Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
By the way, I only referenced St. Patrick’s parades has being family friendly, not what happens after or on St. Patrick’s Day. 😃
Click to expand...
A bit TOO OFF-topic:
Just some are getting or will become an itsy-bitsy (too) drunk after 😉
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Incorrect. The State was always neutral on whether or not marriage license applicants ever wanted, could have, or would have children. Another fact acknowledged by the State in oral arguments. Your narrative is a fiction invented by opponents of same-sex marriage with foundation in reality.
Click to expand...
Then, explain why the State has any interest at all in marriage? Do you firmly believe the State ought to control relationships between two adults? What would be the State’s justification for doing so?

“Well, you two (or three or four,) we (the State) have an interest in regulating your friendship for no other reason than it is what we do - insert ourselves wherever and whenever we want where we think we ought to be. Therefore, we will license your “relationship” …well… until one or other of you decide you no longer wish that it continue. Now, should any new human beings be produced in the interim, we will simply look the other way because those aren’t really why we took an interest in your… ahem [nervously adjusts tie] …relationship to begin with.”

Yes, EmperorNapoleon, this makes eminent sense. Well, it would if the State has always been the lunatic asylum it is today, but that would be an anachronistic “reading into” the machinations of the State, in past ages, the outrageous nonsense that marks how the State functions today. What evidence do you have that this has always been the case?
 
​
EmperorNapoleon said:
Incorrect. The State was always neutral on whether or not marriage license applicants ever wanted, could have, or would have children. Another fact acknowledged by the State in oral arguments. Your narrative is a fiction invented by opponents of same-sex marriage with foundation in reality.
Click to expand...
In other words, the State has never forced couples to have children, but that does not count against the fact that the State’s interest in marriage was to protect any possible children that might be produced by heterosexual couples.

Again, you are completely side-stepping the question of why the State would have any interest, at all, in regulating friendships or relationships - except for the fact that those kinds of relationships had the potential to create new citizens who could, potentially, be left without protection if the relationship were to dissolve.
 
Peter_Plato said:
In other words, the State has never forced couples to have children, but that does not count against the fact that the State’s interest in marriage was to protect any possible children that might be produced by heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
In other words, the State has never considered children in its issuance of marriage licenses.

\QUOTE=Peter Plato;13112660]Again, you are completely side-stepping the question of why the State would have any interest, at all, in regulating friendships or relationships - except for the fact that those kinds of relationships had the potential to create new citizens who could, potentially, be left without protection if the relationship were to dissolve.

The State has a interest in promoting monogamous relationships for public health.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Incorrect. The State was always neutral on whether or not marriage license applicants ever wanted, could have, or would have children.
Click to expand...
“Neutral?” That is rich!

The State, through an assorted array of tax benefits, baby bonuses, child tax credits, child care expenditures and subsidies has consistently demonstrated a non-neutral position with regard to the children born to fecund couples. In fact, China’s abortion policy is a prime example of the State’s interest in couples NOT having children.
EmperorNapoleon said:
Another fact acknowledged by the State in oral arguments. Your narrative is a fiction invented by opponents of same-sex marriage with foundation in reality.
Click to expand...
No, the denial by the State of its interest in children in the “oral arguments” is the fiction.

It bears repeating…

The State, through an assorted array of tax benefits, baby bonuses, child tax credits, child care expenditures and subsidies has consistently demonstrated a non-neutral position with regard to the children born to fecund couples. In fact, China’s abortion policy is a prime example of the State’s non-neutral interest in couples NOT having too many children.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is still a legal problem because the sexual orientation of the customer is used to determine whether or not those religious beliefs are applied. In other words, anything goes for heterosexual customers and only homosexual customers are targeted.
Click to expand...
I believe a good case could made for reasonable discrimination against a religiously based objectionable behavior.
 
Peter_Plato said:
“Neutral?” That is rich!

The State, through an assorted array of tax benefits, baby bonuses, child tax credits, child care expenditures and subsidies has consistently demonstrated a non-neutral position with regard to the children born to fecund couples. In fact, China’s abortion policy is a prime example of the State’s interest in couples NOT having children.
Click to expand...
The same benefits are offered to single parents. Marriage has nothing to do with them.
Peter_Plato said:
No, the denial by the State of its interest in children in the “oral arguments” is the fiction.
Click to expand...
Apparently you never listened to or read the oral arguments.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Of course, means that a majority of gay activists are "nuts in the brain.
Click to expand...
I disagree on that , and why ??

Like i said before , not ALL homosexuals are pedophiles , so …

What’s your definition/opinion of ‘sick in the mind/brain’ :confused:
What does it mean to you :confused:
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
In other words, the State has never considered children in its issuance of marriage licenses.
Click to expand...
Which, again, leaves completely unanswered the reason for issuance of marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples in the past. Obviously, the reason must have been because the State was simply clueless about why the couples wanted to be “married” in the first place.
EmperorNapoleon said:
The State has a interest in promoting monogamous relationships for public health.
Click to expand...
Yes, the “new” and “improved” (and contrived) “interest” of the State is as you say AND very soon the State will take that same “interest” in promoting polyandrous relationships for the sake of public health, just as it has taken an interest in the dismemberment of preborn children, the killing of the elderly and infirm, and, coming soon, the selective culling of unwanted children for the sake of public “health.”

“Public health” is becoming a useful, all-purpose term for defining the State’s interest. Whatever the State decides is in its interest will be “healthy” for the public - including death and dismemberment.

Gives you a profound feeling of security when the State takes an “interest” in your “health” these days, doesn’t it?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Which, again, leaves completely unanswered the reason for issuance of marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples in the past. Obviously, the reason must have been because the State was simply clueless about why the couples wanted to be “married” in the first place.
Click to expand...
The State has never asked why a couple wants to be married so, yes, it has always been clueless.
Peter_Plato said:
Yes, the “new” and “improved” (and contrived) “interest” of the State is as you say…
Click to expand...
It is hardly new. The State has always had a compelling interesting in incentivizing monogamous long term relationships for public health reasons through marriage.
 
Laurent_LUG said:
Explain us , please :confused:

P.S.: Not all gays are pedophiles , and not all pedophiles are gay .
Click to expand...
Another true statement. However most gays support pedophilia and even the founder of the gay movement in America claimed that NAMBLA was a homosexual organization.
 
Laurent_LUG said:
Discrimination is a sin & crime at the same time , so …
Click to expand...
Not all the time.

In normal usage, the word “discrimination” is synonymous with “discernment,” the ability to judge well.

Discrimination against harmful conduct, such as homosexuality, is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
 
Sometimes people will say something like “I have discriminating taste in music”, get it? That really is not bad. One can say we do discriminate at times in things we do.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Not all the time.

In normal usage, the word “discrimination” is synonymous with “discernment,” the ability to judge well.

Discrimination against harmful conduct, such as homosexuality, is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Click to expand...
“discrimination” is synonymous with “discernment,” :confused: :confused:
I’m really confused by now , are you saying it’s ok to discriminate people because of … :confused:

Secondly , my opinion about homosexuals (in general) ,
is slightly different than/from/to yours , that’s absolutely for sure .
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The State has never asked why a couple wants to be married so, yes, it has always been clueless.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the State just used to be a little smarter about encouraging a stable society of citizens to go out there and procreate - i.e., protecting its interests and providing for the best possible environment for prosperity…? Ditto every government since the beginning of civilization.
It is hardly new. The State has always had a compelling interesting in incentivizing monogamous long term relationships for public health reasons through marriage.
Click to expand...
I thought you just said the State didn’t care about why people got married? If you ask me the State is starting to sound pretty gosh darn confused…are condoms mandatory for gays performing sodomy now too? Is this not a compelling public health interest?
 
Laurent_LUG said:
How do you know that :confused:
Click to expand...
About a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys–and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Try as they might, gays and lesbians can’t shrug off the link. This is a homosexual problem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top