Page 12 of 124 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 1236

Thread: Just Plain Wrong

  1. #111
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    Lpast, now that you mention it, I'm sure you remember when interracial marriage was not NORMAL!
    Not the issue here...that was not the ABNORMAL wanting the normal...now..lets get this straight ok...

    Racism and the civil rights movement has ZERO to do with the homosexual pressure the population movement...
    I think any one that is for homosexual marriage is a heterophobe and a racist and a narrow minded cruel person trying to dilute the normalcy of marriage for 94% of the normal population...

  2. #112
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    01-15-18 @ 12:02 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,224

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Not the issue here...that was not the ABNORMAL wanting the normal...now..lets get this straight ok...

    Racism and the civil rights movement has ZERO to do with the homosexual pressure the population movement...
    I think any one that is for homosexual marriage is a heterophobe and a racist and a narrow minded cruel person trying to dilute the normalcy of marriage for 94% of the normal population...
    I think you've lost your damn mind over this issue.

    Why would someone who supports gay marriage be a heterophobe?

    What do you think the "normal" marriage is? Is it one that ends in divorce? That is the trend, you know?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #113
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Not the issue here...that was not the ABNORMAL wanting the normal...now..lets get this straight ok...

    Racism and the civil rights movement has ZERO to do with the homosexual pressure the population movement...
    I think any one that is for homosexual marriage is a heterophobe and a racist and a narrow minded cruel person trying to dilute the normalcy of marriage for 94% of the normal population...
    The hell it doesn't. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for every citizen of this country. It doesn't say "except gays, who must have a separate but equal classification because gay is icky". And then, of course, we have the whole, "separate but equal is not equal" ruling from the SCOTUS, which pretty much kills the whole "you can have civil unions, but not marriage" crap.

    Essentially, the law is against your bigotry. And so is 53%+ of this country. So eventually, no matter how often you stomp your feet and cry out against it, you'll be on the losing side of the argument. And the rest of us, containing a sense of decency and fairness, will be waiving at you from the other side, celebrating the fact that America actually stood by her principles when it mattered.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,190

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    The hell it doesn't. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for every citizen of this country. It doesn't say "except gays, who must have a separate but equal classification because gay is icky".
    Here's your issue however. The case law, THUS FAR, with the 14th amendment at the SCOTUS level doesn't support what you're saying. The 14th amendment guarantee's equal protection under the law, however it does not guarantee that the Government can't discriminate against a particular designation of people. On the contrary, the case law surrounding the 14th amendment which implimented the Equal Protection Clause actually DOES allow the government to discriminate. You can see this actually routinely, for example just looking at the issue of age we see discrimination regarding the ability to enter into contracts, vote, curfew laws, etc.

    However, for it to be able to discriminate the State needs to prove that there's a certain amount of reason for them to do it and that said discrimination is related to that particular reason to a certain degree. The amounts in both of those portoins of the equatation are determined by what teir of scrutiny a particular classification falls under. For example, race at the moment is in the highest teir and requires the strictest scrutiny while age is part of the bottom teir.

    As of now, the "Law" as you put it places "homosexual orientation" as part of that lowest tier as well. Meaning the state has a very low burden of proof to meet to be able to legally discriminate against them. Now, you could argue that the law is wrong and that it should be challenged by the court and that you think you'll win....that's fine and dandy. But as of now, the "Law" is not clearly on your side, at best its ambiguous and at worst its not. At least when it comes to the 14th amendment as you are focusing on in your point.

    As to your 53% number, that is a bit of a half-truth in and of itself as well. From what I've seen with polls, if given the choice between simply "Gay marriage and no gay marriage", a majority of people vote in favor of the later. However, when given a choice of "Gay marriage, Civil Unions, or Neither", gay marriage rarely finishes first let alone second at times. This seems to indicate to me from the polls I've seen that the country, by and large, is more friendly to the notion of Civil Unions then Gay Marriage, but would prefer gay marriage over nothing. Unfortunately for your argument, simply because YOU don't like the term of Civil Union or you THINK they're unconstitutional (whic his yet to be seen) doesn't mean that's not an option out there currently and the public support is more in favor of that when given an accurate poll based on ALL the current options at play currently.

  5. #115
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Nope...says you and your only half the opinion
    The idea that everyone must conform to normal standards simply because they are normal is stupid, and obviously not reality either - didn't you see our examples mocking this ridiculous claim?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's your issue however. The case law, THUS FAR, with the 14th amendment at the SCOTUS level doesn't support what you're saying. The 14th amendment guarantee's equal protection under the law, however it does not guarantee that the Government can't discriminate against a particular designation of people. On the contrary, the case law surrounding the 14th amendment which implimented the Equal Protection Clause actually DOES allow the government to discriminate. You can see this actually routinely, for example just looking at the issue of age we see discrimination regarding the ability to enter into contracts, vote, curfew laws, etc.

    However, for it to be able to discriminate the State needs to prove that there's a certain amount of reason for them to do it and that said discrimination is related to that particular reason to a certain degree. The amounts in both of those portoins of the equatation are determined by what teir of scrutiny a particular classification falls under. For example, race at the moment is in the highest teir and requires the strictest scrutiny while age is part of the bottom teir.

    As of now, the "Law" as you put it places "homosexual orientation" as part of that lowest tier as well. Meaning the state has a very low burden of proof to meet to be able to legally discriminate against them. Now, you could argue that the law is wrong and that it should be challenged by the court and that you think you'll win....that's fine and dandy. But as of now, the "Law" is not clearly on your side, at best its ambiguous and at worst its not. At least when it comes to the 14th amendment as you are focusing on in your point.

    As to your 53% number, that is a bit of a half-truth in and of itself as well. From what I've seen with polls, if given the choice between simply "Gay marriage and no gay marriage", a majority of people vote in favor of the later. However, when given a choice of "Gay marriage, Civil Unions, or Neither", gay marriage rarely finishes first let alone second at times. This seems to indicate to me from the polls I've seen that the country, by and large, is more friendly to the notion of Civil Unions then Gay Marriage, but would prefer gay marriage over nothing. Unfortunately for your argument, simply because YOU don't like the term of Civil Union or you THINK they're unconstitutional (whic his yet to be seen) doesn't mean that's not an option out there currently and the public support is more in favor of that when given an accurate poll based on ALL the current options at play currently.
    Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment


    -Marriage is a civil (as well as religious) institution; married couples benefit from more than 1000 benefits under federal law
    -Supporters of gay marriage argue that equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage
    -Opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a legitimate rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples
    -Currently legal classifications based on sexual orientation are subjected only to the rational basis test, not to strict scrutiny

    On the surface, the answer might seem simple (to advocates of gay marriage, at least). Marriage is, after all, a civil as well as a religious institution. People enter marriage by obtaining a license from local authorities and—in about half of all marriages these days—they later end it by securing a divorce decree from a local civil court. In between, the United States Government Accounting Office has identified more than a thousand federal benefits and responsibilities (such as homebuyer programs and educational assistance) affected by marital status. In other words, there are thousands of laws touching upon marriage and, consequently, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws suggests—to some—that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be protected in their right to marry.

    But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

    But the Court has also held that certain types of laws need to pass a tougher standard than the Lindsley test; certain types of classifications within the law are more suspicious and require closer scrutiny. In particular, the Court has said that America's history of racial oppression requires that all laws employing racial classifications must be more rigorously examined by the courts. Consequently, it is far less likely that these sorts of laws will survive judicial scrutiny. On occasion, the Court has also applied this heightened level of scrutiny to state laws using classifications based not only on race but also on citizenship. And in recent decades, the Court has developed an intermediate standard for evaluating laws employing gender classifications. Statutes that treat men and women differently must be more than merely reasonable, they "must serve important governmental objectives," and the differing treatments of men and women "must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives."40

    In terms of gay marriage, the critical issue thus becomes the level of scrutiny that laws affecting gays and lesbians should receive. Are gays, like racial minorities, considered a "suspect" class in terms of constitutional law? Does the court rigorously scrutinize laws impacting them? Or do laws that create classifications based on sexual orientation receive a lesser degree of vigilance, like those based on age? Should the courts then apply the lowest level of scrutiny, the rational basis test? Or do they impose an intermediate standard like the one used to examine laws incorporating gender classifications?

    The short answer is that, thus far, gays and lesbians have not been considered a suspect class by the Supreme Court; laws impacting them are today subject only to the lowest level of scrutiny. But since the Court has addressed these questions only very recently, it is hard to predict whether this approach will persist too much farther into the future.
    1234567890

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,190

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Right, thanks for providing a source saying the same thing as I was basically.

    All case law at a SCOTUS level thus far has homosexual orientation as a bottom tier of scrutiny classification. That can absolutely potentially change if its challenged in court. But if someone wants to talk about the "Law" as it stands now, they aren't a medium teir (such as gender) or top teir (like race) classification. That may very well change as more challenges come and they finally reach SCOTUS...but as it stands now, that's where they're at.

    No one can absolutely say what the future will hold, that's entirely an opinion based notion that each individual can come up with based on their own thoughts or view of whatever facts they wish. I'm not suggesting I know the future, I was simply suggesting that as it stands now its by no means at the moment clear cut that the "Law" surrounding the 14th amendment is definitively on the side of those against gay marriage.

    I personally think that the 14th amendment causes the inability for Same Sex marriages to occur to be unconstitutional, however I base that reasoning off an entirely different classification than those whose focus is singularly on "gay marriage". However, my thoughts on that are also simply opinion though one I believe has a strong backing in fact.

  8. #118
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    I think you've lost your damn mind over this issue.

    Why would someone who supports gay marriage be a heterophobe?

    What do you think the "normal" marriage is? Is it one that ends in divorce? That is the trend, you know?
    You can think whatever it is you want ? but you nor anyone else makes my decisions for me..or forces me to accept yours...and that that.. and get in line theres millions of me...

  9. #119
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    The hell it doesn't. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for every citizen of this country. It doesn't say "except gays, who must have a separate but equal classification because gay is icky". And then, of course, we have the whole, "separate but equal is not equal" ruling from the SCOTUS, which pretty much kills the whole "you can have civil unions, but not marriage" crap.

    Essentially, the law is against your bigotry. And so is 53%+ of this country. So eventually, no matter how often you stomp your feet and cry out against it, you'll be on the losing side of the argument. And the rest of us, containing a sense of decency and fairness, will be waiving at you from the other side, celebrating the fact that America actually stood by her principles when it mattered.
    In your dreams...nonesense

  10. #120
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Right, thanks for providing a source saying the same thing as I was basically.

    All case law at a SCOTUS level thus far has homosexual orientation as a bottom tier of scrutiny classification. That can absolutely potentially change if its challenged in court. But if someone wants to talk about the "Law" as it stands now, they aren't a medium teir (such as gender) or top teir (like race) classification. That may very well change as more challenges come and they finally reach SCOTUS...but as it stands now, that's where they're at.

    No one can absolutely say what the future will hold, that's entirely an opinion based notion that each individual can come up with based on their own thoughts or view of whatever facts they wish. I'm not suggesting I know the future, I was simply suggesting that as it stands now its by no means at the moment clear cut that the "Law" surrounding the 14th amendment is definitively on the side of those against gay marriage.

    I personally think that the 14th amendment causes the inability for Same Sex marriages to occur to be unconstitutional, however I base that reasoning off an entirely different classification than those whose focus is singularly on "gay marriage". However, my thoughts on that are also simply opinion though one I believe has a strong backing in fact.

    Everyone loves to use the Constitution as their own tool...I dont pay any attention to that either...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •