The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#76
#76
hog88 said:
I agree. When you apply for the license you are married, the preacher just preforms a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the basic arguement. When your license is signed you have a legal union, you are married by an ordained minister. JMO
 
#78
#78
Vol8188 said:
You don't have to be a minister to sign a marriage license.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I think the word marriage should be removed from the license. Call it a Civil Union license. Leave the marrying to the church.

Edit: This solves all the problems, makes everyone happy, and if it doesn't then what is the "real" issue?
 
Last edited:
#80
#80
82_VOL_83 said:
I understand that. I think the word marriage should be removed from the license. Call it a Civil Union license. Leave the marrying to the church.
Click to expand...

Why? Marriage is a part of all cultures, it is not merely a religious construct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#81
#81
Velo Vol said:
What is the point and what problem does it solve?
Click to expand...

People shouldn't have to defend why they should be allowed to do something. You should have to prove why they shouldn't. Only a fascists would believe that people should only be allowed to do something after they have justified their own actions.

You tell me, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#82
#82
82_VOL_83 said:
I understand that. I think the word marriage should be removed from the license. Call it a Civil Union license. Leave the marrying to the church.

Edit: This solves all the problems, makes everyone happy, and if it doesn't then what is the "real" issue?
Click to expand...

My answer to your edit is simple: it solves nothing.

They want equal rights. To give them a lesser title than that of marriage, is an outright injustice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#83
#83
Vol8188 said:
My answer to your edit is simple: it solves nothing.

They want equal rights. To give them a lesser title than that of marriage, is an outright injustice.
Click to expand...
What they want is to be accepted as being just as normal as everyone else. Fact is, they aren't. They may be born that way, but they are still out of the norm. They will not be happy until everyone accepts them as being no different than the other 97% of people.
 
#84
#84
1972 Grad said:
What they want is to be accepted as being just as normal as everyone else. Fact is, they aren't. They may be born that way, but they are still out of the norm. They will not be happy until everyone accepts them as being no different than the other 97% of people.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with marriage? Can only people who you consider normal get married?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#85
#85
Vol8188 said:
People shouldn't have to defend why they should be allowed to do something. You should have to prove why they shouldn't. Only a fascists would believe that people should only be allowed to do something after they have justified their own actions.

You tell me, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Click to expand...

How do you prove that adults shouldn't be in relationships with children or animals? This is where it opens up a whole can of worms.
 
#87
#87
davethevol said:
How do you prove that adults shouldn't be in relationships with children or animals? This is where it opens up a whole can of worms.
Click to expand...

Lol that's absurd. Do you believe allowing adults to drink alcohol opens a can of worms also? Does allowing adults to drive open a can of worms? Does allowing adults to have consensual sex mean we have to allow adults to have sex with children?

If you can't understand the difference between consenting adults, and pedaphilia, then I pity you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#88
#88
1972 Grad said:
Marriage is merely a vehicle through which they hope to garner acceptance as being "normal."
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is:

There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because you've yet to name a single reason.

But yes, they should be treated like anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#89
#89
Vol8188 said:
So what you're saying is:

There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because you've yet to name a single reason.

But yes, they should be treated like anyone else.
Click to expand...
I thought that I was commenting on why they craved marriage.
 
#91
#91
Vol8188 said:
They crave equal rights. To be treated like everyone else. And they should receive it.

Do you have any reasons why they shouldnt?
Click to expand...
You just agreed with me. They want to be treated like everyone else. That makes them appear normal. They crave acceptance.
 
#92
#92
1972 Grad said:
You just agreed with me. They want to be treated like everyone else. That makes them appear normal. They crave acceptance.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't crave acceptance and why shouldnt they be treated like everyone else by the courts? The courts have a legal obligation to treat everyone equal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#93
#93
WTH is going on here! I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread, me head is spinning. :yikes:
 
#94
#94
Vol8188 said:
Who doesn't crave acceptance and why shouldnt they be treated like everyone else by the courts? The courts have a legal obligation to treat everyone equal.
Click to expand...
Give them the same rights in "the courts," and call it something else then.
 
#96
#96
Vol8188 said:
My answer to your edit is simple: it solves nothing.

They want equal rights. To give them a lesser title than that of marriage, is an outright injustice.
Click to expand...

It solves everything. Please show me where anyone that is factually pleaing this case mentions being "married by an ordained minister" as a right. Equal rights means equal access to life decisions for your partner, equal access to insurance, and anything else that a male/female couple has access to. Those that are arguing for the word marriage are much like you, arguing just to listen to yourself argue and to drive home the most inconsequential point possible and then call everyone else names. The fact that Nancy Huff thinks that trying to have reasonable discourse with you isn't a waste of time is rather laughable.
 
#97
#97
82_VOL_83 said:
It solves everything. Please show me where anyone that is factually pleaing this case mentions being "married by an ordained minister" as a right. Equal rights means equal access to life decisions for your partner, equal access to insurance, and anything else that a male/female couple has access to. Those that are arguing for the word marriage are much like you, arguing just to listen to yourself argue and to drive home the most inconsequential point possible and then call everyone else names. The fact that Nancy Huff thinks that trying to have reasonable discourse with you isn't a waste of time is rather laughable.
Click to expand...

You just told me you agreed that an ordained minister isn't required to become married....so once again, why shouldn't it be called marriage for gay couples?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#98
#98
1972 Grad said:
Marriage is merely a vehicle through which they hope to garner acceptance as being "normal."
Click to expand...

Not really. Many of us want the privileges and benefits (1,100+) that marriage provides in this country. For us PNOK, estate tax and survivor benefits were the critical factors.

Just look at the plaintiffs in the SCOTUS case. A couple with 4 adopted children (2 adopted by each since they cannot adopt as a couple). If one of them were to pass two of the children could be removed from the home and placed elsewhere. Another plaintiff was denied being listed as spouse on the death certificate of his deceased husband. He wants to be buried together in a family plot that only allows spouses.

There is a lot more to this than a lot of people realize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#99
#99
Vol8188 said:
You just told me you agreed that an ordained minister isn't required to become married....so once again, why shouldn't it be called marriage for gay couples?
Click to expand...

Legally it doesn't now. Remove the word marriage from the conversation and you solve everything. However, since you are winding yourself up for another hissy fit like last night, I don't expect you to even consider anything other than your own opinion however shortsighted it is.
 
#100
#100
gcbvol said:
Not really. Many of us want the privileges and benefits (1,100+) that marriage provides in this country. For us PNOK, estate tax and survivor benefits were the critical factors.

Just look at the plaintiffs in the SCOTUS case. A couple with 4 adopted children (2 adopted by each since they cannot adopt as a couple). If one of them were to pass two of the children could be removed from the home and placed elsewhere. Another plaintiff was denied being listed as spouse on the death certificate of his deceased husband. He wants to be buried together in a family plot that only allows spouses.

There is a lot more to this than a lot of people realize.
Click to expand...

And granting every one of those rights via a legal instrument that isn't called marriage wouldn't be acceptable?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top