Page 122 of 184 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124132172 ... LastLast
Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1834

Thread: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

  1. #1211
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    If you are referring to the type of natural rights that John Locke proposed, yes, absolutely.
    Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?

  2. #1212
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else.
    Either that or your argument is rooted in vacuity

  3. #1213
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    See below.

    The discriminatory position is the only position you can argue judicially, because the definition of marriage and all of the public policy around it is exclusively a legislative matter. The judiciary has nothing to say about it unless it violates rights.
    The discriminatory position cannot be argued, judicially, successfully... at least I don't think it can. The argument against gay marriage from a discrimination position is pretty solid. Gays can get married. There is no provision in any law in regards to marriage that says we have the RIGHT to marry anyone we want. No, the way to win would be for a state to pass GM and then for it to get challenged judicially... and for it to be defended via the benefits argument.

    Why do you think popular opinion would change significantly in light of your argument?
    People keep getting thrown the discrimination argument which is a negative, conflictual argument. The benefits argument has a positive, helping connotation that could tap into the more altruistic nature in folks. The current climate of the GM debate is too confrontational, by both sides. Reduce the conflict and increase the perception of societal benefits and l cooperation

    Not the point. Would you argue it? Would you tell a married couple to their faces that, so sorry, we were wrong, and now you can't be married anymore?
    Probably. I would currently argue that no one should be married, that all marriages should be changed to civil unions and that marriage should be left to the church.




    Well, that is self-evident.
    Uh-huh.


    I have pointed some out myself.
    Pretty easy to do.

    Then you have to get there legislatively. Good luck.
    And judicially. And someone has to go at it from my position. I haven't seen that happen yet.




    I think there is a great deal of societal benefit in NOT basing public policy for something so fundamental to people's lives on something so potentially capricious -- particularly if it may mean, as you say it does, that the right to marry could be taken away later on that basis.
    I disagree. If we learned tomorrow that automobiles were completely ruining society, it would make sense to eliminate them. But one also must understand the significant unlikelihood of something so fundamental being found to be completely flawed and dysfunctional. In general, research has proven inclusion, not exclusion in the context of what we are discussing.




    Well, as I said above, good public policy takes the possible consequences into account, particularly when they are foreseeable, as they are in this case.
    Good public policy would take the possible consequences into account, but not EVERY possibility, even the most remote. As I said, research tends to prove inclusion, not exclusion. If, suddenly, something changed, the law could change with it.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #1214
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?
    Much of my philosophical position is self-actualized. I do not, specifically, subscribe to a school of thought or follow any particular philosopher, though my beliefs are not as unconventional as you would think. I would say that I am a mix of legal positivism and moral relativism. To understand some of my way of thinking, read some of Jeremy Betham and Baruch Spinoza. I take parts of these philosophies to form my own.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #1215
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The discriminatory position cannot be argued, judicially, successfully... at least I don't think it can. The argument against gay marriage from a discrimination position is pretty solid. Gays can get married. There is no provision in any law in regards to marriage that says we have the RIGHT to marry anyone we want. No, the way to win would be for a state to pass GM and then for it to get challenged judicially... and for it to be defended via the benefits argument.
    I don't think you get it.

    "Societal benefit" isn't a judicial question. It's a legislative one. Courts don't strike down laws because they prevent an esoteric "societal benefit." They can only do so if the legislature overstepped its authority -- did something it's not authorized to do or violated a fundamental right.

    Besides, you've shifted the argument. If a state passes same-sex marriage, then, well, it's there, and there's really no basis on which to challenge it in court. The only recourse for those who don't want it is to get it repealed, or get a constitutional amendment passed, if that can be done by popular vote. There's nothing in particular for a court to do with the first -- it can't rule "this idea is so good that we hold it can never be repealed" -- and if a constitutional amendment is passed, there's really nothing for a court to do.

    Of course, this all hinges on same-sex marriage being reached legislatively first.



    People keep getting thrown the discrimination argument which is a negative, conflictual argument. The benefits argument has a positive, helping connotation that could tap into the more altruistic nature in folks. The current climate of the GM debate is too confrontational, by both sides. Reduce the conflict and increase the perception of societal benefits and l cooperation
    I don't think it's that simple.



    Probably. I would currently argue that no one should be married, that all marriages should be changed to civil unions and that marriage should be left to the church.
    That's even less likely.






    Uh-huh.
    And irrelevant to the point.


    And judicially. And someone has to go at it from my position. I haven't seen that happen yet.
    Because it's a judicial dead end. I already explained. This isn't how it works.



    I disagree. If we learned tomorrow that automobiles were completely ruining society, it would make sense to eliminate them.
    Automobiles are not marriage.


    But one also must understand the significant unlikelihood of something so fundamental being found to be completely flawed and dysfunctional. In general, research has proven inclusion, not exclusion in the context of what we are discussing.
    It has never been studied on a societal level. It could not have been.



    Good public policy would take the possible consequences into account, but not EVERY possibility, even the most remote. As I said, research tends to prove inclusion, not exclusion.
    "Tends" to based on small sample sizes.

    If, suddenly, something changed, the law could change with it.
    Yes, that is understood. And it's the problem.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #1216
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    It still cannot be shown that the woman living next door to anyone on this forum taking a second husband affects anyone or inhibits another's rights nor affects another's marriage. Pro ssm obsevers view that same sex marriage can't be denied by government for those exact reasons and yet use that same government to deny others that same right.

    Unless I'm mistaken, this is called hypocrisy, and it appears blatant to me.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  7. #1217
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,548

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else. Thank you for driving that home yet again.
    I shows the exact opposite. Thanks for your hypocrisy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #1218
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,548

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Oh please.....Blackdog. The only people against gay marriage are the right-wing Christians who believe the GOD is against gay marriage.
    This is absolutely wrong.

    50% or more of the country is not what you would call "right wing Christians."

    For example the majority of the population of CA is not right wing Christians. And yet, proposition 8 won.

    That alone should show how misguided your answer is and that I am not a liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    This should fill you in on how wrong you are.
    These are the same people who thought that GOD was against inter-racial marriage. The same people who thought at one point that GOd was against shell-fish as well.
    Yes they did and the Bible clearly does not support this. The Bible does however support homosexual behavior being a sin.

    This however has nothing to do with my statement. It is nothing more than a fallacy on your part.

    God was never was against "shellfish." Huge difference from eating healthy to sin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #1219
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I don't think you get it.

    "Societal benefit" isn't a judicial question. It's a legislative one. Courts don't strike down laws because they prevent an esoteric "societal benefit." They can only do so if the legislature overstepped its authority -- did something it's not authorized to do or violated a fundamental right.
    However, the judiciary can strike down or accept a law if they deem the societal benefit of said law (or of striking down the law). Louis Brandeis used to include social impact information when he decided upon a ruling. I recently read the SC's ruling on partial-birth abortion, and they used social benefit information to rule on that law, also. The judiciary uses whatever information they can to make decisions.

    Besides, you've shifted the argument. If a state passes same-sex marriage, then, well, it's there, and there's really no basis on which to challenge it in court. The only recourse for those who don't want it is to get it repealed, or get a constitutional amendment passed, if that can be done by popular vote. There's nothing in particular for a court to do with the first -- it can't rule "this idea is so good that we hold it can never be repealed" -- and if a constitutional amendment is passed, there's really nothing for a court to do.
    There are two issues, here. The first is to have the Supreme Court strike down DOMA. This has been attempted via discrimination lawsuits, but not via a social benefit attempt. Based on past SC behavior, this is a far more logical attack and, IMO, would have more of a chance of striking down the law. Second. IF a GM law were passed, either federally or in a state and an attempt to strike it down were made, the social benefit defense holds more water than the discrimination defense. In both cases, judicially or legislatively, the discrimination position is not strong, but the social benefit position is.

    Of course, this all hinges on same-sex marriage being reached legislatively first.
    Not necessarily, though probably.




    I don't think it's that simple.
    What I said was a broad stroke, but ultimately, it IS that simple.

    That's even less likely.
    I agree, though it is the most logical position.


    Because it's a judicial dead end. I already explained. This isn't how it works.
    No, as I explained above.





    Automobiles are not marriage.
    Irrelevant. The analogy addresses your point of what could happen if we found that something was ruining society that had been in existence for a long time. It applies.

    It has never been studied on a societal level. It could not have been.
    Of course it has... just as much as many other things have.

    "Tends" to based on small sample sizes.
    Reasonable sample sizes and universally consistent results. This is what is needed to identify credibility in research... which this research has.



    Yes, that is understood. And it's the problem.
    What would be the problem with that? That would be a GOOD thing, changing something that needs changing.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #1220
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    It still cannot be shown that the woman living next door to anyone on this forum taking a second husband affects anyone or inhibits another's rights nor affects another's marriage. Pro ssm obsevers view that same sex marriage can't be denied by government for those exact reasons and yet use that same government to deny others that same right.

    Unless I'm mistaken, this is called hypocrisy, and it appears blatant to me.
    The government has no reason to sanction something that is not beneficial to society. The basic argument for promoting GM is, for the government to sanction it, is it beneficial to the government, society, the family, and the individual. Evidence shows that it is, therefore, since there is proof, the government would have reason to sanction it. The same can NOT be said for plural marriage. If you can find evidence for this, present it.

    And your argument that, just because what happens next door doesn't affect me means that it should not be inhibited is faulty and ridiculous. That is like saying that if your next door neighbor was abusing their child in the sanctity of their own home, without any impact on you, it would be OK for this act to be legal. See how foolish your argument is?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •