Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 347

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

  1. #171
    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
    Do you want me to help you out digsbe and post Walker's response to that argument in his ruling. or would you like to go look it up yourself?
    Yes it was gender discrimination. So? It's part of what makes up an individual identity, but not intrinsically exclusive to the individual. Gender imparts function to a society, at least outside of biologoy, and that function is arbitrary. Why would an arbitrary "thing" have fundamental rights? Unless, the gender bond is fundamental to the posterity of the state?

    See.. It all boils down to procreation.


    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. #172
    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
    Fundamental right

    "In constitutional law, certain rights protected by the due process or equal protection clause that cannot be regulated unless the regulating law passes a rigorous set of criteria (strict scrutiny). Fundamental rights, as defined by the Supreme Court, include various rights of privacy (such as marriage and contraception), the right to interstate travel, and the right to vote."

    -Nolo's Plain English Law Dicationary

    fundamental right definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

    Fundamental right

    "a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference."

    -Webster's New World Law Dictionary

    fundamental right - Legal Definition
    And??? ..... So..... How are you right again?


    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. #173
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

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

    So then, is it gender discrimination that women don't have to sign up for the selective service but men do? Is it illegal and gender discrimination for men to not have the right to abort the role of fatherhood but a mother does? Here is a history lesson, the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and it's goal was stated in section 1 as "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This was denied and is not part of the constitution. It is not illegal to formerly and legally define marriage as a union between a man and a union. Nor is it unconstitutional to do so.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #174
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Of course there is scientific and legal reasons for doing so. Legally and logically, marriage is defined as a union between a husband and wife. A man can't be a wife, nor a woman a husband. A homosexual union is incompatible with this legal definition, nor is it logical to warp the English language.
    There are no scientific studies supporting your argument. In fact, wasn't that the main reason you guys lost the prop 8 trial? On the stand, there were no studies or social science that had been peer reviewed or stood up to scrutiny. Your opinion is one thing, but in a court of law, you're gonna need expert testimony, accuracy, and scientific fact - none of which your side provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We could say that a heterosexual marriage is unique and scientifically different in that it is the foundation for the family and human procreation. Scientifically, homosexuals cannot procreate with each other, their union requires other means of procreation. I would imagine the pro-ssm group doesn't have a logical reason for redefining marriage, nor is there a scientific basis for altering the roles of a husband and wife in that relationship. Perhaps the pro-ssm side should stop warping the constitution. By that very clause I could say abortion should be illegal because it obviously deprives unborn persons of life, liberty, property, and all privileges.
    One glaring error that you made here - there is no 'warping' of the Constitution. The wording is quite specific, and applicable. I realize that you don't like it; however, that's the wild thing about living in a democracy. We all gotta live with folks from different nationalities, ethnicities, and yes, sexual orientations. You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Two women or two men in love believe that they can include themselves in marriage, and what's to stop them? Your belief that they shouldn't? You're gonna need a better reason than that, my friend. And you're gonna need better legal representation, too.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-08-10 at 01:42 AM.

  5. #175
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    There are no scientific studies supporting your argument. In fact, wasn't that the main reason you guys lost the prop 8 trial? On the stand, there were no studies or social science that had been peer reviewed or stood up to scrutiny. Your opinion is one thing, but in a court of law, you're gonna need expert testimony, accuracy, and scientific fact - none of which your side provided.
    My argument was that it's biologically impossible for two men/two women to conceive a child... There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual unions. the relationships are not the same, nor should they be recognized as the same. We lost the prop 8 trial because a bias gay judge ruled illogically.

    There are a few errors that you made here. First off, there is no 'warping' of the Constitution. The wording is quite specific, and applicable. I realize that you don't like it; however, that's the wild thing about living in a democracy. We all gotta live with folks from different nationalities, ethnicities, and yes, sexual orientations. You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Two women or two men in love believe that they can include themselves in marriage, and what's to stop them? Your belief that they shouldn't? You're gonna need a better reason than that, my friend. And you're gonna need better legal representation, too.
    The wording is specific, and I can take it to mean (like I stated) that abortion should be illegal. It clearly says you can't deny a person life, liberty, privileges, etc. I believe that applies to fetuses as they are unborn human people. By the same application of the clause abortion should be struck down.

    Who is to stop someone from labeling an apple tree as a corn stalk? No one, they will just wrongfully label different plants.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #176
    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
    And??? ..... So..... How are you right again?


    Tim-
    Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means 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.

    Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.

  7. #177
    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
    Yes it was gender discrimination. So? It's part of what makes up an individual identity, but not intrinsically exclusive to the individual. Gender imparts function to a society, at least outside of biologoy, and that function is arbitrary. Why would an arbitrary "thing" have fundamental rights? Unless, the gender bond is fundamental to the posterity of the state?

    See.. It all boils down to procreation.


    Tim-
    It all boils down to the fact that you have no idea what "fundamental right" means in the Constitutional sense.

  8. #178
    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

    Singularity -
    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?
    Answered already but again. When men make laws they typically review the standards, and the application of such laws. All possible contingencies are considered. When marriage laws were defined, and encoded into US law, they did not ever suspect that the question of pro creative capacity would ever be a question, nor necessarily an exclusion to marriage. But what makes marriage fundamental is exactly the procreative qualities marriage imparts on the state. The state benefits from heterosexual marriage by way of the intrinsic qualities heterosexuals bring to the table.

    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
    A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans..

    Concern #3: "Presumptive that when men and women 'bond [have sex], they produce children" is not entirely true
    Sure, not entirely, but then it wouldn't be presumptive now would it?

    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.
    I have no argument for this, other than we presume they will, if they can't then, so be it. One thing we do know, homosexuals can't, as condition of their nature, produce children.

    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
    Then what is objective? Why would it need to be shared by everyone? It is a fact that what I claim is true. Whether you agree of Judge Walker agrees is immaterial to my claim.

    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?
    Right you are. That didn't come out right. Of course it's better than a dysfunctional heterosexual couple.

    My apologies.


    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

  9. #179
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    My argument was that it's biologically impossible for two men/two women to conceive a child... There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual unions. the relationships are not the same, nor should they be recognized as the same. We lost the prop 8 trial because a bias gay judge ruled illogically.
    And it's impossible for infertile couples to biologically produce a child, yet they get married. And it doesn't stop there. The elderly get married as well. But if your argument is that biological impossibility for child rearing means that we can allow for heterosexual couples to marry despite the infertility while homosexual couples cannot, then you gotta get on the witness stand and offer up something other than opinion. For all your words about homosexuals being different, how it's impossible for same sex couples to make babies (not true thanks to the wonders of medicine, but i'll allow it), and how you fervently oppose same sex couples access to the same privilege we enjoy as heterosexuals under the tidy word 'marriage', neither you nor anyone on your side of the argument has been able to provide any peer reviewed, unbiased scientific or psychiatric studies supporting your position that they could use in that court of law - and believe me, they tried. You claim that you lost because of a biased judge, yet what was he to do when you couldn't provide not a single scientific study backing up your case? Should he have simply ignored the science and ruled in your favor?

    In any case, good luck. You're gonna need it.


    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The wording is specific, and I can take it to mean (like I stated) that abortion should be illegal. It clearly says you can't deny a person life, liberty, privileges, etc. I believe that applies to fetuses as they are unborn human people. By the same application of the clause abortion should be struck down.
    Nice try, but there's a conflict. Since the mother is an adult, and one could construe that forcing her to have a child is denying her liberty here to make the decision, then this Amendment can be interpreted in a different manner than the way you did. Unfortunately with your anti gay-marriage argument, there is no interpretation - the wording is quite literal. You may complain that the trial wasn't fair, or that the science shouldn't be used because it doesn't support your religious viewpoint, or whatever reason you want to complain about. My argument is about the literal wording of the Amendment, and why you lost in a court of law.

    Next time, get better lawyers.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-08-10 at 02:20 AM.

  10. #180
    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
    Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means 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.

    Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.
    This "wall" is calling you out. Simply because life, liberty, and property are fundamental does not make them the definiton for fundamental. Here's a clue for you. Ask yourself what makes life fundamental, what makes liberty fundamental, and what makes property fundamental, and you're there. The answer is illuminating..

    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

Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •