Federal Judge Overturns Wisconsin's Gay Marriage Ban (Edgar: vs, move)

[thefragile]

It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone want to be such an in your face jerk? Can you imagine the uproar if hetero marriage was put up for a vote & they were denied? There would be a revolution. These people never think of what it would be like to be denied something they take for granted.

[dsb62574]

Originally Posted by milt14

lol, sexual emancipation? are you a user of medical reefer a lot or something?
Really? poor souls are in bondage because of their sexual activities? wow.

freedom!!!!



Social Issues and Activist Strategies: Man/Boy Love In Society

and celebrating diversity (!) and being cultural, there are cultures where people as low as 12 can be married.

heck, the progressive leftists want girls as young as 12 to be able to get abortions w/o parental consent, thus she's old enough to have sex, old enough to decided "my body, my rights", she's old enough to marry or have sex with a 58 year old guy.

we must emancipate all these repressed peoples....

Great example of a slippery slope fallacy. I swear it would be beneficial for several people to have a minimum understanding of logical fallacies before making a statement. Pedophiles, abortions, and other cultures are not connected to this issue.

This argument is as ignorant as someone stating: if we continue to allow heterosexual marriage, more children will be abused. Can you honestly not see how how the scenarios you describe are not at all related to allowing consenting adults of the same gender the right to marry? Of course, it may be that you are simply parroting the logic of another person who was able to fool you. People go to great lengths to justify their personal bias, and rational thought rarely matters.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

The 10th Amendment reserves to the states the right to determine any issue not directly addressed in the Constitution. Marriage is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, so the right to determine what defines a marriage is left to the states to decide. The people of Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The judge has ruled against the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Bideshi

The "Equal protection" phrase is contained in the 14th, not the 10th. The 14th was passed to guarantee equal rights for former slaves, not for sexual deviants and anchor babies.

Okay, I'm just going to say this:

Every single ruling - every single one - whether by a federal judge, state supreme courts, district court, circuit court of appeals in the past couple of years has gone in FAVOR of legalized same sex marriage.

The US Supreme Court gave favorable rulings for marriage equality in Windsor v. The United States and also in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Question: Why do you suppose New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - a Republican who expressed opposition to same sex marriage - and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett - a Republican who expressed opposition to same sex marriage ... both refused to appeal lower court decisions legalizing same sex marriage in their state? Both governors had the same thing to say: it was hopeless and futile to challenge the rulings. Both noted that every single judicial action was going in favor of marriage equality.

[jjthejetplane]

Victory for the constitution and right to be treated as equals in the United States.

As a straight, white male who is politically moderate I congratulate those who have already married and hope more shall continue.

Don't be dampened by the mean spirited folk. They are just very short sighted and scared of anything that lies outside their own personal bias.

Most of the state supports your rights. (Close to 60% now from recent polls)

[milt14]

Originally Posted by dsb62574

Great example of a slippery slope fallacy. I swear it would be beneficial for several people to have a minimum understanding of logical fallacies before making a statement.

ya know, all of that sounds so smart that on the surface it could seem very valid to most people.
but just because someone proclaims something does not mean its true, no matter what kind of fancy words they use.

Can you honestly not see how how the scenarios you describe are not at all related to allowing consenting adults of the same gender the right to marry?

the problem with progressive liberals is they cannot fathom anyone outside of their beliefs/worldviews, so when on the rare occasions they venture outside of their sphere and come across one, they don't know what to do, they can't believe a person would/could think like that, etc.
it's their 'ignorance and arrogance' combination that gets the progressive leftists all the time.

the definition of 'adult' and 'age of consent' can be a big trap. doesn't the left say a 15 year old girl is old enough to decide for herself whether or not to kill her unborn baby or not?

if people are smart, as the get elderly, they should marry their children. i mean the are both consenting adults. that way, when the parents pass on, their other spouses just take over all their assets with just changing the name on the titles/docs.

i'm sure there are other examples and you and other pro 'whatever' backer will claim they would never happen but why not? if anyone can enter into a contract with another adult, why not father and son? or me and my neighbors? or the whole neighborhood? getting married into 'family x' could be like joining a the elks club. marriage could be like the mifflin street coop. it could be called 'the willy street coop family'.



they are expecting their first kid. they could marry that too, when whatever it is turns of whatever age legal consent is.


or it could be part of the master/slave relationship, but to a whole bondage club:

Commitment BDSM style: My vanilla, polyamorous, collaring ceremony

many options as marriage is little more than a contract.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by milt14

ya know, all of that sounds so smart that on the surface it could seem very valid to most people.
but just because someone proclaims something does not mean its true, no matter what kind of fancy words they use.

It sounds to me that you're admitting he's right, but you don't want to believe it because of all of the tough words.

the problem with progressive liberals is they cannot fathom anyone outside of their beliefs/worldviews, so when on the rare occasions they venture outside of their sphere and come across one, they don't know what to do, they can't believe a person would/could think like that, etc.
it's their 'ignorance and arrogance' combination that gets the progressive leftists all the time.

Is that "the problem"? I thought you had signaled more problems than that in previous posts, so I'm glad the quantity is declining

many options as marriage is little more than a contract.

For gays and a few other folks, marriage has been about love and stabilizing a loving relationship. Too bad you missed that part of the experience: you should try it sometime.

Domestic partnerships, OTOH, can help stabilize relationships that are based on friendships, etc. If two sisters want to enter into a domestic partnership in order to secure some kind of legal stability, what does it matter to you?

One of the many problems with knee-jerk conservatives is that they consider themselves the center of the universe and want to impose their "values" on everyone else. They don't like to "live and let live," and they like to step on other people in the process.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by milt14

ya know, all of that sounds so smart that on the surface it could seem very valid to most people.
but just because someone proclaims something does not mean its true, no matter what kind of fancy words they use.

The Devil and Billy Markham, Shell Silverstein

"Hey, Billy, that's poetic," the Devil says, "but life ain't like no rhyme,
And I know ways to make a brave man die a million times.

[twotoneshoes]

Anyway, this will all be passe` in a few years and won't be an issue. Some people still won't like it, in some areas of the country probably more than others, but with the younger generation showing greater acceptance and not really thinking it's an issue, those views will be passed on to their children and will eventually become commonplace and this whole debate will be part of some "looking back" series on Nightline.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

For gays and a few other folks, marriage has been about love and stabilizing a loving relationship.

It's mostly about spousal and survivor financial benefits.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

The US Supreme Court gave favorable rulings for marriage equality in Windsor v. The United States and also in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Just like in Dred Scot, Roe Vs Wade, Citizens United, and Affordable Care Act "tax". SCOTUS has made several really bad decisions that need to be amended.