Page 19 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 347

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

  1. #181
    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
    It all boils down to the fact that you have no idea what "fundamental right" means in the Constitutional sense.
    Of course I do, that's why I'm pestering you.

    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. #182
    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 Hicup View Post
    Singularity - 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.
    No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans..
    And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!

  3. #183
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 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
    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.
    Your calling me out by asking philosophical questions?

    Meh, you lack even a basic understanding of Constitution law. You don't know what Due Process is. You don't know what a fundamental right is.

    The Supreme Court defined marraige as a fundamental right. Case closed. If you don't like it, then get a Federal Constitutional Amendment passed to eliminate marriage.

    The state has shown no interest in pormoting procreation. You haven't even provided a rational justification for promoting procreation over a couple's abilty to provide a stable home.

    What this comes down to, is you have no Constitutional argument, no rational argument, and not even a semblance of a human argument, as to why same sex couples should be deneid the life, liberty, and property, inherent in marriage. You wish to deny fundamental rights based solely on their sex, without any justification that could pass the scrutiny test. That is sad and it demonstrates that what this really is about is that you don't want to accept same sex relationships as equal to opposite sex relationships, and you will stubbornly distort your own logic to justify it.

  4. #184
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 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
    Of course I do, that's why I'm pestering you.

    Tim-
    You clearly don't.

  5. #185
    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

    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?
    There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

    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. #186
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 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
    There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

    Tim-
    It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

    You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

    In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-08-10 at 02:28 AM.

  7. #187
    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 Hicup View Post
    There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

    Tim-
    Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

    As for myself, i'm content.

  8. #188
    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 -
    No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).
    This is the question the court needs to answer. Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others? I say yes, what "they" say when it all comes to fruition is what's important.

    And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch
    I don't think it is. I think the opposite is the exception, and the "stretch" if you will.

    You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!
    Truth isn't subjective, even if one cannot convince others that what they speak is the truth, subjective it does not become simply because not everyone agrees on what is the truth.

    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. #189
    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
    It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

    You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

    In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.
    Uh huh, so where is the science, CT? Have any?

    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

  10. #190
    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
    Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

    As for myself, i'm content.
    Ah, you mean the social scientific science presented.. Don't you abhor the "subjective", Singularity? I mean, isn't that what you just accused me off? Show me some science, I mean real science. None was presented as fact, and unfortunately Walker took some of it as such.



    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 19 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •