Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: California
1,027 posts, read 1,385,422 times
Reputation: 844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
I believe the US Supreme Court will rule that the California law does not violate that part of the constitution. If the law said that only homosexuals were forbidden from marrying the same gender and that heterosexuals could marry the same gender then it would be a violation. However, it bars EVERYONE from marrying the same gender and, thus, applies equally to everyone.
With this logic, interracial marriage should still be legal then. Thankfully SCOTUS didn't agree with you and they won't on Prop 8 either. I'm willing to make some sig/av/account bets on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2012, 09:05 PM
 
Location: California
1,027 posts, read 1,385,422 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
50% of marriages in America end in divorce, it is fact, that marriage as a foundation stone of our society is done broke.

Cain't be fixed no way no how.
Exactly. Flame Angel's arguments are absolutely terrible, even from logical or legal perspective. If we really wanted to implement laws to preserve the institution of marriage, we would make divorce and adultery illegal, and then we might as well call ourselves Saudi Arabia.

Not to mention, his ridiculous argument that the government must "sanction" and "protect" marriage to ensure population stability, lol! Humans have been procreating successfully for hundreds of thousands of years before there were such a thing as a government institution that sanctioned marriages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 09:50 PM
 
8,288 posts, read 13,614,783 times
Reputation: 5019
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Fascinating and yet one of the three disagreed. It'll be overturned.
Why would it be overturned? We are dealing with a "Civil Rights" issue which the public should have no right to vote on!
Imagine if we left it to the public back in the 1960s whether "blacks" should be able to vote?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:05 PM
 
14,916 posts, read 13,151,979 times
Reputation: 4833
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Fascinating and yet one of the three disagreed. It'll be overturned.
Did you read the dissent? On what grounds did the one judge "disagree"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,731 posts, read 26,536,908 times
Reputation: 12735
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Please name one contract, outside of the marriage contract, that two people of the same sex are legally prohibited from entering into. I don't know of any...

From a purely legal perspective there is no reason same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. The arguments are 100% based on subjective morality and religious beliefs.


A man can enter into a contract with his aunt, brother or adult son.

Does that mean he should be allowed to marry his close relatives?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,071,627 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
A man can enter into a contract with his aunt, brother or adult son.

Does that mean he should be allowed to marry his close relatives?
Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,448 posts, read 14,515,258 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Whatever the decision, it will be appealed. Probably to a full panel on the 9th Circus (this one is just a three-judge panel).

Or possibly straight to the Supremes.

So, just like the previous Obamacare trials, it doesn't really matter what this panel decides.
The fight will be taken to the Supreme Court where this bigotry will be laid to rest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:11 PM
 
47,110 posts, read 26,255,803 times
Reputation: 29605
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
I can't stand the gays and the supporters using interracial marriages as a crux for their arguments.
You and yours are using the same arguments against gay marriage as were used against interracial marriage. It really should not come as a surprise that they trigger the same counterarguments.


Quote:
The difference between the interracial ban and the illegality of gay marriage is that Blacks and others could not enter into the institution of marriage with the partners of their choice.
That - is not a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:11 PM
 
Location: California
37,199 posts, read 42,449,382 times
Reputation: 35066
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
A man can enter into a contract with his aunt, brother or adult son.

Does that mean he should be allowed to marry his close relatives?
You know, if all the contract does is give benifits I'm not sure why he shouldn't.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. The govenment didn't cause that, the gays didn't cause that, the married and divorced (over and over) caused that. If it changes, so then the laws regarding it.

I'm not advocating anyone marrying their close relative, I'm advocating an examination of the laws we created regarding marriage. Not in a religious sense but in a legal sense. Perhaps the reason there is so much controversy these days is because people realize it's not working?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,448 posts, read 14,515,258 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob View Post
Why would it be overturned? We are dealing with a "Civil Rights" issue which the public should have no right to vote on!
Imagine if we left it to the public back in the 1960s whether "blacks" should be able to vote?
The bigots are on the losing side of history here, but they'll fight until the end. Imagine what good could have come if the same energy, time and money were spent doing something constructive for our country rather than try and suppress another minority?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top