Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3240414243 LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #411
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,604

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Up until this point in your post, you had nothing to say, but here you say a lot! I claim that morality is both individual, and collective. A collective is simply a gathering of individuals. Now, read what you wrote, and tell me where your reasoning might be wrong? Dude seriously..
    Read what YOU wrote. Just because you make a claim, doesn't make it accurate. And yours is not. Since morality is relative to the individual, a group of individuals can have different moralities and values. If alcohol is illegal, I may think that is good, you may think that is bad, The collective sets rules, not morality. Notice your error? Your thinking is far to rigid and inflexible.

    Now, yes a homosexual can procreate
    Thank you. Your concession is accepted. It was a simple question and you answered it. See? This is all you need to do.
    These kinds of statements are becoming tiresome. SHOW ME THE MONEY sugar.
    These statements are becoming tiresome. Just because you don't like the argument... as it invalidates yours, does not dismiss it. Either prove that your position has value, or stand down.

    SHOW me the money! LOL
    Either prove that your position has value, or stand down.

    Nope, eeeeerrrr. I reject information that doesn't conform to a measure of validity!
    Awww... more of a demonstration of your inability to debate. You cite evidence and that state that you do not want to accept it, Dude... you are so caught up in your agenda, that you refuse to accept facts... you even ADMIT that you will not accept them. Imagine that. "Yes, your honor... a know that's what is an accepted fact, but I reject it."

    Eeeerrrr, wrong again.. Got anything else? LOL
    Errr... I am correct again. You can't defend, so you reject. Weak. Very weak.

    SHOW me the money, or go away. How many times do I need to ask you to answer the challenge? You're a lightweight that underestimate an opponent. It's ok, I've done it before, but when I was really, really young and stupid.
    You've got nothing. You came in here and though you could use your weak debating skills and folks would fall for it. Instead, you've been exposed and a poser who doesn't understand basic concepts. I don't waste my "A" game on people like you who do not understand basic concepts of sexuality. When you learn them, let me know and THEN we may have something to discuss. Until then, and until you demonstrate any knowledge of the concepts I have outlined, repeatedly, you are still nothing but a learner, and not worthy of anything else.

    So, show some knowledge of those concepts. I challenge you.

    Yes, and this superior intuitive knowledge got you where you are in this thread. Being embarrassed by a newbie.. LOL
    Allowed me to destroy you... someone who claimed superior knowledge, but was proven to have NO knowledge. And I didn't even break a sweat.

    Yep, you were clearly ignorant!
    Only in believing that you might actually understand the basic concepts I outlined. I gave you a chance, but you have proven to be unworthy.

    No, no, no my good man, not that easy. LOL Gawd if only you knew the big huge smile on my face right now, after realizing that I'm dealing with someone like you.
    I think that smile is just gas. It's all you've shown in this thread. Hot air. No substance.

    So... still can't grasp those basic concepts.

    You're confusing evidence as fact. OJ's glove didn't fit his hand. Was it fact, or was it evidence? Sheesh!
    Since it was proven to be faulty, it was neither. Sheesh!

    But you're not explaining it.. You're making statements, without any proof. How does one measure an addiction? Start with that investigative question.
    The disease or the behavior. Two different things. See, why you don't get it? Linear thinking. Nothing complex.
    Oh, I see... Ok, so now, you claimed earlier that reparative therapy was debunked. Wait, no that can't be right. Are you suggesting that the measure for what constitutes a sexual orientation is based entirely on one's word? Wow! Thanks for proving me right about that whole argument! See, sunshine, I play chess, and I'm very patient! You said earlier that reparative therapy has been debunked? Well (ok here's another challenge, pay attention now) how is it that there exists no biological, or physiological test for homosexuality, other than ones word, and or actions as a measure; yet, when the exact same measure is used for ex-gays it somehow changes? Have fun with that one.. LOL[/quote]

    HAHAHAHAHA!!! You are completely unable to debate. I've gotten you so screwed up, and so cornered, and pwned you so badly, you don't even know WHO you are debating. I never discussed reparative therapy. REDRESS did. So... now as a conservative who admits they are wrong, please admit that you made an error.

    Ok, but only because I want to know. So what conclusions did you draw from the study?
    The same conclusions that Stacy and Biblarz did. The children of same-sex parents have equal outcomes to those of opposite-sex parents.

    No you haven't, you only think you have!
    I have, only you think I haven't.

    Oops, did you make a boo boo? What demonstrations of my logical fallacies do you refer? THAT is kinda the whole point of me pressing you silly. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
    I already pointed them out when they occurred. You believe they are incorrect. Go back and dispute them. You didn't when they occurred. Go ahead. Dispute them. If you can.

    I said -

    To which you reply....



    Is this how you've gotten to 40K posts? LOL SHOW ME THE MONEY, or shut the hell up!
    You disagree with it. DISPUTE IT. Is this the extent of your debate tactics? "It isn't valid". Show some evidence that it isn't valid, or take your dog and pony show elsewhere. All you are doing is trying to showboat... and it's doing nothing but showing how inadequate a debater you are. You don't agree with the Hooker study? DISPUTE IT... with evidence.

    Ok, it'll come into play later on, I assure you.
    And I''l destroy your weak debate tactics later on. I assure you.



    SHOW ME THE MONEY.. ROTFLMAO..

    Dude I like you... Hell dude, I could make up anything and your standard reply would be you're wrong, you're illogical, you need to read your definitions, just because... Well let me break it to you. Perhaps you've really never met anyone like me before, but I ain't gunna let you get away with it, I promise you. And if it keeps up, I'll really embarrass you! I'll do the illustration for you. I can maybe count on one hand how many times I've made a "real" logical mistake. I've made zero in this thread, and don't count on any in the future either big boy.
    I'm certain you have never met anyone like me before. Someone who called you on your bs, didn't let you get away with half-assed comments, challenged you to show evidence of your weak positions, and completely exposed you for knowing nothing of this topic. You don't understand the basic concepts that one needs to when debating this issue. And you thought you'd get away with the crap that you spewed. You're in a new world, here... one that you seem ill-prepared for. I know I was real hard on you, and showed the entire forum how inadequate you are. Perhaps in time you will be able to restore some of your destroyed reputation. You'd have to be willing to learn, first.

    Until then!

    Oh, that one note. I was really hoping you'd come to the plate on my challenge. I really did! Perhaps, you've learned your lesson and you'll be different the next time we meet? Other than that, if you have nothing else to offer, I'll bow out!


    Tim-
    And with all of your writing, not one salient point. I was hoping, but since no anti-GMer of your meager skills could hope to compete with me, I should have known you would be similar. Perhaps next time, after the way you were executed here, you will do some research and learning before you DARE encounter me again. I understand that you must bow out, as further humiliation might send you off into some sort of emotional meltdown. It's OK. I'll just notch it as you being yet another wannabe that I dispatched.
    "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"

  2. #412
    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
    I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.
    In a societal sense, it becomes neutral. The decision on whether or not to endorse a specific type of marriage is entirely left to the individual. Neither union is being endorsed by society.

    What you, and other anti-GM people are seeking is not an injunction against homosexual marriages as much as it is an endorsement of heterosexual marriage by society. Things like the DOMA are a byproduct of that desire for a heterosexual marriage endorsement because the government can only endorse something by way of rejecting it's alternative.

    The government endorses free speech by rejecting the ability to pass legislation which limits speech. If there was no rejection, societies stance becomes neutral, i.e. Both free speech and limited speech are of equal value, neither gets supported or promoted.

    Equality between two alternative option is, in fact, neutrality regarding those options. Neitehr can be endorsed as the prefered option because they are equal.

    And endorsment requires a preference.

    You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.
    The two sentences in bold are contradictory. If it were true that you do not have to reject something in order to endorse something, then it cannot be true that an endorsement involves a simultanous rejection. If an endorsement automatically has a simultaneous rejection, then you absolutely have to reject something in order to endorse it.

    It's an endorsement by default. Even if it is a reluctant endorsemnt, it is an endorsement nonetheless.

    I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.
    Again, the two parts in bold are contradictory. You threw your support behind McCain. The reasons for this become irrelevent to the fact that you endorsed McCain.

    A reluctant endorsement is still an endorsement.

    You rejected Obama so much that you were willing to compromise your ideals and endorse someone you felt was sub-par candidate.

    The only way to reject both is to endorse a third-party candiate (which is what I did) or not vote at all (which is actively rejecting all of the alternatives and endorsing voting abstinence).

    But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it the polar opposite.
    Exactly. It isn't a dichotomy. There are three scenarios regarding endorsement. The fact that something is legal is not, in and of itself, enough to qualify for an endorsement by society. There must also be a rejection of the alternative in order for endorsement to be achieved because endorsements are something that has to occur simultaneously with a rejection by the nature of endorsement.

    In order to endorse something, you have to reject the alternatives.

    DOMA endorses heterosexual marriage by rejecting the homosexual marriage alternative. Repealing DOMA is a repeal of that endorsement.

    You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.
    It's a false dichotomy because it ignores the endorsement-neutral state where both alternatives are legal.

    By the way, this argument really has no plce in this thread, and i wouldn't mind much if you wanted to move it and we can continue there.
    It absolutely belongs in this thread because it focusses on the primary premise of your argument against legalization of gay marriage. i.e. that legalization of an action = endorsement of that action by the collective.

    My contention is that, due to the fact that legislation only exists to make things illegal, things like DOMA are actually in existence so that there is a collective endorsement of heterosexual marriage. The only way that this can occur collectively is by legislating a rejection of the alternative scenario of homosexual marriage.

    That logic is actualoly supported by the name of the act: Defense of marriage. The implied adjective describing marriage in this situation is "heterosexual", because it is, undeniably, a defense of heterosexual marriage.

    That legislative defense serves to endorse heterosexual marriage collectively.

    The flaw in the logic of your argument is that repealing this endorsement does not endorse the alternative.

    Back to the politician analogy, if I had previously endorsed McCain by reluctantly choosing him over Obama, I would have endorsed him. If I were to rescind that endorsement by rescinding my reluctant support, that doesn't mean I've automatically endorsed Obama. I'm in an endorsement-neutral state until such time as a make a choice of any sort.

    Choices exclude. For every choice that is made, there is a simultaneous rejection (possibly multiple rejections).

    I used an example before using two politicians because in the marriage debate, there are only two options with respect to two-person marriages. Heterosexual and homosexual.

    If we had more options to choose from, let's say 6, then rejection of one option is not enough to make an endorsement. I still 5 five remaining unendorsed options. But if I have 6 options and I chose one of them, I have rejected the remaining 5 options.

    Conversely, if I reject option after option until I only have one left, which I then choose by default, then I have endorsed that last option, even if it came by way of rejecting all of the other alternatives.

    If I decide to reject all six options, I'm actually making the choice to create a 7th option, which is the endorsement of rejecting all six options.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #413
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    "Liberal" is something to take pride in. It's not a bad name.

    Can I use that in my signature, seeing as how libs do that all the time? In fact I don't even know why I am asking you, I'll just do it....Nevermind Red.




    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #414
    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
    No it's not, not at all. Where do you folks get this stuff from? The action of being a homosexual is unsafe, explicitly because of the nature of their actions. The correlation isn't in the unsafe sex aspect, but in the other factors in any statistical sample. One cannot sample only safe sex homosexuals, nor can one sample only safe sex heterosexuals. You must sample the broader scheme. That's all I was saying. In the broader scheme, incidence is important.
    You could choose to only sample homosexuals and heterosexuals who practice safe sex. I'm sure there have been some studies done like this. I might look for them later.

    The action of being homosexual is no more unsafe than the action of being heterosexual. Heterosexual behavior could be more unsafe in some ways, in fact. Heterosexuals can have sex in all the same ways that homosexuals can, and they can choose to have that sex unprotected and/or with multiple partners of unknown backgrounds. And heterosexuals have an extra way to have sex (penis in vagina), which could lead to an unwanted pregnancy.

    Allowing gay people to marry will most likely result in better, safer sex practices, including an important one of informed monogamy. Now, maybe not all homosexuals will practice safer sex, but neither do all heterosexuals, yet they are allowed to marry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Fashion!
    Metrosexual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    It appears to among females!
    No, females are naturally closer to each other. Some younger females do mistake some female closeness for attraction, and may experiment due to this with homosexual acts. Others really are attracted to both males and females. Maybe a little openness isn't a bad thing.

    Going along with your line of thinking however, back in the 1800s, young women actually were encouraged to have relationships with other women to help to prepare them for marriage, without the stigma of not being a virgin when they get married. So, it is possible that, given how for women, homosexuality has not been demonized nearly as much as it is for men, it is possible that this is why it is considered more "fluid" in women. However, women's sexuality is still not seen as a "choice".

    Although, I will concede that I have no idea how sexuality develops. It is possible that we all have the potential to be bisexual. But even then, I fail to see why it would matter. I doubt this is the case however. I am one of those of the belief that homosexuality is a natural defense to overpopulation. I really don't care how far out that may be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Marriage isn't exclusively about procreation, no, who said it was. But as far as the state is concerned, posterity is kind of important!
    Then show me where the state has said this. Provide proof where the state believes that it should be in the business of marriage because of procreation. I guarantee that you want find any absolute proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But why would ANY state care at all about marriage? Is it so they can divvy up the dough when it dissolves? Why wouldn't a society want to provide for the best environment for proliferation?
    The state's original concern with marriage was to restrict it. This is why the marriage license came about in the first place. The state wanted to control who could be legally viewed as a couple. The main criteria of concern of the restriction at the time, was race.

    We only recently have started considering marriage as having actual benefits to society. Marriage has been deemed a private matter, between the couple, overall, unless "society" disapproves of the relationship of the couple. Then it is restricted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    By the way, DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender, it discriminates against sexual orientation! But I suspect you knew that already, and were just testing me?
    Wrong. DOMA states that only one man and one woman can be recognized as a married couple by the federal government. What it does not say is that only heterosexuals can get married or that homosexuals cannot legally be recognized as married. Homosexuals can legally get married, to a member of the opposite sex. That means that a man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man. That is discrimination based on gender, not sexuality. Sexuality is not mentioned at all in DOMA.

    An example of discrimination against homosexuals is DADT and the UCMJ policies against homosexuality. These specifically state that homosexuals cannot be open about their sexuality while serving in the military. That is discrimination based on sexuality.

    Marriage is not limited to people in love either. The license to get married does not mention love at all. It doesn't mention attraction or intent to have children either. And the only cases known to be prosecuted as marriage fraud are those involving a US citizen who marries a foreign national for the sole purpose of citizenship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No, the party seeking retribution has the burden of proof.
    Not when it comes to the Constitutionality of laws such as DOMA. The government has the burden of proof in this case. They must show why it is a legitimate, important interest of the state to limit marriage to one man and one woman. This has not been done. However, they will have several SCOTUS cases in the coming years to present their case.
    "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.

  5. #415
    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

    Cap'n, I have nothing more to say to you that wasn't expressed in our little private conversation. I have entertained your none sense way longer than I should have. Unlike Tucker, Redress and Rougue who actually exchange their own ideas in the rebuttal, you exchange nothing other than accusation without substance. You do not explore the opposing idea, you claim they are wrong, and hold fast to that notion. That, Sir, is not debating! I guess I'll let it stand, and let others decide for themselves who's being the bigger person here.

    Tucker, and Rogue thanks for your well thought out replies. They were civil, and courteous, and deserve a reply. I just came in here to check and see how much work I had ahead of me; if I wanted to continue this debate. I have no work left for the good Cap'n, but at least with you two members I have something to respond too.

    Please excuse the delay in my response to both of you, as for today I have a doctor's appointment (specialist) and then we have a cook out with friends and family. I may not get to this until, either very late tonight, or tomorrow sometime.

    Regards,

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #416
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:08 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,157

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And here's where you are wrong. Sex does not fall under "Rational Basis review but falls under Middle-Tier Immediete Scrutiny. In that the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

    Gender discrimination is not allowable under "legitimate interest", but under important,
    No, I think my original assertion was correct. In fact, the judge who decided the case that initiated this thread applied rational basis review in his decision, specifically citing legitimate interet (I am NOT claiming that more stringent review might be applicable elsewhere):

    This court need not address these arguments, however, because DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test. As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Selective Service is a system in which to track males incase of a draft where individuals are needed for call up into primarily combat rolls. Even then, one could still argue its an instance of gender discrimination that frankly hasn't had the political and societal will to push for the over turning of yet. That does not necessarily mean it would be any less of a discriminatory act.
    It is a "discriminatory" act but the point is that "discriminatory" acts can be constitutional. You point out another, above - combat restrictions on females.

    But back to the main point - gender discrimination is not the same racial discrimination in the eyes of the law.
    Last edited by Taylor; 07-15-10 at 03:12 PM.

  7. #417
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,604

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Cap'n, I have nothing more to say to you that wasn't expressed in our little private conversation. I have entertained your none sense way longer than I should have. Unlike Tucker, Redress and Rougue who actually exchange their own ideas in the rebuttal, you exchange nothing other than accusation without substance. You do not explore the opposing idea, you claim they are wrong, and hold fast to that notion. That, Sir, is not debating! I guess I'll let it stand, and let others decide for themselves who's being the bigger person here.
    It is very difficult to debate someone, who, like you offers nothing to debate. Perhaps others here have more patience with your inability to show even the barest knowledge on the topic. I don't suffer the uninformed, like you, lightly. Let me know when you have learned some of the basics of this debate. Perhaps then we can speak about it. Currently, with your lack of understanding, there is no common context.
    "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"

  8. #418
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    We could be talking abut realestate and you would still be wrong. The right to contract is not without limit.
    I did not say the right to contract did not have limits. This is at least the 2nd time you misrepresented my points.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  9. #419
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    I believe that the federal government should concentrate on the basics, like border security and leave states rights alone. States should be able to do just about anything they want to. That way if you a ****ing Marxist, you can move to Kali, or if you are an ignorant bigot, you can move to Idaho, and everyone can be happy
    I concur with the foundation of your comment.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  10. #420
    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

    It says the text is too long so this will be in two parts.

    Part I

    ============================================
    Tucker, I wanted to go back and try to remap the argument. I hope you'll permit some redundancy for a moment? So we're clear, a dichotomy is defined as such:

    "A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts" link
    Therefore, by extension a false dichotomy is as follows:

    The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Link

    The argument over legal/illegal began when I made the initial claim.

    Hicup -
    An endorsement is when society makes the effort to either legalize (recognize) the right or privilege, or to make the act illegal! (also recognize it) The former is an endorsement, the latter is an opposition
    Tucker, you replied with this -
    False dichotomy. One can make the effort to de-illegalize something for reasons other than endorsing it.

    On top of that, things are not "legalized". They are simply no longer illegalized.
    I was responding to another poster when I stated this:
    Morality in the context of a collective society cannot be wrong. It is always correct, whether it is right or wrong is an individual distinction. Only when enough individuals agree that it is wrong, does it become wrong in the context of society. Do not confuse that, just because it is correct that society deems something right or wrong, it is right or wrong necessarily. That's not the argument here. Only that in a democratic society, the collective endorses, or rejects acts, or actions with the use of law. If it isn't legislated for, it is immaterial.
    Note, I was careful to place the argument in the context of two different kinds of implied morality.

    You said -
    Things that are legal are not legislated for. Only things that are destined to become illegal require legislation. The only thing society can collectively agree to is what they feel is wrong and thus should be illegal. This endorses the opposite behavior.

    Thus, there is no endorsement that stems from trying to make something legal. In actuality, all that is beign requested is a repeal of existing legislation.

    This does not endorse the behavior that is being "legalized". It only de-endorses the alternative behavior.

    For example, making homosexuality illegal is an endorsement of heterosexuality.Repealing such a law removes that endorsement of heterosexuality without providing an endorsment of homosexuality. Neither behavior is collectively endorsed. It leave sit up to the individual to decide.
    I had big problems with this thought process, and in re-reading it, I have even more problems with it. But I'll address that later in my conclusion.

    I responded to you this way -
    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 ground when in-fact one exists
    And in a follow up post I said this -
    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
    My argument, although note entirely thorough, is adequate, logically. That said, after re-reading your post, I should have said something more compelling. I will in the conclusion. But in short, legal is (right), and illegal is (wrong). More later.

    Rivrrat added to the conversation with two important points -
    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
    I replied -
    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.
    Again, this is a sound refutation of Rivrrats assertion. Rivrrat, is asserting, much like you, that to repeal a ban on SSM, would not be an endorsement by society. I argue that it would, and I fail to see why it would be anything less than an endorsement.

    You, after answering to specific points of my previous post said this in your conclusion-
    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.
    In response to one of my points here - Hicup
    By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior
    You said this -
    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
    Right, but this is where you begin to muddy the waters. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but it is still a logical fallacy none the less.

    I said in reply, not taking the bait -
    No disagreement here.. Right you are. Marriage is state of being, and inalienable I suppose
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3240414243 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
  •