The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#176
#176
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...

Why just two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#177
#177
Vol8188 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither side has anything more than personal opinions.
 
#178
#178
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...

I wouldn't go that far.

And be sure to put the 81 in there next time.
 
#179
#179
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...

Solid response.

It's clear your little hate factory has no legitimate argument, so you whine like a little baby.

Ittle whittle whittle baby!

God, some of you guys kill me what whiners you are. Next thing we know, you'll be in some thread whining about people whining about things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#180
#180
volprof said:
Solid response.

It's clear your little hate factory has no legitimate argument, so you whine like a little baby.

Ittle whittle whittle baby!

God, some of you guys kill me what whiners you are. Next thing we know, you'll be in some thread whining about people whining about things.
Click to expand...

Be careful, I wouldn't you to get that nonsense all over your pocket protector.
 
#182
#182
hog88 said:
Why just two?
Click to expand...

Actually, I have no clue.

Consult the Old Testament for answers to that.

Honestly, I'm not even opposed to it, as long as they're adults. Although the logistics seem like a nightmare, and unfair regarding legal/insurance/etc. benefits.

I suppose if a group of adults were to want to get married, I'd be perfectly fine with that although they would first have to consent to waive appropriate legal rights (although perhaps not all, but just the most pertinent ones) that a couple would have.

Honestly, this entire situation is not as difficult as the anti-gayers make it out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#183
#183
Vol8188 said:
I consider equal protection to be more than an opinion.
Click to expand...

It was more than opinion when states like Alabama retained the right to determine legal status of its racial minorities.

This issue is exactly the same.

40 years from now, we'll look at it the same way. It will just take time, unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#184
#184
volprof said:
Actually, I have no clue.

Consult the Old Testament for answers to that.

Honestly, I'm not even opposed to it, as long as they're adults. Although the logistics seem like a nightmare, and unfair regarding legal/insurance/etc. benefits.

I suppose if a group of adults were to want to get married, I'd be perfectly fine with that although they would first have to consent to waive appropriate legal rights (although perhaps not all, but just the most pertinent ones) that a couple would have.

Honestly, this entire situation is not as difficult as the anti-gayers make it out to be.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a limit, 3, 4, 5 whatever wants to marry should be allowed to. I don't see the logistical nightmare if the proper paperwork is done.
 
#185
#185
hog88 said:
There shouldn't be a limit, 3, 4, 5 whatever wants to marry should be allowed to. I don't see the logistical nightmare if the proper paperwork is done.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with group marriage. I can't believe we currently allowing Christian sects that practice polygamy to be discriminated against. It's an injustice.

If consenting adults want to engage in some form of group marriage, then I support them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#186
#186
Vol8188 said:
I have no problem with group marriage. I can't believe we currently allowing Christian sects that practice polygamy to be discriminated against. It's an injustice.

If consenting adults want to engage in some form of group marriage, then I support them.
Click to expand...

You support them? How? Financially? Group marriage march?

Oh, what you likely meant, was you accept (don't give a ****) it.
 
#187
#187
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...

Mute? Is that like moot?
Professor huh?
 
#188
#188
Roustabout said:
You support them? How? Financially? Group marriage march?

Oh, what you likely meant, was you accept (don't give a ****) it.
Click to expand...

I would support them with both vocally and with my vote. Idk if you're familiar, but that's how democracy works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
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 wonder if the authors of the 14th amendment had known it would be used this way in the future if they might have been more careful with the wording?
 
#190
#190
This whole living breathing document thinking just doesn't make any sense. If you continue to expand that thought the Constitution doesn't mean anything. The process for changing our form of government should not be left to nine unelected bureaucrats.
 
#192
#192
Sandvol said:
This whole living breathing document thinking just doesn't make any sense. If you continue to expand that thought the Constitution doesn't mean anything. The process for changing our form of government should not be left to nine unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

This is not changing the constitution. The 14th amendment isn't being changed. It's being read as it was written.

You are the one wanting to change it by claiming that it only applies to freed slaves. A lot of thought goes into the exact phrasing of the constitution. So the constitutional revisionists, are those of you trying to falsely claim that equal protection only applies to freed slaves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#193
#193
Roustabout said:
Mute? Is that like moot?
Professor huh?
Click to expand...

I know that's not the acceptable use, but I tend to avoid that term in the use which I put it to.

Moot is both "debatable" and "irrelevant." I never have quite understood that.

Makes no sense how something can be debatable (which suggests it's a legitimate issue) and irrelevant (which suggests it is not) at the same time.

I prefer "mute," albeit incorrect technically, because it just flat out says a debate is done, albeit mixing senses.

The English language, as any language, is in constant metamorphosis, so who knows, maybe one day I'll be right about the use of the term.

Other than that, sue me, hate factory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#196
#196
Vol8188 said:
Only if you believe irrational hatred and banning of homosexuality is somehow less civilized than allowing people to freely choose their own partners.
Click to expand...

People are free to choose regardless. This country is full of sexual deviants. I've only heard a handful of hardcore religious rightists propose criminalizing homosexuality. But marriage is reserved for a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and the creation of the family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#197
#197
volprof said:
Gay marriage is not a state issue. It's a Civil Rights issue. And I'm glad the USSC is taking it up. I hope they make the right (and only) decision.

Whether you think it a choice or a natural condition, it doesn't matter.

It's not up to individual citizens of states to decide the rights of other citizens. It's not up to individual citizens to decide things that don't concern them. Your morality you can have. I'm sure God or whoever will remember you were against it, and you'll be good to go.

40 years from now this will probably make sense to nearly everyone, but, for the time being, just trust me.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance regarding our republic is disturbing. Any powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states, which are sovereign in and of themselves. Therefore, it actually is an issue for the states.

Regardless of your opinion on the issue, our founders never intended for the judiciary to weild this exorbitant amount of power. Of the states that currently acknowledge gay marriage, a majority of these states had it imposed upon them by a wreckless judiciary, not by the citizen's duly elected representatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
Vol8188 said:
According to who?
Click to expand...

According to nature and the history of Western civilization. Homosexuals cannot be a mother and father and they cannot produce children. It is biologically and physically impossible. Men cannot produce eggs no matter how many gentile mutilation operations they undergo. Woman cannot produce sperm no matter how many times they mutilate their breasts and take testosterone injections. No matter how many times women sleep with each other, they'll never be able to produce a child from that conduct. Same for men.

Any other questions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top