Page 114 of 189 FirstFirst ... 1464104112113114115116124164 ... LastLast
Results 1,131 to 1,140 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1131
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Those who oppose the ruling, please stop bringing up polygamy -_- It's an illogical comparison and has no bearing on why the ruling was ruled the way it was. The issue I have is if you can't define marriage that does not include homosexuality because of the equal protection clause, then why is it ok to ban other sexualities? Why are they unequal? Again to those claiming homosexuals have a "right" to marriage. Where does the Constitution specifically touch on the topic of marriage? Where does it specifically say homosexuals have that right? The very issue with Proposition 8 was to define marriage, and define the contract of marriage. They were voting on if gay unions are marriage, and if they have a right to redefine and enter into that contract. Also, other rulings state that it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage. Just because a homosexual judge believes homosexuality as a sexual orientation is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean he is right, especially when the majority of judges have disagreed with him.
    The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.

    Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.

    However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.

    If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.

  2. #1132
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, what he means is yours and others tired arguments of "You're just choosing who its okay to be bigoted to if you don't allow polygamy too" or "Next its going to be allowing people to marry their horse!" or "Great, and so you're not going to be a hypocrite and say pedophilia is wrong too!" are all idiotic arguments that have been repeatedly debated, and destroyed, time and time and time again here on DP and so posters who have engaged in such conversations in threads that actually focused on them rather than were attempted to use them as derailment attempts basically see no point in rehashing it for some random poster coming into a thread in which that isn't the topic and begins throwing out the same tired BS that's been shot down time and time again.
    We've heard this time and time again and the same question gets asked.

    If you claim one alternative lifestyle has a fundamental right to marry how can you deny the same right to other alternative lifestyles without discriminating?
    Last edited by texmaster; 08-05-10 at 06:15 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #1133
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Those who oppose the ruling, please stop bringing up polygamy -_- It's an illogical comparison and has no bearing on why the ruling was ruled the way it was. The issue I have is if you can't define marriage that does not include homosexuality because of the equal protection clause, then why is it ok to ban other sexualities? Why are they unequal? Again to those claiming homosexuals have a "right" to marriage. Where does the Constitution specifically touch on the topic of marriage? Where does it specifically say homosexuals have that right? The very issue with Proposition 8 was to define marriage, and define the contract of marriage. They were voting on if gay unions are marriage, and if they have a right to redefine and enter into that contract. Also, other rulings state that it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage. Just because a homosexual judge believes homosexuality as a sexual orientation is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean he is right, especially when the majority of judges have disagreed with him.
    The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
    Last edited by danarhea; 08-05-10 at 06:16 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #1134
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant. My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual. GM has been shown to do the same. Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple. This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.

    Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant.
    Boy I LOVE playing with you. I have flawed reasoning eh? Dear lord, here we go again. Lets take it slow.

    Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant.
    Well, ok, but the courts claim it is a fundamental right, and that's kind of what we're discussing here isn't it? Did you walk into the wrong thread?

    My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual
    In your opinion, maybe. I don't disagree with you, but it is a little off topic.

    GM has been shown to do the same
    Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple.
    Not so fast there fella. Says who, you?

    This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.
    Yep, still not seeing the "red herring" bud? The two are entirely comparable to my central point. That is, what constitutes a fundamental marriage?

    Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant
    Not sure I could "prove" it, anymore than you "proved" the benefits of gay marriage? LOL I do not support polygamy, but that's unimportant to the legal question of what constitutes a fundamental right. Pay attention please. I would say though that if I had to make any argument for polygamy, I would probably say that certain communal benefits can be imparted on polygamist relationships.

    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

  5. #1135
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Medical Decisions is one example of a far more far reaching thing, which is specifically spousal benefits of control. This relates to inheretence, this relates to medical expenses, this relates to what is gained in divorce, and onwards and onwards.

    Interjecting mulitple parties into these type of situations creates issues where there is no clear singular individual that gets the benefit, meaning that the benefit becomes disputed. Disputes lead to the courts having to make judgements on this, which can create a significant and unreasonable strain on the court system.

    Medical decision was simply one example of the type of benefit that would cause this substantial strain.
    1. i thought you were thru with me

    2. these difficulties you bring up do not justify denying a bisexual individual the same self expressions held out as a false promise to gay individuals who aren't gonna get nothin after robert's court gets thru with this

    3. and by obama's doj's thinking, if gay individuals ARE ever accorded these rights, pedophiles and the incestuous are equally entitled

  6. #1136
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    We've heard this time and time again and the same question gets asked.

    If you claim one alternative lifestyle has a fundamental right to marry how can you deny the same right to other alternative lifestyles without discriminating?
    Tex

    Listen to me as I type very....very...slowly.

    I've not made the argument, once, anywhere in this thread, that any group at all has a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.

    I am arguing that as it stands today MARRIAGE in general is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

    I am arguing that the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause protects individual classes of people from discrimination in regards ot the law, including constitutional rights.

    I am arguing specific to my stance, that there is gender discrimination in the current marriage system and since gender is a clearly defined unquestionable subset under the equal protection clause, that it is unconstitutional to deny men from marrying men and women from marrying women when men can marry women and women can marry men.

    I am also saying that due to the significant amount of evidence supporting the notion that sexual orientation in the large majority of homosexuals can be attributed as "natural" or "born with" that there is a far greater case to be made for that being worthy of EPC on the same level of gender if not race than polygamy which has no evidence of being an orientation or something people are "born" with.

    Finally I am stating that "number of people", which is where the inequality comes into play with polygamists as they feel that if they can marry 1 person its discrimination to not allow them to marry 2, is not a recognized protected group under EPC like gender NOR has anyone presented any argument let alone a strong argument as to why it should be covered under EPC similar to the arguments made for sexual orientation.

    So if you'd like to actually address what I am ACTUALLY claiming rather than the strawman you're creating, I'd love to have the conversation.

  7. #1137
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, what he means is yours and others tired arguments of "You're just choosing who its okay to be bigoted to if you don't allow polygamy too" or "Next its going to be allowing people to marry their horse!" or "Great, and so you're not going to be a hypocrite and say pedophilia is wrong too!" are all idiotic arguments that have been repeatedly debated, and destroyed, time and time and time again here on DP and so posters who have engaged in such conversations in threads that actually focused on them rather than were attempted to use them as derailment attempts basically see no point in rehashing it for some random poster coming into a thread in which that isn't the topic and begins throwing out the same tired BS that's been shot down time and time again.
    Boy, you folks are so geared to your own agenda that you're failing to see what I'm saying. I do NOT support polygamy, and I do not equate it to heterosexual marriage in any real sense. However, that said, the argument that marriage is a fundamental right ALSO applies to polygamists does IT not? Stop trying to deflect and answer the damn question? Just coz you say it's been "destoyed" here many times, doesn't mean I was around when it was being "destroyed". With the frmaing of my question I hope that now you understand what it is I am asking of you that support gay marriage. Is it clear now?

    No, I don't see this. And you, and everyone else, has failed to demonstrate how it is.
    Boy, you're completely missing the point or avoiding it altogether I can't tell? How can you deny marriage to polygamists if you consider marriage to be a fundamental right? Here once again, I consider a fundamental right to be such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction.

    Do you understand what that means Zyphlin?

    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 08-05-10 at 06:24 PM.
    “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

  8. #1138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    the topic of polygamy is just one that arises NATURALLY in this discussion

    the questions occur by matter of course to millions of people who start to examine this tangled can of worms

    just look at this thread, just look how the comparisons arise

    look at barry's own doj, look at the comparisons they make

    you're not gonna be able to keep these questions down, not in america

    maybe on dp, tho---all you gotta do is declare polygamy off topic

  9. #1139
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.
    Then why can homosexual unions be defined as marriage? Everyone does have the right to marriage, but marriage is a union between a man and woman, not a union between two men or two women. A homosexual still has the right to enter into the marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. In many states marriage has been defined. Most have defined it as a union between only a man and woman, and others have defined it to be a union between two people regardless of gender or sexuality. They all have the right to marriage, but marriage doesn't always mean, nor is it forced by the constitution to mean, a union between heterosexuals or homosexuals of any gender.
    Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.
    Your opinion is yours, and I respect that.
    However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.
    Do you agree that the Constitution can be spun to mean what people want it to mean? Many believe it's unchanging law, and others believe it is a "living document." By the very same Constitution others have ruled that states do have the right to define marriage. Judges interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on that interpretation, but like with all interpretations, they can be wrong and subject to bias.
    If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.
    I do believe marriage is a Constitutional right. I don't believe that the Constitution says that marriage must be defined as a union that includes homosexuality. Marriage is a union that society and law set the boundaries for. Everyone has the right to marriage in Tennessee, but this state has defined that union as a union between one man and one women (ruling out homosexual unions as marriage and polygamous unions). I believe that activist judges incorrectly spin the Constitution to fit their ideology and feelings. Their ruling is based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #1140
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
    As long as the government gives benefits to marriages it IS the governments business.

    However, its business has to be conducted in a constitutional way.

Posting Permissions

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