The problem is marriage as we know it, is a legal thing. While you can make it a religious thing by getting married in whatever church you choose, it is a legal thing defined by state and federal statutes that bestows privileges and obligations on people that choose to enter the marriage. Because it is sanctioned by government, it is subject to the 5th and 14th amendments which allows everyone due process before liberty is taken from them and promises equal protection of the law (think the law of marriage and the benefits that bestows) to all citizens.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Bad analogy if you are saying that by the Supreme Court saying that states can't ban gay marriage is the same as forcing you to share your partnership money with employees. The Supreme Court did not say that you have to let a gay person join your marriage. It just said that if two other people want to start their own business partnership, just like you and your business partner did, it doesn't matter who they sleep with. It doesn't affect your business partnership at all, unless your argument is that it creates too many partnerships and now you have to compete against others now, which is a completely unamerican anti capitalist argument.
California voted against their gay marriage ballot initiative. People are forgetting what marriage meant and have just accepted that marriage just is.
I generally think that people that call anyone a "non-believer" is an idiot, because they mean "someone that doesn't believe what I do." Are Jews and Muslims "non-believers"? How about Buddhists and Hindus? I'm not biblically ignorant, but I realize that it is a conglomeration of books written over thousands of years, in different genres and not to be taken literally in all circumstances as so many people try to do. Anyone that believes that Noah built a boat and put 2 of every animal on earth on it is stupid.
You can't read. Im not even debating religion in this whole entire thing. Its pointless with respect to law. The constitution gives all powers not specifically given to the federal government, to the states. That means states can regulate marriage as they see fit. California could of voted in gay marriage but they didn't. Oddly... the left went to the courts to correct this "error". They didn't even try to re-do the California vote.
And I agree the ship has sailed and gay marriage has legal precedent now. But what none of you want to admit is that just changing legal definitions all willy nilly.... means that no law means what it meant when it was passed.
You are mad I don't agree with you marrying a dude and think Im making a moral judgment on you... but Im not. I think you should be able to enter a contractual agreement for how insurance, power of attorney and inheritance is adjucated in court. You have the exact same rights under law but you can't call it marriage.
If I win a little league championship I can't claim to be a superbowl champion. Words mean things.
I had to do a double take. Two intelligent well reasoned responses in a row.
What always amuses me is the right wingers love to dismiss other people as emotional snowflakes and cancel culture when that is classic projection as it is exactly what they themselves are and do. They can't differentiate a legal argument (flag burning is a classic example of their complete inability to grasp large complex constitutional arguments) from emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Marriage affords legal protections and economic advantages to citizens. You can't equally pursue liberty if some are advantaged while others are left out because you don't agree with the way they live or pursue their love interests. I personally do not like a lot of things and yet I allow space for them to do as they will and seek happiness as they see fit without impressing or demanding they live the way I do.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people. It does not endorse family size, shape, or bestow morality upon the recipients. Should be obvious but amidst the frothing mob it never can be. When you're sitting there bored in your small life you must supplement it with something to hate on as there's only so many rocks you can skip across the pond. Dullards come to life when they get the opportunity to light their torches and the internet has given them the biggest torch of all to ignite their seething hatreds of "others" besetting them on all sides and borders.
so you think it would be fine if only religious laws controlled marriage, and if a religion allowed for the execution of a wife for disrespecting her husband, that is ok?
What societies have you looked at through history? The white US population post WWII? Seriously, across the world, multiple wives has been the norm for thousands of years. WASPS just generally ignore people and countries that think and act different, because we have generally won the wars.
And to reinforce... States are the sole power on setting marriage rules. Every state could have different rules on marriage. The only reason they didn't is because marriage was sooooooooooo uniform among all people in the country at the time of our forming. It's not like we don't have Jews, Arabs, Indians, Euro, Africans, South east asian, Pacific islander.... they all accepted what marriage was when they entered this country. It's just that some people changed it.
The ship has sailed alright. I feel as though I've slipped backwards like 18 years when I was watching Bill O'Reilly talk about how another country had allowed gay marriage and afterward their crime rates increased. What's that have to do with gays getting married? I dunno, but the guy got paid to old man rant about something for an hour every night, so that's what he did.
Not saying any of this shouldn't be discussed, but I just think it's completely on point that a muti-page thread about gay marriage exists in this state and on this site in 2022. Feels like a few here just woke up from some decade long comas.
I agree with what you said except change the word marriage. Do civil unions with the exact same end and I'd be fine with it. Marriage in English common law has always been 1 man and 1 woman. My problem goes back to what dude said about the second amendment where he totally bastardized the meaning of the phrase "well regulated". To take a phrase that meant well armed, trained and ready and change it to.... the government totally has the right to infringe on your 2nd amendment right....
You can disagree with me but I don't see how people are not seeing my argument and are arguing shit Im not saying. Im not anti gay. Its just not marriage. Get a different license. Matter of fact.... all the anti religious people should be happy. You shouldn't be forced to be in a marriage if you aren't religious. You should be able to just do a civil union that has no connection to English common law and would actually get you away from our christian standard for that part of the law.
When people say "that is not debatable" it shows a narrow mind. Have your read Gulliver's Travels? Could that be a true story? Is it debatable?
Just as discrimination against blacks was a state issue in the past, the Supreme Court said that the US Constitution does not allow states to violate the 5th and 14th Amendments. Marberry v. Madison made it clear years ago that the Supreme Court can strike down laws that violate the US Constitution, which includes its amendments. So, the Supreme Court didn't make up law, it just said that the laws that the states made up violate the US Constitution. What if a state, say Kentucky, passed a statute that said that we are overburdened with a poor population, so we should just kill poor people. If a federal judge struck that down, would that violate Kentucky's rights as a member of the union to create its own laws?
Its real easy to pretend everyone that disagrees with you is a moron religious zelot. Most of the people disagreeing with me obviously haven't thought about this subject in any way but that. I have a couple gay friends and i hope they have great relationships but I don't want the english language changed to fit their lifestyle. Same way I don't want men to compete against women in sports just because we change the definition of what a woman is.
We used to argue the slippery slope and now people just ride that slope like a half pipe.
Black men can marry women and Black women can marry men. Not sure how you find this as discrimination unless you don't think black people are human.... All humans can marry and marriage is 1 man and 1 woman.
If you argue this the way I think you are them what is the limit on marriage? Can a man marry a dog? can a man marry a child? Can man marry his sister?
Do you think there are no limits on marriage?
You are confusing the “way” parents raise kids and the ideal foundational relationships for a family. For some reason, the liberals on this thread want to focus on the negatives of parenting which exist, regardless of whether the child is adopted or is raised by biological parents. It’s an odd take for a discussion about parenting.
[and, if you don’t think historical truth matters, then don’t read Gorsuch’s opinion that gave rise to this ridiculous thread]
Ah, but the Supreme Court said to states that marriage is NOT defined by state or federal statutes, but defined by a few people deciding that the democratic republic process and states’ rights don’t matter when it comes to the definition of marriage.
Now, for me, I don’t care what unions the government recognizes, nor do I care if the government recognizes marriage, at all. But, I do care about the way government works and the Supreme Court undermined how government should work by once again recognizing a constitutional right that we somehow overlooked for almost 250 years, as if gay unions were something new, while arguing gay unions were anything but.
Look, if you have to engage is strawman arguments and ad hominems to prove your point, you probably don’t have a point.
You tell me how you want to be viewed when it comes to the scripture of Christians. Do you believe there is a creating designing God who created everything in our existence? Do you believe His son was born of a virgin, lived, taught, loved, and sacrificed on a cross for all of our sins and was raised on the third day? If not, then tell me, in the context of that scriptural belief, how you wish to be described.
Last edited:
I think it a small dullard life to call other people’s views “hate” because you disagree. In fact, I call it bigotry. It is a lazy way to attempt to make yourself look better. Purposefully remaining ignorant of other’s views to bolster self-opinion is not a strong look.
The left talking about violence & trying to get someone killed. When they're the ones that shot up a congressional baseball practice by republicans. They're the ones that tried to murder Kyle Rittenhouse. They're the ones that throws bricks & Molotov cocktails at police. They're the ones that tried to attack Rand Paul last year. They're the ones (Maxine Waters) that tells their voters to get in the face of republicans. And now they're trying to convince people that they are the party that's opposed to violence. What worthless subhuman trash.
MSNBC guest says Josh Hawley is ‘trying to get’ Biden’s SCOTUS nominee ‘killed’ by criticizing her record
“Let’s be very clear: what Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this—is he’s trying to get her killed,” the MSNBC guest said. “He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee.”thepostmillennial.com
NCAA HQ is in Indy. Not sure what his personal conviction on trans sports is, but you have to believe the woke NCAA quietly made it known where they stand, and he fell in line.
I do agree it’s a pathetic and weak play on his part, btw.
"Hate" or whatever word you care to use to describe going out of your way to loudly and often times violently try to make other people do things the way you want by refusing to accept the will of the people expressed by voting, or the authority of the Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional, or the rule of law as expressed in our courtrooms. When you don't get your way or you see somebody that you think doesn't believe the same things you do, it compels you to do something bad to them or you show your arses demanding your own way. Sorry if "hate" doesn't fully encapsulate such spoiled, entitled, ignorant, historically failed actions taken by your comrades when they're not over on the War thread shoveling Russian propaganda like good rubes are want to do.
We need to quit worrying about the latter presidents/politician/governments and focus on the here and now. Fix us first and then worry about helping other countries.
Been saying this for a while now. Wife and I a couple of years ago took a months' worth of receipts from bills and expenditures and came up to a similar conclusion.
It was in response to someone talking about how we needed to pay more taxes because countries in Europe and other places payed more and where doing "so well".
We are taxed in so many areas and many people don't realize just how much we pay.
There’s no reason for us to debate as we have the same opinion but it’s definitely “ideal” to have good biological parents - at least in the first 3 months. The second the baby is born it’s supposed to have skin to skin contact with the mother which immediately soothes and regulates the babies temperature and mood. The colostrum or pre-nursing milk immediately gives the baby natural antibodies, hormone regulation, and needed nutrients and vitamins etc. All these benefits are huge for first 3 months of life - it was all stuff we had to sit through and learn at the hospital and doctors office before we had our first kid.
So I can see the thought of birth parents being “ideal”. But once the kid is 3 or whatever? Then ya, I think you can have either great or shitty biological/gay/whatever parents
I’m sorry but I just read this and can’t help but chuckle. I completely understand what you are trying to say but unfortunately I think your thinking of 1920s-1990s America? I think you are. That is what you mean by what marriage means, yes? My parents were in an arranged marriage and my mom was married at 17 which was the norm in their culture. Marriage in many countries was literally trading the (usually teenage) daughter who had no choice for a cow or land (called a dowry). It was a land or possession trade. How do you think it looked in the 1700s in America? I do appreciate your ideal of marriage and you thinking of it in such a nice way, but I think you might not realize that your statement is a little silly.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that and I understand your position. I'm just saying if you're gay and adopt or have a surrogate or whatever, you can still do all that. Even 2 dudes, they would just have to work that out with surrogate or someone.
The amount of tweets from leftists wishing Justice Thomas’s death - like our in the open from real, verified accounts and actual people - is pretty telling. Do you think those mofos would pause for a minute before sticking conservatives in a gulag?
Wtf are you even talking about?
That hangover is going to hurt today
Whatever happens to Hunter, I’ll always remember him as this media created character…
(yea, his name is most definitely linked to…Trump’s impeachment. Not incestuous rape and crack cocaine)
There’s a New Artist in Town. The Name Is Biden.
Hunter Biden, his name forever linked to President Trump’s impeachment, says painting “is literally keeping me sane” after years of addiction and poor choices.(yea, his name is most definitely linked to…Trump’s impeachment. Not incestuous rape and crack cocaine)
Going to be interesting to see what comes of this, though I'm not getting my hopes up. If there hasn't been a shred of accountability to this point, there never will be.
Me neither and I agree
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Pitino says he regrets what he told the team right before the Laettener shot- Latest: CatFanInIlliniLand
