Page 168 of 189 FirstFirst ... 68118158166167168169170178 ... LastLast
Results 1,671 to 1,680 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1671
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
    No one has addressed your question because it's irrelevant.

    It's not "gay" marriage, it's SAME SEX marriage, which means that it's discrimination based on gender when men are allowed to marry women and I - a woman - am not. My sexual orientation is really quite irrelevant to the legality of marriage since homosexuals can and do get married legally now. They just currently have to marry the opposite sex.

    The point is, when you get a marriage license, they don't ****ing ask you your sexual orientation. They do, however, ask you your gender. So, whatever orientations it is that you're referring to (and polyamory isn't an orientation) CAN get married right now. No one is stopping them.



    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?
    If and when horses are legally allowed to enter into contracts, you'll have a point. Until that time, however, you do not. As it is now, both men and women are allowed to enter into contracts. But for some reason, men are forbidden to enter into a specific contract with another man when they are allowed to do so with a woman. This is gender discrimination.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 08-09-10 at 02:31 PM.

  2. #1672
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
    You would have to specify what other "sexualities". If your other "sexualities" are things like pedophilia and zoophilia, then it is because the law holds that partners must be able to consent to enter a contract like marriage. Animals and children are unable to consent. If your other "sexualities" are things like polygamy, then I'm sure down the road one will file a lawsuit. However, unlike same sex marriage which has a wealth of evidence to support the benefits it can contribute to society, there is no such evidence for polygamy. Whether marriage, as a civil right, can be restricted by benefits to society, will probably be seen down the road. However, the entire justification for government being involved in marriage to begin with is that the state has an interest in the benefits that marriage provides to society.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-09-10 at 02:32 PM.

  3. #1673
    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

    Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?

  4. #1674
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You couldn't be more wrong. My God people how many times has this been described and you simply did not read it?

    Our side NEVER brought in benefits to society vs negatives when deciding who should be allowed to marry. That was and still is CC

    And he did it because someone rightly pointed out that if you use the equal protection clause to allow gays to marry you cannot exclude Polygamists. CC claimed you could and based his argument on a draconian practice of claiming you can judge who can be married based on positive and negative contributions to a society. He then claimed that is how you could keep polygamists out which is a ridiculous argument. All we did was point out homosexuals especially gay men have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV and backed it up with an article from the CDC. Then instead of admitting his mistake he tried every trick in the book from bringing up condoms to monogamous partners, nothing of which changes the facts of the CDC report.

    This began with CC. Please read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
    Please tell us tex. When are you going to educate yourself enough on this issue so that you learn that polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation? When you finally do that, you will realize that you waste everyone's time with idiotic presentations as you did above.

    Oh, and everything else you said above completely lacks logic. As usual for you. But please keep posting it. Each time you do so, what you post looks bad enough that it bolsters my position.
    "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"

  5. #1675
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    No one has addressed your question because it's irrelevant.
    It is very relevant, no one has addressed it because there is no logical explanation.
    It's not "gay" marriage, it's SAME SEX marriage, which means that it's discrimination based on gender when men are allowed to marry women and I - a woman - am not. My sexual orientation is really quite irrelevant to the legality of marriage since homosexuals can and do get married legally now. They just currently have to marry the opposite sex.
    Same thing, just a different definition. Why is it ok to discriminate based on species or based on living objects? If sexuality is irrelevant to the legality of marriage, than why can't other sexualities have their unions imposed upon the definition of marriage?
    The point is, when you get a marriage license, they don't ****ing ask you your sexual orientation. They do, however, ask you your gender. So, whatever orientations it is that you're referring to (and polyamory isn't an orientation) CAN get married right now. No one is stopping them.
    So a zoophile can marry a horse, and a pansexual can parry his bed?
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You would have to specify what other "sexualities". If your other "sexualities" are things like pedophilia and zoophilia, then it is because the law holds that partners must be able to consent to enter a contract like marriage. Animals and children are unable to consent. If your other "sexualities" are things like polygamy, then I'm sure down the road one will file a lawsuit. However, unlike same sex marriage which has a wealth of evidence to support the benefits of society, there is no such evidence for polygamy. Whether marriage, as a civil right, can be restritcted by benefits to society, will probably be seen down the road. However, the entire justification for government being involved in marriage to be with is that the state has an interest in the benefits that marriage provides to society.
    Did I mention pedophilia? And why can't an animal consent? Why can't a child consent? There is no magical maturation that goes on between 17 and 18. Animals can consent, just not the same way humans can. My point isn't the legality of it, it's the logic behind imposing homosexual unions upon everyone because sexuality is protected under the equal protection clause. If a man wants to marry a blow up doll, why can't he? It's non living. The ability to consent is a moral stance. It's a moral belief that you can't marry a dog, or doll, because they "can't" consent. When pansexuals and zoophiles would all tell you that they can and that you have no right to impose your morality on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.
    For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
    Last edited by digsbe; 08-09-10 at 02:37 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #1676
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If its done through law I have no problem with it. When activist judges write new law without legal backing I do have a problem with it.
    By "through law" you must mean through vote. We have an independent judiciary because our fundamental civil rights are not up for vote. Otherwise, why not put up religion and the right to bear arms to a vote?

    That is the problem with claiming equal protection covers marriage. It doesn't and never has.
    Wrong.

    Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

    Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

    Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

    And if it did you could not exclude any sexual orientation from wanting the same thing based on the same finding. That is why we have laws and ammendments.
    Yeah, and if we don't defend the Constitutional Amendments we have, such at the 14th, then what is the point of having them?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-09-10 at 02:39 PM.

  7. #1677
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Same thing, just a different definition. Why is it ok to discriminate based on species or based on living objects? If sexuality is irrelevant to the legality of marriage, than why can't other sexualities have their unions imposed upon the definition of marriage?
    If and when horses are allowed to enter into legal contracts, you will have a point. Ditto for children. If people would like to change that, those would be the first steps: Allowing animals and blowup dolls to enter into legally binding contracts. Then the whole marriage thing can go from there.

    So, your first step to marrying your blow up doll, digsbe, is to petition your legislatures to recognize blowup dolls as people who can consent to enter legally binding contracts. Ditto for your dog.

    When the govt does that, THEN we can discuss their ability to enter into marriage contracts.

  8. #1678
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    A person's sexual orientation alone does not increase the likelihood of them contracting HIV.
    Let me try to propose a hypothetical as to why someone might want to treat orientation as a risk factor. If the incidence of disease among those who share my orientation is high w/r to the general population - the cards are already stacked against me.

    It is theoretically true that if I practice 100% safe sex that I can eliminate the risk, but we live in the real world here. I could do everything "right" - practice safe sex, eventually devote myself to a monogamous relationship, etc. Only to find out my partner has been cheating on me and has "given me the aids." Maybe my partner was a habitual cheater. Maybe it was a one time thing, but the risk was so much higher given the incidence of AIDS in my community. These are just examples of how one's sexual orientation could place you at higher risk.

    There are lots of other hypothetical correlates I can come up with that would contribute to increased risk - maybe people in community A are more "desirious" of each other, making self control more difficult, etc. As things get complicated, it becomes exceedingly difficult to map out all of the mediating variables.

  9. #1679
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
    Just a quick comment on this. Your morals are irrelevant to the discussion. If you are morally opposed to homosexuality, don't engage in it. If you are morally opposed to others engaging in homosexuality, tough ****. You have no right to NOT have your moral sensabilities offended.

    Oh... homosexuality has been determined to NOT be a deviance in a clinical sense. When bestiality or pedophilia receive the same determination, your argument would make sense. Since they have not, your argument does not.
    "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"

  10. #1680
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Let me try to propose a hypothetical as to why someone might want to treat orientation as a risk factor. If the incidence of disease among those who share my orientation is high w/r to the general population - the cards are already stacked against me.

    It is theoretically true that if I practice 100% safe sex that I can eliminate the risk, but we live in the real world here. I could do everything "right" - practice safe sex, eventually devote myself to a monogamous relationship, etc. Only to find out my partner has been cheating on me and has "given me the aids." Maybe my partner was a habitual cheater. Maybe it was a one time thing, but the risk was so much higher given the incidence of AIDS in my community. These are just examples of how one's sexual orientation could place you at higher risk.

    There are lots of other hypothetical correlates I can come up with that would contribute to increased risk - maybe people in community A are more "desirious" of each other, making self control more difficult, etc. As things get complicated, it becomes exceedingly difficult to map out all of the mediating variables.
    You argument is flawed and I will show you why. If you practice 100% safe sex, devote yourself to a monogamous relationship, and do everything "right" you could not contract HIV even if your partner was cheating. If you did all those things, his cheating would be irrelevant, since you protected yourself and did everything "right". You would have had to made an error in behavior to contract HIV. See? Orientation has nothing to do with it. Behavior does.
    "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
  •