• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are right it is my opinion but I do not represent my opinion as fact
Indeed. It's only your opinion that people are avoiding "backing things up with facts", and that opinion is certainly not factual.
 
That is your opinion....The majority of the people in this country (Christians) disagree with you on that statement......

That's like back when the majority of people (Christians) thought the world was flat. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
 
No you didn't because you can't disprove its findings.

I don't have to. You misrepresented them, so your analysis disproves your conclusion. You still have no clue.

Out of the starting block? I lapped you 2 days ago :)

tex, you lost. Clearly and completely. As you always do. Here's a list of things that you have proven you don't understand:
1) The difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
2) How to determine a risk factor.
3) What a sexual orienation is, and what is NOT a sexual orientation.
4) How equal protection does not apply in the case of polygamy when discussing sexual orientation.
5) How to correctly interpret data.
6) How to understand an opponet's argument.
7) Understanding what causes HIV.

And this is just the abridged version. No one takes your arguments seriously because of your lack of understanding in each of those areas. Perhaps if you educated yourself on any of those issues, you might actually make a valid point. But you don't, so you don't.
 
Actually it was over when the findings found a greater risk factor for gay men than any other group. How you continue to miss this is really quite strange.

Which didn't prove what you wanted it to prove. I believe this falls under numbers 1 and 7 of "the things tex doesn't understand about the GM debate".
 
GENDER IS RELEVANT IN ALL SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS.

Tell us Film, where would gender NOT play a role in ANY sexual orientation??? Go ahead, I love a good laugh.

Would you please pay attention just ONE time? Please? And answer ALL my questions. Quit cherry picking just because you think you can win something.

Polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation. I believe this falls under number 3 of "the things that tex doesn't understand about the GM debate".
 
Actually it was over when the findings found a greater risk factor for gay men than any other group. How you continue to miss this is really quite strange.

What about Gay men who are married or in a committed relationship?? 0.0

Isn't that the point?
 
You are making an assumption based on zero facts. His singular goal might have been to rule properly.

True but considering his own sexual preference its not that much of a leap.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Learn how the EPC works. Tell me where age and numbers fit on the list. Gender is under middle tier scrutiny. Further ask if restricting age in marriage might, like many other restrictions on age, meet some of those levels of scrutiny.

You are only making my point for me Redress. Nowhere at any time before this ruling has gender been a reason to allow a group the "right" to marry. He is expanding the definition of the clause to include marriage based on gender. He NEVER mentions age in his ruling as a factor. His argument was gender.

And age has been looked at. Age Discrimination in Employment Act is one of them.

Bottom line as far as age is concerned "rationality" will play a major factor which could not be more subjective. The first 14 year old who wants to marry a 35 year old and can think and act like an adult will throw the rational argument against age based marriage for that couple into chaos.

But lets put that aside for a bit. How do you justify discriminating against the number of people who claim they are being discriminated against using the gender argument? Assuming they are adults you can't fall back on the rational argument so how do you discriminate against them?
 
Last edited:
True but considering his own sexual preference its not that much of a leap.



You are only making my point for me Redress. Nowhere at any time before this ruling has gender been a reason to allow a group the "right" to marry. He is expanding the definition of the clause to include marriage based on gender. He NEVER mentions age in his ruling as a factor. His argument was gender.

And age has been looked at. Age Discrimination in Employment Act is one of them.

Bottom line as far as age is conscerned "rationality" will play a major factor which could not be more subjective. The first 14 year old who wants to marry a 35 year old and can think and act like an adult will throw the rational argument against marriage for that couple into choas.

But lets put that aside for a bit. How do you justify descriminating against the number of people who claim they are being descriminated against using the gender argument? Assuming they are adults you can't fall back on the rational argument so how do you descriminate against them?

14 year olds can't consent or enter into legal contracts.
 
Already disproven. 14 year olds can earn a paycheck and sign contracts. Ask the bag boy or bus boy at any local restaurant.

They can be compensated for their services, sure. But they are not under contract. This is also with implied consent of the parents.
 
True but considering his own sexual preference its not that much of a leap.



You are only making my point for me Redress. Nowhere at any time before this ruling has gender been a reason to allow a group the "right" to marry. He is expanding the definition of the clause to include marriage based on gender. He NEVER mentions age in his ruling as a factor. His argument was gender.

And age has been looked at. Age Discrimination in Employment Act is one of them.

Bottom line as far as age is concerned "rationality" will play a major factor which could not be more subjective. The first 14 year old who wants to marry a 35 year old and can think and act like an adult will throw the rational argument against age based marriage for that couple into chaos.

But lets put that aside for a bit. How do you justify discriminating against the number of people who claim they are being discriminated against using the gender argument? Assuming they are adults you can't fall back on the rational argument so how do you discriminate against them?

Honestly tex are you even trying anymore? This is grasping at straws.

1. Nobody is challenging any laws regarding age restrictions on marriage.
2. Walker cited 80 findings of fact to support his ruling, and you haven't presented even one fact to support your age argument. (If you want to talk about being subjective)
3. There is no grounds for people in regards to polygamy, pedophilia, or zoophilia to argue gender discrimination as a means for obtaining marriage for their situations.

Now if you want to argue this whole new idea of getting rid of age restrictions on marriage, then I suggest you open up a new thread, because it has no bearing on this discussion. I look forward to you scrouging up 80 findings of fact to support your argument.
 
True but considering his own sexual preference its not that much of a leap.

By the same leap, if he was a christian, he may have rules based on that, if he was strait he may have been biased against gay marriage. You are just using assumptions to villainize some one your disagree with. He is biased because he might be biased.



You are only making my point for me Redress. Nowhere at any time before this ruling has gender been a reason to allow a group the "right" to marry. He is expanding the definition of the clause to include marriage based on gender. He NEVER mentions age in his ruling as a factor. His argument was gender.

And age has been looked at. Age Discrimination in Employment Act is one of them.

Bottom line as far as age is concerned "rationality" will play a major factor which could not be more subjective. The first 14 year old who wants to marry a 35 year old and can think and act like an adult will throw the rational argument against age based marriage for that couple into chaos.

But lets put that aside for a bit. How do you justify discriminating against the number of people who claim they are being discriminated against using the gender argument? Assuming they are adults you can't fall back on the rational argument so how do you discriminate against them?

I think this is going way over your head. He rules on gender. He did not rule on age, not on numbers. His ruling is entirely irrelevant to age or numbers. You have yet to show one little bit in his ruling that would make it inevitable that it include underage marriage and pedophilia, let alone analyzed the entire ruling to show how it in it's whole would allow the things you claim.

It's the same old tired red herrings. It is with the exact same lack of evidence to show the connection. The connection only exists in your head.
 
True but considering his own sexual preference its not that much of a leap.

I just had to hop in here because I find this argument hilarious. The judge who was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, who had his nomination defeated by Nancy Pelosi, who was finally confirmed by George Bush, who was challenged in his confirmation by almost every gay group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics, who is an avid libertarian conservative who has openly argued that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, etc. is influenced by his sexual orientation in this decision? I gotta give it to ya tex, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard on this forum. Way to go!
 
If we could rate posts, I'd give this one a 10/10.

I just had to hop in here because I find this argument hilarious. The judge who was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, who had his nomination defeated by Nancy Pelosi, who was finally confirmed by George Bush, who was challenged in his confirmation by almost every gay group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics, who is an avid libertarian conservative who has openly argued that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, etc. is influenced by his sexual orientation in this decision? I gotta give it to ya tex, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard on this forum. Way to go!
 
I just had to hop in here because I find this argument hilarious. The judge who was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, who had his nomination defeated by Nancy Pelosi, who was finally confirmed by George Bush, who was challenged in his confirmation by almost every gay group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics, who is an avid libertarian conservative who has openly argued that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, etc. is influenced by his sexual orientation in this decision? I gotta give it to ya tex, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard on this forum. Way to go!

Tex doesn't let the facts get in his way!
 
I just had to hop in here because I find this argument hilarious. The judge who was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, who had his nomination defeated by Nancy Pelosi, who was finally confirmed by George Bush, who was challenged in his confirmation by almost every gay group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics, who is an avid libertarian conservative who has openly argued that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, etc. is influenced by his sexual orientation in this decision? I gotta give it to ya tex, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard on this forum. Way to go!

That has been my argument for a long time now. Marriage wasn't created by government, and now they ought to give the title back to the people since they cannot preserve marriage's original intent. We all need to be free to define what marriage is because really it should be a personal thing, more of a spiritual thing. The government ought to simply decide what laws they need to enact to protect convenants between two people who want to share property, create a family that involves children, etc. To continue calling what the government has created as marriage is a farce.
 
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?

Wait, Walker actually ruled on this based on the inherent gender discrimination? Really?! Awesome, I wasn't aware that part of my argument on this is actually something hitting the legal zone.

What exactly about gender discrimination was his point? The government having a purpose in having "gender roles" in marriage or the inherent discrimination in allowing one gender to marry the other but not to marry their own?
 
Critical, I applaud your attempts here but for the sake of your sanity I'd say give it up. You can go check out the first 1000 or so posts and see I've been going round and round the exact same way with the exact same person and it never sunk in, so much so that he couldn't even display the capacity to honestly read my posts and respond to what was actually said rather than what he decided he wanted to argue against. Seriously, you're spot on with this...regarding scrutiny, the levels, the EPC, gender discrimination, etc...but none of its going to matter because some people are physically allergic to facts, logic, and actual truth.

Its wonderful to know that the judge in question actually took the Gender tact, as its the far more logical and likely to be successful way of looking at this then trying to suggest that sexual orientation should be pushed up the scale of scrutiny and be classified as middle or top tie.r
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom