Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 166
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,183
    Blog Entries
    3

    The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)



    Carry on...
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  2. #2

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Love between two women is a beautiful thing.

    Particularly when I'm the love between them.
    "A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, Hi Im Ben may I have a drink please?
    ProFootballMock




  3. #3

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Yes, they happened. I never argued otherwise. It's your line of argument that repetitive, filled with theories that don't stand up to historical or legal muster.

    If old state cases meant something legally in todays world and in this debate, I'd give it its due. But they don't. No matter how many times you repeat it.

    Your MN case is especially worthless considering MN legalized gay marriage in 2013. It doesn't have the precedent you think it does.

    Oh, the gay couple in that case are married and live in MN rather happily.


    You are simply missing the point. The argument is that procreation can be a primary consideration in marriage laws. The cases cited support that. It show's it has been a consideration. Now it does not matter if a state wants to continue that or not. What matters is that there is a legitimate govt function involved in such. Meaning that it does not violate the Constitution if a State chooses to define marriage as between a man and a woman.




  4. #4

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Homo-un-erectus.....





  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,183
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    That basically means hat your wang is not huge-ified by a woman.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    26,257

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    You are simply missing the point. The argument is that procreation can be a primary consideration in marriage laws. The cases cited support that. It show's it has been a consideration. Now it does not matter if a state wants to continue that or not. What matters is that there is a legitimate govt function involved in such. Meaning that it does not violate the Constitution if a State chooses to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
    One, yes it 'can' be a consideration but it still cannot violate the other parts of the Constitution. Again, the Constitution doesn't stop at the 10th Amendment. Yes, states have a compelling interest to do lots of things that are quiet in the Constitution. They just can't violate the Constitution in doing so. Three federal courts (and a litany of state courts) have ruled that banning gay people from marrying is wholly unconstitutional. Which leads me to point two.

    Two, you're trying to argue precedent when, in this case, it's been changed or overruled, either by more recent decisions or straight up legislation by the people. In both states from those cases, the people of those states have decided to go in a different direction. Thus, you're insistence on bringing them up is meaningless. The law of the land NOW in both of those states is that gay marriage is perfectly legal.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  7. #7

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    One, yes it 'can' be a consideration but it still cannot violate the other parts of the Constitution. Again, the Constitution doesn't stop at the 10th Amendment. Yes, states have a compelling interest to do lots of things that are quiet in the Constitution. They just can't violate the Constitution in doing so. Three federal courts (and a litany of state courts) have ruled that banning gay people from marrying is wholly unconstitutional. Which leads me to point two.

    Two, you're trying to argue precedent when, in this case, it's been changed or overruled, either by more recent decisions or straight up legislation by the people. In both states from those cases, the people of those states have decided to go in a different direction. Thus, you're insistence on bringing them up is meaningless. The law of the land NOW in both of those states is that gay marriage is perfectly legal.
    I have not stopped at the 10th amendment. I have repeatedly pointed out that equal protection is not violated because there is a compelling govt reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman. I have also pointed out that makes the case wholly different than inter-racial couples.

    First, I have no issue if the states change their meaning. I've said from the beginning of this debate that it is up to the states to decide.
    Secondly, the CA voters actually voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but the courts decided otherwise.

    Second, I am not arguing precedent, I am simply providing evidence that marriage and procreation were linked by states. This has also been the case through the majority of societies throughout history.

    It's really a simple argument. You simply refuse to grasp it because you cannot fathom that someone would disagree with you about not allowing gays to marry is not discrimination.
    First, marriage and procreation has been linked throughout the history of societies. I've provided proof of such in the US.
    Second, because the State has a compelling govt interest in steering procreation into traditional marriage, (as societies have done throughout history), it does not violate Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
    Now, again the states can decide to allow gays to marry, or not allow gays to marry. It's a state issue because the constitution is silent on the matter.
    If someone wants to petition their state govt to recognize homosexuals in a marriage, I have no issue. Let them present their case and explain why they feel it is beneficial to society. Then let the States people or elected representatives enact such measures. Instead we have tortured logic to ignore historical and biological fact, so that the courts can rule by fiat.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,225

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

    Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,183
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Quote Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities View Post
    Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

    Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2
    It doesn't.

    At all.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,616

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Quote Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities View Post
    Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

    Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2
    I'm not sure that makes sense. To me, it implies that people are opposed to it because it affects their rights. Which I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    1,691

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Pro-gay marriage. Love is love. Also, I now have yet another reason not to visit Indiana.




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,225

    Re: The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I'm not sure that makes sense. To me, it implies that people are opposed to it because it affects their rights. Which I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue.
    If it doesn't to them, in some way, then why would they argue against it?

    Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland