Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 347

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

  1. #61
    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 joe six-pack View Post
    It's a "Law" (or lawful entity) so it doesn't matter.
    It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.

    Those circumstances are when two people or groups of people are similarly situated, in legal terms.
    The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.

    It's insane to deny same-sex couples the legal institution of marriage on the base of homophobia.
    Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.

  2. #62
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.
    Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."

    So, you were only half right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.
    I agree.

    But where same-sex and opposite-sex coupels are similarly situated, I believe it violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to a legal contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.
    I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.

    Most arguments I've heard have been irrational fears about what "could" happen if homos are allowed to marry legally. That's the phobia I'm talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  3. #63
    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 joe six-pack View Post
    Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."
    So, you were only half right.
    No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.

    I agree.
    But where same-sex and opposite-sex coupels are similarly situated, I believe it violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to a legal contract.
    You can hold that belief if you want - it remains to be seen if your belief has any lasting legal merit.

    I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.
    Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.

    Most arguments I've heard have been irrational fears about what "could" happen if homos are allowed to marry legally. That's the phobia I'm talking about.
    That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.

  4. #64
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Irrelevant to what you said
    It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.
    Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.

    Concern is a way of expressing a fear of a thing, life-style, person or whatever. You are just playing word games.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
    To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.

    Hence "homophobia." You don't have an argument--or at least you haven't made one. So make an argument.

    If you don't think homosexuality is wrong or bad. What possible reason could you have for opposing same-sex marriage? Just for fun?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joe six-pack View Post
    To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.
    "Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.

    Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.

  6. #66
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    "Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.
    Actually, it's a "subjective" judgment, not necessarily concerning morals. But nice try.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.
    I often hear this argument from the Right; same people who believe everything in nature has a purpose. That's why they call it an "intelligent design."

    Just because you don't understand the purpose of homosexuality in nature, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a purpose. Nature has a way of stabilizing a population, keeping the ecosystem in balance. I believd that the purpose of homosexuality is to keep the population relatively stable. There are almost seven billion people on the planet and the number is increasing exponentially. In the 1800s there were only about a billion people on the planet.

    Maybe there is a purpose that you simply don't understand.
    Last edited by joe six-pack; 09-06-10 at 06:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  7. #67
    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 joe six-pack View Post
    It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.
    I do. And it has nothing to do with why I said what I said.

    Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.
    Concern is a way of expressing a fear of a thing, life-style, person or whatever. You are just playing word games.
    Ah, the irony.

    To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.
    There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.

  8. #68
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.
    Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"

    Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.
    Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.


    That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
    No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #69
    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 Deuce View Post
    Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"
    Voting is, at times -- your state grants you the privilege to vote for President; you have no right to do so.
    Your legal ability to have a gun or a trial by jury were not granted to you by the government - they are rights that pre-exist government.
    Your legal ability to get married, however, exists only because the state gives it to you - thus, a privilege.

    Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.
    Oh. So it isnt REALLY a phobia then. Why contine to use the term if it doesn't really apply?

    No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
    And thus, it is a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.

  10. #70
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"

    Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.

    No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
    Exactly. I'm glad someone understands the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I do.
    Clearly you don't. Must be a miscommunication somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.
    So are saying you don't believe same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Good, at least we agree on that.

    There is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage. I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •