PDA

View Full Version : Clarence Thomas Rebukes SCOTUS for Refusing to Hear Gay Marriage Appeals



Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:10 AM
Interesting...

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/clarence-thomas-condemns-supreme-court-f


Here is what Thomas had to say in today's denial of application for stay (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arizona-Prop.-100-stay-denial1.pdf):
I join my colleagues in denying this application only because there appears to be no "reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." That is unfortunate.
We have recognized a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions of lower courts holding federal statutes unconstitutional. States deserve no less consideration.... Indeed, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts. But for reason that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months. [Citations omitted.]
Thomas then cites four cases where the lower federal courts invalidated state bans on gay marriage (in Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, respectively), yet the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the appeals arising from any of those judicial invalidations. Those states, Thomas plainly suggests, deserve to have their appeals heard in full by a fully attentive Supreme Court.


This is quite a statement from Justice Thomas. Not only has he castigated his fellow justices for lacking a coherent judicial approach, he has also clearly signaled his own (and Scalia's) willingness to rule on the constitutional merits of this issue. In other words, Clarence Thomas threw down the gauntlet and publicly challenged the Court to take up a gay marriage case. We’ll see if the other justices pick it up.




My personal opinion on it is that the court doesn't want to be the one to define marriage because it will create a Constitutional challenge much like that of Marbury v. Madison and they are being "smart" about the value of their own jobs.

If they rule in favor with what they believe is a Congress that can overrule them then they are a paper tiger entity much like they were during FDR's administration.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 10:17 AM
I'm sure the results of the latest election have nothing to do with Thomas' statement...the timing is just a coincidence.

Common
11-18-2014, 10:17 AM
People are hungry, millions out of work and underemployed, many lost their homes. More poor than ever before in our history more homeless and everyday you open the paper its GAY MARRIAGE THIS AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT.

midcan5
11-18-2014, 10:36 AM
People are hungry, millions out of work and underemployed, many lost their homes. More poor than ever before in our history more homeless and everyday you open the paper its GAY MARRIAGE THIS AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT.

That's because this keeps the Sheep busy thinking about the inconsequential.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 10:37 AM
Bingo! Keep the sheep fighting about non-issues & Oz can continue with his buddies behind the curtain

Calypso Jones
11-18-2014, 11:13 AM
It wasn't Thomas' idea to throw it to the SC. But I agree. It is to keep stupid Obama voters focused on homosexual issues rather than the fact you have vindictive, lying, boy president.

On top of the Ferguson mess where radicals are promising attacks on whites, that this will not be fixed until whites are afraid and promising unrest around the nation..(they ought to be stopped by any and every lawful means), this psychopresident is promising an executive order authorizing legalization for ILLEGALS.

What's the president's job...of course I mean a sane president....it is to insure domestic tranquility. He has done NONE of that because he does NOT want that but rather just the opposite.

This lawlessness is going to...at some point....come back and bite your Obama progressives in your butt.

del
11-18-2014, 11:32 AM
^

voice of reason

nathanbforrest45
11-18-2014, 12:24 PM
People are hungry, millions out of work and underemployed, many lost their homes. More poor than ever before in our history more homeless and everyday you open the paper its GAY MARRIAGE THIS AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT.


Gay marriage attacks the fundamental underpinnings of any society, its smallest unit, the family. Destroy that and all else is easily dispensed with.

And its anything but a non issue.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 12:32 PM
If we are going to assign benefits to marriage with this weird "package deal" then, yes, gays should get in on it, as well as, polygamists.

I'd love to see marriage return to contract law again. It would certainly help women who stay at home because that could be negotiated prior. Equitable distribution and no faults certainly haven't helped any women I know of.

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 12:41 PM
Gay marriage attacks the fundamental underpinnings of any society, its smallest unit, the family. Destroy that and all else is easily dispensed with.

And its anything but a non issue.

How exactly does gay marriage destroy "the family"? Are all the straight people going to suddenly turn gay just because they can get married? That's about as good an argument as saying everybody is going to turn into potheads if marijuana is legalized. These issues are being pushed right now to help the individuals directly affected, not to recruit new members.

I agree that gay marriage is way down low on my list of concerns at the moment, but to think that treating all of our citizens equally will destroy our country is complete and utter BS. There are far more relevant issues to the destruction of our country right now, mainly the partisanship from both sides that keeps us fighting over the small stuff and ignoring the real problems. The lack of morals, the lack of respect towards others, and the willingness to put our heads in the sand while our government whittles away at the very freedoms we hold so dear... or used to anyways.

So, unless you fear that legalizing gay marriage is going to make you go out and find some guy to get hitched to, I really doubt you have anything at all to be worried about.

Animal Mother
11-18-2014, 12:42 PM
Yeh it really doesn't effect me that homos marry. I'd rather them be married than single and looking my way so I'm pro-gay marriage.

Howey
11-18-2014, 12:43 PM
Interesting...

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/clarence-thomas-condemns-supreme-court-f




My personal opinion on it is that the court doesn't want to be the one to define marriage because it will create a Constitutional challenge much like that of Marbury v. Madison and they are being "smart" about the value of their own jobs.

If they rule in favor with what they believe is a Congress that can overrule them then they are a paper tiger entity much like they were during FDR's administration.

We already know the conservatives on the court are torn over the issue and I'm surprised Clarence finally spoke. Perhaps his timing is based on this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/supreme-court-gay-marriage-petitions-april-deboer-jayne-rowse_n_6174300.html)?


The couple who challenged Michigan's ban on gay marriages are taking their battle to the U.S. Supreme Court with a case that seeks to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a petition for a writ of certiorari (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/writ_of_certiorari)with the court Monday, seeking to overturn the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-bans_n_6117196.html?) to uphold the gay marriage ban in Michigan. The appeals court ruling, made earlier this month, also affected cases from Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.
The crux of DeBoer and Rowse's petition is simple and sweeping: It asks the court to determine "whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html) to the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry."

"Gay and lesbian citizens in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are denied the fundamental freedom and equal right to marry, and their families are deprived of the status, dignity, security, and stability that marriage brings," the petition states. "This Court should grant the petition and hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from joining in marriage violates our nation’s most cherished and essential guarantees."




I'm sure the results of the latest election have nothing to do with Thomas' statement...the timing is just a coincidence.

Yeah. Sure. OK.

I just thought of something. When the right trots out pictures of all their pretty women like Sarah, why do the forget Ginny Thomas?

http://i.imgur.com/tMic4tj.jpg

And Could Uncle Clarence have found anyone whiter????

Howey
11-18-2014, 12:45 PM
Gay marriage attacks the fundamental underpinnings of any society, its smallest unit, the family. Destroy that and all else is easily dispensed with.

And its anything but a non issue.

Um....wait.

Doesn't gay marriage create another family????

TrueBlue
11-18-2014, 12:49 PM
Interesting...

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/clarence-thomas-condemns-supreme-court-f




My personal opinion on it is that the court doesn't want to be the one to define marriage because it will create a Constitutional challenge much like that of Marbury v. Madison and they are being "smart" about the value of their own jobs.

If they rule in favor with what they believe is a Congress that can overrule them then they are a paper tiger entity much like they were during FDR's administration.
Literally speaking, the "value of their own jobs" should not be an issue. After all, SCOTUS Justices never have to run for reelection since they were never elected to that position in the first place. They were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate and are seated in that office for Life unless found guilty of some egregious happening whereby they could be removed for cause. Of course, I'm sure you realize that.

So, they need to have the hormones to act on this matter responsibly as it will not affect them personally or their office one iota whatever they decide. If they are afraid to be seen as "paper tigers" then they are in the wrong line of work I submit to you. And yes, Congress could pass a new law overruling them but that is not too likely to happen. But if it does and the affected parties take their matter right back to SCOTUS for their decision it could go on and on and on starting with the ruling process of the lower courts to appellate courts and ultimately all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't see that happening as not every Senator or Congressman is going to risk taking a stand on this issue as popular as same-sex marriage has become and now is with the American people.

Animal Mother
11-18-2014, 12:52 PM
Um....wait.

Doesn't gay marriage create another family????

Depends on how you define family. The marine corps gave me a family but I could fuck Terminal Lance 8 ways from Sunday and the only thing popping out his ass is brown goo to show for it. There's "family" as in people you are close to and would die for and then a reproductive unit. To 8/10's of the world "family" is only man, woman, and their biological children. Its why when women get old in the ME men grab new wives. Without sounding mushy I think we define family for ourselves.

Like I totally get the gays wanting the same tax breaks and being in love and shit with their partners so whatever. Get married but I want everyone even single people to get the same breaks or this is just creating a super group again.

TrueBlue
11-18-2014, 12:53 PM
Yeh it really doesn't effect me that homos marry. I'd rather them be married than single and looking my way so I'm pro-gay marriage.
Since you call them "homos", a pejorative, I'm sure it's perfectly alright then to call Heterosexuals "breeders."

Animal Mother
11-18-2014, 12:54 PM
Since you call them "homos", a pejorative, I'm sure it's perfectly alright then to call Heterosexuals "breeders."

Only if you add "excellent" to "breeder" when describing me.

TrueBlue
11-18-2014, 12:57 PM
Only if you add "excellent" to "breeder" when describing me.
Hey go ahead and toot your own horn. Knock yourself out. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/80.gif

del
11-18-2014, 12:58 PM
Only if you add "excellent" to "breeder" when describing me.

how many kids do you have?

Animal Mother
11-18-2014, 12:59 PM
Hey go ahead and toot your own horn. Knock yourself out. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/80.gif


I will. I'm chiseled, dude. Any woman would want these genes. I've been saving the baby making sperm for just the right woman.

Hey baby **waves**

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Megan-Fox-GIF-28.gif

Howey
11-18-2014, 01:20 PM
I will. I'm chiseled, dude. Any woman would want these genes. I've been saving the baby making sperm for just the right woman.

Hey baby **waves**

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Megan-Fox-GIF-28.gif

Bragg arts like you normally weigh 40 lbs and are, ummm... underendowed.
But that's a moot point. Come back to this topic when classes are over and you've done your homework.

Captain Obvious
11-18-2014, 01:23 PM
http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bill-Hader-Popcorn-reaction-Gif-On-The-Daily-Show.gif

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 01:24 PM
Actually Animal Mother is hot. He just doesn't always know when to heel.

TrueBlue
11-18-2014, 01:27 PM
Bragg arts like you normally weigh 40 lbs and are, ummm... underendowed.
But that's a moot point. Come back to this topic when classes are over and you've done your homework.
http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/3.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/4.gifhttp://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/18.gif TOUCHE'!!

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 01:29 PM
So back on topic.

I think that the SCOTUS knows that whatever their response is, can be undone by legislation from the Congress and right now they're not ready for that.

They already set their own legal precedence on the Prop 8 that was tricky. They said marriage was a state issue and left it to the highest court of that state.

Animal Mother
11-18-2014, 01:31 PM
http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/3.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/4.gifhttp://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/laughing/18.gif TOUCHE'!!

Aww the honeys are high fiving. :)

Truth is if you saw me at the gym you'd be begging for my number. That's how it is. You guys hate me but ya love me.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 02:15 PM
So the Supreme Court

The recent cases has led me to believe that what we have is a court that is balanced between original and living, versus a court that is liberal versus conservative. Sotomayer, for example, is a liberal but she leans towards original intent at times.

It will be an interesting debate if it comes up.

nathanbforrest45
11-18-2014, 02:21 PM
How exactly does gay marriage destroy "the family"? Are all the straight people going to suddenly turn gay just because they can get married? That's about as good an argument as saying everybody is going to turn into potheads if marijuana is legalized. These issues are being pushed right now to help the individuals directly affected, not to recruit new members.

I agree that gay marriage is way down low on my list of concerns at the moment, but to think that treating all of our citizens equally will destroy our country is complete and utter BS. There are far more relevant issues to the destruction of our country right now, mainly the partisanship from both sides that keeps us fighting over the small stuff and ignoring the real problems. The lack of morals, the lack of respect towards others, and the willingness to put our heads in the sand while our government whittles away at the very freedoms we hold so dear... or used to anyways.

So, unless you fear that legalizing gay marriage is going to make you go out and find some guy to get hitched to, I really doubt you have anything at all to be worried about.


I am sorry but if you lack the moral code to understand the real issues here I can add nothing to your understanding. Once you begin to erode what mankind has held as a taboo for thousands of years the civilization will not long survive. Believe that or not, your belief system won't change anything. Every culture that has accepted homosexuality as "normal" and something to be protected has collapsed under its own immorality.

nathanbforrest45
11-18-2014, 02:23 PM
Um....wait.

Doesn't gay marriage create another family????


No. It creates two men or two women living together. That does not a family make.

nathanbforrest45
11-18-2014, 02:24 PM
Depends on how you define family. The marine corps gave me a family but I could $#@! @Terminal Lance (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=909) 8 ways from Sunday and the only thing popping out his ass is brown goo to show for it. There's "family" as in people you are close to and would die for and then a reproductive unit. To 8/10's of the world "family" is only man, woman, and their biological children. Its why when women get old in the ME men grab new wives. Without sounding mushy I think we define family for ourselves.

Like I totally get the gays wanting the same tax breaks and being in love and $#@! with their partners so whatever. Get married but I want everyone even single people to get the same breaks or this is just creating a super group again.


I don't mean to be rude but are you gay? Its nothing to be ashamed of and it will free your spirit to just come out and admit it.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 02:25 PM
I don't mean to be rude but are you gay? Its nothing to be ashamed of and it will free your spirit to just come out and admit it.

I think he's gay. :)

Actually, that's not fair to gay people.

decedent
11-18-2014, 05:03 PM
People are hungry, millions out of work and underemployed, many lost their homes. More poor than ever before in our history more homeless and everyday you open the paper its GAY MARRIAGE THIS AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT.

Clarence Thomas only wants to keep talking about it in order to make it go away.

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 05:09 PM
I am sorry but if you lack the moral code to understand the real issues here I can add nothing to your understanding. Once you begin to erode what mankind has held as a taboo for thousands of years the civilization will not long survive. Believe that or not, your belief system won't change anything. Every culture that has accepted homosexuality as "normal" and something to be protected has collapsed under its own immorality.

Are you going to answer the question or just attack my morals?

How does gay marriage destroy the family?

Howey
11-18-2014, 05:22 PM
I don't mean to be rude but are you gay? Its nothing to be ashamed of and it will free your spirit to just come out and admit it.

Are you?

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 05:23 PM
Are you going to answer the question or just attack my morals?

How does gay marriage destroy the family?

I'd like to know that too. How does someone else getting married affect my marriage?

You'd think people would be more upset about skyrocketing divorce rates...but they don't seem to give a fuck about that.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 05:34 PM
Let's see if I have this right...gay marriage (or whatever) is not a traditional marriage and that makes it wrong. We need to stick to traditional marriage. hmm...traditional marriage? Just how far back in your historical view do you want to go? Shall we include polygamy or do ya want to use the maid for childbearing when the wife is too old? How about putting the barren wives aside & getting a new model (just for reproductive purposes, ya know). How about making divorce illegal? That's a good old fashioned idea...or why not marry your daughters off when they are 12 or 13? I suspect you like traditional if its your definition of traditional.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 06:46 PM
I'd like to know that too. How does someone else getting married affect my marriage?

You'd think people would be more upset about skyrocketing divorce rates...but they don't seem to give a fuck about that.

The Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge divorce or allow a divorced person to remarry, ergo they do give a fuck. When they give fucks they are told they are antiquated and judgmental.

That's my commentary on that.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 06:48 PM
Let's see if I have this right...gay marriage (or whatever) is not a traditional marriage and that makes it wrong. We need to stick to traditional marriage. hmm...traditional marriage? Just how far back in your historical view do you want to go? Shall we include polygamy or do ya want to use the maid for childbearing when the wife is too old? How about putting the barren wives aside & getting a new model (just for reproductive purposes, ya know). How about making divorce illegal? That's a good old fashioned idea...or why not marry your daughters off when they are 12 or 13? I suspect you like traditional if its your definition of traditional.


That's been my disdain the whole while. The west makes up less than 1/7 of the world's population. The rest of the world sees marriage as a contract, oftentimes with women on the shit end of that stick. Wives get put away when they are too old to bear kids. They are burned for dowry's...

There are times when I really am not sure about the whole institution.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 06:48 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge divorce or allow a divorced person to remarry, ergo they do give a $#@!. When they give $#@!s they are told they are antiquated and judgmental.

That's my commentary on that.

No, but they do allow annulments (Catholic Divorce).

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 06:53 PM
No, but they do allow annulments (Catholic Divorce).

You have to make the case that you have never had sex. Ummm, yeh. That may have worked in the medieval period when you could buy an annulment but it does not happen now.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 06:56 PM
Let's see if I have this right...gay marriage (or whatever) is not a traditional marriage and that makes it wrong.

no, it's that two queers shacking up isn't a marriage at all. "Gay marriage" is inane.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 06:58 PM
You have to make the case that you have never had sex. Ummm, yeh. That may have worked in the medieval period when you could buy an annulment but it does not happen now.

Actually, that's not accurate. There are several criteria that can be used.

It's time consuming but it can and does happen. I know a couple who did it. She was a devout Catholic.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:01 PM
I think marriage is a contract that whose purpose was to move women from their father's house to their husband's house with a dowry attached.

The Lais of Marie de France is all about what "marriage" was like for the luckiest of chattels and how women found "love" with a knight errant because they were stuck married to old farts their father's age who fucked every servant girl in the house.

Yep, that's sanctity right there.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 07:02 PM
no, it's that two queers shacking up isn't a marriage at all. "Gay marriage" is inane.

is it the gay or the shacking up that offends you? Heterosexual living in sin is acceptable?

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 07:03 PM
no, it's that two queers shacking up isn't a marriage at all. "Gay marriage" is inane.

So two people of the same sex couldn't possibly love each other in the same way two people of opposite sexes can? Procreation aside, what exactly prevents gay marriage from being marriage at all?

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:04 PM
Actually, that's not accurate. There are several criteria that can be used.

Not several and they all revolve around "children" or sex in some way. Fact. To the Catholic Church marriage is, (quote) for the purpose of bearing children.



It's time consuming but it can and does happen. I know a couple who did it. She was a devout Catholic.

And like I said...The Catholic Church does not have divorce. Annulment is pretending that your first marriage was a lie and a sham. That is different than divorce, and again...you said that no one cares about divorce. The Catholic Church does. They try to prevent it and annulments (look it up--not divorce) are also hard to come by.

So my point stands...they care and when they care they are told they are judgmental and antiquated.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:06 PM
So two people of the same sex couldn't possibly love each other in the same way two people of opposite sexes can? Procreation aside, what exactly prevents gay marriage from being marriage at all?

I don't think any two people love each other the same way and it is a different type of love. There is a comfort in same sex love that is different than that of opposite sex, at least for lesbians. There are some women who are physically attracted to men but are "political lesbians" because they made a choice to trade for the comfort and lifestyle of being with another woman.

Sorry, waxing poetic. Go on, I understand your point.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:09 PM
So two people of the same sex couldn't possibly love each other in the same way two people of opposite sexes can? Procreation aside, what exactly prevents gay marriage from being marriage at all?

Sure they can. They always have. Look, marriage is what it is. Gays insist on including themselves in what has always excluded them by definition. I have no doubt they will be successful.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 07:12 PM
I don't think any two people love each other the same way and it is a different type of love. There is a comfort in same sex love that is different than that of opposite sex, at least for lesbians. There are some women who are physically attracted to men but are "political lesbians" because they made a choice to trade for the comfort and lifestyle of being with another woman.

Sorry, waxing poetic. Go on, I understand your point.

I have never thought of that...my husband is really my best friend and has been for nearly 40 years. However, I still need my female friends. I think there are some needs that require the understanding of the same sex. My husband would deny it, but he has his buddies in much the same way I have my girlfriends.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:13 PM
Sure they can. They always have. Look, marriage is what it is. Gays insist on including themselves in what has always excluded them by definition. I have no doubt they will be successful.

I've never understood gay marriage, knowing what marriage has been historically. I especially don't understand it from lesbians who as females (usually feminists) really understand it. Rachel Maddow, up until the time the pod people got her, actually said that what gays and lesbians had built for themselves was more unique and special.

I get that.

Loving someone without force, without a contract, makes the love more real because you can both walk away at any time without any repercussions. That's very romantic. The only reason, IMO, to marry is for kids. They need the financial and structural stability.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:17 PM
I've never understood gay marriage, knowing what marriage has been historically. I especially don't understand it from lesbians who as females (usually feminists) really understand it. Rachel Maddow, up until the time the pod people got her, actually said that what gays and lesbians had built for themselves was more unique and special.

I get that.

Loving someone without force, without a contract, makes the love more real because you can both walk away at any time without any repercussions. That's very romantic. The only reason, IMO, to marry is for kids. They need the financial and structural stability.

I know you are well aware that marriage was never about love, individual happiness, or personal fulfillment. I appreciate your candor especially in light of the fact that you are sympathetic to their cause, such as it is.

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 07:20 PM
Sure they can. They always have. Look, marriage is what it is. Gays insist on including themselves in what has always excluded them by definition. I have no doubt they will be successful.
I am just trying to understand your comment about two queers shacking up.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I have friends who feel differently, and I think that to them it boils down to religion and sentiment. Religion for the obvious reasons (even if homosexuality is not approved by the bible, they still want to follow it as much as they can). Sentiment being the ability to say "that's my husband/wife", and for some, the ceremony. My feelings are almost exactly inline with Alyosha that the government should not be involved at all in marriages, just contracts. Same sex, opposite sex, several members shouldn't make a difference to the government so long as everyone is of age and consents.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:20 PM
I know you are well aware that marriage was never about love, individual happiness, or personal fulfillment. I appreciate your candor especially in light of the fact that you are sympathetic to their cause, such as it is.

I am sympathetic to humans who pursue happiness. I am not, as a lawyer who has had to navigate divorce and custody law, happy with how this is happening. It will fuck the divorce courts up big time, excuse my french. The simplest solution for everyone is to scrap what we have and go to contracts or else things will go haywire with case law set to award custody to biological parents. You'll see kids splitting up between parents which just doesn't happen now for stability's sake.

Anyway...

Matty
11-18-2014, 07:23 PM
I am sympathetic to humans who pursue happiness. I am not, as a lawyer who has had to navigate divorce and custody law, happy with how this is happening. It will $#@! the divorce courts up big time, excuse my french. The simplest solution for everyone is to scrap what we have and go to contracts or else things will go haywire with case law set to award custody to biological parents. You'll see kids splitting up between parents which just doesn't happen now for stability's sake.

Anyway...
Does this mean we can do away with marriage licenses and just shack up?

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:27 PM
I am sympathetic to humans who pursue happiness. I am not, as a lawyer who has had to navigate divorce and custody law, happy with how this is happening. It will $#@! the divorce courts up big time, excuse my french. The simplest solution for everyone is to scrap what we have and go to contracts or else things will go haywire with case law set to award custody to biological parents. You'll see kids splitting up between parents which just doesn't happen now for stability's sake.

Anyway...

This was the inevitable result of radical individualism and, while I too am sympathetic in that regard, I see no reason to change the meaning of ancient institutions to suit a tiny, albeit well funded, minority. The simplest solution is to tell gays that marriage excludes homosexual unions by definition. Alas, it's a liberal world.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 07:28 PM
The gay couples that I know who have married, did so for the tax breaks, legal issues, etc. None were interested in ceremony, etc. They all traveled out of state because it is not legal in Alabama. I think they now have federal recognition since they were married in a state where legal...but what about state laws...income tax, etc? just curious

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 07:31 PM
The gay couples that I know who have married, did so for the tax breaks, legal issues, etc. None were interested in ceremony, etc. They all traveled out of state because it is not legal in Alabama. I think they now have federal recognition since they were married in a state where legal...but what about state laws...income tax, etc? just curious

Those issues had already been addressed here in MD with civil unions, I do believe. They were issues before that though. Now gay marriage is legal here, so no issues at all.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:34 PM
Does this mean we can do away with marriage licenses and just shack up?

If you care I'll explain.

Currently because of how government's treat marriage, marriage comes with certain benefits that gays and lesbians want to have. It also comes with dissolution criteria and custody law.

All but 4 states use the same standards of equitable distribution (which once polygamists get these benefits will leave the women with NOTHING if there is a divorce) and child custody. Typically, child custody means the primary custodial guardian is that parent which is biological. You are also typically told if you are the custodial guardian that you cannot "move" without permission. Siblings stay together whenever possible in their biological groups, which are usually belonging to both parents.

Say you have two lesbians who have both had children. They are related only to one mom. That means that during a divorce the sibling group is broken up. This does not normally happen.

Now, what happens when the eggs are switched and one has the other's egg? Who is the biological parent? Who gets the kids? What if they each have one with their own eggs, and intend to switch for the next round (see Cat Cora and her wife) and then they divorce? Which mom gets the kids? The one whose egg it was or the one who gave birth?

Do you see what contracts ahead of time are easier than using statutes written for the majority of couples who've had children the standard way?

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:36 PM
This was the inevitable result of radical individualism and, while I too am sympathetic in that regard, I see no reason to change the meaning of ancient institutions to suit a tiny, albeit well funded, minority. The simplest solution is to tell gays that marriage excludes homosexual unions by definition. Alas, it's a liberal world.

Well, if it makes you feel any better at all women are still chattel in 90% of all the world's marriages. :kiss:

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:37 PM
The gay couples that I know who have married, did so for the tax breaks, legal issues, etc. None were interested in ceremony, etc. They all traveled out of state because it is not legal in Alabama. I think they now have federal recognition since they were married in a state where legal...but what about state laws...income tax, etc? just curious

Really? I went to more gay weddings before it was legal and they were FABULOUS events. Now they just go downtown and get married.

Sad.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:40 PM
I am just trying to understand your comment about two $#@!s shacking up.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I have friends who feel differently, and I think that to them it boils down to religion and sentiment. Religion for the obvious reasons (even if homosexuality is not approved by the bible, they still want to follow it as much as they can). Sentiment being the ability to say "that's my husband/wife", and for some, the ceremony. My feelings are almost exactly inline with @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) that the government should not be involved at all in marriages, just contracts. Same sex, opposite sex, several members shouldn't make a difference to the government so long as everyone is of age and consents.

It seems pretty clear to me. What exactly is causing confusion?

I don't share this libertarian hatred for the state as such. Just these huge, remote, ethnocidal bureaucracies. Moreover, the state's historical interest in promoting marriage and child birth is rather obvious.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 07:40 PM
Really? I went to more gay weddings before it was legal and they were FABULOUS events. Now they just go downtown and get married.

Sad.

nope...had some really great Wedding celebration parties when they got back home. We even had a cake made for one with an edible copy of the license!

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 07:45 PM
Not several and they all revolve around "children" or sex in some way. Fact. To the Catholic Church marriage is, (quote) for the purpose of bearing children.



And like I said...The Catholic Church does not have divorce. Annulment is pretending that your first marriage was a lie and a sham. That is different than divorce, and again...you said that no one cares about divorce. The Catholic Church does. They try to prevent it and annulments (look it up--not divorce) are also hard to come by.

So my point stands...they care and when they care they are told they are judgmental and antiquated.

The difference between divorce and annulment in the Catholic church is semantics. To ease the guilt riddled Catholic.

My point is that there is no national dialogue on the idea that divorce is an anathema to marriage. There is no movement to ban divorce. There was no mention of divorce in the Sanctity of Marriage act.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:45 PM
nope...had some really great Wedding celebration parties when they got back home. We even had a cake made for one with an edible copy of the license!

I was supposed to go to the wedding of a friend of mine who had been with his partner for 20+ years. They owned a farm and made artisan cheeses and jams. I was asked to be the officiant because I was "religious and stuff" according to them. I said okay because I am "religious and stuff".

One of the two men died in a vehicle accident. His fault, drunk driving. I kept visiting the other and talking to him for months. A weekend went by that I didn't hear from him and I just knew something was wrong. I called, called, called again and I said to myself: He's dead.

He had hung himself in the barn with a note to his dead lover that he was meeting him in the afterlife.

I still have the last jams they made and won't ever eat them.

They had a 20+ year love without a license, without anything holding them to each other aside from how they felt for the other. What is marriage compared to that? Their love was so strong that he couldn't literally live without him.

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 07:47 PM
sad...but it sounds like they had the important part without the ceremony.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:48 PM
The difference between divorce and annulment in the Catholic church is semantics. To ease the guilt riddled Catholic.

No, and this is just ridiculous and shows a lack of historical understanding. The Catholic Church is ancient and took cues from Judaism, the religion it sprung from. Jews can have annulments (breaking of the contract) and divorce (where you just don't like the person and want out). Because of Jesus's comments on divorce, the Catholic Church only allowed for annulments.




My point is that there is no national dialogue on the idea that divorce is an anathema to marriage. There is no movement to ban divorce. There was no mention of divorce in the Sanctity of Marriage act.

Why would there be?

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 07:49 PM
It seems pretty clear to me. What exactly is causing confusion?


You still haven't really answered the question I asked. Why is gay marriage not really a marriage? You agree that two people of the opposite sex can love each other in the same way two opposite sex people can, then you just say it is what it is and say gays aren't allowed. Sounds more like you are afraid of them getting treated like regular people to me... but i could be wrong.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:49 PM
The difference between divorce and annulment in the Catholic church is semantics. To ease the guilt riddled Catholic.

My point is that there is no national dialogue on the idea that divorce is an anathema to marriage. There is no movement to ban divorce. There was no mention of divorce in the Sanctity of Marriage act.

Yeah? And?

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 07:50 PM
No, and this is just ridiculous and shows a lack of historical understanding. The Catholic Church is ancient and took cues from Judaism, the religion it sprung from. Jews can have annulments (breaking of the contract) and divorce (where you just don't like the person and want out). Because of Jesus's comments on divorce, the Catholic Church only allowed for annulments.




Why would there be?

Again, my point is divorce and Catholic annulments are a bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage. Yet there is no movement to prevent it.

I still don't see how two gay people getting married affects my marriage in any way.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:52 PM
You still haven't really answered the question I asked. Why is gay marriage not really a marriage? You agree that two people of the opposite sex can love each other in the same way two opposite sex people can, then you just say it is what it is and say gays aren't allowed. Sounds more like you are afraid of them getting treated like regular people to me... but i could be wrong.

Mister D is actually a traditionalist. Marriage was and is in most parts of the world only for childbearing and is a contract. He's saying that shacking up (his way of saying two people living together and fucking) is what two people in love do, but if you want kids together and to perpetuate a lineage like you're kicking it Old School that's when you get married.

I honestly think that "marriage" is a contract and has nothing to do with love because the truth is that for 90% of all women who get married that is the case.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 07:54 PM
Mister D is actually a traditionalist. Marriage was and is in most parts of the world only for childbearing and is a contract. He's saying that shacking up (his way of saying two people living together and $#@!ing) is what two people in love do, but if you want kids together and to perpetuate a lineage like you're kicking it Old School that's when you get married.

I honestly think that "marriage" is a contract and has nothing to do with love because the truth is that for 90% of all women who get married that is the case.

90%? I think your view may be skewed due to your career. At least I hope.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:54 PM
Again, my point is divorce and Catholic annulments are a bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage. Yet there is no movement to prevent it.

Most Catholics don't get their marriages annulled even if they get divorced. They just never remarry. The Church refuses to allow remarriage because they're trying to prevent divorce, ergo someone cares about these things.




I still don't see how two gay people getting married affects my marriage in any way.

I hope it doesn't.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 07:54 PM
90%? I think your view may be skewed due to your career. At least I hope.

You realize people live outside of white countries, yes? Like there are people who don't live in Europe and North America.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 07:56 PM
Most Catholics don't get their marriages annulled even if they get divorced. They just never remarry. The Church refuses to allow remarriage because they're trying to prevent divorce, ergo someone cares about these things.



I hope it doesn't.

The United States, with 6 percent of the world’s Catholics, accounts for 60 percent of the Church’s annulments.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

I know it doesn't.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:57 PM
Mister D is actually a traditionalist. Marriage was and is in most parts of the world only for childbearing and is a contract. He's saying that shacking up (his way of saying two people living together and $#@!ing) is what two people in love do, but if you want kids together and to perpetuate a lineage like you're kicking it Old School that's when you get married.

I honestly think that "marriage" is a contract and has nothing to do with love because the truth is that for 90% of all women who get married that is the case.

The focus on romantic love in marriage is indeed a peculiarity of European culture. Anyway, yes, I thought that was clear.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 07:57 PM
You realize people live outside of white countries, yes? Like there are people who don't live in Europe and North America.

Sorry, you're correct. My mistake, I thought you were talking about north America.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 07:58 PM
You realize people live outside of white countries, yes? Like there are people who don't live in Europe and North America.

:grin:

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:00 PM
You still haven't really answered the question I asked. Why is gay marriage not really a marriage? You agree that two people of the opposite sex can love each other in the same way two opposite sex people can, then you just say it is what it is and say gays aren't allowed. Sounds more like you are afraid of them getting treated like regular people to me... but i could be wrong.

It's funny how the first instinct of the "gay rights" crowd is to attack those who disagree with them personally.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:00 PM
The United States, with 6 percent of the world’s Catholics, accounts for 60 percent of the Church’s annulments.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

I know it doesn't.

Again, the US is only 6% of the 1.2 billion Catholics. So 60% of that 6% is shit numbers considering that it's not 60% of all Catholic marriages but that we are 60% of the annulments.

Anyway...

There is a HUGE world outside of white countries. Why don't you start with looking at just the Middle East for now then we can move on to continents?

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 08:01 PM
The focus on romantic love in marriage is indeed a peculiarity of European culture. Anyway, yes, I thought that was clear.

I thought for traditionalists, you weren't even supposed to have sex until you were married? I was really just trying to dig into your stance a little more to understand. Like i said, i couldn't care a less, my only concern in it all is that everyone is treated fairly.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:02 PM
Common Sense is an authority on Catholicism. He read the bible and shit!

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 08:02 PM
Again, the US is only 6% of the 1.2 billion Catholics. So 60% of that 6% is $#@! numbers considering that it's not 60% of all Catholic marriages but that we are 60% of the annulments.

Anyway...

There is a HUGE world outside of white countries. Why don't you start with looking at just the Middle East for now then we can move on to continents?

I'm sorry but we were discussing gay marriage in the US.

You claimed it doesn't really happen. I showed evidence that it does. If you want to sidetrack the conversation by making it international, maybe you could start a thread on it.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:03 PM
I thought for traditionalists, you weren't even supposed to have sex until you were married? I was really just trying to dig into your stance a little more to understand. Like i said, i couldn't care a less, my only concern in it all is that everyone is treated fairly.

Mister D is a virgin. It's sweet.

del
11-18-2014, 08:03 PM
Common Sense is an authority on Catholicism. He read the bible and shit!

everybody can't get fucked by a curate, you know.

Howey
11-18-2014, 08:03 PM
It's funny how the first instinct of the "gay rights" crowd is to attack those who disagree with them personally.
How is that an attack? He asked you a simple question.

How is a gay marriage not really a marriage?

PolWatch
11-18-2014, 08:05 PM
tmi

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 08:06 PM
It's funny how the first instinct of the "gay rights" crowd is to attack those who disagree with them personally.


Common Sense is an authority on Catholicism. He read the bible and $#@!!


Did I attack you personally? Did I attack anyone personally? Kinda smells of hypocrisy.

I never claimed to be an authority on Catholicism.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:06 PM
I'm sorry but we were discussing gay marriage in the US.

We were discussing marriage and I stated that marriage has traditionally been for _______________________. I made references to the world for multiple reasons.

We don't always stay in the United States. Marriages here may not be recognized elsewhere and vice versa for polygamists.




You claimed it doesn't really happen. I showed evidence that it does. If you want to sidetrack the conversation by making it international, maybe you could start a thread on it.

I said it rarely happens. 60% of all annulments doesn't give me a number of how many annulments occur. It just says for a small population of Catholics (6% of the world's) we make up the most.

And we are discussing marriage which is international because the conversation threaded to that. If we want to stay on topic we should discuss Clarence Thomas and only discuss why the SCOTUS won't take up the case.

Ravens Fan
11-18-2014, 08:06 PM
It's funny how the first instinct of the "gay rights" crowd is to attack those who disagree with them personally.
Where did I attack you? I might attack your opinions and try to show you where I think you are wrong, but I usually enjoy your input so I wouldn't attack you. I am sorry if that is how I came across.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:07 PM
I thought for traditionalists, you weren't even supposed to have sex until you were married? I was really just trying to dig into your stance a little more to understand. Like i said, i couldn't care a less, my only concern in it all is that everyone is treated fairly.

We're not a sect, son, and you do care. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel compelled to attack me. My stance was crystal clear. Your problem is that you can't understand how anyone could possibly see things differently than you without serious character flaws. Work on that.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:08 PM
How is that an attack? He asked you a simple question.

How is a gay marriage not really a marriage?

Because to Mister D marriage is defined by what most of the world defines it by, not the western world. He's already said he's a traditionalist. To him marriage is a man and a woman together to make babies. If they love each other great, if they don't, oh well.

I'm not seeing how is position is difficult to grasp.

Ask him if love is necessary? He'll say "no".

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:08 PM
Where did I attack you? I might attack your opinions and try to show you where I think you are wrong, but I usually enjoy your input so I wouldn't attack you. I am sorry if that is how I came across.


Sounds more like you are afraid of them getting treated like regular people to me... but i could be wrong.

LOL these people...

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 08:09 PM
What a hypocrite...

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:10 PM
We're not a sect, son, and you do care. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel compelled to attack me. My stance was crystal clear. Your problem is that you can't understand how anyone could possibly see things differently than you without serious character flaws. Work on that.

I don't think he's that way, either. I think he is trying to understand because he's from a younger generation where marriage has been eschewed for the most part and is ONLY if you're so in love that you just like...gotta do it or something. Our generation doesn't even get married for kids anymore.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:10 PM
Where did I attack you? I might attack your opinions and try to show you where I think you are wrong, but I usually enjoy your input so I wouldn't attack you. I am sorry if that is how I came across.

Don't apologize you didn't attack him.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:11 PM
everybody can't get fucked by a curate, you know.

Just because they didn't want you doesn't mean they didn't find D attractive. Jelly?

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:11 PM
Because to Mister D marriage is defined by what most of the world defines it by, not the western world. He's already said he's a traditionalist. To him marriage is a man and a woman together to make babies. If they love each other great, if they don't, oh well.

I'm not seeing how is position is difficult to grasp.

Ask him if love is necessary? He'll say "no".

And the concept of gay marriage was an absurdity even in the west when my father was my age.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:13 PM
I don't think he's that way, either. I think he is trying to understand because he's from a younger generation where marriage has been eschewed for the most part and is ONLY if you're so in love that you just like...gotta do it or something. Our generation doesn't even get married for kids anymore.

Understood.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:19 PM
1 out of every 3 marriages in the entire world is arranged. 90% of all Indian marriages are arranged. The divorce rate among arranged marriages is slightly over 4%.

Marriage to everyone else is a duty (for kids) and a contract (between families) and they go in with low expectations.

Our high divorce rates Common Sense have everything to do with our view that marriage is based on love and not duty and commitment. In the west we want to be happy. When we stop being happy, we make changes.

In other parts of the world they want peace or contentment, but happiness is an art.

The Dalai Lama said that romantic love is one of the west's largest problems because we believe that is the only love worth valuing.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 08:21 PM
1 out of every 3 marriages in the entire world is arranged. 90% of all Indian marriages are arranged. The divorce rate among arranged marriages is slightly over 4%.

Marriage to everyone else is a duty (for kids) and a contract (between families) and they go in with low expectations.

Our high divorce rates @Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085) have everything to do with our view that marriage is based on love and not duty and commitment. In the west we want to be happy. When we stop being happy, we make changes.

In other parts of the world they want peace or contentment, but happiness is an art.

The Dalai Lama said that romantic love is one of the west's largest problems because we believe that is the only love worth valuing.

Exactly!

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:23 PM
But I'm all...FUCK THE DALAI LAMA! I want to be in crazy love and never get married.

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 08:23 PM
1 out of every 3 marriages in the entire world is arranged. 90% of all Indian marriages are arranged. The divorce rate among arranged marriages is slightly over 4%.

Marriage to everyone else is a duty (for kids) and a contract (between families) and they go in with low expectations.

Our high divorce rates @Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085) have everything to do with our view that marriage is based on love and not duty and commitment. In the west we want to be happy. When we stop being happy, we make changes.

In other parts of the world they want peace or contentment, but happiness is an art.

The Dalai Lama said that romantic love is one of the west's largest problems because we believe that is the only love worth valuing.

I agree with all of that. But the fact is we live in the west. Plus I don't see how that has any bearing on gay marriage.

But I get what you are saying...

Common Sense
11-18-2014, 08:24 PM
But I'm all...$#@! THE DALAI LAMA! I want to be in crazy love and never get married.

The Dali Lama ain't all he's cracked up to be.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 08:27 PM
I agree with all of that. But the fact is we live in the west. Plus I don't see how that has any bearing on gay marriage.

But I get what you are saying...

The topic merged to "what is marriage?" Even calling it gay marriage means you believe it is not. Semantics can be a slip.

I think gays should be allowed to enter into every type of contract that straight people do. Appropriating an ancient term can be problematic when we make up less than 1/10th of the world's population and if you try to immigrate with your gay partner to a country where they don't accept it, then that is a huge problem.

In the US polygamist from Islamic countries jump through many hoops to bring their wives to the US legally because we define marriage as two people only. They even go so far as to "adopt" them to bring them here.

Yes, I think in legal terms and at the legal problems of this, but that's my job to do so.

Howey
11-18-2014, 09:12 PM
And the concept of gay marriage was an absurdity even in the west when my father was my age.

Where? Utah? Idaho? Nevada? Where Mormon polygamists had multiple wifes? How's that for the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?

del
11-18-2014, 09:16 PM
Just because they didn't want you doesn't mean they didn't find D attractive. Jelly?

actually, they did want me

google father hanlon and get back to me

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 09:21 PM
Where? Utah? Idaho? Nevada? Where Mormon polygamists had multiple wifes? How's that for the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?
Howey

but this is what I mean exactly. Our (western) notion of marriage is not shared by 9/10ths of the world, so yes...polygamy is marriage.

Marriage is an ancient contract between two families, a male and female specifically, for the purpose of bearing children. When women couldn't bear children they were sent home, and when they were done bearing children they were put to one side.

Unfortunately, that is marriage and that is how most of the world sees it. Someone from Yemen with four wives can move to India with all of his wives and live or in Pakistan. If you get married here to your partner and move to Pakistan he can't come.

This is not to say that I believe this is right or wrong. It just is. Love based marriage is a western notion that I'm not always comfortable with myself out of solidarity to women worldwide.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 09:38 PM
Where? Utah? Idaho? Nevada? Where Mormon polygamists had multiple wifes? How's that for the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?

My only issue with polygamy is that it's not a western custom (this is a part of the world where women have always enjoyed a relatively higher status Alyosha) and that it is characteristic of extremely patriarchal cultures (e.g. Semites) which in turn reflects the lower status females have in those societies. That said, it's still marriage.

Howey
11-18-2014, 09:41 PM
Howey

but this is what I mean exactly. Our (western) notion of marriage is not shared by 9/10ths of the world, so yes...polygamy is marriage.

Marriage is an ancient contract between two families, a male and female specifically, for the purpose of bearing children. When women couldn't bear children they were sent home, and when they were done bearing children they were put to one side.

Unfortunately, that is marriage and that is how most of the world sees it. Someone from Yemen with four wives can move to India with all of his wives and live or in Pakistan. If you get married here to your partner and move to Pakistan he can't come.

This is not to say that I believe this is right or wrong. It just is. Love based marriage is a western notion that I'm not always comfortable with myself out of solidarity to women worldwide.

Sorry. I don't subscribe to your theory that the ancient ways of arranged marriage are the norm, even if today it is. Most every nation is shedding it's misogynist views of marriage and evolving towards a western style of commitment-based marriage at the very least.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 09:44 PM
Sorry. I don't subscribe to your theory that the ancient ways of arranged marriage are the norm, even if today it is. Most every nation is shedding it's misogynist views of marriage and evolving towards a western style of commitment-based marriage at the very least.

Yes, they are all evolving to be like us. After all, we're superior.

Yeah, I'm the racist. You know, I'm not picking on Howey here. A lot of people here have said things like this where the implicit assumption is that everyone should be like us. That's about as ethnocentric as it gets.

iustitia
11-18-2014, 09:45 PM
Sorry. I don't subscribe to your theory that the ancient ways of arranged marriage are the norm, even if today it is. Most every nation is shedding it's misogynist views of marriage and evolving towards a western style of commitment-based marriage at the very least.

And thus the progressive acknowledges a desire to tear civilization asunder in favor of his own bias.

iustitia
11-18-2014, 09:51 PM
Also

I don't [accept that] arranged marriage [is] the norm, even if today it is.
How incoherent can you be? It either is or isn't, and you "subscribing to it is not a factor in that reality. "I don't accept that it's raining, even if today it is."


Most every nation is shedding it's *misogynist* views of marriage and evolving towards a western style of **commitment-based** marriage at the very least.
*word you don't understand

**LOL are you kidding? The West? Do you really believe that?

Mister D
11-18-2014, 09:52 PM
yeah, right? Westerners are committed to their own happiness.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 09:53 PM
Sorry. I don't subscribe to your theory that the ancient ways of arranged marriage are the norm, even if today it is. Most every nation is shedding it's misogynist views of marriage and evolving towards a western style of commitment-based marriage at the very least.

They are the norm in the non-white, non-western world. I think you are taking this personally. I'm describing what is not what ought to be. Only you can define that one for yourself.

And I'm sorry but 1 out of 3 women in the world will be forced, yes, forced into marriage this year so I'm sorry if I don't want to throw a parade for the end of misogyny in the world just yet.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 09:55 PM
My only issue with polygamy is that it's not a western custom (this is a part of the world where women have always enjoyed a relatively higher status @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)) and that it is characteristic of extremely patriarchal cultures (e.g. Semites) which in turn reflects the lower status females have in those societies. That said, it's still marriage.

My problem with polygamy is that the older wives get put out to pasture and their kids end up raised by other women. It's disgraceful.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 09:56 PM
Wait did Howey just said "commitment based" marriages? In the west? Where the divorce rates are half?

Arranged marriages have a 4% divorce rate. That's committed...or jailed or tied in or whatever but it's fairly fucking committed fo sho.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 09:57 PM
My problem with polygamy is that the older wives get put out to pasture and their kids end up raised by other women. It's disgraceful.

To me, it denotes that women are a mere commodity. I admit that it's my cultural bias though.

iustitia
11-18-2014, 09:58 PM
Oh man, you can never get this kind of real talk out in public.

Howey
11-18-2014, 09:59 PM
And thus the progressive acknowledges a desire to tear civilization asunder in favor of his own bias.
More than half of Americans favor the constitutional right of gays to marry and that number is steadily increasing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Welcome to the 21st century.

Howey
11-18-2014, 10:00 PM
Wait did Howey just said "commitment based" marriages? In the west? Where the divorce rates are half?

Arranged marriages have a 4% divorce rate. That's committed...or jailed or tied in or whatever but it's fairly $#@!ing committed fo sho.
Hey. I didn't say how long the commitment lasts did I? :)

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:02 PM
To me, it denotes that women are a mere commodity. I admit that it's my cultural bias though.

Yes, women are commodities in this world. That's why I find the need for the term "marriage" to be applied to their relationship which is so obviously significant and love-based as strange.

Call me an amazon but the most romantic scene in all of Game of Thrones was when the wildling woman (see my avatar) tells Jon Snow, simply: I am yours and you are mine.

Is anything else necessary to confirm that?

Mister D
11-18-2014, 10:03 PM
Oh man, you can never get this kind of real talk out in public.

Or on any major network for that matter. Only a certain range of views are permissible.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:05 PM
I guess that's what I want to know. I'm not some anti-gay, shut them out of the good shit type like some. I just don't know why they'd want to call their significant love relationships "marriage".

Marriage is bride burning, stonings, under-age marriage, polygamy and ownership for a significant portion of the world's population.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:05 PM
Hey. I didn't say how long the commitment lasts did I? :)

:)

I hope yours lasts forever for the furry children's sake. Boxers need stability or they chew stuff.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 10:07 PM
Yes, women are commodities in this world. That's why I find the need for the term "marriage" to be applied to their relationship which is so obviously significant and love-based as strange.

Call me an amazon but the most romantic scene in all of Game of Thrones was when the wildling woman (see my avatar) tells Jon Snow, simply: I am yours and you are mine.

Is anything else necessary to confirm that?

It's hard for me to wrap my head around too.

iustitia
11-18-2014, 10:09 PM
More than half of Americans favor the constitutional right of gays to marry and that number is steadily increasing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Welcome to the 21st century.

Yet put to a vote the people vote for real marriage and activists use the courts to overrule them. That's the way of the progressive. Everything is for the people's own interests even if it's at the barrel of a gun. You'd get along well with Mac-7.

Also, but, how hypocritical are you? You people overturn marriage referendums "because minority rights" but you're pressuring me on my views because I'm supposedly not a part of this illiterate 59% of idiots that think gay marriage is in the Constitution? For people that pretend to care about minorities you're real good at group think and mob mentality. Give me a break.

Mister D
11-18-2014, 10:10 PM
I guess that's what I want to know. I'm not some anti-gay, shut them out of the good $#@! type like some. I just don't know why they'd want to call their significant love relationships "marriage".

Marriage is bride burning, stonings, under-age marriage, polygamy and ownership for a significant portion of the world's population.

This is why I sometimes wonder why western feminists waste their efforts talking about gender roles in films, for example. If this is your cause get serious about it, gals.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:10 PM
It's hard for me to wrap my head around too.

Why? You've never been so in love that you feel completely owned by another person (in a good way)? For a control freak like me, it takes a lot to get to that level of trust and feeling.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:12 PM
This is why I sometimes wonder why western feminists waste their efforts talking about gender roles in films, for example. If this is your cause get serious about it, gals.

Well, it was/is. I took on pro bono divorce cases here in the US because these women here have no protections since their marriage isn't legal. I donate to funds for education on female genital cutting (used to be called "mutilation" but USAID decided that sounded judgmental)

Captain Obvious
11-18-2014, 10:17 PM
Who names a black kid "Clarence"?

Besides the Clemons's?

Mister D
11-18-2014, 10:17 PM
Well, it was/is. I took on pro bono divorce cases here in the US because these women here have no protections since their marriage isn't legal. I donate to funds for education on female genital cutting (used to be called "mutilation" but USAID decided that sounded judgmental)

That was not aimed at you by any means! I had someone else in mind and she knows who she is. :smiley:

Good! That's serious. It seems to me that some feminists want to keep fighting battles they won 50 years ago.

Howey
11-18-2014, 10:23 PM
:)

I hope yours lasts forever for the furry children's sake. Boxers need stability or they chew stuff.

We've been together 14 years. Our love ain't going away.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 10:27 PM
We've been together 14 years. Our love ain't going away.

Nice. :)

decedent
11-18-2014, 10:55 PM
Call me an amazon but the most romantic scene in all of Game of Thrones was when the wildling woman (see my avatar) tells Jon Snow, simply: I am yours and you are mine.

Then she loaded his back with arrows. Typical wimminz libber.

Alyosha
11-18-2014, 11:04 PM
Then she loaded his back with arrows. Typical wimminz libber.


He left. You can shoot them with arrows if they leave after that.

http://rockpaperwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screen-shot-2014-06-11-at-4-24-46-pm.png?w=611&h=338


Love is the death of duty...

iustitia
11-19-2014, 12:09 AM
All this talk of love, commitment and shyness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jfU7pw76ZE