Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 347

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

  1. #141
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    Irrelevant for this country. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it would require a Federal Constitutional Amendment to eliminate marriage.

  2. #142
    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

    Dude! The state gives marriage liscenses to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to have make babies. That is undeniable proof that you are wrong that state has asserted any interest in promoting procreation. That is the reality. You can deny it iin your own mind, but it deson't change the realiity
    I know, are you actually reading my words? There is a presumption! On the face.. Get it?

    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.
    Oh, then please enlighten me. Show me up, show me a "finding of fact", in Walkers ruling, that refutes my arguments. Hint there are none.

    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.
    "Decent rationale".. Huh? Oh I dunno, seems rational to me; but I understand that you don't, it's ok.


    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

  3. #143
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Oh, then please enlighten me. Show me up, show me a "finding of fact", in Walkers ruling, that refutes my arguments. Hint there are none.
    I've been using two. Walker found that the state requires no test for procreation and that heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to make babies are not denied the right to marriage. That is undeniable evidence that the state has not asserted an interest in promoting procreation through the institution of marriage.

    Walker also found that marriage has historically been about providing stable homes for children and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples.

    I have 78 more. But I think I will wait to go into those when you have actually refuted these 2.

    "Decent rationale".. Huh? Oh I dunno, seems rational to me; but I understand that you don't, it's ok.
    What rational? You are distorting the word "fundamental" to mean what you want it to mean, not what the Supreme Court has recognized. Arbitary redefinition is not rational, it is a logical fallacy.

  4. #144
    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
    Irrelevant for this country. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it would require a Federal Constitutional Amendment to eliminate marriage.
    So much for an intellectually honest answer - not that I am surprised.

    Your answer, arrived at thru critical thought, should have been 'If a state repeals it marraige laws, then marriage, as a legal institution, in that state ceases to exit, as there is no legal framework to define it'.

    This means that marriage is a privilge grated by the state, not a right.

  5. #145
    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

    Walker found that the state requires no test for procreation and that heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to make babies are not denied the right to marriage
    It does allow you to exit a marriage though, without prejudice. Doesn't matter, I don't argue that the state requires no test for procreative capacity to enter into marriage, but what I will say is, he doesn't state why-else the state would care about marriage> In other words, he, himself doesn't answer the question fundamental to marriage itself. Why would the state have ever needed to provide a test for procreative capacity? It couldn't possibly have been imagined as a needed prerequisite. That's what makes it fundamental. The presumption was that men and woman would bond, and produce children. Not all of them would, but to require a test for the exception would have been a completely foreign idea to the men who created the laws. Walker side-steps the historical impact of that argument.

    Walker also found that marriage has historically been about providing stable homes for children and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples.
    Yes, but it is not intrinsic to their "nature", whereas, it is for heterosexuals! There was no need to articulate those precepts into law, CT. The fact that it is now requires that we truly look at what marriage is, and why. It's the whole point of the debate.

    What rational? You are distorting the word "fundamental" to mean what you want it to mean, not what the Supreme Court has recognized. Arbitary redefinition is not rational, it is a logical fallacy.
    I'm not distorting it, you are. Tell me why I'm wrong about the definition of fundamental?

    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

  6. #146
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So much for an intellectually honest answer - not that I am surprised.

    Your answer, arrived at thru critical thought, should have been 'If a state repeals it marraige laws, then marriage, as a legal institution, in that state ceases to exit, as there is no legal framework to define it'.

    This means that marriage is a privilge grated by the state, not a right.
    If you want to get into a phiilsophical debate on rights, then fine.

    Rights are the result of a social contract between the people and the state. The state agrees to protect the rights that are important to the people in exchange for the people recognizing the legitimacy of the state.

    Your thoughts are simply an irrelevant hypothetical extending from a misconception of the origin of rights. Our Constitution, which is the social contract between the people and the state has been recognized by the Supreme Court to extend protection to marriage. That makes marriage a right. And since the Supreme Court has recognized it as a right, it can only be overturned by a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

  7. #147
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,535

    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? Legally, heterosexual couples can get married, whereas homosexual couples cannot. I'm not sure what, exactly, you are looking for when you mention parsing this legally not emotionally, because i'm not parsing any sentence, nor any clause, nor any Amendment to the Constitution emotionally.
    But rights are individual things. It's not a right of "couples." It's a right of an individual person to marry.

    Are you saying, though, that sexual attraction to each other is a necessary part of marriage?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #148
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    It does allow you to exit a marriage though, without prejudice. Doesn't matter, I don't argue that the state requires no test for procreative capacity to enter into marriage, but what I will say is, he doesn't state why-else the state would care about marriage> In other words, he, himself doesn't answer the question fundamental to marriage itself. Why would the state have ever needed to provide a test for procreative capacity? It couldn't possibly have been imagined as a needed prerequisite. That's what makes it fundamental. The presumption was that men and woman would bond, and produce children. Not all of them would, but to require a test for the exception would have been a completely foreign idea to the men who created the laws. Walker side-steps the historical impact of that argument.
    Well this will be an excellent opportunity for the state to assert, rather than "presume", that procreation is the state interest for marriage. As it is right now, Walker is correct. The state has not argued that its interest in limiting marriage to a man and woman is based procreation. Furthermore, Walker has provided that the state has another, much more important interest in marriage, and that is providing stable homes for children. Something which same sex couples are will equipped to do, and which would provide a great benefit to the state. So not only will the state need to assert that its interest in marriage is for procreation, but that it is the primary interest in comparison to providing stable homes for children.

    I'm not distorting it, you are. Tell me why I'm wrong about the definition of fundamental?
    I will state this one more time. Fundamental, as it is understood in the context of the Constitution, relates to life, liberty, and property. Now you can go find 50 different definitions of "fundamental" but the only one that is relevant to the courts are those that are related to Due Process, which are life, liberty, and property.

  9. #149
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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!
    And 'fundamentally speaking', you still haven't provided an ironclad reason for exclusion. We agree on a few things, obviously - the desire for sex, and to pair bond under the term marriage. Where we disagree is the exclusion of same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

    Let's deconstruct your argument a bit if we may, just so we are on the same page, then we can continue forward. In both of your posts -this one and the portion of #127 that I quoted - you state that marriage is 'fundamental', and you examine the basic reasons for marriage. Sex is one - "the human desire to mate" (post #131), and "some part of the male interacting with some part of the female (post #127). We are on the same page so far, as having sex is one reason that folks get married. Then you mention procreation as another reason, to "mate and produce offspring" (post #130), a position supported by you in #127 as well. So far, we are still on the same page. Two reasons folks get married is for sex and procreation. No disagreement here.

    After this, it gets a bit hazy. You claim in #127 that "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." I disagree, but this is a fair observation on your part. However, you go on to add "assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity...humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate"

    1. Concern #1: Why must we look at the fundamental human phenotypic design - specifically that of the sexual organs - in order to correctly argue that the state is involved in marriage 'for the kids' and homosexuals are potentially excluded? What reason does the state need to look at the 'fundamental design of humanity' to determine who may or may not raise a child? Or did you mean something entirely different by fundamental design, and if so, what about that determines if the state either condones the raising of children by people with this characteristic, or excludes them because of it?

    In #127, when discussing procreation, you go on to mention "With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female." And you are correct, assuming by 'some part' you mean the sexual organs. You even mention the exceptions, like IVF. No disagreement here. Then you go on to say "So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring" leading to my observation that 'correct' implies moral subjective position here, not merely accuracy or accepted standard.

    Then you go on to say, "It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children"

    Concern #2: Saying that "it is intrinsic to humanity to produce children" is not universally intrinsic, as intrinsic refers to fundamental nature or property. It is certainly intrinsic to have sex, but children? That's quite a stretch, as there are plenty of examples where humanity voluntarily chooses not to have children. This doesn't work from the standpoint of intrinsic by desire, either, as you are confronted with the same argument. In addition, in order for something to be labelled 'intrinsic', it's generally a universally identifiable characteristic or property (for example, an intrinsic property of E coli is the metabolism of citrate).

    Concern #3: "Presumptive that when men and women 'bond [have sex], they produce children" is not entirely true. No one presumes that every couple that is married or dating is having sex ("bond" as you are calling it here) to produce children. Humanity is filled with examples of people having sex for plenty of reasons besides procreation. What do you mean here? Who presumes that every woman and man have sex simply to procreate?

    Then you say, "That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics"

    Concern #4: You haven't given any reason why those that "don't" or "can't" procreate should be included in marriage if they are heterosexual couples, and excluded if they are homosexual. You've based your argument on the so-called 'intrinsic' desire to have children, which is not universally true, but then go on to assume that this intrinsic desire coupled with 'bonding' in some 'correct' manner somehow allows for infertile heterosexual marriage, while disallowing same sex marriage. In philosophy, that's called 'begging the question' - your assuming this unrpoven, so-called intrinsic desire and the bonding issue is sufficient reason to exclude same sex couples.

    This needs a LOT more explanation to hold water.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    RE: subjective moral position.

    No, rather, objective, I prefer to think!
    And yet, your position is not shared by everyone, nor is it morally suspect to say that one is for marriage equality. No, this is an excellent example of subjectivity, as not everyone would concur with your moral belief, nor is there any universal appeal to wrongness here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    Re-read what you wrote - you believe that "homosexual parenting" is "no worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful...that said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting". What the heck? If homosexual parenting was no better than a harmful heterosexual parenting, wouldn't that be EVERY reason for you to oppose it?

  10. #150
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But rights are individual things.
    Are you kidding me? Even corprorations in our country are recognized as having Constitutional rights.

Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •