Page 46 of 54 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 539

Thread: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

  1. #451
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And they cannot legitimately say that because marriage, in the way it functions, is gender neutral. You cannot show any laws concerning how marriage works, including the rights, responsibilities, or laws pertaining to the end of a marriage, that are gender dependent. [/url]
    I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

    Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


    Lawriter - ORC

    Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
    3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
    (A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #452
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

    Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


    Lawriter - ORC

    Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
    3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
    (A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
    Oh look, more gender-based distinctions you are supporting.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #453
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    racial boogie man land
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,798

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Yeah...Wells was a radical, not a liberal and not a progressive. He favored revolutionary change of society.
    I can understand why Progressives would want to distance themselves. But the fact is, he was on the bleeding edge of Progressive-ism.

  4. #454
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

    Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


    Lawriter - ORC

    Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
    3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
    (A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
    Because this is circular logic. You cannot use a restriction on the law that is being specifically challenged to claim that the laws of marriage itself are not gender neutral. It is circular logic.

    The laws in how marriage itself, as a contract, not a license, functions, are gender neutral. You do not have to be of a specific gender to fulfill the responsibilities that come with being another person's spouse.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #455
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    If these laws coud be written so plainly that everyone would understand very nuance, there'd be no need for the courts to answer questions on them. You need to expand your reading.
    the constitution is a very easy read, i am sorry, you cannot understand it but if you continue to make attempts at trying to understand it, i am very you you will master it in time, i bid ......good luck to you.

  6. #456
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And they cannot legitimately say that because marriage, in the way it functions, is gender neutral. You cannot show any laws concerning how marriage works, including the rights, responsibilities, or laws pertaining to the end of a marriage, that are gender dependent. Not legally sound laws. Because in this country, the sexes are supposed to be treated equally unless such unequal treatment can be shown to further a state interest. You can't say that marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it is between a man and a woman. That is circular logic. You must show why it must be between a man and a woman in accordance with the laws of marriage that deal with its operations/function.

    Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    Equal Protection Clause legal definition of Equal Protection Clause. Equal Protection Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


    first lets get things in order, i myself an not trying to deny anyone, i am asking .........how does the states interest get furthered, or progress, as i understand you, by trying to keep the staus quo they currently have.

    what do states hope to gain, further, progress, get our of it by denying SSM, ......the ball is in there court already,...they dont want to lose the ball.....how do further there interest by losing the ball.

    in different context..how does a state have to prove a positive for them by denying SSM, when the law is currently on their side...........i see it has they have to claim, by allowing SSM it is a NEGATIVE for them, and thats why a ban on it.
    Last edited by Master PO; 07-02-13 at 05:31 PM.

  7. #457
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because this is circular logic. You cannot use a restriction on the law that is being specifically challenged to claim that the laws of marriage itself are not gender neutral. It is circular logic.

    The laws in how marriage itself, as a contract, not a license, functions, are gender neutral. You do not have to be of a specific gender to fulfill the responsibilities that come with being another person's spouse.
    You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it will become more and more true the more you say it. Marriage, as it is defined in 37 states has a requirement of one man and one woman. For the most part, it treats them equally but to say that it is gender-neutral is to imply that gender is irrelevant and since one of each gender is required, gender is absolutely relevant and most actually have references to male AND female.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #458
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    first lets get things in order, i myself an not trying to deny anyone, i am asking .........how does the states interest get furthered, or progress, as i understand you, by trying to keep the staus quo they currently have.

    what do states hope to gain, further, progress, get our of it by denying SSM, ......the ball is in there court already,...they dont want to lose the ball.....how do further there interest by losing the ball.

    in different context..how does a state have to prove a positive for them by denying SSM, when the law is currently on their side...........i see it has they have to claim, by allowing SSM it is a NEGATIVE for them, and thats why a ban on it.
    The law of the land, the Constitution is on the side of same sex marriage. The Equal Protection Clause says that once a law is challenged, the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.

    For example, if someone says their religious beliefs require them to kill a person who has lied to them. The state can deny them their practice of that belief by showing that it is in the state's interest to not allow religious beliefs to be used to kill people over something as petty as lying. The state can show an important state interest (not allowing citizens to take justice into their own hands by killing other citizens for something such as lying) is being furthered by this restriction on a person's right to practice their religion.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #459
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it will become more and more true the more you say it. Marriage, as it is defined in 37 states has a requirement of one man and one woman. For the most part, it treats them equally but to say that it is gender-neutral is to imply that gender is irrelevant and since one of each gender is required, gender is absolutely relevant and most actually have references to male AND female.
    In response to you continuing to repeat over and over again that a restriction on marriage is the definition of marriage itself. It isn't. The restriction is what is being challenged. You cannot use the restriction itself to show how a legitimate state interest is being furthered by the restriction. That is circular logic and not a viable legal argument.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #460
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    In response to you continuing to repeat over and over again that a restriction on marriage is the definition of marriage itself. It isn't. The restriction is what is being challenged. You cannot use the restriction itself to show how a legitimate state interest is being furthered by the restriction. That is circular logic and not a viable legal argument.
    Webbed feet, wide bill, goes quack... those aren't restrictions. They're the definition of duck. If you don't have that, it's not because you got restricted from being a duck. It's that you're NOT a duck by your very nature.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Page 46 of 54 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... 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
  •