Page 146 of 189 FirstFirst ... 4696136144145146147148156 ... LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,460 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1451
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Last Seen
    08-08-10 @ 02:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    HIV is brought up in ever thread involving gays for the same reason that Incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia is brought up. It's an attempt to tie gay people with unpopular things.
    Well then republican politicans shouldn't allowed to get married... It seems they are all gay or pedofiles... No comment on the party or it's memebers... Just a simple observation on the people most concerned with "protecting family values" are the ones pissing in the wind.

    Look at my neighbor (literally) Sen. David Vitter. That man has had more ho's than Santa...

  2. #1452
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    This decision by Judge Walker has nothing to do with polygamy, whether you can marry a horse, dog or cat. Or about AIDS. It's about equal protect under the law. Whether TWO people who would be eligible to marry someone of the opposite sex can marry a person of the same sex. One Prop8's arguments was that gay marriage was bad for the kids.
    Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."
    Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

  3. #1453
    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

    CaptainCourtesy - Originally posted 4/4/2009
    You are wrong, dana. There is more of a difference between polygamy and GM than just what Zyph posted. The government sanctions marriage for a variety of reasons...
    Wrong, right here. The Government does not sanction marriage, it only recognizes it within a legal framework, and provides the limitations through that framework. Marriage, in and of itself, requires no sanction from anyone, other than those participating in the marriage. Recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is what the State does, and it goes no further than that.

    First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex.
    This is what identifies them as individuals, sexually, and spiritually. I agree with this sentiment.

    Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation.
    That is part of it, but it is not all of it.

    Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion
    I'm with ya so far..

    Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists.
    This is wrong. Firstly, marriage does not need to benefit that state, it need only to be able to qualify for recognition, but that recognition is not dependant on any arbitrary judgment as to any benefit marriage may, or may not impart on the state. Secondly, the bonds that form from marriage, and the families that arise from them, historically, come before the state. In essence, they made the state, and without it, the state ceases to exist.

    However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation
    No, but there is a definable identity associated with polygamists. In fact, a polygamist cannot be a polygamists unless they show affection, emotion, love and attraction to more than one other individual. Sexual orientation is a protected right in CA, however, I've argued that it is identity that is what should be protected, as identity encompasses a more broad interpretation of the individual. By protecting ones sexual, and spiritual identity, among other things, the state can include all categories, so long as the marriage commitment does not violate any protections afforded other classes.

    However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.
    First of all, given the above, I'm not even sure you've made an argument for sexual orientation as a consideration for recognition of marriage?

    Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation.
    I would criticize two things here. First, there is no limitation on marriage that purports to require a benefit for the state in order for marriage to be recognized. Secondly, research does not show. Check that, the research that exists currently does not give any conclusive evidence one way or the other as to the efficacy of homosexual marriage, nor of raising children.

    This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency
    That is utter none sense. Polygamists are not uniquely prone to any of those human emotions, and to prove otherwise would require you to delve deep into the science-light, that is psychology, and frankly it, no matter what you find, would seem uncompelling to me, and easily debatable.

    Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures
    That's a sweeping generality, and not even remotely provable. Psychology, can be attributed to everything we do, hardly a justification for your assertion. But that's a different topic..

    neither can human psychology be separated from this issue
    Why would it need to be, "separated", exactly?

    What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry
    Let me see if I have this right. You think "jealousy and rivalry" are the cause for a man, or a woman to cheat on their spouse? I'm sorry but that is absurd..

    In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions.
    See this is why I ignored your psycho babble portion of your post. It's none sense, and not even remotely provable. Not to mention that none of it is enough for a state to deny marriage to the polygamists.

    With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained
    You do realize that human anthropology disagrees with you? In fact, monogamy is relative newcomer to the human existence. Polygamy, and variations of it, existed for eons, well before the concept of monogamy, so that kind of throws a wrench into that theory, eh?

    Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children
    In what way? Can you be specific?

    We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
    Yes it does in divorce, but what does that have to do with a happy, and healthy, intact polygamist family?

    Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy
    How about 4.5 million years of data?

    All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.
    Benefits have nothing to do with it, period!

    Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
    No, it's entirely relevant.


    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. #1454
    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
    No. This doesn't just get to stand as is. All you are doing is manipulating statistics. You don't get to exclude a group because it counters your position.
    Then include them.. It makes no difference to my analysis..

    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. #1455
    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 Redress View Post
    HIV is brought up in ever thread involving gays for the same reason that Incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia is brought up. It's an attempt to tie gay people with unpopular things.
    So wait.. Isn't my explanation for the reason I brought it up not enough? Are you all accusing me of meaning something other than what I said? HIV is NOT a gay disease, and I never said ti was. Period! So please stop your stupid accusations?


    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. #1456
    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 Redress View Post
    HIV is brought up in ever thread involving gays for the same reason that Incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia is brought up. It's an attempt to tie gay people with unpopular things.
    I don't agree. If you look back HIV was brought up when CC decided to go back to his obsolete argument trying to link the privilege of marriage recognized by the state with community value. HIV infection was simply offered to counter that ridiculous argument by proving homosexuality has its own risks and "negatives" if you are going to value base what groups get to marry based on positive or negative contributions to a society.

    Frankly, its such an audacious argument its quite incredible he brought it up in the first place. And who gets to judge a "fundamental right" as many on the pro gay marriage like to argue based on the contributions to a society? What if we judged health care by that draconian scale? What about performance in class? On the field? culture? Frankly I'm shocked you didn't argue against it yourself.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #1457
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Hicup, the government does indeed sanction marriage(they are after all who issue marriage licenses. There are also, as of 1997, "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor". http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #1458
    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 Redress View Post
    Hicup, the government does indeed sanction marriage(they are after all who issue marriage licenses. There are also, as of 1997, "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor". http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
    Yes, all legislative, nothing to do with the marriage construct as being wholly fundamental. That's what I meant.


    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

  9. #1459
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    I don't agree. If you look back HIV was brought up when CC decided to go back to his obsolete argument trying to link the privilege of marriage recognized by the state with community value. HIV infection was simply offered to counter that ridiculous argument by proving homosexuality has its own risks and "negatives" if you are going to value base what groups get to marry based on positive or negative contributions to a society.

    Frankly, its such an audacious argument its quite incredible he brought it up in the first place. And who gets to judge a "fundamental right" as many on the pro gay marriage like to argue based on the contributions to a society? What if we judged health care by that draconian scale? What about performance in class? On the field? culture? Frankly I'm shocked you didn't argue against it yourself.
    Except that, despite your ignoring this repeatedly, it is not homosexuality which is high risk, it is engaging in high risk activities. Once again, since you keep ignoring this, a gay who engages in no high risk activities(such as one who is monogamous by virtue of, say, being married) is at a much lower risk of contracting HIV than a strait person who engages in high risk activities such as promiscuity. It is certain behaviors which are high risk, not certain orientations.
    Last edited by Redress; 08-08-10 at 02:48 AM.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #1460
    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
    Then include them.. It makes no difference to my analysis..

    Tim-
    This is true. Your analysis is wrong either way.
    "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
  •