Page 169 of 189 FirstFirst ... 69119159167168169170171179 ... LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,690 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1681
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,131

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    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.
    In the legal sense, consent is not simply the ability to agree or give permission, but the ability to fully comprehend and understand the terms to what they are agreeeing or giving permission to. As such, the law holds that animals and children are not capable of consent.

    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.
    Sexuality is not protected under the equal protection clause. Marriage is. And Walker didn't argue that same sex marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional because they discriminated against sexual orientation. He argued they were unconstitutional because they discriminated against sex. I suggest you actually go read the ruling before you comment further.

    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.
    This has nothing to do wtih imposing morality. This has to do with upholding the Federal Constitution. The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    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 buy 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."

    The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.

    For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
    Indeed, and they are entitled to their moral stance. However, they are not entitled to place their morals above the Federal Constitution.

  2. #1682
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.
    You are confusing correlation and causation again and still don't understand what a risk factor is.
    Last edited by Taylor; 08-09-10 at 03:07 PM.

  3. #1683
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.
    I wasn't the one who brought up morality. I was responding to the comment that bestiality is not recognized as marriage because it is deviant. And my morality is allowed to play into my vote. Others have no right to impose their morality that homosexuality is moral and their unions are "marriage" onto everyone living in a state.

    So now you are bringing up morality? There have also been clinical studies that would suggest homosexuality develops due to sexual abuse, physical abuse, and emotional instability. Bias clinical studies mean nothing to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    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.
    My point is why aren't those unions equally protected? Why can't a guy marry a horse if all sexualities are equal and deserving of having their unions recognized as marriage? It's logically inconsistent to uphold homosexuality and denounce others based on the idea that homosexuality is protected under the equal protection clause. And that the clause calls for the imposition of homosexuality into all legal definitions of marriage. With this ruling, it is logically inconsistent to claim homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage because it's protected by the equal protection clause, yet banning others because they are "immoral" and not deserving of the same protection.
    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.
    Does consent matter? Is that not a moral position? What if some believe that blow up dolls and animals can consent? It's a moral stance that states "I believe these things cannot consent, thus they cannot marry." Regardless, the ruling states homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage recognition because it's protected under the equal protection clause. Logically, shouldn't all sexualities be protected too? And under the same logic, would it not also be illegal to ban other sexual unions from marriage if sexualities are equal?
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #1684
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,131

    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.
    Actually, it was the partner cheating that got you infected with AIDs, Not your orientation nor your partner's orientation. Can you provide evidence that gay men are more likely to cheat on their partners? Even assuming you could, can you provide evidence that gay men cheat on their partners because they themselves are gay? If not, then your argument is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    But cutting through the crap...

    You are trying to argue the fact that gay men make up a smaller population pool that has several times the rate of HIV than the general population pool has to do with sexual orientation. This is false. Gay men as a population are several times more likely to have HIV because they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. The question is still about risky sexual behaviors, not about sexual orientation.

  5. #1685
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    LMAO
    I see somebody trying to use the slippery slope argument, it has, is and will always be uneducated, stupid, based on inspiring fear and the abandonment of logic. Its actually the most sad and pathetic of tactics.

    If we let women vote we might as well just let my dog vote too
    If we let blacks vote we might as well just let my horse vote too
    We we let interracial marriage happen the next thing you know we'll be legally letting someone marry a monkey or a tree.

    They were dumb when said years ago and are even more stupid now because common sense, logic and history proves them a fallacy. LMAO
    Last edited by AGENT J; 08-09-10 at 03:06 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #1686
    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
    My point is why aren't those unions equally protected? Why can't a guy marry a horse if all sexualities are equal and deserving of having their unions recognized as marriage?
    Has nothing to do with sexuality. Has to do with horses not being persons allowed to enter into contracts.

    Does consent matter? Is that not a moral position? What if some believe that blow up dolls and animals can consent? It's a moral stance that states "I believe these things cannot consent, thus they cannot marry." Regardless, the ruling states homosexuality cannot be banned from marriage recognition because it's protected under the equal protection clause. Logically, shouldn't all sexualities be protected too? And under the same logic, would it not also be illegal to ban other sexual unions from marriage if sexualities are equal?
    I believe that if you can prove that horses and blow up dolls are capable of understanding legal contracts, and capable of understanding the implications of them, then that would be a HUGE step towards the government granting them adult personhood rights to enter into contracts.

    It's not a moral stance or belief so much as a scientific one. Prove that blowup dolls are capable of understanding contracts and their legal implications and there ya go! You'll have your new bride. Morality has nothing to do with it.

    So, once more... this is about GENDER, not sexual orientation. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you? No one asks you your sexual orientation when you get a marriage license.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 08-09-10 at 03:05 PM.

  7. #1687
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Actually, it was the partner cheating that got you infected with AIDs,
    Well, no we've been through this... (See Marduc's post)
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    can you provide evidence that gay men cheat on their partners because they themselves are gay? If not, then your argument is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
    I don't need to do any of that for my argument to relevant, I'm describing a risk factor.

    You are trying to argue the fact that gay men make up a smaller population pool that has several times the rate of HIV than the general population pool has to do with sexual orientation. This is false. Gay men as a population are several times more likely to have HIV because they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. The question is still about risky sexual behaviors, not about sexual orientation.
    I went out my way to propose the example as a hypothetical - never once used the term "gay" or "homosexual" and did not argue or imply that any of the above was true.

  8. #1688
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Gay men as a population are several times more likely to have HIV because they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors.
    Why are they more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors?

  9. #1689
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,131

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Well, no we've been through this... (See Marduc's post)

    I don't need to do any of that for my argument to relevant, I'm describing a risk factor.
    No, you aren't describing a risk factor relevant to sexual orientation unless you can prove that gay men are more likely to cheat on their spouses because they are gay.

    I went out my way to propose the example as a hypothetical - never once used the term "gay" or "homosexual" and did not argue or imply that any of the above was true.
    I'm not sure what you are suggesting then or why it is relevant to this thread.

  10. #1690
    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

    But it's not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post

    For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.

Posting Permissions

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