toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Town Heretic said:
And yet you want to hang the future of unborn children on them, or have you again forgotten that every one of those Supreme Court Justices (as with every judge) is just that?

Well, you're consistent in your inconsistency, as posits go. Else, that's a profoundly ignorant thing to say and about as objectively sustainable as most of your tangential inquiry and dodge. :e4e:
Click to expand...

are there five judges somewhere that won't find laws against abortion to be unconstitutional?

we may never find out because the democrats are able to block their confirmation
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
chrysostom said:
are there five judges somewhere that won't find laws against abortion to be unconstitutional?

we may never find out because the democrats are able to block their confirmation
Click to expand...

That's not even how it works. You first need a case for the court to hear that may lead to the overturning of RvW. They can't just get a pro-life majority on the SCOTUS and then POOF! Abortion is illegal.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
WizardofOz said:
That's not even how it works. You first need a case for the court to hear that may lead to the overturning of RvW. They can't just get a pro-life majority on the SCOTUS and then POOF! Abortion is illegal.
Click to expand...

you did not understand my post
so
I am not sure what you do understand
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
WizardofOz said:
Nah, I understand it. Even if you get all pro-life judges on the SCOTUS, how is Roe V Wade going to be overturned? Have a theory?
Click to expand...

you can have many laws against abortion without ever overturning Roe

we already have a few

do you understand that?
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
are there five judges somewhere that won't find laws against abortion to be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
I've never held the view that was likely, as you know. It's been your drum beat.

Else, I take it you don't have a shoe to drop on the actual OP then. It's really just you attempting to will your religious views into law. If I'm wrong please advance an actual argument with factual support.

:e4e:
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Town Heretic said:
I've never held the view that was likely, as you know. It's been your drum beat.

Else, I take it you don't have a shoe to drop on the actual OP then. It's really just you attempting to will your religious views into law. If I'm wrong please advance an actual argument with factual support.

:e4e:
Click to expand...

the OP?

I'm against it
 
R

rexlunae

New member
chrysostom said:
do they have to tell the truth?
Click to expand...

Yes. Lawyers can be subjected to serious professional sanction if they knowingly advance a lie, or allow one to be advanced. The jurors can use whatever criteria they want, and aside from a lecture from the judge and the lawyers on how they're supposed to decide, there's really no accountability against them.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
I believe the purpose of marriage is to protect the child

don't you?
Click to expand...

No. And unlike you I've set out why, demonstrated objectively why your belief isn't true. That corporations have provisions to protect a particular type of shareholder doesn't establish the point of that incorporation was to protect that particular, limited shareholder. It's irrational to advance that and that's your parallel.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
rexlunae said:
I think that's entirely the wrong question to ask. Marriage is considered, by the courts, to be a fundamental right, and I think this is consistent with how people view their marriages. The question should not be "How does the state benefit from permitting a right to be exercised?", but rather "How can the state justify not honoring the right?".

It might not be convenient at all for the state that its citizens have a right to free speech, in fact it might be very costly, but it is still obligated to uphold the right. Marriage is really no different.

The argument that marriage is intended for the sake of the state to derive some benefit is really just the only rock some people can find to throw. It's not even truly their own vision of marriage.
Click to expand...
You may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not sure.

What do you have in mind when you say marriage is a fundamental right?

I would say that the government should ensure that people can be in relationship with who they want. And if two people make a contract together the government should protect that contract no matter who is making it. But if you are including all the benefits that the state provides, then I do not agree that they are fundamental rights, and those are what I was referring to.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Town Heretic said:
No. And unlike you I've set out why, demonstrated objectively why your belief isn't true. That corporations have provisions to protect a particular type of shareholder doesn't establish the point of that incorporation was to protect that particular, limited shareholder. It's irrational to advance that and that's your parallel.
Click to expand...

who stays home during the day to take care of your child?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top