Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2012 3:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"
" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"


Tradition?   Hmmmmmm, that might be bad for the point you're trying to make. 
Tradition that marriage has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights?

Ok.

I don't see how that hurts my point.
5/30/2012 3:36 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Because thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined it that way.
Thousands of years?  I'm sure there were many cultural norms associated with marriage over that time that you wouldn't want legislated.

But that's beside the point.  "Because that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason to do anything.
5/30/2012 3:38 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Let me ask jrd_x a question.

Since you seem to periodically go back to what the "founders" intended when they wrote the Constitution . . . what do you think their take on same sex marriage would have been 225 years ago?

You first, then I'll give you my take.
5/30/2012 3:39 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Because thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined it that way.
Thousands of years?  I'm sure there were many cultural norms associated with marriage over that time that you wouldn't want legislated.

But that's beside the point.  "Because that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason to do anything.
No doubt, there have been a number of "one off" cultural norms in different religions and cultures over the years.  

But "one man, one woman" has pretty much been a universal constant since the beginning of human civilization.
5/30/2012 3:41 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Let me ask jrd_x a question.

Since you seem to periodically go back to what the "founders" intended when they wrote the Constitution . . . what do you think their take on same sex marriage would have been 225 years ago?

You first, then I'll give you my take.
Many of the founders owned slaves.  What they believed personally is irrelevant.  The Constitution, and the legal precedent based on it, is what matters.
5/30/2012 3:45 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Because thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined it that way.
Thousands of years?  I'm sure there were many cultural norms associated with marriage over that time that you wouldn't want legislated.

But that's beside the point.  "Because that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason to do anything.
No doubt, there have been a number of "one off" cultural norms in different religions and cultures over the years.  

But "one man, one woman" has pretty much been a universal constant since the beginning of human civilization.
And yet marriage itself isn't biologically necessary.  We marry because we want to.  There isn't a reason to prohibit same sex couples from marrying.
5/30/2012 3:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2012 3:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"
" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"


Tradition?   Hmmmmmm, that might be bad for the point you're trying to make. 
Tradition that marriage has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights?

Ok.

I don't see how that hurts my point.
Traditionally, it's between a man and a woman.  Not a man and a goat or a man and a radish or a man and a man.

Do you understand the meaning of "tradition"?
5/30/2012 4:27 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect

So what?  "Because that's how we did it before" isn't a good reason to do anything.

5/30/2012 4:32 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

Tradition?   Hmmmmmm, that might be bad for the point you're trying to make because, traditionally, it's between a man and a woman.  Not a man and a goat or a man and a radish or a man and a man.

Get it?
5/30/2012 4:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FYI, "Because that's how we did it before" is tradition-based. 

Much like "long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights" is tradition-based.
5/30/2012 4:36 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):
" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

Tradition?   Hmmmmmm, that might be bad for the point you're trying to make because, traditionally, it's between a man and a woman.  Not a man and a goat or a man and a radish or a man and a man.

Get it?
Ah I get it.

To you, the court saying "marriage has long been recognized as a vital personal right essential to the pursuit of happiness" is the same as the state passing a law prohibiting same sex marriage because "marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman."

It's not the same.

The court in Loving is not basing their decision on tradition.  Yes, marriage is a right, and it has been recognized as a right for a long time.  Prohibiting interracial marriage at that time was also tradition.  The court was breaking that tradition because the ban was unconstitutional, it infringed on the rights of interracial couples.






5/30/2012 4:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Much like "long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights" is tradition-based.
5/30/2012 5:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

IOW, don't quote a court case that has based it's decision, in part, on a traditional union.    I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says white man/black woman is the same as white man/white man when it comes to a marriage.    Simply because, traditionally, when one wanted to procreate, they got married.

5/30/2012 5:04 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):

IOW, don't quote a court case that has based it's decision, in part, on a traditional union.    I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says white man/black woman is the same as white man/white man when it comes to a marriage.    Simply because, traditionally, when one wanted to procreate, they got married.

The decision was not based on a traditional union.

5/30/2012 5:33 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2012 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Let me ask jrd_x a question.

Since you seem to periodically go back to what the "founders" intended when they wrote the Constitution . . . what do you think their take on same sex marriage would have been 225 years ago?

You first, then I'll give you my take.
Many of the founders owned slaves.  What they believed personally is irrelevant.  The Constitution, and the legal precedent based on it, is what matters.
I like how what the founders were thinking at the time the Constitution was drafted is relevant when it supports your point, and irrelevant when it doesn't.

5/30/2012 8:53 PM
◂ Prev 1...77|78|79|80|81...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.