Page 86 of 89 FirstFirst ... 36768485868788 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 860 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #851
    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: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You realize the prop 8 judge is not a direct and useful mirror of what you're going to see on the Supreme Court? Yes? You also note that the Prop 8 judge decided, seemingly somewhat on his own, to take it in a direction the arguments didn't actually go in...in regards to gender...while even suggesting that there may be a legitimate case in regards to a rational basis argument against it for homosexual marriage based simply on the "appearance" of facts being one way even if they're not REALLY going that direction (I admit, I may be mixing it up with another gay marriage case but I don't think I am).

    Prop 8's ruling doesn't in any way make me think its a slam dunk case as it reaches the SCOTUS level, it reenforces my thought that this thing could quite easily go either way. Could it be difficult going? Absolutely. But I think at worst its a 70/30 type of deal either direction. While I'm sure there are some conservative scholars that have stated it's a losing battle, there's also many who think the opposite and its not uncommon in any form of acadamia or constitutional law circle (or even political circles) to find individuals who enjoy being contrarian. Pointing to handful of scholars saying one thing while ignoring all others...again...to me is cherry picking in hopes of defending your attitude of bravado in regards to how unquestionably open and shut this seems to you.
    I'm not talking about the judicial decision for the holding but rather, I'm talking about the arguments which were raised by the proponents of prop 8. They were grasping for "legitimate state interests" and could not articulate the rational relation. Those arguments aren't going to change much if this makes it to the Supreme Court.

    Even as conservative as the US Supreme Court has become, I would not be surprized in a lopsided decision based on how weak the proponents case was argued, unless they get substantially better.
    <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>

  2. #852
    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: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    The interest is in rewarding procreation while not rewarding promiscuity.

    proof that the interest are actually being met is not required.

    How the courts will rule is an obvious crap shoot, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume it will go in your favor anytime soon.

    [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]
    How is banning gay marriage rationally related to "not rewarding promiscuity"?

    Are you arguing that banning gay marriage will make straight people all of a sudden monogamous?
    <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>

  3. #853
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    How is banning gay marriage rationally related to "not rewarding promiscuity"?
    You asked if procreation is all we are after, why we even care about marriage. The answer is because they also want to prevent encouraging promiscuity.

    Are you arguing that banning gay marriage will make straight people all of a sudden monogamous?
    No. you really are have difficulty understanding what you read.

  4. #854
    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: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    You asked if procreation is all we are after, why we even care about marriage. The answer is because they also want to prevent encouraging promiscuity.



    No. you really are have difficulty understanding what you read.
    Sorry....but that's would have to be a logical step in order for your argument not to fail.

    How does "gay marriage" encourage promiscuity? If anything, it would seem to DISCOURAGE it.

    Again....how does "banning gay marriage" rationally relate to discouraging promiscuity? Straight people/gay people are going to continue to be "promiscuous" as long as sexuality exists. Gay marriage does nothing to encourage it and banning it does nothing to prevent or discourage it.
    <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. #855
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Sorry....but that's would have to be a logical step in order for your argument not to fail.

    How does "gay marriage" encourage promiscuity? If anything, it would seem to DISCOURAGE it.
    Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

    Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.

  6. #856
    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: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

    Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
    Wow....that is certainly backwards reasoning and trying to prove a negative. Its a good thing that the Courts have never engaged in that type of legal gymnastics. First off, marriage, straight or gay, does nothing to "encourage procreation". One could argue that marriage is designed to offer rewards for people who choose to be monogamous and avoid promiscuity, but that same rational would apply to gay marrage as well as straight marriage. Your argument fails horribly because you cannot defend not only HOW the stability of a straight relationship is a legitimate state interest but the stability of a gay relationship is not, but also how denying gay marriage effects the stability of straight relationships, which whether you like it or not, you would have to be able to do in order to pass Constitutional muster. Take a look at the states where gay marriage is or has been allowed. You will see NO/ZERO decline in the stability of straight marriages. So ....once again.....a big FAIL to your argument. Sorry.
    <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. #857
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

    Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
    Perhaps....lessening the human population might be something of a good idea, considering resources and population, but that is another matter. At issue here it seems, is more the rights we all carry to be happy and free, and less the institution called marriage, which I might point out does not currenty have a very good record of success.

  8. #858
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Wow....that is certainly backwards reasoning and trying to prove a negative. Its a good thing that the Courts have never engaged in that type of legal gymnastics. First off, marriage, straight or gay, does nothing to "encourage procreation". One could argue that marriage is designed to offer rewards for people who choose to be monogamous and avoid promiscuity, but that same rational would apply to gay marrage as well as straight marriage. Your argument fails horribly because you cannot defend not only HOW the stability of a straight relationship is a legitimate state interest but the stability of a gay relationship is not, but also how denying gay marriage effects the stability of straight relationships, which whether you like it or not, you would have to be able to do in order to pass Constitutional muster. Take a look at the states where gay marriage is or has been allowed. You will see NO/ZERO decline in the stability of straight marriages. So ....once again.....a big FAIL to your argument. Sorry.
    Gay marriage may improve monogamy, but has zero to do with procreation. The mental gymnastics is you trying to tie one in with the other.

    And I pointed out from the very beginning that no proof that the interests are being met is required.

    As for your views on what marriage promotes, millions disagree

  9. #859
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Perhaps....lessening the human population might be something of a good idea, considering resources and population, but that is another matter. At issue here it seems, is more the rights we all carry to be happy and free, and less the institution called marriage, which I might point out does not currenty have a very good record of success.
    Our debt alone dictates that our interests are to grow the population, not to mention how programs like SS require that we grow in size

  10. #860
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    Our debt alone dictates that our interests are to grow the population, not to mention how programs like SS require that we grow in size
    Easy enough to grow the population: increase legal immigration limits.

    In any case, gay marriage should have zero effect on population. Or do you think that gays who can't marry are suddenly going to turn straight and start procreating with the opposite sex?

Page 86 of 89 FirstFirst ... 36768485868788 ... 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
  •