Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 411

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

  1. #341
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    If you want to exchange ideas you can't do it by making up definitions for terms used in the conversation which are different than the ones used by others. In this thread we are using the phrase states rights as defined in the Wiki link I posted. Hope you can deal with that.
    I'm not making up a definition. I am telling you the facts.

    Hope you can deal with that.

  2. #342
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    He gets to pick SCOTUS nominees so yeah, it's a safe bet that would be a litmus test for any repub elected in 08-2012, since they were all deathly opposed to gay rights whenever the topic came up (and often when it didn't). Fortunately that did not come to pass
    I am 100% opposed to SCOTUS or any other court having power to make law or change the law from what the authorized legislative body passed. Certainly the court can rule on whether a law is constitutional. But if it rules that a law is unconstitutional, it should be up to the legislative body to deal with that and not the court.

    To give the court authority to dictate what the law must be is to give a single person or a tiny oligarchy total authority to do anything to anybody it chooses to do. That violates all the concepts of separation of powers that the Constitution intended.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  3. #343
    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 Paperview View Post
    I'm not making up a definition. I am telling you the facts.

    Hope you can deal with that.
    No, you just want to quibble.
    "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. #344
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    No, you just want to quibble.
    It's an important quibble. Language matters.

    You said: Quote:
    "States have rights, see tenth amendment."

    To which I reply: Read the tenth Amendment and tell me - does that grant the states rights, or powers?

    It's a salient distinction.

  5. #345
    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 sangha View Post
    Actually, it had nothing to do with whether Carson could personally oppose gay marriage. It was about his claim that believed gays should have equal rights *and* that states should be able to deny them their rights. Those two beliefs of his contradict each other
    I just went back and reread post 1. It was something about a foolish comment Carson made about previously straight inmates engaging in homosexual activities while in prison.

    This is my opinion. Our rights come from government and until those rights are codified into law they right doesn't exist. There is a right to marry for gays in California and some other states, the right doesn't exist where states have not granted that right. The issue here isn't the right for gay's to marry. The issue is wether the law should be changed in all the states to create the right.
    Last edited by sawdust; 03-07-15 at 04:05 PM.
    "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. #346
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    I am 100% opposed to SCOTUS or any other court having power to make law or change the law from what the authorized legislative body passed. Certainly the court can rule on whether a law is constitutional. But if it rules that a law is unconstitutional, it should be up to the legislative body to deal with that and not the court.
    The legislature already deal with that when they passed the 14th amendment...it's therefore up to the federal courts to ensure the amendment is followed. That's pretty much the entire reason the courts exist

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    To give the court authority to dictate what the law must be is to give a single person or a tiny oligarchy total authority to do anything to anybody it chooses to do. That violates all the concepts of separation of powers that the Constitution intended.
    That is separation of powers. The legislature passed the 14th and, as circumstances change (such as new technology, special interest groups, and ballot drives) it's up to the courts to ensure the constitution is followed. They are the legal experts, not the impotent senate.

    Basically some asshole tries to break an already existing law, that was already passed by the legislature, like equal protection, and the courts tell them no, you can't do that. That's how it's always been, from misdemeanors, to felonies, to civil rights violations

    Since our constitution mostly enumerates negative rights, court interpretation will always play an integral role in upholding it. This is unfortunate in some ways, but that's how it is

  7. #347
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I just went back and reread post 1. It was something about a foolish comment Carson made about previously straight inmates engaging in homosexual activities while in prison.

    This is my opinion. Our rights come from government and until those rights are notified into law they right doesn't exist. There is a right to marry for gays in California and some other states, the right doesn't exist where states have not granted that right. The issue here isn't the right for gay's to marry. The issue is wether the law should be changed in all the states to create the right.
    For someone who likes to cite the 10th Amendment -- perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 9th and 14th.

  8. #348
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    The legislature already deal with that when they passed the 14th amendment...it's therefore up to the federal courts to ensure the amendment is followed. That's pretty much the entire reason the courts exist



    That is separation of powers. The legislature passed the 14th and, as circumstances change (such as new technology, special interest groups, and ballot drives) it's up to the courts to ensure the constitution is followed. They are the legal experts, not the impotent senate.

    Basically some asshole tries to break an already existing law, that was already passed by the legislature, like equal protection, and the courts tell them no, you can't do that. That's how it's always been, from misdemeanors, to felonies, to civil rights violations
    it is up to the court to determine if a law is constitutional or not, ..the court does not have the power to change the laws wording or add anything new to the law.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Actually, they have said that marriage is a fundamental right in a number of cases. Period.
    Prove it. Cite even one case in which the Court so much as implied its comments about a fundamental right to marriage extended to any form of marriage beyond the one under consideration in that case--marriage between one man and one woman. If your assertion were true, any comments the Court ever made about marriage being a fundamental right would mean there is a fundamental right to every kind of marriage. But it is obvious to most of us that the Court has never meant to imply there is a fundamental right to bigamy or incestuous marriage, for example.

    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.
    I have no idea what that sentence means, if anything. You just finished claiming the Court has said in a number of cases that marriage is a fundamental right.

    Your argument is based on the absurd claim that because the state can limit a right, the right does not exist.
    No, my argument was based on the fact that the Court has never subjected state laws against bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc. to strict scrutiny. If your assertion that the fundamental right to marriage is not limited to marriage between one man and one woman were true, there would be a fundamental right to those forms of marriage too. And the Court subjects laws which restrict fundamental rights to strict scrutiny.

    You have provided absolutely no proof that "one man, one woman" marriages are the only marriages that are considered a fundamental right.
    I just recited the proof. If the Court considered bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage fundamental rights, then state laws which prohibit those forms of marriage would be subject to strict scrutiny. Obviously they are not. You would like to extend the Court's comments about a fundamental right to marriage just far enough to include same-sex marriage, but not extend it to include bigamy, polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc. Where in that "number of cases" in which the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right has it ever implied that right extends beyond marriage between one man and one woman in such an uneven, arbitrary way?

  10. #350
    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: Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    I just went back and reread post 1. It was something about a foolish comment Carson made about previously straight inmates engaging in homosexual activities while in prison.

    This is my opinion. Our rights come from government and until those rights are codified into law they right doesn't exist. There is a right to marry for gays in California and some other states, the right doesn't exist where states have not granted that right. The issue here isn't the right for gay's to marry. The issue is wether the law should be changed in all the states to create the right.
    incorrect ...rights are only recognized by the constitution.


    privileges are granted by government......privileges in other words are.....civil rights, and legal rights.

    rights [natural] are negative law

    privileges are positive law..or codified law

Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... 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
  •