Page 32 of 42 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 411

Thread: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

  1. #311
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I asked you this question which you, like Canadajohn, apparently cannot: "How do you demonstrate the rights of the state to discriminate against LGBT's while equally supporting LGBT rights?"

    Or are you simply unaware of what LGBT rights are being discussed? Are you unaware that gay marriage is one of the LGBT-rights topics in contention?
    Evidently you are talking about gay marriage and I'm talking about states rights.

    If states don't allow gay marriage, as part of their duty to support community standards, is it discrimination? You could construct an argument that it is, but you could also construct an argument that gay marriage is destructive to the moral fabric of a community. Personally, I don't give a **** about gay marriage. It's none of my business what others do that don't affect me however the structure of your question is based on prejudicial language. The Logical Fallacies: Prejudicial Language Therefore to address it would be arguing against a logical fallacy.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  2. #312
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,936

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Evidently you are talking about gay marriage and I'm talking about states rights.

    If states don't allow gay marriage, as part of their duty to support community standards, is it discrimination? You could construct an argument that it is, but you could also construct an argument that gay marriage is destructive to the moral fabric of a community. Personally, I don't give a **** about gay marriage. It's none of my business what others do that don't affect me however the structure of your question is based on prejudicial language. The Logical Fallacies: Prejudicial Language Therefore to address it would be arguing against a logical fallacy.
    Sigh. Here we go again.

    From the article: "Carson said he supports rights and Constitutional protections for LGBT people plus the right for states to approve or deny gay marriage."

    If Carson supports constitutional protections for LGBT's then that would mean, say, gay marriage. If he supports the state's right to ban gay marriage, then he no longer supports gays being allowed to marry. So either a)he's stating a blatant contradiction or b)he does support both but is prioritizing one over the other. If he is supporting both equally, then please explain how that works.

    I have a feeling I'm asking the equivalent of "how does gay marriage harm you?" In other words, I'm asking a question that will never receive an answer.

  3. #313
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Sigh. Here we go again.

    From the article: "Carson said he supports rights and Constitutional protections for LGBT people plus the right for states to approve or deny gay marriage."

    If Carson supports constitutional protections for LGBT's then that would mean, say, gay marriage. If he supports the state's right to ban gay marriage, then he no longer supports gays being allowed to marry. So either a)he's stating a blatant contradiction or b)he does support both but is prioritizing one over the other. If he is supporting both equally, then please explain how that works.

    I have a feeling I'm asking the equivalent of "how does gay marriage harm you?" In other words, I'm asking a question that will never receive an answer.
    I've answered your question, You don't like the answer. It's possible to support states rights and disagree with the state on issues. If you can't process that, I can't help you.

    Gay marriage does not harm me. I don't care about it. I don't care if it's legal, and I don't care if it's illegal. I think it's a **** show and none of my business.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  4. #314
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,936

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I've answered your question, You don't like the answer. It's possible to support states rights and disagree with the state on issues. If you can't process that, I can't help you.

    Gay marriage does not harm me. I don't care about it. I don't care if it's legal, and I don't care if it's illegal. I think it's a **** show and none of my business.
    Actually, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the question is or why an inherent contradiction is involved.

    Your apathy regarding gay marriage is entirely irrelevant. If you're involving yourself in a discussion on LGBT rights, then whether you like it or not you're de facto involving yourself in gay marriage. Sorry, but there it is.

  5. #315
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Actually, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the question is or why an inherent contradiction is involved.

    Your apathy regarding gay marriage is entirely irrelevant. If you're involving yourself in a discussion on LGBT rights, then whether you like it or not you're de facto involving yourself in gay marriage. Sorry, but there it is.
    I'm involving myself in a conversation about states rights. You've injected gay marriage into what I was talking about. I know exactly what the question is. I've addressed it more times than I care to repeat. Your determination that there is an inherent contradiction is based on your opinion of Dr. Carson and gay marriage. My opinion about states rights is more dispassionate.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  6. #316
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,411

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Instead of just repeating that assertion over and over, back it up by showing us where the Supreme Court has ever so much as suggested there is a fundamental right to any form of marriage other than that between one man and one woman. You can't, because it never has.

    Windsor v. United States was a 2013 case which involved the effect of part of the Defense of Marriage Act on the estate tax owed by a woman upon the death of the woman she'd been married to. Even in Windsor, the Court did not claim that same-sex marriage met its standard for fundamental rights. Under that standard, a right must be both "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty." And it had good reason not to. As Scalia notes, it "would of course be quite absurd" to claim either.
    Are you sure you want to point to Scalia's dissent in Windsor to bolster your point?
    The one where he went on for 26 snarling pages about how mad the majority opinion made him?

    That opinion, as Scalia *did* note - was written so as to allow federal courts to interpret the ruling that state bans on same sex marriage were unconstitutional.

    His scathing dissent laid it out:

    “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

    Interrupted by argle-bargle" -- he also said:

    “It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here.”

    The Windsor ruling cleared the way, making it "inevitable" said he:

    "How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

    http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/art...riage_dissent/

    Many of the federal judges (I think its more than 50 now) who ruled the bans Unconstitutional even cited Scalia's dissent.

    That's why I, along with many others refer to him as :

    Antonin Scalia: Unlikely Gay Rights Hero!




  7. #317
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    See above. Words matter in issues of constitutional law. Every decision in which the Supreme Court has discussed marriage as a fundamental right concerned marriage between one man and one woman. It has never suggested there is a fundamental right to marriage, period.
    Actually, they have said that marriage is a fundamental right in a number of cases. Period.

    "Furthering a legitimate interest" is the language of rational basis review. If there were a fundamental right to marriage in general, and not just to marriage between a man and a woman, a state would have to prove it had a whole lot more than just a legitimate interest in excluding the kinds of partners I mentioned from marriage. If that were true, laws excluding bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous or underage partners from marriage would not receive ordinary rational basis review, but rather strict scrutiny. And they don't.
    Regardless, the prohibitions you mention are not allowed because marriage is not a fundamantal right which is why you can't quote SCOTUS saying something that supports your claim that marriage is not a fundamental right. Your argument is based on the absurd claim that because the state can limit a right, the right does not exist.

    PS- In Reynolds v United States and Davis v. Beason, the court explicitly states the state interest in prohibiting polygamy. Reynolds also states:
    it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
    Note it makes no mention of the state having a legitimate interest in limiting the right to marriage on the basis of gender.

    The only right to marriage that is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," as a right must be to be fundamental, and therefore subject any state law that restricts it to heightened scrutiny in a substantive due process challenge, is the right of one man and one woman to marry each other. Bigamous marriage certainly does not meet this standard, nor does incestuous marriage, nor does child marriage--and polygamous marriage has been deeply despised in this country's laws from the beginning.
    You have provided absolutely no proof that "one man, one woman" marriages are the only marriages that are considered a fundamental right.
    Last edited by sangha; 03-07-15 at 10:42 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #318
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I support the right of states to govern themselves in every area that isn't in conflict with constitutionally mandated Federal responsibilities. I believe that the states have the right to outlaw the marriage of children or animals because there is no Federal mandate to regulate marriage. The lack of a Federal mandate gives them authority to regulate all marriage.
    Equal protection is a constitutional mandate...court after court has ruled SSM falls under this requirement

  9. #319
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Did you oppose the war in Iraq and support the troops? Would you rather not wear a seat belt but wear one because the state says you must? Do you oppose the KKK but understand the government protects their free speech. Is the Westborough Church allowed to protest their lunacy because their free speech rights are protected? Life is full of situations where we personally oppose activities which are protected by the state. When we do this, we respect the supremacy of governments power to organize society while we disagree with what that power enforces.

    I don't support Obama's illegal alien policy but I have to accept it because I have now power to stop it. My belief is incompatible with the actions of the state. Doesn't make me a hypocrite. Likewise, it's possible to support states rights but disagree with states on issues.
    The only reason the state bans came into being is busybodies who could not accept equal protection and relationships that do not effect them in the least. Opposing the state bans is even less interference than this, because the bans DO effect us and it's merely following equal protection

    Your other analogies fail because to interfere in the KKK rallies would be akin to what the gay marriage bans did - violate constitutional rights and going out of one's way to get involved in crap that is easily ignored

  10. #320
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I'm involving myself in a conversation about states rights. You've injected gay marriage into what I was talking about. I know exactly what the question is. I've addressed it more times than I care to repeat. Your determination that there is an inherent contradiction is based on your opinion of Dr. Carson and gay marriage. My opinion about states rights is more dispassionate.
    States do not have rights - see civil war. They can only ratify amendments. And really, this is the 50th anniversary of the brutality in Selma and you want to defend "states' rights"?

Page 32 of 42 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •