Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #381
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,963

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You mean you can't envision any examples without my help?
    It's not incumbant upon me to create your argument for you.

    I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not
    When you have repeatedly failed to actually engage in any kind of conversation or offe rany rational thought against what I've been saying, it's rather laughable that you want to get uppity over me not answering a non-sensical question that you posed.

    "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
    No, a systme of law bulit on personal freedom is not singularly built upon a "slippery slope" argument. If it was, we would have no laws on the books because it'd potentially lead to more laws that would remove personal freedom. If our foundational system of law was built SINGULARLY on slippery slope arguments...as your apparent counter is since you've given NO attempt to provide anything beyond the slippery slope...there would be no laws against libel/slander. There'd be no laws about public decency. There'd be no laws about fraud. There would be no laws regarding self defense. And it would go on and on, because ALL of those kind of laws could be argued against from a "slippery slope" notion that they could lead to even more restrictive and problematic laws.

    This is why the slippery slope, by itself, is a worthless argument and a fallacy. If the ONLY argument that can be put forward is that something else MIGHT happen that would be bad, then you have no actual argument AGAINST the thing in question. You're basically acknowleding that the thing in question has no fault of it's own (since you would be refusing to actually highlight any), and that it's only fault is that it MIGHT at some point in an indeterminate future lead to an indeterminate other law that may have problems relating to it.

    Now, I've answered your non-sensical question. How about you FINALLY actually offer an argument for why you think our marriage laws are NOT unconstitutional discrimination based on gender.

  2. #382
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,423

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Ah, so you want to separate people out based on gender, but you don't want to separate them based on race? I don't want to separate them on either. That sounds like... Hmmm. Well, I'll just call it flawed logic.




    Nope. Got it wrong, I haven't said that. And don't try to draw me into your SSM debate, I'm talking about Constitutional issues, not that little stuff.



    Again, flawed logic on your part.
    Nope. rogue hit it dead on.

    Originally Posted by Anthony60
    And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide.
    They sure tried when the GOP sponsored bill called DOMA was pushed and passed a couple decades ago.

    Q: Did you vote for the party that has in its Platform a call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage nationwide - thus completely removing the option for "the States to decide?"

  3. #383
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's not incumbant upon me to create your argument for you.



    When you have repeatedly failed to actually engage in any kind of conversation or offe rany rational thought against what I've been saying, it's rather laughable that you want to get uppity over me not answering a non-sensical question that you posed.



    No, a systme of law bulit on personal freedom is not singularly built upon a "slippery slope" argument. If it was, we would have no laws on the books because it'd potentially lead to more laws that would remove personal freedom. If our foundational system of law was built SINGULARLY on slippery slope arguments...as your apparent counter is since you've given NO attempt to provide anything beyond the slippery slope...there would be no laws against libel/slander. There'd be no laws about public decency. There'd be no laws about fraud. There would be no laws regarding self defense. And it would go on and on, because ALL of those kind of laws could be argued against from a "slippery slope" notion that they could lead to even more restrictive and problematic laws.

    This is why the slippery slope, by itself, is a worthless argument and a fallacy. If the ONLY argument that can be put forward is that something else MIGHT happen that would be bad, then you have no actual argument AGAINST the thing in question. You're basically acknowleding that the thing in question has no fault of it's own (since you would be refusing to actually highlight any), and that it's only fault is that it MIGHT at some point in an indeterminate future lead to an indeterminate other law that may have problems relating to it.

    Now, I've answered your non-sensical question. How about you FINALLY actually offer an argument for why you think our marriage laws are NOT unconstitutional discrimination based on gender.
    There are no laws that limit anyone's personal freedom? Because that's what you seem to be asserting. And it's not uppity but very relevant.
    No there aren't any such Laws?
    Yes there are such Laws? Why do they exist?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  4. #384
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    There are no laws that limit anyone's personal freedom? Because that's what you seem to be asserting. And it's not uppity but very relevant.
    No there aren't any such Laws?
    Yes there are such Laws? Why do they exist?
    Our Constitution states that we, as individuals, are owed due process and equal protection for any law, state or federal, that is passed to limit our individual freedoms. Do you know what due process and equal protection are?

  5. #385
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,747

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
    And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
    To that you'd say "The slippery slope is not a legal argument" and to that I'd say "When you think about it, the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom."
    His argument isnt new. I've used similar in the past: it's gender discrimination, preventing someone of a certain gender from entering into a (marriage) contract.

    Is that not similar to his argument? And others have as well, I didnt invent my argument.
    Last edited by Lursa; 02-18-15 at 12:38 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  6. #386
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,963

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I don't think they wanted anything like that in there.
    I agree. I think those that passed the 14th amendment did so without trying to get substantially engaged in terms of what "equal" would actually mean, thus why they did not define it.

    The Constitution does not establish the court system, just the Supreme Court.
    The Constitution established the Supreme Court, as you say. The lower courts are simply extensions of that, and are utlimately superceded by the SCOTUS.

    Well, that's a pretty basic word, well defined
    Actually, it's by no means a "pretty basic word".

    If I give you a $1 bill and another person a $100 bill, did I treat you equally? Depends on the context one wishes to view it. In terms of MONETARY VALUE, I absolutely didn't treat you equally. However, in terms of QUANTITY of items, I did treat you equally as you were both given ONE bill. Additionally, in terms of actions you could also say I treated you equally, as I both gave you one thing.

    Was it equal? Was it not equal? For such a "basic" word, the reality of the situation is that it's far from basic. The inherent problem with the notion of "equal protection of the law" is that determining whether or not a particular thing is "equal" requires the individual making the determination to make a judgement call on the method of how they're determining said equality.

    "Equal" is not an inheretly objective term when talking about these type of things. There is not some scientific test where you can feed information in and "ding" it will tell you in an objective and factual way whether the two different things are universally "equal". There is a subjectiveness to the determination based on how one is viewing it.

    Like I said, we know what equal means. What are you for, a 75% reading of the Constitution?
    Actually, we don't know exactly what equal means in every context, as I've stated above. I'm for a 100% reading of the Constitution, but not a 100% literalistic one.

    This is why I don't believe Freedom of Speech applies only to thoughts expressed via sound, but rather also covers thoght expressed via words on an electronic medium like a message board. The constitution, using a 100% literalistic reading, does not actually suggest the government can't restrict your ability to express your thoughts on the internet, becuase the internet is not "speech". Another example would be the right to "keep and bear arms", the 2nd amendment. A 100% literalistic reading of the 2nd amendment would suggest the government can't infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms, but says nothing of armaments or use. A 100% literalistic reading and interpritation of the constitution would suggest that the government could significantly restrict a citizens right to purhcase or keep ammunition, or even their ability to USE the arms that they are allowed to keep and bear.

    A 100% literalistic reading of the constitution is an asinine one that renders what is an extremely enlightened work rather worthless as a foundational document of a nation.

    Well, no, it's not. One has a racial component, and was does not.
    That does ont matter. The 14th amendment does not preclude that citizens will have equal portection under the law in matters of race; it simply states they'll have equal protection of the law. Full stop. For someone who was previously arguing from the basis of a purely literalistic interpritation of the constitution it's funny that you now point to something that is in no way present within the constitution.

    You are comparing one thing that includes all people, and another that separates them by race. Doesn't work.
    Actually, I'm comparing one thing that includes all people, but seperates them by gender, with one that includes all peope, but seperates them by race. That does work. You jsut don't want to address that so you keep misrepresenting what I'm stating.

    Well, now you are separating people based on sex.
    Actually, I'm not "now" doing it. That's been what this discussion has been about, in terms of my post, for some time now.

    And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide. Whatever they decide, that's cool.
    I agree, the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that's something that the states should decide. HOWEVER, the Constitution applies to the states as well, and thus the laws that the states decide must have equal protection of the law bestowed upon all of it's citizens.

    As long as the laws they decide on are constitutional, that's cool. If the laws they decide on are NOT constitution, that's not cool. Just as a state can't pass a law that violates the 2nd, nor too can it pass a law that violates the 14th.

  7. #387
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,963

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide. Whatever they decide, that's cool.
    As I said in my very first post...

    I personally feel marriage laws in this country area violation of the 14th via unconstitutional gender discrimination.

    Removing that notion from the equation.....my general preference would be that individual states create their own marriage rules for how they marry people IN THEIR STATE. However, due to the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", a state MUST respect the contractual agreement that two citizens enter into in another state. As such, while [State A] should be able to choose not to offer same sex marriages, if a couple gets married in [State B] that DOES choose to recognize such things, then [State A] must still recognize them as married. States do not have the ability to ignore "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states.

    I don't think there should be some sort of federal mandate stating you MUST perform same sex marriages in your state or that the definition of marriage MUST be any two people. Just like I don't support a federal mandate stating you CAN'T perform same sex marriages in your state, or that the definition of marriage MUST be one man and one woman. I don't believe that's a matter for the federal legislature to determine.

    Either way...regardless of whether or not it's constitutional discrimination on the basis of Gender...I am firmly against using the constitution to specifically limit the rights of CITIZENS as opposed to limiting the scope of the Government, as I feel that is antithetical to the purpose of the constitution.

  8. #388
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,747

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    i didn't care to read their epic long legalise that dehumanizes the orientation aspect that is central to both the opposition and movement the past 20 years

    I could tell from your own replies the gist of what they were saying so i replied to you instead

    god forbid i make known to u i agree with something, or that others might see it
    Sexual orientation is not yet recognized at the federal level as a protected class. Some gay people would like to get married now. Gender discrimination is already established law. So I'm taking the 'humane' and 'human' approach.

    It's called winning a battle, one of many, in the war.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #389
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,747

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If it was truly that important, than why would the restrictions in place via laws be so absolutely narrowly defined. This is kind of like saying one's health is important and thus you won't drink soda; but you will eat fast food, smoke cigerettes, never exercise, and chug massive amounts of alcohol. While you could make an argument that health SHOULD be important, there's clear evidence that the person doesn't actually TREAT it like it's important and thus...to them...it is not important.

    Similarly, when the government allows for all sorts of marriages that would NOT reduce the cost of custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care, etc then the question becomes are those things truly an IMPORTANT State interest? Because they clearly are not treating it as such.



    Actually scienitific evidence shows your absolutely wrong here. Additionally, this goes back to the problem with trying to claim this is an "important" state interest. It's important to protect children from abusive parents; I'd argue FAR more important, considering there's actual verifiable evidence to show that an abused child is more likely to be an abuser themselves. And yet, the state has seemingly no interest in disallowing those who came from an abusive family from getting married and having kids despite the fact they're more likely to abuse their child.

    Know who else can be legally married? Convicted pedophiles. For such a supposedly "important" state interest, it seems the state has no real "interest" in protecting children from such couples.

    You're not actually showing any "important" state interests; not in any way that actually shows the state could legitimately claim it to be important given the fact that they routinely allow for a multitude of marriages that don't actually support that interest and in some ways conflict with it. This clearly then shows that the discrimination on the basis of gender isn't substantially related to a state interest, but rather substantially related to some other desire for discrimination.
    Wow, that stuff is out there. It's a book. Please let me know when you have scientific evidence that legalizing gay marriage wont provide more protections for the children in those families.

    Just wow. It's painful even trying to agree with you.

    You know what? Nevermind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #390
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,963

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    There are no laws that limit anyone's personal freedom?
    No, there are TONS of laws that limit peoples personal freedom. That's the entire point.

    If the "slippery slope" argument....BY ITSELF, as you've presented it....was a legitimate argument against it, then we would not have any of those laws because we'd be able to say "But a law that limits someone's personal freedom could lead to BAD THING! so we can't have it".

    Our current legal system is a perfect example of why the slippery slope argument, exlcusionary from anything else, is a poor one. We would have anarchy, rather the rule of law, if the slippery slope alone was a legitimate argument against something.

    If a law is a bad law then there will be plenty of arguments against THAT ACTUAL LAW, not against what might happen at some point of time with an entirely different law. If there are no such arguments then all that exists is the slippery slope fallacy, and that is not a legitimate reason against doing something, thus why we have various laws that do put restrictions on individual freedoms.

    Stating that something is bad because of [X], [Y], and [Z] as well as because it could lead to [A] is not simply arguing the slippery slope, but is putting forth numerous arguments while acknowledging the potential for the slippery slope. In such a case, the slippery slope is simply a supporting argument, not the primary one. In such a case, the slippery slope doesn't disqualify the entire stance, because there are multiple other arguments that are present OTHER than the slippery slope.

    Stating that something is bad because it could lead to [A] is singularly arguing the slipper slope, putting forth no other actual arguments and thus using the slippery slope as the primary argument rather than a supporting one. In such a case, the slippery slope disqualifies the entire stance, becuase the only support that said stance has IS the slippery slope.

Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... 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
  •