Page 31 of 35 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 347

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

  1. #301
    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
    There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage.
    Everyone is denied marriage in exactly the same way - and so, there's no discrimination.
    No discrimination, no EP issue.

  2. #302
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Everyone is denied marriage in exactly the same way - and so, there's no discrimination.
    No discrimination, no EP issue.
    Your logic.

    Everyone is free to marry someone of their own race and not someone of a different race, so there is no discrimination. (intracial marriage bans)

    Everyone is free to marry someone of their own religion and not someone of a different religion, so there is no discrimination. (denominational marriage bans)

    Yeah, it didn't work for those and it probably won't work now.

  3. #303
    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
    Such as?
    The most obvious: The legislative reduction of social benefit payements, such as SocSec, Pell Grants, food stamps, etc. Raising the age of retirement necessary to gain those SocSec payments, too.
    Of course, these reductions need not be legislative - they can be regulatory as well.

    Specifics are everything here. Does Illinois offer their own?
    No.

    Is there something that would be unfairly denied to you by not allowing you to have such a permit in Illinois?
    "Unfairly"? That's subjective and irrelevant. The privilege I have in OH is denied by he state of IL by virtue of IL not having a shall-issue CCW. According to you, this vioplates the 14th.

    And are those differences restricting your particular privileges while allowing someone else with a similar permit (or the same one in a different state) the same privileges?
    Irrelevant -- the fact that -I- am not afforded the same privileges in IL that I am in OH means that, according to you, IL has violated the 14th amendment.

  4. #304
    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
    Yeah, it didn't work for those and it probably won't work now.
    Show me who has a privilege that someone else does not.
    Show me who does not have a privilgee that someone else does.
    If you cannot, then you cannot show discrimination.

  5. #305
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Show me who has a privilege that someone else does not.
    Show me who does not have a privilgee that someone else does.
    If you cannot, then you cannot show discrimination.
    Are you arguing in support of interracial marriage bans?

  6. #306
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-13-10 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more.
    Say what?


    The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?
    Who cares which court it was? At this point, all that matters is that the good guys won.

    On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense
    That's funny, most Americans that I know personally (even here in the heart of the Bible belt) have a much bigger problem with the nonsense being pushed by our fundamentalist Christian minority (less than 10% of the American population, and only 1/3 of .the evangelical Christian population). I'm not sure how you define "radical liberals", but even by your own calculation, you fundamentalists are an even bigger minority.

    The American people don't want religious fundamentalism. But I have a feeling if we voted in referendum to, say, ban fundies from picketing gay pride parades, you guys would be up in arms about "discrimination!" and "rights!". That's what always cracks me up.

    they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.
    The American people understand this very well, and (as you can see very well), we haven't backed down to the radical fundamentalist minority and their corrupt and underhanded attempts to force their unamerican, authoritarian agenda on us. B)

    It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.
    We all know that fundamentalists struggle with Godlessness and immorality every day. If it wasn't for the depravity aspect, fundie churches would by out of business. Countless child sex scandals, young earth creationist home"schooling", drug-addicted pastors getting caught in gay affairs, child abuse, hatred, stupidity praised as a virture, group thought, financial exploitation, etc etc etc

    Even the very core dogma of fundamentalism is rooted in moral depravity - fundamentalist "Christians" hold the Old Testament law as moral - meaning they believe that infant genocide, mass murder, forced abortions, pedophilia and child sexual slavery, ritual human sacrifice, Nazi-esque theocratic dicatorship (all in the name of their god) was acceptable, just because "Jesus said the Old Law no longer applies". Yet they have the time to whine about gay couples being granted a handful of legal rights, as if that is [i]so]/i] much worse than slaughting and raping children and young girls in "God's name".

    Evil Bible Home Page - contains the verses

    What's also funny, is that in the New Testament, homosexuality is only mentioned once as a sin (alongside gluttony for that matter, yet fundie churches don't seem to have a big problem with the fatties who make up about 60% of their congregations). Hypocrisy (of the religious leaders) however, is mentioned by Jesus on numerous occaisions, as among the worst sin (Jesus himself never even mentioned homosexuality, so even if he believed it was sinful, it sure didn't hold rank with the religious hypocrites he despised).

    So ironically, even by fundamentalists' own dogma, they're still far more immoral than gays (and pretty much anyone else). Sucks to be them, but apparently it's a great time to be gay in Cali.

    We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.
    I take it you're a Mike Savage listener. Go figure.


    Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
    I become more aware of this every day, the more posts by fundamentalists that I read. B)
    Last edited by TexasSam13; 09-09-10 at 10:58 PM.

  7. #307
    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
    Are you arguing in support of interracial marriage bans?
    I'm sorry...
    You can't show who has a privilege that someone else does not?
    You can't show who does not have a privilgee that someone else does?
    Then you cannot show discrimination.

  8. #308
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'm sorry...
    You can't show who has a privilege that someone else does not?
    You can't show who does not have a privilgee that someone else does?
    Then you cannot show discrimination.
    In interracial marriage bans? A white person can marry a white person but a black person can't and a black person can marry a black person but a white person can't.

    In same sex marriage bans? A man can marry a woman but a woman can't, and a woman can marry a man but a man can't.

    There you go, discrimination. Just because whites and blacks were both discriminated against by interracial marriage bans did not make them just and just be both men and women are discriminated against by same sex marriage bans does not make them just.


    Do you want to try again, or was that your best argument?

  9. #309
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Good grief.

    I already spoke to every single one of these points, in detail. You're repeating yourself as though I didn't. My answers are the same as they were the last two times. (Even when you keep shifting your argument back and forth between it being about discriminating against homosexuality and it NOT being about discriminating against homosexuality. And by the way, the actual argument has won in ONE district court. There's a long, long way to go before this is case closed.)
    You're still missing the problem. You are arguing that sexuality somehow, magically, nullifies the 14th Amendment in this argument. When pressed on the issue, you become nebulous. You are clinging to the same debate, even though that debate has been addressed and refuted. Again, I don't mean to belittle you, but i'm not sure how much clearer I can be. What would it take to get you to realize that the argument you're putting forth is inconsistent with your argument against equal protection? There is just a huge disconnect here, and unfortunately you're still clinging to the same defense even though it's been addressed already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You still think I'm arguing FOR exclusion. I'm not. I'm arguing only (get it? ONLY) that the equal protection argument for same-sex marriage fails. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't handle an academic discussion on a single point without including all kinds of assumptions and baggage, that's your own failing.

    And, you still think I'm against gay marriage. I'm not. I don't know how many times I have to say so specifically. I can only conclude that you're not even bothering to read what I write, because if you actually were, there's no way you could have missed all that.
    You're not being very academic here. I read what you wrote over and over, but it just doesn't add up. I have no idea why you keep dismissing the equal protection argument and keep injecting your sexuality defense. It's like you are stuck on that point despite the fact it's been addressed and refuted. From here, this is where you _should_ read the argument I put forth and say, "you know, Singularity already addressed this, and it's been refuted. Let me try to explain another possible defense against the equal protection clause".

    Again, I don't know why you can't seem to get past that. The only thing I can tell you to do is maybe leave out the term 'sexuality' from your next defense, in the hopes that you eventually understand that we are past that already. I mean it's been addressed an umpteenth amount of times. Is there anything that I can do to help you to move forward here? We just keep going back to you presenting the same argument, me addressing it and refuting it, and you repeating the same argument.

  10. #310
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Its exceptionally relevant - it establishes that the protections of the 14th are not plenary and limitless - they do not apply to everyone, nor do they apply to every privilege offered by the states.
    No, you put forth an example about minors, and failed to acknowledge emancipation. The discussion was about adults - specifically homosexual adults. That's why your argument is irrelevant here.

Page 31 of 35 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... 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
  •