Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 398
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Nope. You're exagerating and making statements in my name. Don't please.

    I am stating that you cannot deny 2 people willing to make the commitment the same rights under the law that you're providing the hetero majority. It's that simple.
    So simple, in fact, one may conclude that you're over-simplifying.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ahem,

    When two people are married they are afforded certain rights and protections between one another. The gov't hands out marriage licenses. So this is more than a social norm, it's a law which applies rights which are being denied to a specific group. The logic is inescapable. Well for most people.
    Is a homosexual man being denied the right to marry a woman?
  3. #43  
    It does not get much simpler than, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Is a homosexual man being denied the right to marry a woman?
    lol, maybe they could keep a few on hand at the court house, and when gay applicants arrived to pickup their marriage license, they could show them the selection
  5.    #45  
    Please explain to me how it would have been illegal for you to marry your girlfriend 100 years ago? Your girl friend is human?

    I frankly do not believe the government needs to get involved in this. Why change the law when there is no benefit to society? You have yet to tell me where the benefit to society lies here. Let's legalize everything is what you are saying with your statement there needs to be no benefit to society - and babbling? No, where do you get that from? Anyone disagreeing with you is babbling? How narrow minded you are and that is not anything close to what I have accused you of, now is it?

    As I have asked before, at what point do you draw the line?

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Your arguments have been used to validate discrimination in this country throughout the centuries. Using your "traditionalist" arguement, it would have been illegal for me to marry my girlfriend 100 years ago.

    And there needs to be no benefit to society. I don't know what your babbling about there.

    Address the point: the gov't hands out marriage licenses. Marriage affords certain rights and protections between two people. Now rationalize how the gov't can deny equal rights under the law to same-sex couples willing to get married. You have not come close to addressing this.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    What rights are being denied to anyone who agrees to meet the standard? Everyone has the ability to meet the standard, some may choose not to, but that is their choice. If I choose to remain single, I would not get the privilege of a married couple.
    It is the application of specific rights and protections we afford people who 'luv' one another to make (an attempt at) a life long commitment in front of the gov't and witnesses.


    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If I choose to marry three or four different women at the same time, should I get 3 or 4 times the privilege?
    It is not legal for one to marry multiple partners and actually dissolves the majority of rights and privelages the legal state of marriage provides a couple. So you can go ahead and put that strawman away. It is not applicable.
  7.    #47  
    And only a liberal at heart believes that and only a liberal judge will say that is right. There is no infringement here.
    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It does not get much simpler than, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Is a homosexual man being denied the right to marry a woman?

    The homosexual man is being denied the rights and protections under marriage when he and a partner are at a point in their relationship to make the "lifelong" commitment.
  9.    #49  
    daThomas:

    It is not legal for one to marry multiple partners and actually dissolves the majority of rights and privelages the legal state of marriage provides a couple. So you can go ahead and put that strawman away. It is not applicable.


    Now, why not make it legal? What is wrong with that? It makes them happy.

    Defend that if you can. Again, where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line?

    Ben
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is the application of specific rights and protections we afford people who 'luv' one another to make (an attempt at) a life long commitment in front of the gov't and witnesses.
    What's love got to do with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is not legal for one to marry multiple partners and actually dissolves the majority of rights and privelages the legal state of marriage provides a couple. So you can go ahead and put that strawman away. It is not applicable.
    Please explain how it is different than gay marriage.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So simple, in fact, one may conclude that you're over-simplifying.

    That's about as complex as it needs to be.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is the application of specific rights and protections we afford people who 'luv' one another to make (an attempt at) a life long commitment in front of the gov't and witnesses.



    It is not legal for one to marry multiple partners and actually dissolves the majority of rights and privelages the legal state of marriage provides a couple. So you can go ahead and put that strawman away. It is not applicable.
    What rights are being denied anyone who chooses to meet the standard?

    It is not legal for one to marry multiple partners or partners of the same sex. The argument is the same for both, 2 men can luv each other and one man can luv 4 women and those 4 women can luv that one man.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The homosexual man is being denied the rights and protections under marriage when he and a partner are at a point in their relationship to make the "lifelong" commitment.
    Well, that sort of begs the question: what's marriage about under the law?
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The homosexual man is being denied the rights and protections under marriage when he and a partner are at a point in their relationship to make the "lifelong" commitment.
    What rights? Are you swapping the terms rights and privilage?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's about as complex as it needs to be.
    Apparently, a lot of intelligent people disagree or this would have been settled long ago. In fact, some say it has been settled long ago and you are wrong.
  16.    #56  
    Where does it say that? You are reading more to it than there is and that is the problem with this conversation - you read the max into any and everything. Please point out where it says this. When I look in the dictionary I sure do not find anything close to what you write.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, Ya kinda don't get it do you. That's the point of the constitution to protect the minority from the majority. I'm sorry you can't or won't view this in that light.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Please explain to me how it would have been illegal for you to marry your girlfriend 100 years ago? Your girl friend is human?
    She's Black.


    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    I frankly do not believe the government needs to get involved in this. Why change the law when there is no benefit to society? You have yet to tell me where the benefit to society lies here. Let's legalize everything is what you are saying with your statement there needs to be no benefit to society - and babbling? No, where do you get that from? Anyone disagreeing with you is babbling? How narrow minded you are and that is not anything close to what I have accused you of, now is it?

    As I have asked before, at what point do you draw the line?

    Ben
    Why does the gov't need to be involved with it??!??!! Are you daft? The gov't i already involved in it. We're talking about laws and gov't issued licenses! Jeebus!

    And no, there does not need to be a benefit to society but if you want one here Ya go, roughly 10% of your fellow Americans will have equal rights provided by marriage.

    Where do I draw the line? I draw it where the gov't has already provided the right to a majority.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Well, that sort of begs the question: what's marriage about under the law?
    So far, daThomas has offered the follwing requirements:

    • luv
    • lifelong commitment


    What are the other criteria?

    Hooray, OT is coming back to life
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    What rights? Are you swapping the terms rights and privilage?
    Yea, I am, but let's start with the law (in a majority of states) that a person cannot be made to testify againt their spouse in court.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So far, daThomas has offered the follwoing requirements:

    • luv
    • lifelong commitement


    What are the other criteria?
    Signing the marriage license and whatever the particular state requires.
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions