• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Yes but I don't agree with the "anti-blacks" so how exactly is it relevant to my argument? Boy do I need to walk you through this? Do you have a rebuttle as opposing councilor, or not?


Tim-

You don't consider yourself a bigot and they didn't either because you both feel justified in your bigotry. You may not agree with them on the racial issue, but your mindset is exactly the same.
 
Just because you don't drink and drive doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. When other people drink and drive on the same roads as you, guess what it affects you!

And it's not a dishonest question, how does it affect you?

No, no, no... Mr. V. Don't let them distract.. It's what they do.. :)

How it affects me is not quantifiable, and they know it. That's why they ask it? Their hope is that you'll say something really, really mean against gays, and they can pin you down. Don't fall for it. Stay within the confines of the law





Tim-
 
Last edited:
You don't consider yourself a bigot and they didn't either because you both feel justified in your bigotry. You may not agree with them on the racial issue, but your mindset is exactly the same.

yeah but I provoded a legal argument for my wanting to discriminate. An argument I point out that you haven't addressed yet?


Tim-
 
yeah but I provoded a legal argument for my wanting to discriminate. An argument I point out that you haven't addressed yet?


Tim-

If you don't mind my jumping in, where was this legal argument? I've not seen anything on this thread that looks even remotely based on legal scholarship.
 
yeah but I provoded a legal argument for my wanting to discriminate. An argument I point out that you haven't addressed yet?


Tim-

Like I said....bigots expressed reasons why they didn't want blacks marrying whites or blacks drinking out of their drinking fountains. Their arguments were no better than your failed argument. Yet, similarly, they didn't view themseleves as bigots either because they believed that they were justified.

That's the thing about bigots....they look in the mirror and don't recognize themselves.
 
What concerns me about some of these comments is that they are very similar to those made by segregationists during the civil rights struggle. Should states have had the right to decide segregation?!!!!!!!!!

States did have the right to decide segregation. They did so via amendment of the constitution and the enactment of legislation.

But when this "most liberal appelate court in the country" DOES rule (most likey that Prop-8 DOES violate Equal Protection and Due Process, I haven't heard a single expert come up with a resonable arguement why they wouldn't), it would legalize gay marriage in California. And Washington. And Oregon. And Arizona. And Idaho. And Montana. And Nevada.

In fact this is probably WORSE news for Prop-8 supporters because, to me at least, it signals an intent for this "most liberal" court to take on the case.

The appeal to the 9th Circuit was of right, so they were always going to take on the case.
 
States did have the right to decide segregation. They did so via amendment of the constitution and the enactment of legislation.

Me thinks you may be confussing segregation (Brown v. Board of Education) with slavery (13th Ammendment).
 
The appeal to the 9th Circuit was of right, so they were always going to take on the case.
Sounds to me like they're still not completely convinced:

9th Circuit said:
In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, the appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

That's not to say I don't feel the stay was correct. I think allowing how many thousands of marriages to be stuck in legal limbo if, by chance, this ruling is overturned, is probably a pretty good reason to not let them happen until we've got this decided.
 
Last edited:
If you don't mind my jumping in, where was this legal argument? I've not seen anything on this thread that looks even remotely based on legal scholarship.

Few posts back.. I answered a question posed by the judge; Walker, that asked why the state had a vesting interest in heterosexual marriage, that is not the same for homosexual marriage.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Like I said....bigots expressed reasons why they didn't want blacks marrying whites or blacks drinking out of their drinking fountains. Their arguments were no better than your failed argument. Yet, similarly, they didn't view themseleves as bigots either because they believed that they were justified.

That's the thing about bigots....they look in the mirror and don't recognize themselves.

Except, of course, that black people are black.. They are innately black, immutable even. Gay's not so, eh? My argument would not work against a black person, nor do I claim it would, so it's not "exactly" the same is it?




Tim-
 
Me thinks you may be confussing segregation (Brown v. Board of Education) with slavery (13th Ammendment).

No, I'm not.

Brown v. Board was based on the EPC of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the constitution by the states.
 
Sounds to me like they're still not completely convinced:

Thank you, I forgot about the standing question.

That's not to say I don't feel the stay was correct. I think allowing how many thousands of marriages to be stuck in legal limbo if, by chance, this ruling is overturned, is probably a pretty good reason to not let them happen until we've got this decided.

This is my thinking as well.
 
No, I'm not.

Brown v. Board was based on the EPC of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the constitution by the states.

And, yet, segregation was the norm for nearly 100 years after the 14th until the SCOTUS said that there was no such thing as separate AND equal. That is, the EPC did not eliminate segregation until Brown. It wasn't the Amendment that ended segregation, it was the interpretation of the Amendment that ended it. Similarly, it is not simply the words of the Constitution that matter, it is the interpretation.

My observation, myopoic as it might be, is that when people say they want a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution what they mean is that they want an interpretation that agrees with what they think.
 
And, yet, segregation was the norm for nearly 100 years after the 14th until the SCOTUS said that there was no such thing as separate AND equal. That is, the EPC did not eliminate segregation until Brown. It wasn't the Amendment that ended segregation, it was the interpretation of the Amendment that ended it. Similarly, it is not simply the words of the Constitution that matter, it is the interpretation.

My observation, myopoic as it might be, is that when people say they want a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution what they mean is that they want an interpretation that agrees with what they think.

But gays are separate, and unequal in terms of a vested state interest. I know that makes some people that are unable to think deeply, very ill, but it is the truth.


Tim-
 
Many pro SSM people get tired of pro traditional values people using dishonest tactics like bringing polygamy and bestiality into SSM discussions. It's equally annoying and dishonest to equate SSM to civil rights, plus it get's very annoying. The appeal to emotion is illogical.
 
Do you have evidence that this is so? Is it intrinsic to suggest that this would be the case?


Tim-

Why wouldn't it? If the same is true for heterosexual marriage then why wouldn't it be true for SSM? There won't be accidental pregnancy's, but the incentives to have a baby is still there, and it would lead to more adoption, and use of alternative procreation methods. I'll look for numbers but there probably hard to find.

Also I must say that heterosexual marriage isn't for the sole purpose of procreation, so your argument is rather weak. If it was then wouldn't infertile people be not allowed to married?

Marriage is the best way to raise children, would you agree?
So then allowing LGBT people to marry, it would allow more kids to be able to be raised in such an environment. Wouldn't that be a good thing for society?
 
Why wouldn't it? If the same is true for heterosexual marriage then why wouldn't it be true for SSM? There won't be accidental pregnancy's, but the incentives to have a baby is still there, and it would lead to more adoption, and use of alternative procreation methods. I'll look for numbers but there probably hard to find.

Also I must say that heterosexual marriage isn't for the sole purpose of procreation, so your argument is rather weak. If it was then wouldn't infertile people be not allowed to married?

Marriage is the best way to raise children, would you agree?
So then allowing LGBT people to marry, it would allow more kids to be able to be raised in such an environment. Wouldn't that be a good thing for society?

Ah, but Your Star, you're not paying attention.. The exception is wherein lies the vested interest. That's the whole point. The fact that you missed it is not at al unpredictable.

Gays having children is both, not instrinsic to human society, nor is it pressumed. Fail, on both parts.


Tim-
 
Few posts back.. I answered a question posed by the judge; Walker, that asked why the state had a vesting interest in heterosexual marriage, that is not the same for homosexual marriage.


Tim-

Sorry, I read that and I didn't see any legal arguments.

There was, it seemed, an assumption that marriage was about procreation. I suppose that there is an assumption that people having kids is good for the state? However, this would argue that, if a pair is incapable of having children, then they should not be granted the right to wed, regardless of whether is was a mixed sex marriage. No such prohibition exists. There should also be some requirement that a marriage that does not produce children should be disolved because it has not served its intended goal, kids.

Putting asside your "pleading" for a minute, it seems to me that this is not about breeding, it is about pairing. We grant married couple rights under the law that have nothing to do with procreation. Some (deductions for dependents) are available to people who have children. Those benefits are available no matter how that dependent was obtained -- birth or adoption. I think that it is a fine thing for government to give special rights to couples. I don't think that it right for the government to decide how the couple is formed. Should the government not recognize the pairing of couples of differnt race, height, weight, IQ, eye color, etc. What is sepecial about gender pairing? Technology makes it so that impregnation no longer requires the insertion of a penis into a vagina, so if kids are the point, no need for a man and woman to lie down together and f--k. Just go to Walmart and buy some sperm.

Let peole pair how they want.
 
YS
Also I must say that heterosexual marriage isn't for the sole purpose of procreation, so your argument is rather weak


Then why should the state have any interest at all? This should be interesting?


Tim-
 
Sorry, I read that and I didn't see any legal arguments.

There was, it seemed, an assumption that marriage was about procreation. I suppose that there is an assumption that people having kids is good for the state? However, this would argue that, if a pair is incapable of having children, then they should not be granted the right to wed, regardless of whether is was a mixed sex marriage. No such prohibition exists. There should also be some requirement that a marriage that does not produce children should be disolved because it has not served its intended goal, kids.

Putting asside your "pleading" for a minute, it seems to me that this is not about breeding, it is about pairing. We grant married couple rights under the law that have nothing to do with procreation. Some (deductions for dependents) are available to people who have children. Those benefits are available no matter how that dependent was obtained -- birth or adoption. I think that it is a fine thing for government to give special rights to couples. I don't think that it right for the government to decide how the couple is formed. Should the government not recognize the pairing of couples of differnt race, height, weight, IQ, eye color, etc. What is sepecial about gender pairing? Technology makes it so that impregnation no longer requires the insertion of a penis into a vagina, so if kids are the point, no need for a man and woman to lie down together and f--k. Just go to Walmart and buy some sperm.

Let peole pair how they want.

It's not assumption so much as it is a pressumption. One is diredted by law, the other is not.

My argument is legal in nature not philosophical, as your is? Why is there an instrinsic pressumption that gays will procreate?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Ah, but Your Star, you're not paying attention.. The exception is wherein lies the vested interest. That's the whole point. The fact that you missed it is not at al unpredictable.

Gays having children is both, not instrinsic to human society, nor is it pressumed. Fail, on both parts.


Tim-

Why wouldn't it be presumed? Gays still have children now without marriage, and with the incentives of marriage why wouldn't that number go up? Also putting more children into married households would be a good thing, and allowing SSM marriage would do that.
 
Why wouldn't it be presumed? Gays still have children now without marriage, and with the incentives of marriage why wouldn't that number go up? Also putting more children into married households would be a good thing, and allowing SSM marriage would do that.

They have children, but they are not pressumed to have a wanting of children. Do I have to spell this out to you?


Tim-
 
But gays are separate, and unequal in terms of a vested state interest. I know that makes some people that are unable to think deeply, very ill, but it is the truth.


Tim-

What is the vested state interest that is not served by allowing a pair of people to form a financial pairing that gives them benefits that would otherwise not be available to them?

If you can, please try to avoid the pretentious pejoratives about relative mental capabilities.
 
They have children, but they are not pressumed to have a wanting of children. Do I have to spell this out to you?


Tim-

Why? Just because one is homosexual it doesn't mean that they don't have a desire to have children. If they didn't hardly any LGBT person would be parents.
 
Why? Just because one is homosexual it doesn't mean that they don't have a desire to have children. If they didn't hardly any LGBT person would be parents.

Do you understand what instrinsic means?

Definition:

1. basic and essential: belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is
an intrinsic part of the plan


2. of itself: by or in itself, rather than because of its associations or consequences
has no intrinsic value


3. anatomy found in body part: occurring wholly within or belonging wholly to a part of the body such as an organ


Um, I hope that helps you out a little.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom