Page 139 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3989129137138139140141149 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,390 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1381
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.

  2. #1382
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.
    Of course there's an evidential base to support polygamy/polyandry.

    There's no evidentiary base in the Prop 8 decision regarding polyandry/polygamy, but then again, that hearing wasn't about multiple marriages anyway.

  3. #1383
    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

    Scarcrow -
    How does one "divorce" a multi-party marriage? How many people are breaking off? If more than one person is breaking off, are they still married to each other while divorcing from the original plurality? What about the children? What shares did they bring to the community property, what shares did their participation in the community create and grow, what shares are theirs when they leave? How much support is the original community to provide to each of the individual divorcing parties, and how much to any splinter groups?
    I've answered this. Zyphlin brought it up already.

    No, once the end of the plural marriage is considered, it's discovered to be a completely different animal than a simple paired marriage.

    Not to mention that it's not germaine to the discussion of same-sex marriages, anyway
    It is germane for the reasons I lay out.



    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

  4. #1384
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.
    Nonesemse. All that is required is a rational basis to present the challenge. If the state disagrees then it is incumbant on the state to show cause. That's what due process is all about.


    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. #1385
    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
    CC -

    My refutation is in a number of consequential post to this thread, not a single post, necessarily.
    Your "refutation" has nothing to do with my position. Hence, there is no refutation. If you are going to "refute" me, you need to refute what I am arguing, not what you want me to be arguing.



    Let's put it this way. There are no legal negatives that justify a denial of equal protection. Unless of course you admit that a mere selection of negatives is enough to limit someone's fundamental right?
    Let me put it this way. Many laws are enacted because negative occur, either to individuals or society. Or are you going to deny that laws are not put in place as a restriction on negative behaviors/consequences? Oh... and point out where I said that marriage is a fundamental right. I'll give you a hint... I didn't.



    Surely you can't hold me to this? I have no single post, but a series of progressive posts that refute you. They "are" in this thread. I suggest you start on page 113 or there about.
    Yes, and I read this exchange. It does NOT address my position. So, if you are going to refute me, first, understand my position (you could start by reading my post) and then address THAT position.



    I know.. You're going the "negatives" route. It's a dangerous route for you, since it can be shown quite convincingly that homosexual marriages are "more" negative than heterosexual ones.
    Actually, it can't. And you can't. That's why the negatives route works, here.

    Is this the basis of your criteria? Or do you want to adjust your viewpoint? I'll give you the benefit of doubt here.
    No, my position is sound and I am completely aware that you cannot refute it. You have been unable to thus far... in fact, you haven't even been able to comment on my actual argument, yet in regards to polygamy.

    But government doesn't sanction, it legislates. Therefore you're argument should be based on this.
    Government legislates for reasons. THIS is what my argument is based on. You do not get to tell me what my argument "should" be based on.



    And I have demonstrated that they are.. So now what?
    No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making.

    And I have demonstrated that they are... So now what?
    No, you have not. No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making.



    So you want me to prove how something that is negative, is not a negative? It not need be done, ever, especially in this thread.
    If you claim it is not a negative, you should easily be able to demonstrate it. If you cannot, then it remains a negative. You know... refute a point. It's what debate is all about.

    You seem to not grasp the flow of this thread?
    You seem unable to grasp the argument that is being made.

    We're discussing a completely different view.
    Which is why everything that you have claimed to be a "refutation" thus far is not and is completely irrelevant.

    You "negative" theory would, without impunity, negate homosexuality as equal to the standing of heterosexuality.
    Problem is, you have not, nor can you prove this. Homosexuality can easily be shown to be equal in standing to heterosexuality. Different, but equal.

    That you don't see that is very telling as to your comprehension of the topic at hand..
    I've told you repeatedly that you do not understand this topic. You continue to demonstrate that with every post you make. And yet you continue to be in denial about this. When you get educated on the issue, let me know.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 08-07-10 at 05:20 AM.
    "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"

  6. #1386
    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

    CC -
    Your "refutation" has nothing to do with my position. Hence, there is no refutation. If you are going to "refute" me, you need to refute what I am arguing, not what you want me to be arguing
    You argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in terms of marriage rights. I have argued otherwise.

    Let me put it this way. Many laws are enacted because negative occur, either to individuals or society. Or are you going to deny that laws are not put in place as a restriction on negative behaviors/consequences? Oh... and point out where I said that marriage is a fundamental right. I'll give you a hint... I didn't
    So then you agree that if marriage is not a fundamental right, then any EPC challenge is rendered moot?

    Yes, and I read this exchange. It does NOT address my position. So, if you are going to refute me, first, understand my position (you could start by reading my post) and then address THAT position
    Ok fair enough. I'd be happy to refute you if my existing refutation is lacking in some way... Care to point it out for me?

    Actually, it can't. And you can't. That's why the negatives route works, here

    No it can be shown. Whether you agree or not is entirely dependent on you.

    No, my position is sound and I am completely aware that you cannot refute it. You have been unable to thus far... in fact, you haven't even been able to comment on my actual argument, yet in regards to polygamy
    In the context of the law, I argue for Polygamy quite well.

    Government legislates for reasons. THIS is what my argument is based on. You do not get to tell me what my argument "should" be based on
    Yes but it is those "reasons" that forward the conversation.

    No, you have not. No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making
    Which argument are you not making?

    If you claim it is not a negative, you should easily be able to demonstrate it. If you cannot, then it remains a negative. You know... refute a point. It's what debate is all about
    Any proving of a negative is arbitrary. For instanced I could say that gays have a higher chance of having HIV. Does it invalidate a claim to wanting marriage rights? No of course not, so what's your point> Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?

    Which is why everything that you have claimed to be a "refutation" thus far is not and is completely irrelevant.
    I would think, and hope that the majority of people following this thread thus far have seen my arguments, as at least relevant?

    Problem is, you have not, nor can you prove this. Homosexuality can easily be shown to be equal in standing to heterosexuality. Different, but equal.
    Not if you apply "negatives" to it, over that of heterosexuality? Isn't that your central theme against polygamy?

    I've told you repeatedly that you do not understand this topic. You continue to demonstrate that with every post you make. And yet you continue to be in denial about this. When you get educated on the issue, let me know.
    I promise I'll let you know when I'm ready for your level of debate..


    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 08-07-10 at 05:42 AM.
    “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. #1387
    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

    *choke* ...... seriously? What? Are you joking?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV,

  8. #1388
    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
    CC -

    You argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in terms of marriage rights. I have argued otherwise.
    I argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in the impact on the individual or society. Based on the reasons why the government would sanction marriage at all, this makes it a red herring in the GM debate, as it is not equivalent. It's inequality has little to do with rights.

    So then you agree that if marriage is not a fundamental right, then any EPC challenge is rendered moot?
    Correct.

    Ok fair enough. I'd be happy to refute you if my existing refutation is lacking in some way... Care to point it out for me?
    You would first have to present a position that actually addresses my argument. You haven't done that, yet. Do so, and I'll be happy to point out the flaws in your position.

    No it can be shown. Whether you agree or not is entirely dependent on you.
    No, it cannot be shown. Whether you agree is entirely up to you.

    In the context of the law, I argue for Polygamy quite well.
    And since all law stems from people, and people have reasons for creating laws, mostly for societal benefit, I have no problem demonstrating how polygamy fails in this argument.

    Yes but it is those "reasons" that forward the conversation.
    That's true. And it's those reasons that you are not addressing.


    Which argument are you not making?
    Are you reading what I am writing? I have stated repeatedly, I am not making the discrimination/equal protection argument.

    Any proving of a negative is arbitrary. For instanced I could say that gays have a higher chance of having HIV. Does it invalidate a claim to wanting marriage rights? No of course not, so what's your point? Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?
    Problem is that none of this is a logical argument. There are two problems with it. Firstly, it falls into the correlation, not causation logical fallacy, and it addresses sexual BEHAVIOR, not sexual ORIENTATION. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am challenging you to refute my position. You don't seem to understand the position, at all. I demonstrated that polygamy has several negatives, negatives that outweigh any benefits, and negatives that do not apply to either GM or SM. All you need to do is show that there are benefits that outweigh these negatives, or that the negatives apply to GM and SM. You have not addressed ANY of this. It's not about "proving a negative". It's about addressing a position.



    I would think, and hope that the majority of people following this thread thus far have seen my arguments, as at least relevant?
    Relevant? Some of your legal discussions were decent. But they have done nothing to address the issue that I have presented.

    Not if you apply "negatives" to it, over that of heterosexuality? Isn't that your central theme against polygamy?
    Still nothing. Also, you are diverting. We are discussing the differences between GM and SM, not homosexuality and heterosexuality, Do try to stay on topic. You cannot show that GM and SM are unequal, Different, yes, not not unequal, at least in how the government would identify how marriage benefits society.



    I promise I'll let you know when I'm ready for your level of debate..
    I'm sure with the right education, you could do it.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

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

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


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

  9. #1389
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post

    Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?


    Tim-
    Someone needs to learn properly about STD's before saying such ignorant comments.
    Last edited by Your Star; 08-07-10 at 06:15 AM.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  10. #1390
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Other than the psychological aspects of your argument, I have already refuted your argument that states that polygamy is not completely unrelated to homosexuality, and even heterosexuality in terms of a possible legal interpretation that affords the same protections.


    Tim-
    The two aren't even CLOSE to being the same as far as equal protection analysis. First you are dealing with different groups. Second, the government would have to come up with legitimate governmental interests to justify exclusion against both, which by their very nature would be different.

    That said....the government should stay out of polygamy as well, as long as it involves consenting adults.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Posting Permissions

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