The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#151
#151
1972 Grad said:
The reason that I don't think it should be called a marriage is because marriage has been defined one way for how many years now? Just because maybe 1/5 of a 3% minority of people would actually get married, I don't consider that a good enough reason to change a centuries old tradition.
Click to expand...

If over half of all marriages didn't end in divorce I might agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#152
#152
hog88 said:
If over half of all marriages didn't end in divorce I might agree with you.
Click to expand...

I have my definition, and I take it seriously. I have been faithful to one woman for 40 years. If same sex couples want to call their relationship a marriage, that is fine with me. In my mind it won't be a marriage, but they are entitled to their definition in their mind. What the government as a whole decides is something over which I have no control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#153
#153
1972 Grad said:
I have my definition, and I take it seriously. I have been faithful to one woman for 40 years. If same sex couples want to call their relationship a marriage, that is fine with me. In my mind it won't be a marriage, but they are entitled to their definition in their mind. What the government as a whole decides is something over which I have no control.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else, but didn't you say earlier that the government should only consider them to be cival unions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
1972 Grad said:
The reason that I don't think it should be called a marriage is because marriage has been defined one way for how many years now? Just because maybe 1/5 of a 3% minority of people would actually get married, I don't consider that a good enough reason to change a centuries old tradition.
Click to expand...

Prior to Christianity, homosexual marriages were accepted in many cultures in Europe and China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#155
#155
1972 Grad said:
I have my definition, and I take it seriously. I have been faithful to one woman for 40 years. If same sex couples want to call their relationship a marriage, that is fine with me. In my mind it won't be a marriage, but they are entitled to their definition in their mind. What the government as a whole decides is something over which I have no control.
Click to expand...

I'm over 20 myself, I told my wife before hand that this is until death do us part so one of us has to die to get out.

I used to be opposed to gay marriage, I still think it should be a state by state decision but now I'm over it. It's become nothing more than a distraction from bigger issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#160
#160
davethevol said:
The lawyer also wanted to use the argument that states would have the right to determine a marriage between 4 people isn't healthy. So which is it: states have the ability to define marriage or they don't?
Click to expand...

Bottom line.. Redefining marriage after thuds and of years is dangerous.. Other groups or individuals will feel that should be married
 
#161
#161
Bigurnge said:
In large part the nation in which you reside was formed by Christianity.
Click to expand...

So no to the Nietzsche?

Yes, you are right. And in an even much larger part, the nation in which you reside was formed by English common law and Enlightenment economic and social philosophy, some individuals of whom were not even "religious."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#162
#162
Biopsyman said:
Bottom line.. Redefining marriage after thuds and of years is dangerous.. Other groups or individuals will feel that should be married
Click to expand...

I'm probably the only person on this board who can actually read your statement.

But do you feel that it's also dangerous to allow adults to consume alcohol? Isn't that a slippery slope towards allowing children to consume alcohol? What about allowing heterosexual couples to marry? Isn't that a slippery slope towards allowing hetero pedophiles to marry their victims?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#163
#163
Biopsyman said:
Bottom line.. Redefining marriage after thuds and of years is dangerous.. Other groups or individuals will feel that should be married
Click to expand...

Well, if you're talking about polygamists, the Bible gives us guidelines for how to handle that best.

If you're referring to people who want to marry kids, robots, animals, inanimate objects, as if this is the same as two consenting adults agreeing to marriage, then, well, you're just dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#164
#164
volprof said:
Well, if you're talking about polygamists, the Bible gives us guidelines for how to handle that best.

If you're referring to people who want to marry kids, robots, animals, inanimate objects, as if this is the same as two consenting adults agreeing to marriage, then, well, you're just dumb.
Click to expand...

Why not? There are those who beieve the defination is up to the individual.. Scary
 
#167
#167
volprof said:
Well, if you're talking about polygamists, the Bible gives us guidelines for how to handle that best.

If you're referring to people who want to marry kids, robots, animals, inanimate objects, as if this is the same as two consenting adults agreeing to marriage, then, well, you're just dumb.
Click to expand...

It's far from dumb. It is an issue of where does the line get drawn. Obviously there are groups like NAMBLA that want legal relationships with young boys. What determines the legal age of consent? If the marriage definition is changed, then other groups are going to push for their acceptance as well.
 
#169
#169
davethevol said:
It's far from dumb. It is an issue of where does the line get drawn. Obviously there are groups like NAMBLA that want legal relationships with young boys. What determines the legal age of consent? If the marriage definition is changed, then other groups are going to push for their acceptance as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I've always thought that allowing heterosexual marriage was just the beginning of a slippery slope leading towards heterosexual pedaphilic marriages.

Heterosexuals must be stopped!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#170
#170
Bigurnge said:
Who's stopping them?
Click to expand...

You claimed our views on gays have "devolved". Your holy book says we should kill them.

So we've only devolved, if you believe killing homosexuals was a better strategy then allowing all people to be treated equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#171
#171
davethevol said:
It's far from dumb. It is an issue of where does the line get drawn. Obviously there are groups like NAMBLA that want legal relationships with young boys. What determines the legal age of consent? If the marriage definition is changed, then other groups are going to push for their acceptance as well.
Click to expand...

Okay, not so quick in, quick out. Damn discussions of homosexuality! Damn you discussions to Christian hell!

Regarding your post, it's hard for me to take people that have the concerns you express in this post seriously. I mean, it's like common sense absolutely vacates you when it comes to this issue.

18. 18? Isn't that the age we legally establish as an adult in the US for all ostensible purposes?

So, let me break this down for you in simple, comprehensible guidelines for navigating through this issue that, for some reason, individuals like you have to make far more complex than what it really is:

1. 18 is the legal adult age in the US.
2. At (or after) age 18, any two consenting adults should be able to get married.
3. Anyone under 18 is, by legal definition (already defined by our courts), not an adult, and, therefore, could not consent rightfully to a marriage, although we have admittedly let 15 and 16 year olds get married in our nation's prestigious marriage past.
4. Point 3 means that a person wanting to marry a kid (say a NAMBLA activist) will not happen.
5. Anyone and anything not a human being cannot, by legal definition, be a consenting, sentient human adult.
6. Point 5 means that a person cannot marry anything other than a legally-defined human adult.

This is all already been defined for you. What's so difficult to understand?

Gay men just icky or something?

And, regarding polygamy, while I find that a valid concern, it subverts any religious arguments against gay marriage (which are pretty much the only arguments against gay marriage that exist because thinking gay marriage is bad requires suspension of rational thought just like religion). Therefore, your objections are pointless and mute.

Okay, now I'm done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#172
#172
Vol8188 said:
You claimed our views on gays have "devolved". Your holy book says we should kill them.

So we've only devolved, if you believe killing homosexuals was a better strategy then allowing all people to be treated equally.
Click to expand...

Another atheist twisting the words of the bible to fit their agenda. How fitting.
 
#174
#174
volprof said:
Okay, not so quick in, quick out. Damn discussions of homosexuality! Damn you discussions to Christian hell!

Regarding your post, it's hard for me to take people that have the concerns you express in this post seriously. I mean, it's like common sense absolutely vacates you when it comes to this issue.

18. 18? Isn't that the age we legally establish as an adult in the US for all ostensible purposes?

So, let me break this down for you in simple, comprehensible guidelines for navigating through this issue that, for some reason, individuals like you have to make far more complex than what it really is:

1. 18 is the legal adult age in the US.
2. At (or after) age 18, any two consenting adults should be able to get married.
3. Anyone under 18 is, by legal definition (already defined by our courts), not an adult, and, therefore, could not consent rightfully to a marriage, although we have admittedly let 15 and 16 year olds get married in our nation's prestigious marriage past.
4. Point 3 means that a person wanting to marry a kid (say a NAMBLA activist) will not happen.
5. Anyone and anything not a human being cannot, by legal definition, be a consenting, sentient human adult.
6. Point 5 means that a person cannot marry anything other than a legally-defined human adult.

This is all already been defined for you. What's so difficult to understand?

Gay men just icky or something?

And, regarding polygamy, while I find that a valid concern, it subverts any religious arguments against gay marriage (which are pretty much the only arguments against gay marriage that exist because thinking gay marriage is bad requires suspension of rational thought just like religion). Therefore, your objections are pointless and mute.

Okay, now I'm done.
Click to expand...
I'll make it clear for you professor: no one cares what you think. It seems your opinions are less respected than 88's, which is saying something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#175
#175
davethevol said:
I'll make it clear for you professor: no one cares what you think. It seems your opinions are less respected than 88's, which is saying something.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you are offering something more than a personal opinion here?

Because I've seen no one on your side offer anything more than personal opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top