Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 161

Thread: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

  1. #81
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Yes it is about gender because it prevents 2 people of the same gender from entering into a particular contract.

    A straight couple doesnt have to be in love or attracted to marry, neither does a gay couple.

    It's not about the straight couple's orientation either legally (in the context of your statement).
    No, it's solely about sexual orientation. But you would know this if you had been following the SCOTUS decisions. Both men and women have equal access to marriage. Unless you have another gender up your sleeve there.

  2. #82
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    It is in some states.
    And there you finally arrive at the point. It's a state issue, that should be decided by the individual states.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    As it turns out, if you don't like seeing gay people being gay in public, that's your problem, not society's problem.

    Seriously?

    I could call a chick right now and start making out with her right in front of the gas station across the street, and the cops would be called in 2 seconds.

    Of course with gays - that would be discrimination.... Then again I'm an adult and I have no desire whatsoever to even try such a social experiment, however when I was a kid and being the lil pimp I was I was ALWAYS told to knock it off in public - in what universe do gays get special treatment? because some people are scared of being called bigots?

    Do we allow anarchy out of fear of being labeled allegedly negatively? of course, considering my views of government and the progressives who love to give me shame.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post


    Let's start with the easy one. By the time this is all done, it's quite likely that sexual orientation will be a protected class.

    Perhaps, but what should it be protected against, and why should it be?


    Second, SSM bans have thus far been struck down on the basis that they don't even meet the rational basis test, so it doesn't even have to be a protected class.

    Ah, but this is the crux isn't it. By definition, a legislative body forming laws that restrict, or limit actions are rational on their face. To claim otherwise is utter nonsense. The burden then shifts to show why it is irrational. The SSM lawyers argue that this irrationality is based on gender discrimination, being essentially, that men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. This shifts the burden to the legislation to show why, insodoing, society benefits as a result. This is where we are; as of thus far no brilliant lawyers in defense of traditional marriage have been able to show why one form of marriage is superior, and naturally conducive as the proper form in which societies must embrace, to the exclusion of all others. I put-forth, as I have many time before that heterosexual marriage IS indeed superior when one clears away the muddy waters that have purposefully made this issue more complex than it has to be.

    Consider that sexual orientation for all of its many definitions really comes down to one's attraction to another person for the goal of sexual gratification. Sure, there's romance, desire, and these things are dictated by physiologic and sociologic responses, but at the heart, we define our sexual orientation by who we want to bang. Now, as individuals we are selfish sexual creatures, and we choose rather carefully (At least we think we do and that's all that matters) our sexual partners, but we remain selfish in that we are committed to our own sexual gratification. Ideally, both individuals engaged in sexual behavior having the same goal reach the same sexual gratification together. Some argue (Quite unconvincingly I might add) that these acts of sexual behavior are exclusive to sexual orientation, meaning, that they are not one in the same, that sexual orientation is a state of mind, and I will concede that notion, however, I also point out that any state of mind is merely a state in any given moment where one is guided by an emotion or stimulus that directs one's energy into accomplishing a goal. In this context, sexual orientation at any given moment, is governed by the sexual thought behavior we envision when we think about what it is, that at that particular moment, moves us into a position where we can successfully engage in sexual copulation. When we're not thinking about sex, our emotions are no different physiologically, and or sociologically than what we experience when in the company of non-sexual friends.

    Breaking it all down, no matter what sexual orientation you are, your sexual orientation is predicated on the SEX you are hoping to engage in, when in perfect company. All other definitions are rejected logically for they, if not adding to the goal of sexual copulation are immaterial to the truthfulness of the defining characteristics. I am yet to hear a compelling argument that refutes this sentiment.

    Therefore, all sexual orientations are by definition ultimately about sexual activity, or behavior. Gender, by extension, is merely the sex of the individual by which you wish to sexually copulate. Heterosexuals sexually copulate with those of the opposite gender, homosexuals, with those of the same gender, bi-sexuals copulate with both sexes. Some argue that marriage isn’t about children, and that some marriages by choice or by-design do not produce children, but these are exceptions, and rare one’s at that, and no matter how the liberal mentality wishes the extreme exception to the rule should vastly impact the general rule, it matters little to most of us that have common sense.

    So the question is, does any legislative body meet the rational basis test concerning whether it has the authority to hold one form of coupling over another? The answer is yes, if one considers that it is not radical to hold the viewpoint that a coupling by two opposite gendered individuals is superior to one that is same-gendered. It is equally rational for a society to recognize that parenting, fatherhood and motherhood are not merely who produces and egg, and who provides the sperm. I know the anti-SSM folks have allowed the liberals to carry and frame the debate this way, but any thinking person would naturally reject this line of thinking, especially those of us who are parents that equally identify with our biologically consistent children. Rather, parenting, fatherhood and motherhood are not intangibles, or immaterial to marriages that produce children. They are essential to them. Our mixing of DNA is not complete at conception, our roles are not done, our imprints are not complete until we have shared not only our DNA, but our life’s experiences, our knowledge, our uniqueness that the offspring intrinsically and relates to as his or her own, in such a way that only a child born of two biological parents can offer.

    Because what I have just claimed is difficult to articulate, and even harder to justify, since every parent child relationship IS so unique and enduring, we fall for the trap that, in all its complexity, we miss the forest for the trees. A homosexual marriage cannot intrinsically produce a child together, that much is true, and although they can in alternatives methods, the exception should not justify altering the rule. In this case the law.

    Even if as some say children don’t matter, then the question becomes, well then what does matter to society, and why should we care about marriage or regulating it, or anything at all? Why not let God or YOUR higher power handle it? The answer is that it really is about the children, and THAT is the ONLY tangible reason for any interference or preference society and governments should have concerning marriage. If we’re judging by what one form of marriage can produce, and that happens to be why we’re in the marriage business at all, then I submit for review that heterosexual marriage IS indeed superior to homosexual marriage in almost every conceivable way, and as such, it is most certainly rational for a legislative body to comfortably conclude that it hold one with higher regard for the posterity of a nation, and the survival of the species.

    Again, I will reject any argument that tries to highlight the exception as somehow justified in altering the rule, or dismissing that, because of the exception, somehow a legislative body cannot quite comfortably, and rationally make a law limiting marriage to a singular form to the exclusion of all others. That is not to say that other forms of unions cannot be accommodated, but the stature of marriage belongs to those that offer society the path of least resistance.

    I wouldn’t pay you a nickel for your explanation on Due Process, to all the other stuff you posted, blah..


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #85
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Seriously?

    I could call a chick right now and start making out with her right in front of the gas station across the street, and the cops would be called in 2 seconds.

    Of course with gays - that would be discrimination.... Then again I'm an adult and I have no desire whatsoever to even try such a social experiment, however when I was a kid and being the lil pimp I was I was ALWAYS told to knock it off in public - in what universe do gays get special treatment? because some people are scared of being called bigots?

    Do we allow anarchy out of fear of being labeled allegedly negatively? of course, considering my views of government and the progressives who love to give me shame.
    LMAO!!!
    thats funny.

    I see couples PERIOD make out all the time.
    Fantasy is fun
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #86
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I could call a chick right now and start making out with her right in front of the gas station across the street, and the cops would be called in 2 seconds.
    I really doubt that. For several reasons.

    Of course with gays - that would be discrimination.... Then again I'm an adult and I have no desire whatsoever to even try such a social experiment, however when I was a kid and being the lil pimp I was I was ALWAYS told to knock it off in public - in what universe do gays get special treatment? because some people are scared of being called bigots?

    Do we allow anarchy out of fear of being labeled allegedly negatively? of course, considering my views of government and the progressives who love to give me shame.
    No one is talking about special treatment, just the same treatment that heterosexuals get. And it's kind of sad that you're more scared of being called a bigot than of actually being a bigot. And that you think not discriminating against people is akin to anarchy. But here's the thing. Your views don't matter. Not unless you have evidence and a compelling argument to back them up. And you never do. You never get past "I don't like it". You will never make any kind of difference so long as you keep doing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Perhaps, but what should it be protected against, and why should it be?
    Against unjust discrimination. Which is what we're doing, because as a society, we consider unjust discrimination to be wrong.

    Ah, but this is the crux isn't it. By definition, a legislative body forming laws that restrict, or limit actions are rational on their face. To claim otherwise is utter nonsense. The burden then shifts to show why it is irrational. The SSM lawyers argue that this irrationality is based on gender discrimination, being essentially, that men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. This shifts the burden to the legislation to show why, insodoing, society benefits as a result. This is where we are; as of thus far no brilliant lawyers in defense of traditional marriage have been able to show why one form of marriage is superior, and naturally conducive as the proper form in which societies must embrace, to the exclusion of all others. I put-forth, as I have many time before that heterosexual marriage IS indeed superior when one clears away the muddy waters that have purposefully made this issue more complex than it has to be.
    Okay, a lot of this is just straight up nonsense, but let's start with the most important one. The mere fact that a legislative body passes a law does NOT make it constitutional, nor ensure that it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. That's why we have constitutional tests in the first place. So, I ask you, what legitimate purpose is the government trying to further by prohibiting SSM, and how does the prohibition further that interest? Otherwise, all you have is the "gays can't have babies" argument, which doesn't matter. Married couples have no obligation to physically reproduce, and couples that choose not to have children or to only adopt children are perfectly legitimate.

    Quote truncated for space.
    Last edited by Paschendale; 08-07-14 at 06:37 PM.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #87
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    There are different ways that we support other people. And only marriage recognizes that spouses share their assets, expenses, and most of what they own, along with much more. This is why they have a choice unlike others. It isn't even guaranteed that filing married (either way) will benefit a couple nor that it will be a burden on the tax system. In fact, until recently, many couples together paid more being married than they did being two single people. This is still true for some married couples.

    What part of the "other characteristics" doesn't work? There is still legal, constitutional ways to restrict marriage based on those "other characteristics" so long as the government can meet the very low bar of showing that those restrictions further a legitimate state interest. This is why we allow restrictions based on mental capacity, age, number of spouses, location/residence, and close relations. However, we have also struck down restrictions that could not be shown to further a legitimate state interest, including restrictions based on owing child support or being incarcerated (with a chance of eventually being released). There will not be enough licenses for marriages because people cannot always live in a certain state. We are a single country, not a collection of small countries. States must abide by the US Constitution, including not treating people unequally under the law. (BTW, same sex marriage restrictions don't fall under the "other characteristics" category, it would fall under the "sex" category, since that is what the restriction is based off of, sex/gender of those wishing to enter into the marriage.)
    The other characteristics dodge doesn't work even in the unconstitutional and wonky system of protected classes the SCOTUS ginned up. "Other characteristics" isn't one of the protected classes, the classes the SCOTUS is willing to rewrite the constitution for. Neither is sexual orientation as much as you may like it to be. Gender is, but you can't get to where you want on that horse.

    It's a state licensing issue and it only has to comport with the state's constitution.

  8. #88
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    My bet if SCOTUS rules at all it will be by 2016 and then equal rights will be national.IM so happy and proud to actually witness this wrong be righted.
    I laugh so hard at the "activist and corrupt judges nonsense" its complete BS that nobody buys. A desperate attempt to try and rally the weak, bigoted and or oppressors.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And there you finally arrive at the point. It's a state issue, that should be decided by the individual states.

    Presently it is a Tenth Amendment issue - I just don't like the idea of government getting involved in others personal business - and who one screws or loves is their own business not the governments...

    The interesting part is that many states have never banned gay marriage, and to add insult to injury there is nothing stopping anyone from engaging in a civil contract (which is what marriage is), hence the "gay marriage" argument is completely moot. Gay's just want "government endorsement/acceptance" as if that will somehow change peoples minds on the issue.

  10. #90
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: 4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Men can't marry men, is equally limiting as women cannot marry women. Their gender is the limiting criterion, but, they are both equally limited based on this criteria. Now, if men could marry both men and women, and women could only marry men, then you would have an equal protection violation, but that is not the case.
    This same logic was applied to interracial marriage bans. Everyone had equal rights to marry someone of the same race. The logic was rejected, because that's not how the equal protection clause works. Race and gender are protected classifications. Any distinction, whether or not "equally applied," must demonstrate this interest. Anti-equality folks have failed to demonstrate this "important state interest."
    Homosexuals, and now polygamists are saying that the limitations, although equally limiting both genders are unfair when one of these genders prefers that of the same gender in marriage. That is a new right, one that does not exist, and the states, and their legislative bodies have full power to decide. In sum; the courts would be making law, and have been re-writing law in order to acquiesce to the homosexual crowd. What the USSC should rule, is that it has no power to write new laws, or create rights where none exist, and should strike down all previous rulings on legislative limitations on marriage and refer them back to the respective legislative branches.
    Gender as a protected classification is not new.
    Polygamy is not a distinction of race or gender, so polygamy bans likely don't fall under intermediate or strict constitutional scrutiny. The lowest tier scrutiny would then apply, polygamy bans must only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. I'd ponder that interest, if I cared to. But I don't, because other peoples' marriages really aren't my business. If six men and nine women want to be in a giant marriage, what the hell does that have to do with me?

    THAT is how it should be ruled, IMO.

    Tim-
    Well, it's not correct legal reasoning, and that's why not one single court since Windsor has ruled as such.

    I'd ask a more general philosophical question:
    Why should your moral disapproval be reason alone to restrict my individual liberty?
    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.

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •