Page 39 of 43 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #381
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    False dichotomy, eh?



    And an example of this would be?



    If something isn't illegal then what is it? Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again? What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights. It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun. What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.

    It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle bround when in-fact one exists.


    Tim-
    we don't make laws stating that something is legal. If there's no legislation against something, then it is simply legal. The only action we can take to "legalize" something is if legislation is already in place declaring it illegal. By doing that we are only removing faulty legislation, no other action is taken. It's not illegal for me to drink draino, but I don't think the fact that it's not illegal means that society endorses the behavior. It's not illegal for me to go to Vegas and gamble away every penny I have. But I don't think society "endorses" that behavior. It's not illegal for me to drink myself into a drunken stupor every day and night, lose my job, my spouse and my car, but society sure as **** doesn't endorse that behavior.

    Removing legislation that prohibits an action does not promote or endorse said action. It merely permits it.

  2. #382
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The individual is the society when collected. Besides, repealing a law against homosexual marriage does nothing to remove any endorsement of heterosexuality, but it does endorse homosexuality, by definition.


    Tim-
    No, removing the law against same-sex marriage would not be endorsing anything. It would simply be eliminating gender discrimination in the marriage contract.

  3. #383
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Removing legislation that prohibits an action does not promote or endorse said action. It merely permits it
    No, removing the law against same-sex marriage would not be endorsing anything. It would simply be eliminating gender discrimination in the marriage contract
    Well, you have one single point, only when the voice of the people is removed can this be true. If the voice of the people is heard, and used by way of representation, then my assertion holds logically. I submit to you the MA example on "legalizing" gay marriage. One single judge made the call, and the legislature refused the people the right to vote on it. Conversely, in CA, and Prop 8, the people were heard. By not altering the CA constitution to include same sex marriage, the people have made it illegal, and illegitimate for gay couples to marry. In other words, they do not endorse gay marriage. The rightness and or wrongness of that decision is an individual distinction because the collective has decided.

    Ok, I really, really need to get back to work so I apologize if I have a long delay between posts.

    Tim-

  4. #384
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    And an example of this would be?
    Drugs. Many people want them legalized in order to stop frivolously wasting money on keeping them illegal when it hasn't worked.

    Doesn't mean they endorse drug use.

    If something isn't illegal then what is it?
    Legal

    Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again?
    Great example. Which one of those things took legislation? Which one of them required repealing legislation? and which one required no legislation?

    What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights.
    The law actually makes it illegal to infringe on those rights. It doesn't legalize those rights. Laws can only make things illegal. It is a lack of laws makes them legal.

    It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun.
    Exactly. Because no legislation can exist which makes it illegal because legislation exists which makes such legislation illegal.

    What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.
    And it is illegal because there is legislation that exists which makes it illegal.

    It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle bround when in-fact one exists.
    It is false to invent a dichotomy based on the incorrect premise that things are legalized by legislation. They are not.

    They are legal due to the absence of legislation.

    "Legal" is the default status of everything until there is some action taken.

    Repealing legislation is re-creating an absence of legislation.

    Endorsement can only occur when one promotes something. Legislatively, the only way that one can promote something is by denying it's opposite.

    We do endorse the right to bear arms and speak freely. This is obvious because we have passed legislation that denies the opposite; that makes it illegal to pass laws banning free speech or arm bearing.

    The only way to endorse homosexuality would be to pass legislation banning heterosexuality (denying the opposite).

    Otehrwise, there is an endorsement neutal state since both situations exist in the absence of positive legislation.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #385
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    CC -

    Ah, the prison conundrum. I posted this quote from you, because you actually have something correct. The problem is in how you're interpreting it.

    However, your "prison" retort has nothing to do with pedophilia, and answering my questions pinning you down on what constitutes a homosexual act, or orientation. I know it's unconfortable for you, and I apologize, but you did press after all.

    Please note that by and large I will dismiss anything that comes from the APA, UNLESS of course it has any scientific merit. The APA is a political organization, and the science of psychology, and psychiatry doesn't meet the measure for any definition of science. Granted there are types of pathological, physiological, and biological areas of psychology that are worth entertaining, but unitl you can produce anything of value, I'm not goig to do the work for you.


    Tim-
    First of all, unless all or even most homosexuals are pedophiles, then you can't make any claim that homosexuality, in itself, is wrong because many pedophiles rape children of the same sex as themselves.

    As CC has been trying to explain to you, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are all orientations. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people of the same gender as themselves. Heterosexuals are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender as themselves. Bisexuals are attracted to either gender. This doesn't mean that any of the members of these orientations must act on those attractions. A person can claim that they are bisexual and never have sex with a person of the same gender as themself. That person recognizes however that they can be sexually "turned on" by someone who is the same gender as themself. Maybe, though, they are already married and choose not to act on those attractions.

    Homosexuals can physically have sex with a member of the opposite sex, many do it now and have done it in the past to fit in or even solely to reproduce. A person does not actually need to be attracted to another person to have sex with them. During my time in the Navy, I heard the phrase "double bagging" often when a guy was being teased for talking about sleeping with a girl just for sexual satisfaction, but who he wasn't attracted to at all and who may or may not be promiscuous herself.

    So why does it matter if someone chooses to sleep with a person of the same gender as themself or someone of the opposite gender? As long as the two participants are of legal consenting age and not having sex in public, then it should be their business. Having sex exclusively with people of the opposite gender as yourself doesn't make you a better person or citizen than people who have sex with people of the same gender or either gender. In fact, having sexual fetishes doesn't make someone a bad person either, although a person of any sexual orientation can have sexual fetishes.

    Homosexual sex is legal. Same sex marriage is the issue being discussed, so you have to prove why two men or two women entering into a legal contract of marriage is harmful to people or the government or government interests, while a man and a woman entering into the same legal contract isn't. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with sex. Actually, opposite sex marriage doesn't have anything to do with sex either. Both, legally speaking, are a contract entered into by a couple to make the couple legally a part of each other's families. The couple does not have to be able to have children, or even be physically able to have sex. They really don't have to be attracted to each other. The reason most people legally marry the person they do is because of love and they want to make that person their closest family member, giving them the legal say in financial, legal, and medical decisions when the person is unable, sharing their assets, and if they choose to have children, providing a stable environment for those children to be raised in, along with many other things. This is what people who are homosexual want, especially those who feel that they have found the person they are in love with.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 07-14-10 at 03:45 PM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #386
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    roguenuke, thanks for your candid response.

    I'll largely concede your opinion, and agree to disagree. I cannot prove my opinion incontrovertibly. But neither can anyone else here. I can only base them on evidence that suggests particular correlations; simply because the hard science isn't there yet. I cannot prove gay marriage harmful to society, I can only infer, it will be harmful. I made that case, and you can decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not.

    I do have two small criticisms though.

    This doesn't mean that any of the members of these orientations must act on those attractions. A person can claim that they are bisexual and never have sex with a person of the same gender as themself.
    The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?

    So why does it matter if someone chooses to sleep with a person of the same gender as themself or someone of the opposite gender? As long as the two participants are of legal consenting age and not having sex in public, then it should be their business. Having sex exclusively with people of the opposite gender as yourself doesn't make you a better person or citizen than people who have sex with people of the same gender or either gender. In fact, having sexual fetishes doesn't make someone a bad person either, although a person of any sexual orientation can have sexual fetishes.
    I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is on. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

    The couple does not have to be able to have children, or even be physically able to have sex
    In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.

    In any event I appreciate the civility.

    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 07-14-10 at 04:38 PM. Reason: grammar

  7. #387
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    roguenuke, thanks for your candid response.

    I'll largely concede your opinion, and agree to disagree. I cannot prove my opinion incontrovertibly. But neither can anyone else here. I can only base them on evidence that suggests particular correlations; simply because the hard science isn't there yet. I cannot prove gay marriage harmful to society, I can only infer, it will be harmful. I made that case, and you can decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not.

    I do have two small criticisms though.



    The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?



    I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is one. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.



    In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.

    In any event I appreciate the civility.

    Tim-
    gotta disagree a bit....homosexuality is "catchy"? i don't think so......experimenting might be tempting, but not orientation. what's so fun about being gay? (pun intended)

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #388
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior.
    Homosexual marriage will exist with or without those constraints. Homosexual marriage cannot be made illegal. Since marriage is a religious institution, making it illegal in any instance would be a violation of the first amendment.

    One can even get married to 12 people without fearing any legal repercussions.

    The only thing the government can legally involves itself in is the legal contract that is coupled with marriage.

    Thus, it only recognizes certain types of marriages. That doesn't negate the existence of other unrecognized marriages.

    With regard to polygamy, the law can dictate that an individual can only enter into that specific contract with one other person at a time and that the contract must be broken before it is entered into with anyone else. Thus polygamy and polyandry are not recognized by the State. But that does not make thee marriages any less real.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #389
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Ask a gay person. No seriously, I'm sure being gay is fun for gays no different than being hetersexual is fun for heterosexuals.

    Tim-

  10. #390
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Homosexual marriage will exist with or without those constraints. Homosexual marriage cannot be made illegal. Since marriage is a religious institution, making it illegal in any instance would be a violation of the first amendment.

    One can even get married to 12 people without fearing any legal repercussions.

    The only thing the government can legally involves itself in is the legal contract that is coupled with marriage.

    Thus, it only recognizes certain types of marriages. That doesn't negate the existence of other unrecognized marriages.

    With regard to polygamy, the law can dictate that an individual can only enter into that specific contract with one other person at a time and that the contract must be broken before it is entered into with anyone else. Thus polygamy and polyandry are not recognized by the State. But that does not make thee marriages any less real.
    No disagreement here.. Right you are. Marriage is state of being, and inalienable I suppose.

    Tim-

Page 39 of 43 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
  •