Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3139404142 LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 411

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

  1. #401
    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 matchlight View Post
    That should have been up to the majority of the residents of Texas. However silly I personally thought their sodomy law was, I would not have presumed to claim that law violated any constitutionally guaranteed right. Neither did the majority of the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, its first "gay" decision in 1986. The Court got that case right, especially in finding that there is no fundamental constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.

    But just seventeen years later, the majority in Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers, basing its decision on a novel and bizarre idea that Justice Stevens had proposed in his dissenting opinion in Bowers. And that is that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to prohibit that act by law. The fact that belief had been the basis of morals legislation in every state in this country from the very first, as well as in the laws of every civilized society we know of, did not trouble either Stevens or the Lawrence majority.

    But not wanting to look like fools, Justice Kennedy and the others in the Lawrence majority were very careful to leave untouched Bowers' holding that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right. At least one poster here, though--possibly feeling nothing he could say could make him look any more foolish--was less concerned about that. In post after post, he made various desperate, contrived arguments that homosexuality is a fundamental right. Apparently his Wikipedia legal research on fundamental rights had not been too thorough.

    As soon as it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in substantive due process analysis considers a right fundamental only if it is both "deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty"--which as Justice Scalia has rightly noted it would be "quite absurd" to claim of homosexuality--the poster began to backpedal frantically. Now he denies he ever claimed what anyone can see he repeatedly did say, right there in black and white, in post after post, and claims same-sex marriage is not about due process at all. His new story is that it is about equal protection.
    Both are about equal protection...various states had sodomy laws *only* against same sex couples. How in the world is that NOT a violation of equal protection? Another claim of yours i take exception to is this entire notion of "moral laws." If there is no VICTIM, there is no crime, period. Of course it is a fundamental right too. You can't stop it. It exists in nature and people are born into it. This is nothing but homophobic futility

    Just don't come crying when the gestapo barges into your bedroom and puts on the cuffs in the middle of consensual sex. You'll get no pity from me

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think the most scurrilous spreaders of lies about all this are the proponents of the homosexual agenda. Their brazen intellectual dishonesty is right there on full display in a number of these threads, for anyone to see. But then many of them are leftists, and lying is part and parcel of being a leftist. Their fallen idol President Pinocchio is Exhibit A.
    This belongs in partisan hackery or CT

  2. #402
    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
    At least one poster here, though--possibly feeling nothing he could say could make him look any more foolish--was less concerned about that. In post after post, he made various desperate, contrived arguments that homosexuality is a fundamental right. Apparently his Wikipedia legal research on fundamental rights had not been too thorough.

    As soon as it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in substantive due process analysis considers a right fundamental only if it is both "deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty"--which as Justice Scalia has rightly noted it would be "quite absurd" to claim of homosexuality--the poster began to backpedal frantically. Now he denies he ever claimed what anyone can see he repeatedly did say, right there in black and white, in post after post, and claims same-sex marriage is not about due process at all. His new story is that it is about equal protection.
    And who would that poster be?

    It wouldn't be the poster you accused of saying that the SSM cases would have to be decided on strict scrutiny, but then ran away from when he proved you made it up?
    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..

  3. #403
    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 chromium View Post
    Both are about equal protection...various states had sodomy laws *only* against same sex couples.
    That is false. You may want to spend more time on your Wikipedia legal research. Bowers v. Hardwick was a Fourteenth Amendment fundamental rights/substantive due process decision in which the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment played no part:


    The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy, and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal . . .

    We first register our disagreement with the Court of Appeals and with respondent that the Court's prior cases have construed the Constitution to confer a right of privacy that extends to homosexual sodomy . . . respondent would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do. It is true that, despite the language of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which appears to focus only on the processes by which life, liberty, or property is taken, the cases are legion in which those Clauses have been interpreted to have substantive content, subsuming rights that to a great extent are immune from federal or state regulation or proscription . . .

    [T]he Court has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial protection. In Palko v. Connecticut . . . (1937), it was said that this category includes those fundamental liberties that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed." A different description of fundamental liberties appeared in Moore v. East Cleveland . . . ( 1977) where they are characterized as those liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."

    It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Bowers, 478 U.S. 186, at 190-191.


    Just don't come crying when the gestapo barges into your bedroom and puts on the cuffs in the middle of consensual sex. You'll get no pity from me
    Your comments about the gestapo are overwrought drivel. And I am not concerned with whether total strangers on internet sites pity anything that may happen to me personally.

  4. #404
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    No, I don't particularly support gay rights per se. I think that gays are the only class defined by an activity. If I started sucking dick, I could join the class. Yes, I do believe some people are born gay but I also believe that some are a result of nature and nurture. It's not a one size fits all category. A girl I used to date tried women because she thought it was trendy.

    Having said that, it's ok with me if gays get married. Just don't look for me at the rally.
    LOL. Religious people are a class defined by beliefs and activity, and they're a rightfully protected class.

  5. #405
    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 JasperL View Post
    LOL. Religious people are a class defined by beliefs and activity, and they're a rightfully protected class.
    The discussion was about the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Where has the Supreme Court ever held that religious people are a protected class in its equal protection jurisprudence? Cite the decision that supports your assertion. You won't, because you can't--you are prattling nonsense.

  6. #406
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The discussion was about the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Where has the Supreme Court ever held that religious people are a protected class in its equal protection jurisprudence? Cite the decision that supports your assertion. You won't, because you can't--you are prattling nonsense.
    I was responding to a very specific comment - this one: "No, I don't particularly support gay rights per se. I think that gays are the only class defined by an activity." The same person also said this: "Every minority is designated by the accident of birth."

    That's not true. And the CRA explicitly includes religion along with those based on the "accident of birth" - race, color, RELIGION, or national origin.

    And I'm not a lawyer so don't intend on getting into a discussion with you on the finer points of the many ways the U.S. Constitution allows for discrimination against disfavored minorities.

  7. #407
    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 matchlight View Post
    That is false. You may want to spend more time on your Wikipedia legal research. Bowers v. Hardwick was a Fourteenth Amendment fundamental rights/substantive due process decision in which the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment played no part:
    I couldn't give a **** less about some bigoted court decision. It was wrong, period, so i won't be reading anything you post from it. Consensual sex is protected by the 10th amendment, equal protection vis a vis sex acts protected by the 14th amendment, and both are upheld by anyone of conscious


    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Your comments about the gestapo are overwrought drivel.
    nope, texas and other states were guilty of the same exact brutality as the gestapo - barging into bedrooms and arresting citizens for private sex acts. I call it as a see it: those who want to overturn lawrence v texas are fascists

  8. #408
    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 chromium View Post
    I couldn't give a **** less about some bigoted court decision. It was wrong, period, so i won't be reading anything you post from it.
    I am sure you could not, and I am glad to see you show your close-mindedness so clearly. Your emotionally heated opinion of Bowers is uninformed by the least knowledge of the constitutional issues involved. For that, you would actually have had to read the case, and I'm sure you won't be reading it either. The irony is that you call the Court's decision "bigoted."

    Consensual sex is protected by the 10th amendment
    That is not a statement of fact, but only a completely unsupported bleat. Claiming something is the law does not make it so, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Tenth Amendment to mean anything like what you are asserting.

    equal protection vis a vis sex acts protected by the 14th amendment, and both are upheld by anyone of conscious
    I have no idea who "anyone of concscious" is, but it is obvious to most of us that there are many sex acts the Equal Protection Clause does not protect. Try to imagine, for example, a Supreme Court decision striking down a state law against bestiality on equal protection grounds.

  9. #409
    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 matchlight View Post
    I have no idea who "anyone of concscious" is, but it is obvious to most of us that there are many sex acts the Equal Protection Clause does not protect. Try to imagine, for example, a Supreme Court decision striking down a state law against bestiality on equal protection grounds.
    This is not consensual and unless you are vegetarian, you don't get to pretend to care about animals being raped

    If sodomy is allowed for opposite sex couples but not same sex couples, that violates equal protection clearly and unequivocally, regardless of what the hacks in Bowers decided

    And i'm still waiting for you to explain who the VICTIM is in the imagined crime. Laws that can't even manage that are just tailored by fascists

  10. #410
    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 chromium View Post
    This is not consensual
    You can't back up the claim you made in the post I was responding to, so now you change to claim to limit it to consensual sex acts. But your backpedaling doesn't get you anywhere, because state laws can also prohibit a number of consensual sex acts without violating the equal protection guarantee. Or are you going to try to tell us that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment and the people who ratified it meant, in 1868, to guarantee a right to adult incest?

    If sodomy is allowed for opposite sex couples but not same sex couples, that violates equal protection clearly and unequivocally
    You can assert that all day long, but that will not make your assertion the law. That was one of the petitioners' claims in Lawrence v. Texas, but the only one on the Court who accepted it was Justice O'Connor, in her concurring opinion. It was not the basis for the decision.

    And i'm still waiting for you to explain who the VICTIM is in this imagined crime.
    You've got a long wait. We are not in court here, and I am not making the brief for any state law. Once again, you are pretending that your personal opinion is the law. I don't know of any legal principle saying that victimless crimes are necessarily unconstitutional. If you know of cases holding that they are, you don't identify them, or explain what part of the Constitution they violate.

    In any event, in rational basis review the law being challenged is presumed to be constitutionally valid--it is the challenging party that bears the burden of proving it is not. You might know that if you had read a few of these fascist Supreme Court decisions.

Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3139404142 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
  •