Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Hauldren Collider]

I'll raise you.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]173759[/ATTACH]

You *******. What movie is this from? You can't just post that and not say.

[Hauldren Collider]

jonmiller

[self biased]

that's neve campbell and denise richards in "wild things."

[Hauldren Collider]

I've used my thanks for today, but you'll have it when it comes back

[DinoDoc]

that's neve campbell and denise richards in "wild things."

His request made me feel old.

[Hauldren Collider]

I was 6 in 1998. A little young for that kind of movie.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I was 6 in 1998. A little young for that kind of movie.

Now that makes me feel old.

[Hauldren Collider]

Now that makes me feel old.

What's scary is that there are things that make me feel old. This summer a kid found something in my classroom when I was teaching. It was a little black plastic cylinder with a grey rubber cap. He asked me what it was. I recognized it, but it took me a moment to realize what it was. I said, "That's a film canister!" And he's like, "what's film?"



To make it worse, when I explained what film was, ("You put it in older cameras and it records images") he said, "Oh, so it's like a memory card?"

[Sava]

kids these days

[regexcellent]

What's scary is that there are things that make me feel old. This summer a kid found something in my classroom when I was teaching. It was a little black plastic cylinder with a grey rubber cap. He asked me what it was. I recognized it, but it took me a moment to realize what it was. I said, "That's a film canister!" And he's like, "what's film?"



To make it worse, when I explained what film was, ("You put it in older cameras and it records images") he said, "Oh, so it's like a memory card?"

Kodak

[MichaeltheGreat]

Kodak

RIP , though I used Fujifilm for my color sheet film and Agfa for my B&W sheet film in my view cameras.

[regexcellent]

Support Rochester, buy Kodak

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no "stirring rebuttal" to hatred and bigotry. God didn't fill your heart with love.

Is it bigotry to argue that all have sinned and fallen short of the law? Is it hatred to tell people that everyone must repent of their sins, large and small as they may be?

You are just a sad, evil little man.

Indeed. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

[Ben Kenobi]

Recording of a marriage certificate requires a witness - again, because the specific rights, title and interests conferred on the parties directly, affect third parties indirectly.

Sans witness - the specific rights associated with a civil marriage do not accrue. Again, for the same exact reason as previous - the state has a public interest to maintain accurate records as to whom is or is not married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Once again, you misstate. Ignorance or a lie? I haven't stated they should be allowed. I have stated there's no reason they should be prohibited

Fair enough. However, the argument isn't sufficient. "there is no reason why they should be prohibited", cannot establish a positive right to state benefits and recognition.

Is there a rationale for marriage to be recognized as one man and one woman? Yes - for the purposes of child rearing and procreation this is the most stable environment to get and beget children. All the other arrangements are less likely to be stable and less likely to produce the outcome the state desires. Does gay marriage satisfy this bar? No. Ergo - whereas on can state that gay relationships should not be prohibited (which is already protected by the constitution which provides for freedom of association), on cannot get from here to gay marriage and recognition by the state. It is insufficient to state that the recognition would make some people happy, because obviously - distribution of benefits to anyone would accomplish this. It doesn't establish how the specific distribution to only gay couples in marriage would accomplish anything more than distribution to everyone, married or no. The same is not true for marriage between a man and a women - because of the specific benefits which society in general accrues.

IF you first develop a framework for handling all the related property, custody, visitation, survivorship, etc. issues.

There is already a framework for these things. It's called marriage. If you want the framework - then do what is required for it. If you do not want it enough - then continue charting the current course.

You're not advancing a sincere or genuine argument in any case.

Dismissing my argument as 'insincere' accomplishes precisely zero in advancing your own case or in rebutting the points I have raised.

Your argument is nothing more than a "if we don't stop the evil God-mocking ******s, then next thing you know, there will be polygamy and marriage to animals and kids and the sky is falling and the day of judgment is at hand" slippery slope.

And I have established this is in fact the case because gay marriage proponents here have failed to demonstrate why these restrictions regarding polygamy should be retained. They have actually supported the slippery slope by arguing that they sincerely believe it will the consequence. So rather than rebutting this argument, they have in fact confirmed that it is the natural consequence of their previous argument.

It's a separate thing entirely from the present issue, which is binary marriage of unrelated consenting adults.

No, it's not. The argument is that by attacking certain restrictions you open the door to removing other restrictions - which has been confirmed.

Benefits of civil marriage are distinct from the parties to that marriage.

Who's going to enforce 'civil' marriage if one believes that the state should have no involvement in it?

As I said earlier you believe you can keep all these provisions of civil marriage while at the same time take other stuff out. It doesn't work that way. If you are arguing against enforcement - then all the rest of it will go to. The result will be lack of protection for those who are married to enforce their rights on the other partner in divorce, and in the extension of these rights to others which will, and has already been enforced in certain cases.

Nope, parties != benefits.

What motivation is there to enforce these rules?