Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #131
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't see how this argument - the belief that men and women have a 'correct' way to bond, and that this "fundamentally correct way" is the very basis for determining marriage legality - eliminates the inclusion of homosexual couples into the institution. In addition, it still has not provided an adequate explanation as to why infertile couples can be included whereas homosexual couples cannot. You can say it's the 'correct way to bond', but clearly if infertile heterosexual couples are trying this so-called 'correct way' and it isn't working, then what? Are they eliminated from the institution?

    Furthermore, 'correct' implies a subjective moral position here. A man a woman engaging in sexual intercourse may be the 'correct way to bond' (implying male/female copulation), but so is IVF, otherwise you've still eliminated infertile couples. Unfortunately for the 'correct way to bond' argument, there is no basis for exclusion, as there are a few 'correct ways to bond' nowadays - some of which don't require marriage. I believe that this argument is merely a doctored-up version of the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument - nothing more.

    Another thing: If "assuming the state is in for the kids" as you say, then why do we need "to look at the fundamental design of humanity" as an argument for excluding same sex marriage? The "fundamental design of humanity" as far as which parts go where has nothing to do with the actual raising of children, and if the state is in fact in it for the kids, then it seems that you have provided the proponents of same sex marriage some amunition, as there are plenty of homosexual couples who are willing to adopt and provided loving homes for children.
    RE: Infertile couples.

    I stated this in my previous post, actually the post you quoted from?? When we look at fundamental, we must search for the very basic reason for marriage. Only after the human desire to mate, intrinsic to us all, apparently also to homosexuals, does everything else start to add up, and eventually culminating in the decision to make the bond lasting. We mate first for sex, and then what follows varies depending on who you speak too. This is why marriage is fundamental, and the why is mate and produce offspring. That it doesn't happen this way for everyone, or that some choose not too, is immaterial to what makes marriage about procreation - fundamentally speaking!

    RE: subjective moral position.

    No, rather, objective, I prefer to think!

    RE: No basis based on the correct way to bond.

    It most certainly applies in a discussion about what makes it fundamental to marriage, and why the state should even care.

    RE: doctored-up version.

    Well, homosexuality is atypical shall we say. Does that make you feel better?

    RE: Another thing: If "assuming the state is in for the kids" as you say, then why do we need "to look at the fundamental design of humanity" as an argument for excluding same sex marriage

    Did you just say that? You know, it's almost like you ignored my entire argument?

    RE: The "fundamental design of humanity" as far as which parts go where has nothing to do with the actual raising of children

    By themselves, no, but it is my belief that the effects of homosexual parenting have no been fully vetted. No worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful, or potentially dysfunctional. That said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting. I've not made up my mind on it yet, and I personally know two homosexuals that are parents, and they're darned good ones. So, no, a good home is a good home regardless of sexuality. One cannot stop homosexual parenting, but it is not intrinsic to humanity, nor is it required by the "nature" of the homosexual bond.

    So, do you think the state is in it for the kids, and only for the kids, or is there some other rationale that says the state should be involved in marriage because... Fill in the blanks for me.


    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

  2. #132
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    RE: 70 years of precedent.

    Well, they would need to do this if it were to held that marriage wasn't a fundamental right, however, if it is as fundamental right, then they only need to articulate why it is fundamental, and to whom it is findamental too.
    Ah, now you are changing your game up. You can't deny the Supreme Court precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and so you are trying a different tact.

    RE: Denying based on procreation.

    It's not just about procreation per se, it is in the meaning of fundamental. If marriage is fundamental, then what is it about marriage that makes it so? As near as I tell, and of all the arguments I've seen in favor of SSM, I've never seen anyone argue successfully that the state has ANY interests outside of procreation. So, assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity. inter alia, humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate. With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female. So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring. It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children. That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics. One thing we do know. Homosexuals cannot, by virtue of their condition, procreate with each other. There is no ambiguity there.
    Wow, that was amateurish. Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well. Please, for gawd sake, actually go read Walker's ruling before you try to comment on why it was wrong.

    RE: 80 findings of fact.

    Well, I haven't read them all, but any list of benefits homosexual marriage would impart on the state is lacking one major fact. See above. What benefits, other than procreation does the state care about? Why should it?
    The fact of the matter is that the state has never made the ability to procreate a test for marriage. Elderly couples who cannot conceive are allowed to marry. The reason for that as I said above is that the state never had in interest in promoting procreation, they had in interest in providing stable homes for children.

    RE: Scrutiny.

    Of course I'm aware of the tiers. Either way, the proponents of Prop 8 can win with either argument. Moreover, my argument avoids a 14th challenge if the court finds that marriage isn't fundamental. If its not fundamental, then the 14th doesn't apply.
    Only because you don't understand what "fundamental" means.

    Stop trying to be a Constitutional lawyer when you don't even understand the most basic legal terms.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-07-10 at 11:09 PM.

  3. #133
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Well for one, anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor (although this varies), and does not reach adulthood until that age from a legal standpoint. As a result, a minor gains privileges through emancipation, not because he is simply a citizen.
    So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.

  4. #134
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.
    Duh. That is why there is Due Process. Levels of scrutiny?

  5. #135
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    First off, they would need to overturn about 70 years of Supreme Court precedent which holds that marriage is a fundamental right.
    If marriage is a fundamental right, explains what happens to that right when:
    -The state repeals its laws regarding marriage, eliminating it as a legal instituion
    -The state does not have any laws creating it as a legal institution in rhe first place.

    That is, what happens to that 'fundamental right' if, say, Texas decides to guarantee that there will be no same-sex marriages by repealing its marriage laws in toto.

    (be sure to put some critical thought into this, as an intellectually honest answer necessarily leads you to the conclusion that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge, not a right)
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-07-10 at 11:36 PM.

  6. #136
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Duh. That is why there is Due Process. Levels of scrutiny?
    Just so long as you are clear that the 14th does not guarantee that -every- person has a right to -every- privilege granted by a state, as some people here seem to think.

  7. #137
    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: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Ah, now you are changing your game up. You can't deny the Supreme Court precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and so you are trying a different tact.
    No, it is the same argument, put another way. I periodically have to do that here from time to time, because people can't read. Besides, the only "precedence" I see in Loving, is that marriage is fundamental to heterosexuals, since it was heterosexuals that brought the action. You understand how precedence works, correct?


    RE: Wow, that was amateurish. Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with life, liberty, or property.

    Oh, really, it "deals" with it? How about this for a defintion and tell me which one is the correct interpretation of what is fundamental.

    Such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction

    Link

    The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well
    No argument, but it doesn't refute my assertion that fundamentally marriage and the states interests are about children, and their production. Period!

    Please, for gawd sake, actually go read Walker's ruling before you try to comment on why it was wrong
    I've read most it. I read the really important parts, I promise, k.

    The fact of the matter is that the state has never made the ability to procreate a test for marriage
    No, but it has offered the lack to procreate as a way to exit the marriage contract without penalty, or loss of priviliedge.

    Only because you don't understand what "fundamental" means.
    Well, actually I do, it is you that seems to think it is about life, liberty, and property.

    Stop trying to be a Constitutional lawyer when you don't even understand the most basic legal terms
    Well thank you. That's quite a compliment. I so glad you thought that I thought I was a constitutional lawyer. I understasnd it all, in crystal clear, glass pond, put away the umbrella it's sunny out, clarity.


    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

  8. #138
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    One group can do what another group cannot, yes?
    No - you did not read what he said..
    Under (certain) current law, straight men cannot marry another man. Gay men cannot marry another man.
    As such, -every- group is denied the privilege of marrying a person of the same sex, and as such, there's no discrimination againt gays because the same restriction applies to everyone.

  9. #139
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.
    If marriage is a fundamental right, explains what happens to that right when:
    -The state repeals its laws regarding marriage, eliminating it as a legal instituion
    -The state does not have any laws creating it as a legal institution in rhe first place.

    That is, what happens to that 'fundamental right' if, say, Texas decides to guarantee that there will be no same-sex marriages by repealing its marriage laws in toto.

    (Be sure to put some thought into this, as an intellectually honest answer necessarily leads you to the conclusion that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge, not a right)
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-07-10 at 11:36 PM.

  10. #140
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No argument, but it doesn't refute my assertion that fundamentally marriage and the states interests are about children, and their production. Period!
    Dude! The state gives marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to make babies. That is undeniable proof that you are wrong that the state has asserted any interest in promoting procreation. That is the reality. You can deny it in your own mind, but it doesn't change the reality.

    I've read most it. I read the really important parts, I promise, k.
    No. You admitted you haven't read the 80 findings of fact, which are the most pertinent to appeal. You have demonstrated that you have no interest in considering the facts, only in pushing your point of view on other people. The fact that we are dealing with the courts, means that you have to provide decent rational, and you are demonstrating that you won't even consider the facts of this case.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-07-10 at 11:41 PM.

Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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