Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 347

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

  1. #331
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 04:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Where did I say anything about the 14th Amendment being "nullified"? Point me to the post. Show me my words where I said anything remotely similar to that. You are continually arguing against something I never said, mostly, I think, because you don't actually understand what I did say.

    In fact, my argument rests very squarely on the 14th Amendment AND the jurisprudence which surrounds it, and the tests which have been developed over time to analyze whether or not a law runds afoul of the equal protection clause. If you were familiar with any of that and how to argue equal protection, you might actually know that. (I even explained the entire reasoning process in detail, and in simple, layman's language.)
    Again, we are back to square one. I understand your argument perfectly. Here, let me repeat it for you so that you can stop this line of reasoning about who understands what argument, and realize where this argument fails. You maintain that, "in order for there to be an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something on the basis of 'something' about that class of individuals. In this case, the argument is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of sexuality." You go on to say "that because in order to argue that something is being denied to someone, you have to define exactly what it is which is being denied, as well as the basis on which it's being denied. The only chance the equal protection argument has to succeed is if that which is being denied is based on something intrinsic about the individuals it's being denied to. In this case, the argument is that it's their sexuality."

    Okay, before I continue, you now understand that we are both on the same page when it comes to what the argument between us is about. If you say that we don't after reading what I just wrote, then you can understand why I keep having to repeat the argument, as the words I quoted were yours exactly. They have been read and understood by me many times throughout this thread, and addressed. It's obvious, however, that I need to be a little more in depth, as there is still a disconnect between us.

    So, moving forward, you then claim that "if sexuality isn't a necessary part of marriage, and it is not, then the equal protection argument fails." Still on the same page? I hope so, because those are your exact words again. This is where your argument gets nebulous, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Let me show you a full explanation as to why.

    Let's lay out the two arguments' premises and conclusions. If you disagree with anything here, post and say so, and we can add or subtract anything you wish to.

    A. The legal argument for:

    Premise 1: The 14th Amendment says that privileges and immunities of the US citizen shall not be abridged by the state without due process of law.
    Premise 2: Marriage is a privilege, according to the anti-gay marriage crowd.
    Premise 3: Homosexuals are citizens who love same sex partners
    Conclusion: Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    B. Your argument:

    Premise 1: The 14th Amendment says that privileges and immunities of the US citizen shall not be abridged by the state without due process of law.
    Premise 2: In order for there to be an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something. In the case of homosexuals, they claim that they are being denied something based on sexuality.
    Premise 3: Sexuality is not a component of marriage, therefore homosexuals cannot use this argument for marriage inclusion.
    Conclusion: The 14th Amendment does not apply.

    The problem in B. Your argument comes specifically at Premise 3, as i've said all along. Let me lay out my previous argument as well as things i've touched on, and you can get a clearer picture.

    Problem #1: Your belief that 'sexuality is not a component of marriage'. This is arguable at best. First off, the entire reason for excluding same sex couples is based entirely on sexuality, right? How many times have we heard 'marriage is between a man and a woman' in these arguments against inclusion? Many times. So almost everyone against gay marriage would argue against the belief that sexuality is not a component of marriage, because they believe that sexuality is entirely the reason same sex couples should be excluded. Your argument, however, is just the opposite - it is not a component, which you attempt to reason is a viable means of excluding same sex couples in the equal protection argument laid out above. However, this argument could be used as a basis by homosexual couples FOR inclusion. After all, if sexuality is not a component of marriage, there is no reason to exclude them. The reason why? See Problem #2:

    Problem #2: If 'Sexuality is not a component of marriage', then the sexuality argument becomes arbitrary. You're saying that sexuality is not a part of marriage, then go on to conclude that equal protection does not apply because of that, and therefore homosexual couples cannot appeal to equal protection to get married. Unfortunately, you've made sexuality arbitrary here; therefore, it cannot be used as an adequate defense. Let me show you why.

    Let's say we have two couples that want to get married - couple A and couple B. Here are 3 details about couple A and couple B:

    Couple A
    enjoy watching soccer
    live in Manhattan
    Catholic

    Couple B
    travel to the Bahamas yearly
    same-sex couple
    eat at Sal's Pizza every monday

    Given that, does any particular detail exclude one of the couples from getting married, according to your argument? No. Every detail listed is arbitrary by the argument you put forth, and no reason to exclude either couple from marriage. The enjoyment of soccer is not a component of marriage, neither is living in Manhattan, or being Catholic. Also, travelling to the Bahamas yearly is not a component of marriage, neither is sexuality, and enjoying a particular pizza place on Mondays. All of these factors are arbitrary, according to you.

    So, given this, when you say 'sexuality is not a component of marriage', then use that to conclude that equal protection does not apply, that is akin to saying 'being Catholic is not a component of marriage', or 'travelling to the Bahamas yearly' is not a component of marriage, and concluding that people who do such things are not entitled to equal protection, and therefore cannot get married using the legal argument.

    Problem #3: If by 'sexuality' you were referring to sexual attraction, then what is the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples attraction to eliminate one of them from marriage? It stands to reason that, given the equal protection clause, if heterosexual couples can get married who either are or are not sexually attracted to one another, than homosexual couples can, too. Fair is fair.

    So, I hope we've cleared this hurdle. There is no need to repeat that I do not understand your argument, as I have clearly laid out both arguments, and hopefully demonstrated to you why your particular argument against equal protection application has a number of problems.

  2. #332
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 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's no need.
    For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.
    Good luck.

  3. #333
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 04:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.
    Good luck.
    And that's something i've done throughout this thread. Of course, I simply repeated the argument the lawyers used. And seeing as how they won the case in a court of law, well there you have it.

    My recommendation? Perhaps you should email them and voice your displeasure at using the Constitution in such a manner.

  4. #334
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 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
    And that's something i've done throughout this thread. Of course, I simply repeated the argument the lawyers used. And seeing as how they won the case in a court of law, well there you have it.
    You're simply appealing to authority here.

    If you cannot actually illsutrate and explain the supposed discrimination, just say so - no one will think the lesser of you.

  5. #335
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 04:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You're simply appealing to authority here.

    If you cannot actually illsutrate and explain the supposed discrimination, just say so - no one will think the lesser of you.
    I've explained my position throughout the entire thread, and backed it all up with logical reasoning, examples that have withstood scrutiny, and yes, even an appeal to authority.

    If you have any further arguments which you think are relevant to your position that you wish debated, then feel free to present them.

  6. #336
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 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
    I've explained my position throughout the entire thread, and backed it all up with logical reasoning, examples that have withstood scrutiny, and yes, even an appeal to authority.
    No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.
    You have not at ALL shown, in necessary terms, how treating everyone exactly the same discriminates agianst anyone.

    When you think you can lay out that argument, let me know; I'll expect your continued attempt to avoid doing so as a concession of the point.

  7. #337
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 04:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.
    You have not at ALL shown, in necessary terms, how treating everyone exactly the same discriminates agianst anyone.
    Post #331, top of the page. Feel free to reply to it at your leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    When you think you can lay out that argument, let me know; I'll expect your continued attempt to avoid doing so as a concession of the point.
    You're simply avoiding the topic. I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to post a few relevant examples, and to debate those examples after they've been analyzed and the problems with them illustrated in plain English. There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so.

  8. #338
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 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
    Post #331, top of the page. Feel free to reply to it at your leisure.
    I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.

    I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to show how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone; you have, thus far, failed to do so. There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so - either way, your continued avoidance is noted and your concession accepted.

  9. #339
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 04:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.

    I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to show how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone; you have, thus far, failed to do so.
    Quite the contrary. I've demonstrated many times how the 14th Amendment applies here, and even refuted every one of your examples. So far, you have not advanced the discussion beyond simply repeating yourself. I have invited you numerous times to further your position; in fact, I look forward to it.

    But, since you claim that my post does not apply to your particular argument, I don't mind inserting or removing any of the above premises to illustrate _your_ argument more accurately. So, list any premises as to why you think the 14th does not apply here, and we can logically construct your argument, then see where it is we disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so - either way, your continued avoidance is noted and your concession accepted.
    I'll gladly accept your imitation as flattery. And regarding the issue of concession, I have done nothing to give you any indication that I have done so. In fact, given your argument, why would I? So I invite you again in the hopes that you will move this discussion forward, rather than go on to imagine a victory where none exists. But of course, far be it from me to burst anyone's bubble of imagination.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-15-10 at 09:19 PM.

  10. #340
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 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
    Quite the contrary. I've demonstrated many times how the 14th Amendment applies here, and even refuted every one of your examples.
    This is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    Disagree? See below.

    But, since you claim that my post does not apply to your particular argument, I don't mind inserting or removing any of the above premises to illustrate _your_ argument more accurately. So, list any premises as to why you think the 14th does not apply here, and we can logically construct your argument, then see where it is we disagree.
    I'm sorry -- if you had been paying any attention at all, this would not be necessary.
    How can you say that you have refuted my argument when you clearly do not know know what my argument is?

    I'll gladly accept your imitation as flattery.
    That's because you apparently don't recognize. mockery.

Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 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
  •