What's new
By:
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
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??? :confused:
Click to expand...

So marriage is only allowed if you can have children? Man all those infertile people are screwed! Your whole post is as worthless as a Bob Gray insult :p

You are the best liberal EVER! :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Handyman said:
So marriage is only allowed if you can have children? Man all those infertile people are screwed! Your whole post is as worthless as a Bob Gray insult :p

You are the best liberal EVER! :D
Click to expand...
I'll work on spiffying up my insults, just to make you happy.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Handyman said:
So marriage is only allowed if you can have children? Man all those infertile people are screwed! Your whole post is as worthless as a Bob Gray insult :p

You are the best liberal EVER! :D
Click to expand...

Hate to point this out but that was never actually said in the original post. It was simply pointed out how marriage started and compared it to the mixed race argument that was being tossed around illustrating how the two cannot be properly compared.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Tiggsy said:
Hate to point this out but that was never actually said in the original post. It was simply pointed out how marriage started and compared it to the mixed race argument that was being tossed around illustrating how the two cannot be properly compared.
Click to expand...
Gotta admire Handy's enthusiasm, if not accuracy.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

This thread makes me sad... In what should be a far more intelligent discussion of the SCotUS, instead we get:

Donut[AFK] HEY EURAKARTE
Donut[AFK]: INSULT
Eurakarte: RETORT
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-RETORT
Eurakarte: QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
Donut[AFK]: SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE **** UP
Eurakarte: NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
Donut[AFK]: RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: ADDON RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: COUNTER-RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

dxmnkd316 said:
This thread makes me sad... In what should be a far more intelligent discussion of the SCotUS, instead we get:
Click to expand...

Wow, you've got your sights set pretty high to expect intelligent discussion around here. If you come across any, keep it too yourself so the trolls won't find it. :)

Oops, forgot a nonsensical statement about plankton. I'll remember next time. :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

LynahFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are no limitations on the number of participants entering into a contractual agreement with each other, are there?

Since marriage is a contract, I really don't know how a court would be able to say it's okay for two consenting adults to enter into the arrangement but not three or more.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

dxmnkd316 said:
This thread makes me sad... In what should be a far more intelligent discussion of the SCotUS, instead we get:

Donut[AFK] HEY EURAKARTE
Donut[AFK]: INSULT
Eurakarte: RETORT
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-RETORT
Eurakarte: QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
Donut[AFK]: SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE **** UP
Eurakarte: NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
Donut[AFK]: RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: ADDON RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: COUNTER-RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
Click to expand...

If you want to stop plankton from swimming towards you, push out a current in the water away from you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Tiggsy said:
Wow, you've got your sights set pretty high to expect intelligent discussion around here. If you come across any, keep it too yourself so the trolls won't find it. :)

Oops, forgot a nonsensical statement about plankton. I'll remember next time. :D
Click to expand...

I expect at least two posts per page to be intelligent (that's a meager 4%). We're skimming below that expectation at this point. :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Tiggsy said:
It was simply pointed out how marriage started
Click to expand...
That's probably not the best line to take, though, since marriage started as a method for a man to ensure he was passing his property on to his own child and not some other man's.

A traditionalist's defense of the definition of marriage would include reclassifying a woman as chattel whose virginity is the property of her father before marriage and whose baby-making machinery is the property of her husband after marriage.

Except for a few places in Pakistan and Alabama, I don't think they are going to go for that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Kepler said:
That's probably not the best line to take, though, since marriage started as a method for a man to ensure he was passing his property on to his own child and not some other man's.

A traditionalist's defense of the definition of marriage would include reclassifying a woman as chattel whose virginity is the property of her father before marriage and whose baby-making machinery is the property of her husband after marriage.

Except for a few places in Pakistan and Alabama, I don't think they are going to go for that.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's really quite a posting! :eek:
And I really believe that you believe it all. :eek:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bakunin said:
There are no limitations on the number of participants entering into a contractual agreement with each other, are there?

Since marriage is a contract, I really don't know how a court would be able to say it's okay for two consenting adults to enter into the arrangement but not three or more.
Click to expand...

Its called Polygamy and its illegal in 50 states. Bigamy, marrying someone while already married, is also illegal nationwide.

Having said that, its not against the Constitution. And as with gay marriage, if some day it were acceptable to society...then it could well be legal.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

5mn_Major said:
Its called Polygamy and its illegal in 50 states. Bigamy, marrying someone while already married, is also illegal nationwide.

Having said that, its not against the Constitution. And as with gay marriage, if some day it were acceptable to society...then it could well be legal.
Click to expand...

Not true. It is actually legal in Kentucky to have two wives.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

5mn_Major said:
Its called Polygamy and its illegal in 50 states. Bigamy, marrying someone while already married, is also illegal nationwide.

Having said that, its not against the Constitution. And as with gay marriage, if some day it were acceptable to society...then it could well be legal.
Click to expand...
But I thought we shouldn't just allow what is ok with society, since so many of us in society aren't progressive enough and are hateful? You open the door to alternative forms of marriage, you get the inevitable result of such a course of action, which is to open it in more ways than people's current short-sightedness foresees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top