Gore sexual assualt :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#327 Jun 30 2010 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

gbaji wrote:

MDenham wrote:

So why not have these benefits be awarded upon actually producing the children?

Because then it wouldn't act as much of an incentive to get people to marry before producing children.

Why do they have to get married before?

The first (maybe second) good question of the thread!

Because statistically very few people get married after having a child together out of wedlock. Shockingly few. Even with divorce rates as high as they are today, it's a walk in the park compared to the likelihood of a single woman with a child getting the child's father to marry her.

Quote:

Your argument for the benefits of marriage hinge on the existence of children. Why not wait until the children actually exist before marrying people?

Because it doesn't work. That idea was pretty much abandoned back when man ceased to live primarily in small nomadic tribes.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

#328 gbaji, Posted: Jun 30 2010 at 9:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) First off, that's irrelevant as to whether the statement is an assumption. I suspect that the word does not mean what you think it does. No amount of rock solid evidence that the earth revolves around the sun changes the fact that if I use that fact in an argument it is an "assumption".

Quote Reply

#329 Jun 30 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

bsphil wrote:

It's already been decided that the legal status of marriage is, in fact, a right.

Quote:

Justice Marshall wrote for the majority in a 5-3-1 court holding. Affirming the judgment of the District Court, Marshall concurred with the District Court's reading of marriage being a fundamental right, relying on Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).

Wait... wait... wait!!! A judge found that the fundamental right to marry, as ruled in a suit regarding interracial marriage, had direct application in a completely different court case involving marriage?!?!?!

Holy fucking wacky-sauce!!! Here I was being told that those things didn't apply because the judges weren't directly discussing gay marriage!!! How could this have gone so insane?!?!

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#330 Jun 30 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

gbaji wrote:

but 2 of the 5 justices who concurred [d]did not agree that marriage was a fundamental right[/b]

So just having a majority of judges (3 of 5) say that it was a fundamental right doesn't cut it? Didn't realize that one had to be unanimous to count, because from what I've seen that's not how the the supreme court works.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#331 Jun 30 2010 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

bsphil wrote:

gbaji wrote:

but 2 of the 5 justices who concurred [d]did not agree that marriage was a fundamental right[/b]

So just having a majority of judges (3 of 5) say that it was a fundamental right doesn't cut it? Didn't realize that one had to be unanimous to count, because from what I've seen that's not how the the supreme court works.

You didn't know that? The recent Supreme Court case involving gun laws in Chicago found that the Second Amendment only has 55% application because it was decided 5-4. That's totally the way our legal system works.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#332 Jun 30 2010 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

While the extension isn't directly explained, one can only assume it's because the justice in that case believed that by denying the right to marry the person one wants, one was denying the right to have a child with the person one wants.

Kinda tossed a wrinkle into the whole "But marriage is a fundamental right for gay couples too!" doesn't it?

You mean that if you just blindly guess at the judges motives and make up his thought process for him, you can claim whatever you want while saying "Well, it's not directly explained but I bet it's true!"?

Yeah, one hell of a wrinkle there.

Also, not to mess with your blind conjecture masquerading as anything but desperation but in Perez v. Sharp he actually draws from Meyer v. Nebraska when describing the right to marry. He only quotes from it immediately before saying "Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract..." In fact he says it before ever mentioning Skinner.

Gee, kind of throws a wrinkle into your master theory there, huh?

Edited, Jun 30th 2010 10:35pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#333 Jun 30 2010 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1630282721753

View User Forum

Sage

14,174 posts

Quote:

First off, that's irrelevant as to whether the statement is an assumption. I suspect that the word does not mean what you think it does. No amount of rock solid evidence that the earth revolves around the sun changes the fact that if I use that fact in an argument is is an "assumption".

Look, if you're going to take such a skeptical approach then there's no use using that word at all, because it applies to absolutely everything. The existence of anything is an assumption.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#334 Jun 30 2010 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

gbaji wrote:

Secondly, that case didn't establish that. It merely referenced earlier cases which made the same claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#335 Jun 30 2010 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

You know what they say about assumptions: when you assume, you end up looking like a total moron.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#336 Jun 30 2010 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

Debalic wrote:

You know what they say about assumptions: when you assume, you end up looking like a total moron.

So some people have nothing to lose...

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#337 Jun 30 2010 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#338 Jun 30 2010 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Assassin Nadenu wrote:

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

Should bookmark this and reference it right away the next time this topic inevitably comes up in 2-3 months.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#339 Jun 30 2010 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

View User Forum

10,601 posts

bsphil wrote:

Assassin Nadenu wrote:

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

Should bookmark this and reference it right away the next time this topic inevitably comes up in 2-3 months.

That violates the cross thread rules of this forum.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#340 Jun 30 2010 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Sir Xsarus wrote:

That violates the cross thread rules of this forum.

Careful or Gbaji will call the mods on you!

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#341 Jun 30 2010 at 10:09 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

That violates the cross thread rules of this forum.

Don't cross the ~~streams~~ threads?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#342 Jun 30 2010 at 10:23 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

This entire argument will be moot in a few decades when an entire generation of yaoi fangirls is able to vote, go to law school, become lawyers and judges, and demand that gay marriage be allowed so that Naruto and Sasuke can hook up. (That particular couple not being my cup of tea, I'll be over here rooting for Trowa and Quatre.)

Edited, Jul 1st 2010 12:24am by catwho

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#343 Jun 30 2010 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

I have no problems with gays but yaoi fangirls are way past where I draw my line.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#344 Jun 30 2010 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1701044194859

Guru

12,735 posts

Assassin Nadenu wrote:

I still want someone to show me where my tax break is for being married.

When you file your taxes and you select either Single, Married, or Head of Household that actually puts your income into a certain bracket which is then used to calculate how much of a refund (if applicable) you are getting. That's as far as said "tax break" goes. At least, from what I've worked with hands on.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#345 Jul 01 2010 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

Sir Exodus wrote:

Assassin Nadenu wrote:

I still want someone to show me where my tax break is for being married.

When you file your taxes and you select either Single, Married, or Head of Household that actually puts your income into a certain bracket which is then used to calculate how much of a refund (if applicable) you are getting. That's as far as said "tax break" goes. At least, from what I've worked with hands on.

Mine must get raised, because I paid less taxes when I was single Smiley: lol

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#346 Jul 01 2010 at 7:25 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1628468336211

View User Forum

1,263 posts

Nadenu,

Quote:

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

And once again we've come to the conclusion that liberals don't understand how the tax structure works because they don't pay taxes to begin with.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#347 Jul 01 2010 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

knoxxsouthy wrote:

Nadenu,

Quote:

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

And once again we've come to the conclusion that liberals don't understand how the tax structure works because they don't pay taxes to begin with.

5 bucks says I pay more taxes than you do.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#348 Jul 01 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

knoxxsouthy wrote:

Nadenu,

Quote:

And once again, we have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's icky.

And once again we've come to the conclusion that liberals don't understand how the tax structure works because they don't pay taxes to begin with.

I should become one of these fabled liberals because, man, I would love to not pay taxes.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#349 Jul 01 2010 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Elinda wrote:

5 bucks says I pay more taxes than you do.

If you have $5 to spend on crap like that, you need to be paying more taxes.

____________________________

Belkira wrote: