Page 119 of 189 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121129169 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1181
    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 jallman View Post
    My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.
    all of which can be overcome

    love conquers all

    In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership.
    there ya go

  2. #1182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    all of which can be overcome

    love conquers all



    there ya go
    And you notice that above, I stated I don't mind them having that nor do I care if they call it a marriage. However, let me be clear that I do see several social challenges to the legitimizing of polygamous corporate arrangements...all of which we have been demonstrated in fundamental mormon sects.

  3. #1183
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..

    Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?


    Tim-
    Aww.. geez, nobody wants to play with you, and you are stuck trying to plead to get someone to set you up for this great argument you have. Maybe you should put the straw man back in the closet (i made a pun!) since nobody wants to play nor are making any claims which would facilitate your argument.

    anyhow here ill lob an informal opening pitch, perhaps you can take a swing and at least let a little straw get to flying.

    A person does have the fundamental right to determine who they decide to share their lives with.. run with it!! I left a lot of openings for you to swing away at.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  4. #1184
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report



    Some on this tread would be right at home backing up ole George here. Just might be able to use some of the same reasoning as well. Such as, it’s a states right kinda thing.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  5. #1185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Really? What is this, tickle me but don't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Then don't answer it? I don't care one iota?

    Tim-
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Please, I'm asking a question, what's your answer?

    Tim-

  6. #1186
    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 jallman View Post
    I believe the courts have designated our right to contract to be fundamental. I confess not really knowing or caring whether it is fundamental or constitutional...nor can I make myself care enough to research the difference.

    My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.

    In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership.
    POA is a minor thing and not essential to the construct of marriage philosphically. It's hardly a complex thing to legislate for, but I do acknowledge that it does make it more cumbersome than just two people wishing to marry. Marriage in and of itself though, is independant from the state and its jurisdiction. It is considered inalienable, and the fact that courts and legislatures place limits or prerequisits is telling. It is a contradiction in terms, if one looks at it literally. Consequently, one must conclude that the state places value on certain types of marriages, or arrangements, or a vested interest. If it does so, which it does, then how fundamental is marriage at all? If it can be argued successfully that marriage is a fundamental right belonging to no jurisdiction, then placing limits on this right isn't constitutional, but rather legislative, and contradicts the meaning of fundamental, essentially invalidating it altogether. The lmitations on marriage, if legislative, belong to the states. In Roe v Wade, the court ruled that there is a limitation on what constitutes life, which we all agree is a fundamental right, but it apparantly isn't really a fundamental right, since woman can choose to abort the life growing inside them. Life is protected, or should be, but it isn't. There is no equal protection challenge, or it was ignored because in essence, life, still in the womb, is not fundamental., worthy of protections The way around it was belieiving that, that sack of cells isn't life. Well, one could argue that historically, marriage has only been fundamental to one man, and one woman; and if it were otherwise we'd see examples of it.

    So to sum up, if one agree's that marriage is a fundamental right, then one must agree that it has only ever been fundamental to a single group, otherwise there'd be a whole host of different types of marriages. If however one decides that marriage isn't a fundamental right, then a 14th challenge is rendered moot, and the states are free to decide for themselves, and be held accountable by their citizens.


    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

  7. #1187
    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 marduc View Post
    Aww.. geez, nobody wants to play with you, and you are stuck trying to plead to get someone to set you up for this great argument you have. Maybe you should put the straw man back in the closet (i made a pun!) since nobody wants to play nor are making any claims which would facilitate your argument.

    anyhow here ill lob an informal opening pitch, perhaps you can take a swing and at least let a little straw get to flying.

    A person does have the fundamental right to determine who they decide to share their lives with.. run with it!! I left a lot of openings for you to swing away at.
    You're an odd person. You poke fun that no one wants to play, and then play?

    By the way point out the strawman please? Is it common around here for members, mostly liberal leaning ones to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without providing the foundation for their accusation? Anyway, no matter, I'm getting used to it now.

    My answer to your question is asked and answered.


    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

  8. #1188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    POA is a minor thing and not essential to the construct of marriage philosphically. It's hardly a complex thing to legislate for, but I do acknowledge that it does make it more cumbersome than just two people wishing to marry. Marriage in and of itself though, is independant from the state and its jurisdiction. It is considered inalienable, and the fact that courts and legislatures place limits or prerequisits is telling. It is a contradiction in terms, if one looks at it literally. Consequently, one must conclude that the state places value on certain types of marriages, or arrangements, or a vested interest. If it does so, which it does, then how fundamental is marriage at all? If it can be argued successfully that marriage is a fundamental right belonging to no jurisdiction, then placing limits on this right isn't constitutional, but rather legislative, and contradicts the meaning of fundamental, essentially invalidating it altogether. The lmitations on marriage, if legislative, belong to the states. In Roe v Wade, the court ruled that there is a limitation on what constitutes life, which we all agree is a fundamental right, but it apparantly isn't really a fundamental right, since woman can choose to abort the life growing inside them. Life is protected, or should be, but it isn't. There is no equal protection challenge, or it was ignored because in essence, life, still in the womb, is not fundamental., worthy of protections The way around it was belieiving that, that sack of cells isn't life. Well, one could argue that historically, marriage has only been fundamental to one man, and one woman; and if it were otherwise we'd see examples of it.

    So to sum up, if one agree's that marriage is a fundamental right, then one must agree that it has only ever been fundamental to a single group, otherwise there'd be a whole host of different types of marriages. If however one decides that marriage isn't a fundamental right, then a 14th challenge is rendered moot, and the states are free to decide for themselves, and be held accountable by their citizens.


    Tim-
    And again, this goes back to the whether or not marriage is a fundamental right. I don't really care if it is or isn't because I don't think the pro-gm side needs to argue that, specifically, although it is a sound and interesting argument if it is pursued from that angle. I think, in the interest of not alienating public sympathy for the cause, the argument should focus specifically on the right to contract. There is no debate whether or not we have the right to contract in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment will apply since it is a right enumerated to us and, therefore, subject to the equal protection clause. And finally, there is little lattitude in the argument that marriage is, in fact, a civil contract. If the debate is approached in this way, the pro-gm side of the debate stays blameless and untouchable from accusations of stepping on the rights of the religious which is their major opposition.

    The only argument is whether or not there can be a vested interest in the State to determine restrictions on the right to contract between individuals and if it can legally extend benefits to one and not the other. Being that marriage has already been defined through case law as a mutually binding contract granting two individuals equal power of attorney (among other things but lets just use that phrase as a catch all for simplicity's sake) with one another, and designating them as basically one person in the eyes of the law (exemplified by the fact that they cannot be made to testify against each other, basically extending the personal right in the 5th Amendment to cover two people), I can't see how a court could reject that the 14th Amendment is applicable.

    As to the polygamy argument, I have no issue with polygamous contracts being established. I personally find the idea distasteful and see a host of difficulties that would open the door for State interest in halting or seriously curbing them, but that's all speculation on my part and not something I have researched. I would be interested to see how they used existing case law to argue their point though.

  9. #1189
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    You're an odd person.
    I prefer the term "unique individual"

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    You poke fun that no one wants to play, and then play?
    yeah sometimes it gets hard seeing the kid off in the corner of the playground all by himself when he keeps looking around expectantly, plus I was curious to see how far you may or may not run if I gave you something small to chew on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    By the way point out the strawman please?
    Person A has position X.
    Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.
    Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    You wanted it to NOT be a straw man, but since nobody was presenting your superficially similar position, it was a straw man because what you wanted to attack was a position that was not held, nor presented by anyone.

    1)People -and the ruling -claim the issue violated parts of the constitution (x), and some even claimed it violated constitutional rights.
    2) you have a great argument that would undermine X based on the superficially similar fundamental rights position Y
    3) person B begs for someone to set him up so that he can attack position Y, concluding that position X (the ruling) is flawed.

    I will give you some props for withholding beating on that straw man without an attempt at goading people to fleshing it out some.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Is it common around here for members, mostly liberal leaning ones to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without providing the foundation for their accusation?
    about as common as people trying to pigeonhole people into the liberal leaning classification without any sort of substantiation to back it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Anyway, no matter, I'm getting used to it now.
    If I were routinely accused of committing fallacies I would not get used to it, and would really start to wonder why personally.. but I am a "unique individual"

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    My answer to your question is asked and answered.
    huh? I did not ask a question, but mighty nice of you to answer it I suppose.
    Last edited by marduc; 08-05-10 at 08:51 PM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  10. #1190
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Boy I LOVE playing with you. I have flawed reasoning eh? Dear lord, here we go again. Lets take it slow.
    And I LOVE playing with you because of your flawed reasoning... which I have pointed out several times, already on this thread. You make it so easy.



    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?
    No, it's not what we are discussing. You have repeatedly asked if people believe it's a fundamental right, so I am addressing that. Try to follow along.



    In your opinion, maybe. I don't disagree with you, but it is a little off topic.
    Not at all. You all are talking about the discrimination perspective, but are also throwing in the red herring of polygamy. Eliminate discrimination, and polygamy goes out the window.

    Not so fast there fella. Says who, you?
    Says peer reviewed studies and logical explorations of the issues.

    Yep, still not seeing the "red herring" bud? The two are entirely comparable to my central point. That is, what constitutes a fundamental marriage?
    Your central point is flawed... as I said. That is why polygamy doesn't apply. When you start with a false premise, everything that flows from it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Didn't I explain this to you before?



    Not sure I could "prove" it, anymore than you "proved" the benefits of gay marriage? LOL
    The benefits of GM are the same as the benefits as straight marriage. I've presented this plenty of times here. However, I am certain that you cannot prove it, but that's my challenge to you. Prove that polygamy is NOT a red herring by showing it's benefits and how they outweigh it's negatives.

    I do not support polygamy, but that's unimportant to the legal question of what constitutes a fundamental right. Pay attention please.
    Pay attention. You asked if people support that marriage is a fundamental right. I reject that. Your question has been answered. So, now it is your turn to answer mine. Show how polygamy's benefits outweigh it's negatives.

    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-
    Says who? You? Let's see an actual argument.
    "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
  •