Page 99 of 133 FirstFirst ... 4989979899100101109 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 990 of 1330

Thread: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

  1. #981
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You did reject it but you didn't point out any hypocrisy.
    Focus on the gender component of traditional marriage and why it's been that way.
    Should be obvious.
    The hypocrisy is inherent in the way you try to use procreation as the justification for denying rights, but then apply it only selectively.

    Sure, you think your red herrings and appeals to tradition mean something, but they really don't. They are not based upon logic but mere convenience.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  2. #982
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    If the state can't show a case to make it illegal, sure. Yes, it is great, but then I know you are against freedom.
    Yeah, I am against freedom because I don't use the equal protection argument on every issue like liberals do. Guess I should

  3. #983
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yeah, I am against freedom because I don't use the equal protection argument on every issue like liberals do. Guess I should
    Awww are you upset because your strawman argument got shredded?

  4. #984
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,269
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Great, now I can go after marrying my cousin, my uncle, or my father in law. Isn't equal protection great?
    Not to pick on just your post, but it was like the lkast straw. The level of misinformation and failure to understand basic civics, basic logic, basic biology and so much else in this thread is astounding. That the post quoted here even exists is embarrassing. It is ignorant of any understanding of the legal issues involved and how constitutional law works.

    Conservative, there is a host of information on what equal protection is and isn't online. You might want to read some of it. I am, out of the kindness of my heart, going to help you out and show you why your argument fails legally(that it is also a logical fallacy is beside the point for purposes of this).

    Marriage in the US is a basic civil right. You may not like it, but it has been ruled to be one for many years, and in many cases. The only way you can change this is with a Supreme Court ruling(since they affirmed it as a right, multiple times), or by constitutional amendment(how successful have amendments that take rights away from people been?). Neither of these is at all likely to happen in the foreseeable future. In the absence of a Supreme Court ruling or amendment making marriage not a right, trying to claim it is anything but is silly.

    Now you are right, equal protection does apply to every one. Otherwise it would not be equal protection. But this leads to your ignorance. You do not understand what equal protection actually is. There are limits to all rights in this country. TO impose such a limit, there are various tests. In all the cases you mentioned, Rational Basis Review is that test. Basically, is limiting the right for that group of people serve a legitimate state interest, and is the distinction of that group arbitrary. In the case of family members, the answer to the first question is almost certainly yes, and the second no. There is a potentially good reason why allowing close relatives to marry might be a negative thing. Now, apply the same standard to same sex marriages. Is there a legitimate state interest in denying those marriages? None have been put forth so far. Quite the opposite, there are legitimate, compelling reasons to allow those marriages(2 parent stable households are best for raising children). Is the distincrion of the group arbitrary. This is a more interesting question and a case could be made either way, but probably yes. Based on the fact the state has no legitimate interest in denying those marriages, SSM bans, using the same legal standard(that is equal protection) fails, while bans on incestuous marriages don't.

    So now you understand how equal protection works, and also why arguments against SSM based on incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy or whatever other scenario you can image do not work. You will of course ignore everything I said here since none of it is what you want to hear, but sometimes it is good to point out how the law actually works, and not how random guy on the internets thinks it works.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #985
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Not to pick on just your post, but it was like the lkast straw. The level of misinformation and failure to understand basic civics, basic logic, basic biology and so much else in this thread is astounding. That the post quoted here even exists is embarrassing. It is ignorant of any understanding of the legal issues involved and how constitutional law works.

    Conservative, there is a host of information on what equal protection is and isn't online. You might want to read some of it. I am, out of the kindness of my heart, going to help you out and show you why your argument fails legally(that it is also a logical fallacy is beside the point for purposes of this).

    Marriage in the US is a basic civil right. You may not like it, but it has been ruled to be one for many years, and in many cases. The only way you can change this is with a Supreme Court ruling(since they affirmed it as a right, multiple times), or by constitutional amendment(how successful have amendments that take rights away from people been?). Neither of these is at all likely to happen in the foreseeable future. In the absence of a Supreme Court ruling or amendment making marriage not a right, trying to claim it is anything but is silly.

    Now you are right, equal protection does apply to every one. Otherwise it would not be equal protection. But this leads to your ignorance. You do not understand what equal protection actually is. There are limits to all rights in this country. TO impose such a limit, there are various tests. In all the cases you mentioned, Rational Basis Review is that test. Basically, is limiting the right for that group of people serve a legitimate state interest, and is the distinction of that group arbitrary. In the case of family members, the answer to the first question is almost certainly yes, and the second no. There is a potentially good reason why allowing close relatives to marry might be a negative thing. Now, apply the same standard to same sex marriages. Is there a legitimate state interest in denying those marriages? None have been put forth so far. Quite the opposite, there are legitimate, compelling reasons to allow those marriages(2 parent stable households are best for raising children). Is the distincrion of the group arbitrary. This is a more interesting question and a case could be made either way, but probably yes. Based on the fact the state has no legitimate interest in denying those marriages, SSM bans, using the same legal standard(that is equal protection) fails, while bans on incestuous marriages don't.

    So now you understand how equal protection works, and also why arguments against SSM based on incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy or whatever other scenario you can image do not work. You will of course ignore everything I said here since none of it is what you want to hear, but sometimes it is good to point out how the law actually works, and not how random guy on the internets thinks it works.
    The chances of him reading that in its entirety are about zero. Otherwise a nugget of knowledge might find its way into his head.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #986
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,269
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Not really ... procreation is germane in that over hundreds of thousands of years humans decided to formalize an arrangement between different genders in order to maintain the species.
    From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. It therefore is irrelevant in whether SSM should be legal or not.

    Given that, attempts to minimize that historical reality by equating inability to procreate because of physical limitations, with what nature never intended to be possible, seems like something I'd expect you wouldn't want to do.
    Nature is not a person, it does not "intend" anything, it just is. Since homosexual behavior exists in nature, homosexual behavior is part of nature. Evolution can neatly account for homosexuality, which means that as you used the word "intends", homosexuality would be "intended". There is no physical limitation in homosexuality. Gay people can physically do everything straight people can do.

    Damn, that was a whole lot of wrong packed into just one sentence. I wonder if it is a record, to be so wrong in such a short time. If so, congrats!

    Or maybe you ARE saying being gay is an abnormal human condition.

    Is that it?
    What definition of normal are you using? Without knowing that it is impossible to say whether being gay is normal or not. I would point out that if being gay is abnormal)and under many definitions it would be), so is having a genius IQ...
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #987
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Awww are you upset because your strawman argument got shredded?
    No, actually I have learned a lot from you, whatever I want that isn't allowed I can argue for it using equal protection. Now that I lost my wife I can claim that I should be able to marry my cousin, my uncle, my father in law. What a great tool.

    By the way, did you ever figure out what the SC ruled on DOMA?

  8. #988
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    The chances of him reading that in its entirety are about zero. Otherwise a nugget of knowledge might find its way into his head.

    the chances of me reading anything from Redress are about zero so you are right.

  9. #989
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What exactly does Marriage offer a couple that you cannot have in a Civil Union?
    Dude are you serious....the rights of marriage! Various government agencies from county to state to fed do not have to even acknowledge civil unions, much less treat them as equal. Better yet, YOU go call your relationship a civil union if you're so fond of that. YOU leave the state

  10. #990
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,247

    re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    The hypocrisy is inherent in the way you try to use procreation as the justification for denying rights, but then apply it only selectively.

    Sure, you think your red herrings and appeals to tradition mean something, but they really don't. They are not based upon logic but mere convenience

    ... and 200,000 years of human development.

Posting Permissions

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