Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Jan 25, 2015.

?

I've read the 56 references in Windsor to states' power in redefining marriage & I believe...

  1. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for all mandated federally after this year's Hearing.

    7 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for just same-sex marriage mandated federally after this year.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. SCOTUS will simply reaffirm Windsor & keep the regulation of which lifestyles may marry to states.

    4 vote(s)
    36.4%
  1. WinterBorn
    Online

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,974
    Thanks Received:
    3,161
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,632
    Oh please, you are not going to trot out that tired old "All homosexuals are sexual predators" bullshit, are you?
     
  2. OffensivelyOpenMinded
    Offline

    OffensivelyOpenMinded Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    8,211
    Thanks Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Where I Is
    Ratings:
    +6,863
    When was being black a crime in this country, Syriusly? You can't use the constitution to back your case when the constitution allowed states to put faggots to death for years and years as criminals.
     
  3. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,769
    Thanks Received:
    1,418
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,510
    Offensivelyopenminded, that's enough. I've reported you for slurs and egging on a flame war with intent to derail good points otherwise made.

    No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

    Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

    The divorce laws also anticipated children living in a marriage contract that no longer was serving their best interest. A hostile married home was considered harmful to them. Further evidence that divorce considered children as implicit partners to the contract is the length of time the court takes in insuring the kids still have regular contact with both mother and father after the unfortunate decision to divorce is made/granted.

    Ask any divorced man and wife and they'll tell you the marriage still exists for the sake of the children; only now there are two homes instead of one.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. OffensivelyOpenMinded
    Offline

    OffensivelyOpenMinded Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    8,211
    Thanks Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Where I Is
    Ratings:
    +6,863
    I'm mixed race so no I wouldn't. And homos are not a race, so stop with the false equivelancy arguments.
     
  5. WinterBorn
    Online

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,974
    Thanks Received:
    3,161
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,632
    And once that was overturned, it became a moot point. And that happened in 2003.

    Oh, and the last law allowing the death penalty for homosexuality was repealed in 1873. So much for recent.
     
  6. mdk
    Offline

    mdk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    27,971
    Thanks Received:
    7,490
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +44,293
    Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,769
    Thanks Received:
    1,418
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,510
    None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.

    The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.

    If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father. But they do and they must. And therein is yet more proof that marriage contracts are about children and the adults mere secondary players...

    Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  8. mdk
    Offline

    mdk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    27,971
    Thanks Received:
    7,490
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +44,293

    The only place where a child is an implicit partner in the marriage contract of their parents is in your imagination. No court in this nation recognizes that children are apart of the contract and, more importantly, nobody is beholden to legal standards you've pulled out of your ass. Not the courts, not the parents, not gay people, not straight people...not anyone.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,148
    Thanks Received:
    5,421
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,604
    Feel free to prove that I am lying- prove what marriage was created for.

    And no- I don't care what bullshit USMB poll you set up and then lie about what it says.
     
  10. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,148
    Thanks Received:
    5,421
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,604
    And of course that is absolutely false.

    The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.

    If both parents divorce- and the kids end up living at Grandma's- the Divorce court doesn't care.

    Nor does the court care whether the home is too hostile for the kids- that is a child welfare issue which is resolved outside Divorce.

    Virtually all states are no-fault divorce- either parent can divorce without any reason- and the children's welfare does not determine the divorce.

    No court will prevent a divorce because it would be in the children's best interest.

    Even though in many of the cases it clearly would be.
     

Share This Page