Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Yeah, but not to each other.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Boom goes the dynamite. Wow, excellent work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boom goes the dynamite. Wow, excellent work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I just heard a Green Party candidate on POTUS and my only thought was, "Wait. There's still a Green Party?"
They're for this, though, so that's good.
Which is funny, because the True Believer Libertarians had an insurrection a couple cycles ago when they accused the national party of selling out.For me, the only trouble with the Libertarian party is that they're just a smidgen too libertarian...
I just heard a Green Party candidate on POTUS and my only thought was, "Wait. There's still a Green Party?"
They're for this, though, so that's good.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I like this. I've always tried to throw out the same thing when the debate comes up. The government injected itself into this because marriage has always been a religious thing. No one gets married for the tax breaks or many of the other reasons that are often thrown up, so why is that a constant issue that somes up in regards to same-sex marriage?
I like this. I've always tried to throw out the same thing when the debate comes up. The government injected itself into this because marriage has always been a religious thing. No one gets married for the tax breaks or many of the other reasons that are often thrown up, so why is that a constant issue that somes up in regards to same-sex marriage?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Romney told me that Corporations are people, so I know it's true.
Romney told me that Corporations are people, so I know it's true.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Anyone who complains about corporations and thinks that the government should do something about them is no different from those about whom they are complaining. They want a monopoly for their "corporation", in this case, the government.
Anyone who complains about corporations and thinks that the government should do something about them is no different from those about whom they are complaining. They want a monopoly for their "corporation", in this case, the government.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
So the slippery slope argument, eh? Lets see...
Marrying your dog, ie pulling a "Santorum". Runs afoul of bestiality laws plus animal cruelty. Besides your dog while it may be smarter than you neighbors isn't legally considered to have the will to consent to such a union so that's out. Much like why you can't marry pre-teens outside of Kentucky.
Marrying 20 wives. I read somewhere the biggest concern of the state is having to support all the extra wives as its thought one person can reasonably expect to sustain one family (if even) unless they're super wealthy of course. Saw a TV program about some yokel in Utah with 30 kids and 7 wives. Needless to say he didn't have the means to support them and was all bent when the state prosecuted him.
Marrying your sister. Not sure of the science at this point in time, but I think the gene pool needs a bit more diversity than this so no, in the name of the health of the offspring and their decendants you can't have people continually marrying their blood relations. Again the state has a vested interest in this.
RE: Ike (man this thread is all over the place). Ike was a good caretaker President and one of the 4 legends that held the Presidency from 1933-1963. Lots of credit for principled stand on race issues as well Interstate highway system, initial space race foray, etc. I think calling him the second best President of that century is a big stretch. While again I feel he was a good President, one could easily place him behind in no particular order both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, JFK, Reagan and Clinton. Argue about this one and that but he doesn't place at #2 I wouldn't think on any of those lists.
So the slippery slope argument, eh? Lets see...
Marrying your dog, ie pulling a "Santorum". Runs afoul of bestiality laws plus animal cruelty. Besides your dog while it may be smarter than you neighbors isn't legally considered to have the will to consent to such a union so that's out. Much like why you can't marry pre-teens outside of Kentucky.
Marrying 20 wives. I read somewhere the biggest concern of the state is having to support all the extra wives as its thought one person can reasonably expect to sustain one family (if even) unless they're super wealthy of course. Saw a TV program about some yokel in Utah with 30 kids and 7 wives. Needless to say he didn't have the means to support them and was all bent when the state prosecuted him.
Marrying your sister. Not sure of the science at this point in time, but I think the gene pool needs a bit more diversity than this so no, in the name of the health of the offspring and their decendants you can't have people continually marrying their blood relations. Again the state has a vested interest in this.
RE: Ike (man this thread is all over the place). Ike was a good caretaker President and one of the 4 legends that held the Presidency from 1933-1963. Lots of credit for principled stand on race issues as well Interstate highway system, initial space race foray, etc. I think calling him the second best President of that century is a big stretch. While again I feel he was a good President, one could easily place him behind in no particular order both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, JFK, Reagan and Clinton. Argue about this one and that but he doesn't place at #2 I wouldn't think on any of those lists.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Once upon a time it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. It was also once forbidden for a Catholic to marry a Jewish person. The same tired arguments we are hearing now against gay marriage were also used against them. Do you favor going back to those times?
And abb and others have brought up the idea that government should get out of marriage altogether. That's a fine argument, but not based in the slightest in reality. Do you think for a moment any suggestion to remove the government from marriage would not be shouted down as religious intolerance? One might think the church would want the government out of marriage but you suggest it in the halls of Congress and see what happens.
It's only a slippery slope in your head. How's that?
Once upon a time it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. It was also once forbidden for a Catholic to marry a Jewish person. The same tired arguments we are hearing now against gay marriage were also used against them. Do you favor going back to those times?
And abb and others have brought up the idea that government should get out of marriage altogether. That's a fine argument, but not based in the slightest in reality. Do you think for a moment any suggestion to remove the government from marriage would not be shouted down as religious intolerance? One might think the church would want the government out of marriage but you suggest it in the halls of Congress and see what happens.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I can't see any reason why legal marriage (a.k.a. a civil union) should be denied to same-sex couples, but I can see where the state would have an interest in limiting the number of participants in a marriage to two consenting adult humans. I doubt any court would have any trouble upholding such a law.
No way. The legal ramifications of marriage are way, way more deeply intertwined than just checking a box on a tax form. Parental rights, hospital visitation, joint ownership, social security benefits, etc, etc. You would have to alter a HUGE number of laws to eradicate references to legal marriage.
I can't see any reason why legal marriage (a.k.a. a civil union) should be denied to same-sex couples, but I can see where the state would have an interest in limiting the number of participants in a marriage to two consenting adult humans. I doubt any court would have any trouble upholding such a law.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Oh, and you can take up the comparison of the civil rights movement with the black ministers organization that's taken Obama and others to task for comparing the two, saying it's an insult to the civil rights movement.
You referenced slippery slope, not me. Look, now you've gone and done it and gotten Rover wound up!
Oh, and you can take up the comparison of the civil rights movement with the black ministers organization that's taken Obama and others to task for comparing the two, saying it's an insult to the civil rights movement.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I notice you never answered the question.You referenced slippery slope, not me. Look, now you've gone and done it and gotten Rover wound up!
Oh, and you can take up the comparison of the civil rights movement with the black ministers organization that's taken Obama and others to task for comparing the two, saying it's an insult to the civil rights movement.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Nonsense. I personally have known two heterosexual couples who would otherwise have not gotten married (been together for 10+ years) who finally caved and had civil ceremonies in order to obtain health care benefits. Their reasons for getting married had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with practical, financial benefits of legal marriage.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Been too busy correcting your misquotes of me.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
What? how does a sexual union without the presence both of ovum and of spermatozote have anything whatsoever to do to a man of one race marrying a woman of another race?
Heterosexual marriage started out with a biological basis; if you take away modern technology, you still can only produce a human infant by having a man and a woman copulate. How can that argument be made against mixed race marriage???
What? how does a sexual union without the presence both of ovum and of spermatozote have anything whatsoever to do to a man of one race marrying a woman of another race?
Heterosexual marriage started out with a biological basis; if you take away modern technology, you still can only produce a human infant by having a man and a woman copulate. How can that argument be made against mixed race marriage???
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I know it would never happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. If it makes people nervous in Congress that gives it much more traction with the country. That is hardly an argument to sway people away from it since they haven't been getting things right in an awfully long time. Maybe it's time for a radical new idea. They don't want to give it up because it's one more regulation they have control over. Everyone knows Congress will never willingly give up any sort of control. I also don't get the religious intolerance issue. How does that even come into play? Religions can have their own rules, can and do discriminate accordingly. What has changed in the last several thousand years about that?
I know it would never happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. If it makes people nervous in Congress that gives it much more traction with the country. That is hardly an argument to sway people away from it since they haven't been getting things right in an awfully long time. Maybe it's time for a radical new idea. They don't want to give it up because it's one more regulation they have control over. Everyone knows Congress will never willingly give up any sort of control. I also don't get the religious intolerance issue. How does that even come into play? Religions can have their own rules, can and do discriminate accordingly. What has changed in the last several thousand years about that?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
only if they area both black??
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
If my aunt had balls she'd by my uncle...What? how does a sexual union without the presence both of ovum and of spermatozote have anything whatsoever to do to a man of one race marrying a woman of another race?
Heterosexual marriage started out with a biological basis; if you take away modern technology, you still can only produce a human infant by having a man and a woman copulate. How can that argument be made against mixed race marriage???
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
They don't care. It's a political agenda.What? how does a sexual union without the presence both of ovum and of spermatozote have anything whatsoever to do to a man of one race marrying a woman of another race?
Heterosexual marriage started out with a biological basis; if you take away modern technology, you still can only produce a human infant by having a man and a woman copulate. How can that argument be made against mixed race marriage???
ScoobyDoo
NPC
- Status