Page 34 of 49 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #331
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Thank you for intelligent debate instead of attacking me for merely acting as the other side. My question is this, when is a right no longer right? I meant to word that the way I did too. For instance, you bring up NAMBLA. Their website exists primarily to give pedophiles a central location to find areas that are suitable for observing children. So, it is basically a one stop shop for pedophiles to find the closest local playground or park where children play so they can go look at them and conjure up their sick images of them. Any pedophile who has allowed his mind to wander will tell you that its only a matter of time before they act upon their fantasies. By allowing this website, yes we are protecting freedom of speech. However, when freedom of speech has the potential to cause harm to the portion of the population least capable of defending itself, I think its time to call common sense. Same with polygamists. Technically, they should have the right to practice it. Practically, polygamy doesn't work. It's been proven time and again to be a precursor to child abuse and violent crime. Why allow a primer to crime when we can stop it? I believe our Founders put the Constitution in place to keep men from distorting freedom and letting their self serving ways stop freedom. However, I also believe the Founders would say that common sense sometimes needs to over rule a piece of paper. We are human beings, we do make mistakes. We are also human beings who have been blessed with the ability to discern. We should use it in cases like these.
    Your reseponse makes me chuckle because its a line of thinking that many of those who try to use the slippery slope arguments about gay marriage...it'll lead to beastiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc...tend to hold. What they usually don't realize though is that while they seem to care about the slippery slope with gay marriage they are completely oblivious to the slippery slope in regards to what they're suggesting.

    Take for example limiting NAMBLA. Yes, in many ways the organization is a primer for potential illegal activity. However, having the potential for that and actually doing the illegal act is different. You speak of using "common sense". Here is the issue...there is no such thing as common sense. Such a concept is simply at best a broad collective understanding by a majority of the public. Protecting the individual against the mob mentality of the public was something the founders were absolutely interested in. Additionally, "Common sense" is an unmeasurable, verifiable, or standarized notion. What makes perfect common sense to you could seem backwards to another. Look in regards to most contentious fights...how many people think its "common sense" that we would have an effect on the environment while the other side suggest its "common sense" that we couldn't affect something so large. Think about those claiming that its "common sense" that if we disallow guns on the street that less people will be shot with guns. And on and on.

    Take the KKK. Lets say we disallow them to march because its "common sense" they're simply screaming hate speech. What you do is set a precedent for the government to deny freedom of speech due to what's viewed as "hate speech" by an individuals judge of what's "common sense". And yet how many times do we see arguments and back and forths about the "hate speech" of some people in the media for things they say that one side believes its "common sense" to relaize that the persons statements are racist or inciting violence?

    Unless you can fully trust the government, or at least substantially trust them, to act in a fair, unbiased, non-self serving, and in our best interested then vesting them the power to deny constitutional rights due to claims of "Common Sense" presents significant pitfalls and issues imho with regards to the expansion of governmental power.

    Now you could be here saying "But Zyphlin, you just argued AGAINST The slippery slope fallacy". Indeed I did, however not because I don't think the Slippery Slope fallacy is valid. It is a legitimate and worth while argument or insight so suggest that there is a potential, the degree of which varies per each topic, that if A happens it could lead to B which could lead to C. There's nothing wrong with that. However, the issue comes when one suggests that the slippery slope ALONE is worth while reason to not do something without any other significant supporting or abutting reasons. And even with those things, its a judgement call on each person whether or not the POTENTIAL for the slippery slope outweighs the benefit of the initial actoin.

    In my eyes, with regards to marriage, I view the worst case scenario. Lets say somehow, someway, all the extremely paranoid and unlikely cries of those who use the slippery slope argument actually came true. That we end up legally allowing people to **** their dogs, for children to be allowed to consent to sex, and that multiple people can get married. While I may not like any of those three things, issue one and three there has little true and honest affect on my individual freedsoms or life and has few ways that it actually could direclty affect it. The second one I'd have larger issue with, as there are definitely kids of a certain age that I feel should not be able to consent, but even there if I was being 100% honest I would suggest that in our society at times our age of consent laws are rather ridiculous and arbirtray as well. Not to a point that I feel we significantly need to work to change them, but not to a point where I'd have much of a fuss to a certain point. Still however, in such a case, the direct effect on me and my personal liberties is negligable. So all told, even if the most extreme of fears occur, its direct and noticable effect on my life and my liberty would be relatively small. It is not bestowing additional power unto the government but rather instill additional power into the people. Power I may not approve of, but it is at the least not expanding the governments control OVER us.

    Conversely, limiting speech or other constitutionally protected rights due to "common sense", when taken to the extreme, allows the government to forgo the constitutional rights for any reason that the party presently in power would deem as "Common Sense". Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly...the right to bear arms...all our rights protecting us from government search, seizure, and illegal enforcement of the law...could be wiped away if deemed "common sense". Take most of the controversial topics of today...Global Warming? Well its common sense that we need people to drive cars that don't emit as much of a carbon footprint so we need to outlaw SUV's. Internet Pirating? Well its common sense we can't have people pirating on the internet so we need to have the power to shut down websites whenever needed. By giving such a broad, generalized, and low floored requirement such as common sense you provide the government with precedent to trample constitutional rights. In the worst case, extreme scenario of this slippery slope my rights as an individual and the rights of society are significantly infringed upon. Our freedoms are reduced and my life is more likely directly affected.

    Additionally, we have one slippery slope has a historical trend of occuring in a rather steady and substantial motion. The government has been steadily expanding, finding loopholes and exploits regarding how to function within hte constitution, and seeking to gain more and more control over individuals for decades if not centuries. They have shown time and time again that as you allow the government to do more that they will take that and build upon it (From a Democratic side, look at entitlements from the days of FDR to now. For a Republican side, look at survelliance from the days of the TITLE 3 in the 1968 Crime & Safe Streets Act to PATRIOT). On the flip side, its been over 50 years since the last major change to marriage occured on a national level. Fifty years and we've still yet to see the next shift ACTUALLY occur. To assume that it'd take over half a century to go from Interracial to Same Sex, but that we'd go Same Sex to ****ing animals in short order is basically stating baseless fear. Not to mention, as fearful as they likely were of gays as many may've been in 1967, even then I would imagine there was a larger stigma upon those trying to screw a 7 year old or those trying to have sex with a horse then simply on gay people (indeed, there's a reason why those things are applied stereotypically to gays by some people...specifically to make them seem WORSE, because those things are viewed more negatively than homosexuality itself). With even greater public disdain than homosexuals have, its more reasonable to suggest it would take even longer for the next step of the slippery slope to occur...IF it was going to occur...then it has taken to reach the point of Same Sex Marriage.

    So considering the slippery slope's effect on myself and my personal liberties, the powers it would or wouldn't give the government, and the historical and social liklihood of said slippery slope coming to pass, the "Same sex marrige" version of it doesn't pass muster with me. However, giving the ability of government to limit constitutional rights due to "common sense" absolutely does.

    While I understand the desire and the want to do such...trust me, I do...ultimately a broader view must be taken. The easy way out is to attempt to simply give the government more power and say "please, deal with these undesirables so I don't have to think about them anymore". However, that kind of notion is present throughout the world and there are many places you could go to live under such an idea. To me, what makes America special and different...and what it needs to hold onto...is that just because it may be easier to have the government do that it instead puts the responsability and power upon the individual to deal with it in some legal way, even if that way is simply ignoring it, so as to preserve the ability of that same individual to act freely and on his own accord in other aspects of his life as well.

  2. #332
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But this is not the only place in the country such laws have failed. See Iowa. Look around, court after court is throwing down bans. Doesn't amtter though, sooner or later, like it or not, gay marriage will be accepted. Fighting is merely pissing in the wind. not a good idea.

    It isn't over in Iowa..........The activist judges who voted for Gay marriage have been voted out of office and the issue will be decided by the people
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #333
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    NP, I've explained this to you several times over the years. Polygamy does NOT reap the same benefits as gay marriage does... which are the same that traditional marriage does. Therefore, the government has no reason to sanction it.
    So discriminate against them huh. They deserve the same rights that gays have........at least they are a man and a woman
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  4. #334
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    It isn't over in Iowa..........The activist judges who voted for Gay marriage have been voted out of office and the issue will be decided by the people
    Irrelevant. Gay marriage will be the norm in the land in a few years whether it is done by the court or by the people. The tide is changing rapidly...as the older bigots are dying off
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #335
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Which is EXACTLY why gay marriage should be legal. Thank you for proving my position.
    Sorry CC two men can not raise a child as good as a mother and father. a mother has a roll and no matter hoew a gay man pretends to be a wife or mother it just is not the same as having a real mother.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #336
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Sorry CC two men can not raise a child as good as a mother and father. a mother has a roll and no matter hoew a gay man pretends to be a wife or mother it just is not the same as having a real mother.
    How does a single father or a single mother raise a child Navy? They do it all the time...and they do it quite well.

    It doesn't take a penis or a vagina to raise a child. It takes love and understanding.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #337
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    So what? The only people I've seen have a problem with polygamy are the people who are also against gay marriage. People also tried to use the slippery slope argument concerning interracial marriage too. DADT was also repealed and the world has yet to come to an end. Time and time again society tries to progress and the naysayers try to hold it up by using fear propaganda acting like the sky will fall if things change. Eventually things do change and everything ends up being okay. Why would this be any different?

    We shall see...Get a Conservative Prez an Senate and DADT will be reinstated.....
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  8. #338
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    We shall see...Get a Conservative Prez an Senate and DADT will be reinstated.....
    LOL....DADT and bigotry in the military is dead in the water. Now that people have seen that the whole "gays in the showers" scare was just propoganda/scharade....there is no way that America is going to move backwards.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #339
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    LOL....DADT and bigotry in the military is dead in the water. Now that people have seen that the whole "gays in the showers" scare was just propoganda/scharade....there is no way that America is going to move backwards.
    Being never aboard a Navy ship you have no clue about what is happening... That said DADT will be reinstated if the Republicans gwet control of the seante and presidency.........The house has already voted for that.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  10. #340
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Being never aboard a Navy ship you have no clue about what is happening... That said DADT will be reinstated if the Republicans gwet control of the seante and presidency.........The house has already voted for that.
    The house has already voted for what?

Page 34 of 49 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •