Page 22 of 35 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 347

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

  1. #211
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Marriage is a privilige grated by a state; it must be a privilige because it cannot exist until the state creates it and oinly exists for as long as the state allows it.
    Thus, your definition is meaningless in this discussion.
    That would be wrong again, as the state's powers are limited by the Constitution. In the case of the 14th Amendment, the state shall take away no immunity or privilege to any citizen without due process of law.

    And regarding my definition as 'meaningless', I simply used the same thing that the lawyers who overturned prop 8 used - the literal wording of the 14th Amendment.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-08-10 at 07:58 PM.

  2. #212
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Unless you are planning on not having sex in your marriage, then sex is an integral part. I don't know anyone who gets married to avoid sex, do you? I'm not sure what you are driving at here.
    I said in detail what I was getting at. You quoted me. You can ignore it if you like, but I did say so.

    Are you saying that everyone who's ever chosen to get married has been sexually attracted to the person whom they've married? If they weren't, was it a "real 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

  3. #213
    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 Harshaw View Post
    I said in detail what I was getting at. You quoted me. You can ignore it if you like, but I did say so.

    Are you saying that everyone who's ever chosen to get married has been sexually attracted to the person whom they've married? If they weren't, was it a "real marriage"?
    No, i'm not saying that at all. And regarding me ignoring you, maybe we should take a step back and rehash the argument you're attempting to make, as I am not quite following your point.

  4. #214
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    No, i'm not saying that at all. And regarding me ignoring you, maybe we should take a step back and rehash the argument you're attempting to make, as I am not quite following your point.
    I've already said a few times. Sexual attraction -- or sexuality in general -- is not a necessary component 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

  5. #215
    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 Harshaw View Post
    I've already said a few times. Sexual attraction -- or sexuality in general -- is not a necessary component of marriage.
    There are a few points that come to mind here. If sexual attraction is not a necessary component of marriage, then what does that have to do with excluding homosexual couples? If your argument is that heterosexual couples often get married due to sexual attraction, then it stands to reason that homosexual couples could potentially marry for this reason, too. Likewise, if heterosexual couples get married without sexual attraction, then it stands to reason that homosexual could as well, all things being equal. So, how does this make any sort of argument against gay marriage?

    In addition, there are number of folks who would argue against this point that may not necessarily be pro-gay marriage. Many folks believe that sexual attraction is in fact an integral component to marriage, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this argument. I'm more interested in why you think this somehow excludes homosexual couples from the institution.

  6. #216
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    There are a few points that come to mind here. If sexual attraction is not a necessary component of marriage, then what does that have to do with excluding homosexual couples? If your argument is that heterosexual couples often get married due to sexual attraction, then it stands to reason that homosexual couples could potentially marry for this reason, too. Likewise, if heterosexual couples get married without sexual attraction, then it stands to reason that homosexual could as well, all things being equal. So, how does this make any sort of argument against gay marriage?

    In addition, there are number of folks who would argue against this point that may not necessarily be pro-gay marriage. Many folks believe that sexual attraction is in fact an integral component to marriage, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this argument. I'm more interested in why you think this somehow excludes homosexual couples from the institution.
    I never said it excludes anyone from anything. We're arguing about equal protection, not about gay marriage as a whole.

    The argument is that homosexuals are discriminated against in marriage laws because of their sexuality. But sexuality isn't a necessary component of marriage. There is nothing in marriage law which discriminates against homosexuals on the basis of their homosexuality, because as it applies, it applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals equally.

    Yes, you will repeat that homosexuals can't marry people they're sexually attracted to. But I will then say again that sexual attraction is not a necessary component 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

  7. #217
    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 Harshaw View Post
    I never said it excludes anyone from anything. We're arguing about equal protection, not about gay marriage as a whole.

    The argument is that homosexuals are discriminated against in marriage laws because of their sexuality. But sexuality isn't a necessary component of marriage.
    Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender, not because of their sexuality (when I think 'sexuality', I think more along the lines of acting in a manner or being receptive to the actual act of copulation). You can certainly argue that sexual attraction has nothing to do with who can or cannot get married, but this has provided no reason for why homosexual couples can't be included. The bottom line is simple. If heterosexuals can get married based on sexual attraction alone (which does happen), then so should homosexuals. Likewise, if heterosexuals get married even if there is a lack of sexual attraction, then homosexual couples should, too. Basically, if heterosexual couples enjoy the privilege of marriage, homosexual couples should, too. But don't take my word for it. The 14th Amendment says it perfectly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    There is nothing in marriage law which discriminates against homosexuals on the basis of their homosexuality, because as it applies, it applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals equally.

    Yes, you will repeat that homosexuals can't marry people they're sexually attracted to. But I will then say again that sexual attraction is not a necessary component of marriage.
    You still have not provided any explanation whatsoever as to why homosexual couples are being excluded from marriage based on sexual attraction (or lack thereof). In addition, if heterosexuals couples get married without sexual attraction (as your implying it could and does happen from time to time), then how does that exclude homosexual couples? You can keep repeating "well because sexuality is not a component of marriage", but that fails to address why heterosexual sexuality (or lack thereof) doesn't matter to marriage, yet homosexual sexuality (or lack thereof) does. Even if sexuality were not a component of marriage, what is different about the sexuality of homosexual couples versus that of their heterosexual counterparts, and what about that difference excludes one group and not the other?
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-08-10 at 09:30 PM.

  8. #218
    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
    Wrong. Your argument was regarding minors and emancipation.
    False. My argument was that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state; my argument is sound.

  9. #219
    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 Goobieman View Post
    False. My argument was that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state; my argument is sound.
    No, you used a minor as an example rather than an adult, and failed to consider emancipation. I assume you are ready to toss that particular example and present a more relevant one, yes?

  10. #220
    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
    That would be wrong again, as the state's powers are limited by the Constitution. In the case of the 14th Amendment, the state shall take away no immunity or privilege to any citizen without due prcess of law.
    What is -actually- says is that:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Nothing here prevents a state from repealing a privilege that it granted or forces a state to grant a privilege granted by other states that the state itself does not grant.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-08-10 at 10:17 PM.

Page 22 of 35 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... 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
  •