to be attracted to girls and not boys.

I mean, if homosexuality is not an innate characteristic, then surely you're a living, breathing objective example of this and you can share with all of us precisely how and when you made that rather momentous decision to like girls and not boys.
I can answer that... Sept. 22, 1976.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:04 AM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,059,670 times
Reputation: 12919
This is stupid. Marriage is between two people. The government should not be telling anyone what gender those two people have to be. This overbearing ultra controlling government that people want is getting out of hand.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:09 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,075,569 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Yet, the gay army somehow takes the SCOTUS decision as meaning that there is a constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage.

That couldn't be any more further from the truth.
You're getting loose with your language. Rather than "for allowing gay marriage" I assume you meant to say "disallowing banning gay marriage." Those are 2 very different things.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,953,573 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
This is stupid. Marriage is between two people. The government should not be telling anyone what gender those two people have to be. This overbearing ultra controlling government that people want is getting out of hand.
Harrier agrees.

Government should not be in the marriage business.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:11 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,075,569 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Not true.

Gay couples do not and have never had a constitutional right to marry.
Now you're conflating issues. We were talking about the effect of laws limiting marriage to man/women couples (specifically whether they deny the rights of marriage to gay couples - something you dumbfoundingly claim they don't). That's a separate issue from whether such laws are constitutional or not. Whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry or not has no bearing whatsoever on the effect Prop-8 type laws have.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,953,573 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
You're getting loose with your language. Rather than "for allowing gay marriage" I assume you meant to say "disallowing banning gay marriage." Those are 2 very different things.
Your term is convoluted, barely pronouncable, and highly contrived.
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,953,573 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Now you're conflating issues. We were talking about the effect of laws limiting marriage to man/women couples (specifically whether they deny the rights of marriage to gay couples - something you dumbfoundingly claim they don't). That's a separate issue from whether such laws are constitutional or not. Whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry or not has no bearing whatsoever on the effect Prop-8 type laws have.
What utter nonsense.

The current ruling from the openly gay judge, which was allowed to stand by SCOTUS on procedural grounds, was based on a constitutional argument.

Now you are backing away from the very argument made by a judge in a decision that you claim to support.

Which is it?
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:15 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,352,860 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestGuy1 View Post
For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there.
Did you mean to do that? It's funny.


for all intents and purposes
dime a dozen
pedestal
primadonnas
granted
muster
dog eat dog
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:17 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,075,569 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Your term is convoluted, barely pronouncable, and highly contrived.
I'm sorry you have trouble pronouncing four basic English words. And my term accurately reflects the issue. Your term doesn't.

The issue here isn't whether states are constitutionally allowed to have gay marriage (which is what you term says). The issue is whether if states allow marriage, can they deny same-sex marriage.
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.

© 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