• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

Goobieman said:
Please cite for me the constitutional, legislative or regulatory languange that positively grants you the right to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

What is the Second Amendment? What do I win for giving the right answer, Alex? :mrgreen:
 
joe six-pack said:
Actually, it's a "subjective" judgment, not necessarily concerning morals. But nice try.
Click to expand...

No. Right and wrong are moral valuations. We're not discussing the wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?.

People who claim same sex marriage is wrong are making moral judgements on the actions of others. That it's wrong for them to make those judgements is a different moral assessment.

MYOB rules.

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."
Click to expand...

Which does nothing to address the correct assessment that over time all behaviors either serve, or do not serve, evolution of the species, as do all inherited physical traits.

Evolution happens when indivduals get together and produce offspring. The extinction of genetic lines happens when they do not.

Welcome to what happens in the real world.

Just because you don't understand the purpose of homosexuality in nature, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a purpose.
Click to expand...

First you complain about the right wingers and their idiot "intelligent design", then you want to pretend a genetic flaw or a behavioral defect has a "purpose".

Make up your mind.

Nature has a way of stabilizing a population, keeping the ecosystem in balance.
Click to expand...

No. Nature has a way of killing species as their ecosystems equilibrates to new states driven by a wide variety of forcing functions.

"Balance" is a static term that fails to encompass the dynamic nature of entropically driven biological systems.

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.
Click to expand...

You believe in some form of intelligent design. Thank you for confirming this.

The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.

Maybe there is a purpose that you simply don't understand.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't want to face the reality that there's no plan.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

The right doesn't exist.

More importantly than that, the right of one person to tell two other consenting legal adults they can't marry doesn't exist, either.

The interesting question is what are those people afraid of?
 
Why is it that whenever marriage and homosexuality comes up it inevitably turns towards "there is no use for homosexuality because it serves no purpose"? There's no use for the dingle dangly thing in the back of your mouth either...yet it is there. Plus marriage is not about producing offspring. If it was then people would be required to have kids when they were married. And we all know that is not the case.
 
joe six-pack said:
There is no natural "right" to own a fire-arm.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The freedom to own weapons predates the existence of homo sapiens as a species, and in fact, is one of the factors that allowed homo sapiens to evolve at all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why is it that whenever marriage and homosexuality comes up it inevitably turns towards "there is no use for homosexuality because it serves no purpose"?
Click to expand...

Because it's a valid point.

I'm not going to pretend those people aren't misformed or maladjusted just because I'm arguing in favor of their natural freedom to choose their own spouses.
 
Goobieman said:
Nothing in anything that I have posted here requires me to make any argument regarding the constitutionality of state provisions that do not allow same-sex marriange.
Click to expand...
You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
Goobieman said:
I have, however, pointed out logical/factual/other flaws in the arguments that YOU have presented, which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
Click to expand...
You can try. But all you are doing is saying "I'm right because I say so."
Goobieman said:
For instance, your argument that "I've never read a post that provided such a reason" is, without question, an appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...
I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Stating that said examples have not been observed is an "statement of ignorance."

An "appeal" is a request. I wasn't requesting ignorance, Goober, I was requesting an explanation.

You have both failed to provide one and failed to describe the conversation correctly.
 
danarhea said:
I completely disagree with you on just about everything you said, except for that last sentence. We can drink a beer to that. :)
Click to expand...

So you're going to vote for or or back Brown, one of the wosrt Gov. in the history of the state. And your a Conservative?

I say: (If" he's Brown flush him down)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why is it that whenever marriage and homosexuality comes up it inevitably turns towards "there is no use for homosexuality because it serves no purpose"?
Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because it's a valid point.

I'm not going to pretend those people aren't misformed or maladjusted just because I'm arguing in favor of their natural freedom to choose their own spouses.
Click to expand...

It is because teleology is the basis of Judeo-Christian morality. Anything that is not in accordance with the grand "design" has no purpose and is thus an aberrant behavior. For example, the anus is not a reproductive organ, therefore it is abberant to use it for sexual intercourse. Or another one is, homosexual behavior does not lead to procreation therefore it is deviant.

Of course, there is obvious fault in teleological reasoning. For example, the hand and mouth are not reproductive organs, and yet people use them all the time for sexual stimulation. Also, infertile and elderly couples cannot procreate, but they still have sex. Would you consider anyone who masturbates, engages in oral sex, or who is incapable of having children due to age, as "misinformed" or "maladjusted"?

In essence, people are trying to enforce an ideal based upon their conception of a "design" inherent in the world.

It is actually incredibly idiotic and in no way a "valid point", and yet its the same reasoning that the Catholic Church uses to argue things like, "artificial insemination is immoral".
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Right and wrong are moral valuations. We're not discussing the wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?.
Click to expand...
But you just contradicted yourself. You just stated that "wrong" doesn't necessarily have a moral implication, as in the case of mathematics. That's all I'm saying. People think a lot of things are "correct" or "wrong" and morality doesn't always enter into the thought-process.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
People who claim same sex marriage is wrong are making moral judgements on the actions of others. That it's wrong for them to make those judgements is a different moral assessment.
Click to expand...
Some of them simply think it's naturally wrong. I happen to think homosexuality is both naturally occurring and has a purpose. Like any other decision that nature makes through trial and error.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Which does nothing to address the correct assessment that over time all behaviors either serve, or do not serve, evolution of the species, as do all inherited physical traits.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. Heterosexual parents can have homosexual children. That's true in human beings, as well as many other animals. It exists and--just like many adaptations--it probably serves a natural purpose.

When I say "purpose" I am talking about a function. A fish's gills serves a purpose.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Evolution happens when indivduals get together and produce offspring.
Click to expand...
That's part of the process. But homosexuality isn't an wrong evolutionary step, it's more like a safety valve for the entire species population.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
First you complain about the right wingers and their idiot "intelligent design", then you want to pretend a genetic flaw or a behavioral defect has a "purpose".

Make up your mind.
Click to expand...
I never said intelligent design was a stupid idea. I was talking about irony.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You believe in some form of intelligent design. Thank you for confirming this.
Click to expand...
I'm open minded. Thanks for confirming you're not?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.
Click to expand...
You are simultaneously claiming that that homosexuality is an adaptation (you claim it's a bad one), therefore assigning stupid or intelligent decisions to the natural process of adaptation. While you are assigning intelligence to mother nature, you are arguing that there is no intelligence behind the natural process of evolution.

Camouflage would appear to be an extremely clever decision for evolution to make. It serves a purpose, although you claim nothing in nature has a purpose. Camouflage may have come about by random chance, but it seems more likely on some level and intelligent decision was made. I don't believe in God, but adaptation isn't chaos and random chance.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Maybe you don't want to face the reality that there's no plan.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can avoid presuming you know what I do or do not believe, if you don't know just ask.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Not having progeny does not mean something has no "evolutionary purpose". This has been known for 20 + years. It's not even controversial.

This is why people should not talk about issues they are ignorant on.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.
Click to expand...

I would like to see your evidence that homosexuality is an evolutionary maladaption or that it serves no purpose. I actually have evidence to support my assertion that homosexuality is natural and serves a purpose to the human species.

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist
Gay men may have 'super uncle' evolutionary advantage: Researchers

I await to see what evidence you have to support your assertions. If you have none, then I call your view bull****.
 
Last edited:
joe six-pack said:
You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
Click to expand...
The arguments that I have laid out so far:
Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.
As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.

The -right- involved here, if any, is the right to equal protection under the law in that priviliges may only be denied to people under certain circumstances...The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.

You can hold [the belief that violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to the privilige of marriage] if you want - it remains to be seen if your belief has any lasting legal merit.

All of these are perfectly sound; nothing you have posted in any way refutes any of them.

You can try. But all you are doing is saying "I'm right because I say so."
Click to expand...
No.. I have pointed out why you are wrong see below.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Stating that said examples have not been observed is an "statement of ignorance."
Click to expand...
You stated:
There is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage.
You back that statement up with:
'I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
An appeal to ignorance:
The fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
The Appeal to Ignorance

Thus, you have made an appeal to ignorance -- you argued that there is no valid reason to oppose same sex marriage because you have yeet to see one.
 
danarhea said:
What is the Second Amendment? What do I win for giving the right answer, Alex? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Where is the positive grant of the right to own a firearm in the 2nd amendment?
 
joe six-pack said:
You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which...
Please cite for me the constitutional, legislative or regulatory languange that positively grants you the right to own a firearm.
 
Goobieman said:
As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.
Click to expand...

Oh please explain this logic to me.

It contradicts reaility. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a "fundamental right" under the United States Constitution.

Perhaps you have heard of the Due Process Clause, which prohbits local and state governments of denying life, liberty, or property, withut taking certain steps. Marriage is fundamentally about life, liberty, and property.

If you want to argue that "same sex marriage" is not a right, then that is one thing, but don't even try to argue that marriage in general is just some sort of privledge. That is neither historically, nor rationally corrrect.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Fact of the matter is that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, it wasn't going to pass the Supreme Court, and the state of California can't afford the luxury of wasting time on such petty issues right now.

The state is facing bankruptcy thanks to the goonions that have controlled the state for decades, and the vultures are coming home to roost.
Click to expand...

It didn't violate the 14th. It was argued incorrectly by the state.


Tim-
 
Goobieman said:
Where is the positive grant of the right to own a firearm in the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

You see, that's the beauty of the Constitution. While other Constitutions specify what government can do, the Bill of Rights specify what government CANNOT do. The Second Amendment clearly says that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon, thereby holding up the right to bear arms as an intrinsic right. While many Constitutions are volumes in length, the US Constitution is short, and concise. This is because it takes a reverse approach to law, specifying what government is NOT allowed to do, instead of what it can do. What our forefathers did here was genius in it's simplicity.

The short answer to your question is that the right to bear arms is expressly granted by the Second Amendment, because the government cannot take it away. You can't take away something that does not exist, can you?
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
It didn't violate the 14th. It was argued incorrectly by the state.


Tim-
Click to expand...

1: The case wasn't argued by the state, it was argued by Protect Marriage, since neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown would defend it.
2. The federal court found it violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, and nobody on this forum has yet to provide a decent case as to why that isn't true.
 
danarhea said:
The short answer to your question is that the right to bear arms is expressly granted by the Second Amendment, because the government cannot take it away.
Click to expand...
This is silly. The language of the amendment grants nothing other than protection for something that pre-exists the Constitution.


[/QUOTE]
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh please explain this logic to me.
Click to expand...
Not sure how I can be more clear that I already have been.
Marriage, as a legal institution, is a creature of the state. It exists only because states passed laws creating it, and because those laws allow you to do it.
If the state did not create those laws - or if they were repealed - marriage, as a legal institution, would not exist.
This means that marriage, as a legal institution -must- be a privilege because states do not create or grant rights, thru legislation or otherwise.

It contradicts reaility. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a "fundamental right" under the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...
If the SCotUS says that 2+2=5, that just means they are wrong. The fact that the SCotUS may say it is a right doesnt - in fact, cannot - change the fact that it exists only because the state gives it to you, and is thus a privilege.

Perhaps you have heard of the Due Process Clause, which prohbits local and state governments of denying life, liberty, or property, withut taking certain steps.
Click to expand...
I have. The due process clause doesnt change anything as it in no way forces the state to create the legal institution of marriage and cannot be used to keep the state from repealing those laws -- and it certainly doesnt change the fact that, as a creature of the state, the legal institution of marriage is a privilege that the state grants you.
 
Oooook. I don't think you really understand how our Constitutional Republic works. In our system, the courts interpret the Constitution to determine what does and does not constitute a right that is protected by that Constitution. In the case of marriage, the Supreme Court determined it was a right because of the Due Process clause of the Constitution. In other words, the Supreme Court, as part of the state, recognized that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution.

Now you can try to talk marriage down to a privilege in your own head, but our state recognizes marriage as a fundamental right. That is the reality.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
So you're going to vote for or or back Brown, one of the wosrt Gov. in the history of the state. And your a Conservative?

I say: (If" he's Brown flush him down)
Click to expand...

Did I say I supported Brown? No, I didn't. In fact, I stated already that I supported Schwartzeneggar in what he was doing. Now go try to put words in somebody else's mouth. That attack of yours was just plain lame, but I understand your reasoning. If you can't debate the issues, then attack the poster instead. That's really original.... NOT.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.
Click to expand...

So, is the U.S. Constitution is amended, the President doesn't have to enforce its provision? That's silly...

And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
Click to expand...

But it remains a part of the CA Constitution and as such, he is constitutionally obligated to defend it... The supporters of Prop 8 should seek his impeachment in accordance with the CA Constitution...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom