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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
After the 14th amendment of 1868, Right.



Wrong
How am I wrong?
The same argument was used in courts to deny interracial marriage and it didn't work then either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:29 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,834,045 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by curbur View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...#Polls_in_2015

Most recent polls cited from various sources show that there is roughly a 60% approval rating for same sex marriage in the US, which is easily a majority, and a far higher percentage than what the approval rating was for marriage when Loving vs Virginia was ruled on.
Then they should've passed gay marriage/civil unions through the legislature.

Just a couple years ago, polls were strongly against gay marriage. What this shows is that the main media/politically correct propaganda/brainwashing/coercion machine can totally change world opinion anyway it wants to within a few short years. Ok putting that aside, at least change policy through the legislature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Then they should've passed gay marriage/civil unions through the legislature.

Just a couple years ago, polls were strongly against gay marriage. What this shows is that the main media/politically correct propaganda/brainwashing/coercion machine can totally change world opinion anyway it wants to within a few short years. Ok putting that aside, at least change policy through the legislature.
Why? The courts are a way to deal with unconstitutional laws. We used that and it worked. Get over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:34 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,834,045 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
How am I wrong?
The same argument was used in courts to deny interracial marriage and it didn't work then either.
Because I haven't repeatedly made the argument or been "slapped down". Just as people say the Supreme Court was so wrong in the Dred Scott decision, the Court was wrong in 1960s and wrong today. Just because the Court decides a certain way does not make them right or acting constitutionally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Because I haven't repeatedly made the argument or been "slapped down". Just as people say the Supreme Court was so wrong in the Dred Scott decision, the Court was wrong in 1960s and wrong today. Just because the Court decides a certain way does not make them right or acting constitutionally.
You made the argument that gay men could marry women just like heterosexual men can. It was argued before that blacks men could marry withing their race just like white men could so the law was treating them equally. That argument was found lacking in Loving and in the same sex marriage cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:42 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,834,045 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
You made the argument that gay men could marry women just like heterosexual men can. It was argued before that blacks men could marry withing their race just like white men could so the law was treating them equally. That argument was found lacking in Loving and in the same sex marriage cases.
Why do you keep repeating the argument? I know what the argument is and what the court did. I've already said I disagree with loving and same sex marriage decision for the same reasons. The dissenting justice, I believe chief justice Roberts rejected a similar argument that Loving and same-sex marriage are the same thing. I agree with him but also disagree with Loving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Why do you keep repeating the argument. I know what the argument is and what the court did. I've already said I disagree with loving and same sex marriage decision for the same reasons. The dissenting justice, I believe chief justice Roberts rejected a similar argument that Loving and same-sex marriage are the same thing.
Bans based on the race of the people getting married are not the same as bans based on the sex of the people getting married?

Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:48 PM
 
28,619 posts, read 18,658,429 times
Reputation: 30894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Because I haven't repeatedly made the argument or been "slapped down". Just as people say the Supreme Court was so wrong in the Dred Scott decision, the Court was wrong in 1960s and wrong today. Just because the Court decides a certain way does not make them right or acting constitutionally.
Actually, the court was Constitutionally correct with Dred Scot in its time, but morally wrong. The Constitution was later amended, so that the same decision would be Constitutionally erroneous today. The Supreme Court is overruled by the people by amending the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: San Marcos, CA
674 posts, read 608,420 times
Reputation: 792
Wow, we have someone actually admitting to being against Loving v. Virginia?

Just... wow. That's either someone frozen in ice for half a century a la Captain America, or it's a 13-year-old saying ridiculous things for laughs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,795,200 times
Reputation: 7801
Well the Japanese American relocation to camps during WWII is certainly no feather in their hat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korema..._United_States These black robed dufuses are no more intelligent than you or I...maybe less so. Believe it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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
Similar Threads

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